Skip Navigation

Federal Communications Commission

English Display Options

Commission Document

Progress Made on Broadband Deployment, Availability but Gaps Remain

Download Options

Released: August 21, 2012

Federal Communications Commission

FCC 12-90

Before the

Federal Communications Commission

Washington, D.C. 20554

In the Matter of
)
)

Inquiry Concerning the Deployment of Advanced
)
GN Docket No. 11-121
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
)

EIGHTH BROADBAND PROGRESS REPORT

Adopted: August 14, 2012

Released: August 21, 2012

By the Commission: Chairman Genachowski and Commissioners Clyburn and Rosenworcel issuing
separate statements; Commissioners McDowell and Pai dissenting and issuing separate statements.

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Para.
I.
INTRODUCTION .................................................................................................................................. 1
II. BACKGROUND .................................................................................................................................... 8
III. BENCHMARKING BROADBAND ................................................................................................... 18
IV. STATUS OF BROADBAND DEPLOYMENT AND AVAILABILITY............................................ 26
A. Broadband “Deployment” and “Availability” Are Broader Than Physical Deployment .............. 27
B. Technologies and Data Sources Included ...................................................................................... 28
C. Broadband Deployment Estimates................................................................................................. 44
1. Americans Without Access to Fixed Broadband Meeting the Speed Benchmark .................. 45
2. Rural Areas Without Access to Fixed Broadband Meeting the Speed Benchmark................. 47
3. Tribal Lands Without Access to Broadband Meeting the Speed Benchmark ......................... 49
4. U.S. Territories Without Access to Broadband Meeting the Speed Benchmark..................... 55
5. Americans Without Access Between June 2010 to June 2011................................................ 57
6. Broadband Deployment By Technology ................................................................................. 59
7. Section 706 Fixed Broadband Deployment Map .................................................................... 61
8. Demographic Analysis of the Areas Without Access to Broadband Meeting the Speed
Benchmark............................................................................................................................... 62
a. Demographics Required by Statute of the Unserved Areas (Population,
Population Density, and Per Capita Income) .................................................................... 67
b. Demographics of Non-Urban Areas ................................................................................. 69
c. Demographics of Tribal Lands ......................................................................................... 71
d. Other Demographic Measures (Median Household Income, Poverty Rate,
Education, and Race) ........................................................................................................ 73
(i) All Americans............................................................................................................. 74
(ii) Americans Residing in Non-Urban Areas .................................................................. 76
(iii) Americans Residing on Federally Recognized Tribal Lands ..................................... 78
e. Graphical Representation of the Relationship Between Broadband Deployment
and Demographic Characteristics ..................................................................................... 80

Federal Communications Commission

FCC 12-90

(i) Broadband Deployment Increases with Median Household Incomes ........................ 81
(ii) Broadband Deployment Increases with Population Density ...................................... 83
9. Mobile Deployment and Trends.............................................................................................. 85
10. Section 706 Mobile Deployment Map..................................................................................... 91
11. Next Generation Broadband Services...................................................................................... 92
D. Broadband Adoption ...................................................................................................................... 94
1. Broadband Adoption Rates Between June 2010 and June 2011 ............................................. 97
2. Broadband Adoption Rates in the U.S. Compared to Adoption Rates in Non-Urban
Areas........................................................................................................................................ 99
3. Broadband Adoption Rates in the U.S. Compared to Adoption Rates on Tribal Lands........ 103
4. Broadband Adoption Rates in the U.S. Compared to Adoption Rates in the U.S.
Territories .............................................................................................................................. 107
5. Distribution of County Level Broadband Adoption Rates .................................................... 111
a. Graphical Representation of the Relationship Between Adoption Rate and
Demographic Characteristics .......................................................................................... 113
(i) Adoption Rate Increases with Median Household Income ...................................... 114
(ii) Adoption Rate for Broadband Increases with Population Density........................... 115
E. International Broadband Service Capability ................................................................................ 117
F. Other Indicators of Availability to All Americans....................................................................... 119
1. Home Broadband Adoption................................................................................................... 120
2. Measuring Broadband America Reports Found that Residential Wireline Broadband
Services Deliver Quality Service and Speeds Reasonably Commensurate with
Advertised Offerings ............................................................................................................. 123
3. Elementary and Secondary Schools May Lack a Sufficient Level of Broadband
Service ................................................................................................................................... 131
G. Broadband Is Not Yet Being Deployed to All Americans in a Reasonable and Timely
Fashion......................................................................................................................................... 135
V. REMOVING BARRIERS TO INFRASTRUCTURE INVESTMENT & PROMOTING
COMPETITION ................................................................................................................................. 139
VI. ORDERING CLAUSE ....................................................................................................................... 157
APPENDIX A—Commenters
APPENDIX B—Data Sources and Definitions
APPENDIX C—Americans Without Access to Fixed Broadband Meeting the Speed Benchmark by State
APPENDIX D—Americans Without Access to Fixed Broadband Meeting the Speed Benchmark by County
APPENDIX E—Tribal Lands Without Access to Fixed Broadband Meeting the Speed Benchmark by State
APPENDIX F—Americans Without Access to Fixed Broadband Meeting the Speed Benchmark on Certain
Tribal Lands
APPENDIX G—Overall Fixed Broadband Deployment Rates by State
APPENDIX H—Overall Fixed Broadband Adoption Rates by State
APPENDIX I—Section 706 Fixed Broadband Deployment Map
APPENDIX J—Section 706 Mobile Deployment Map
APPENDIX K—Commission’s Report on Internet Access Services: Status as of June 30, 2011
2

Federal Communications Commission

FCC 12-90

I.

INTRODUCTION

1.
This is the Commission’s Eighth Broadband Progress Report issued under section 706 of
the Telecommunications Act of 1996.1 Section 706 requires the Commission to determine and report
annually on “whether advanced telecommunications capability [(ATC)] is being deployed to all
Americans in a reasonable and timely fashion.”2 Over the past year, the private and public sectors have
taken significant and substantial steps to accelerate the deployment and availability of broadband; all the
while, the utility of and demand for broadband continue to grow as Americans find benefits in devices,
applications, and services that use broadband in their homes, schools, businesses, and on the road. The
Commission adopted transformative changes to the high-cost universal service program to propel
deployment of broadband networks and initiated a Lifeline pilot to promote broadband adoption by low-
income Americans. Implementation of these changes is underway. But as of now, our analysis of the
best data available—the data collected by the National Telecommunications and Information
Administration (NTIA) for the National Broadband Map—shows that approximately 19 million
Americans live in areas still unserved by terrestrial-fixed broadband.3 For these and other reasons, we
must conclude that broadband is not yet being deployed “to all Americans” in a reasonable and timely
fashion.
2.
The efforts to bring broadband to all Americans are significant, and wireless and wireline
broadband providers have made great progress. These providers invest tens of billions of dollars annually
in the networks that make broadband possible, and since the 1996 Act, they are reported to have invested
more than $1 trillion dollars combined.4 In addition to various wireline broadband providers offering
faster speeds with new technologies, mobile wireless providers have made substantial progress in
upgrading their networks with higher-speed technologies and expanding coverage by these technologies
so they reach a greater number of Americans and cover more of our country.5
3.
These industry efforts are complemented by the efforts of the Commission, and other
federal, state, and local actors, to expand broadband access. Of particular note, in October 2011, the
Commission adopted transformative changes to the high-cost universal service program in the USF/ICC
Transformation Order.
6 This comprehensive overhaul established a framework to bring broadband to


1 47 U.S.C. § 1302. Section 706 of the Telecommunications Act of 1996, Pub. L. No. 104-104, § 706, 110 Stat. 56,
153 (1996) (1996 Act), as amended in relevant part by the Broadband Data Improvement Act (BDIA), Pub. L. No.
110-385, 122 Stat. 4096 (2008), is now codified in Title 47, Chapter 12 of the United States Code. See 47 U.S.C.
§ 1301 et seq.
2 Id. § 1302. For purposes of this report, we use the term ATC synonymously with the term “broadband.”
3 See infra Section IV.C.1.
4 See AT&T Comments at 1–2 (adding that broadband deployment and investment—in both wireline and wireless
technologies—continue to be robust, even as the economy overall languishes); MetroPCS Comments at 9;
USTelecom Comments at iii, 5; see also Announcement of Members on Open Internet Advisory Committee, GN
Docket No. 09-191, WC Docket No. 07-52, Public Notice, 27 FCC Rcd 5779 (2012) (stating that in 2011,
investment in wireline and wireless network infrastructure rose 24 percent and citing to TELECOMMUNICATIONS
INDUSTRY ASSOCIATION, TIA’S 2012 ICT MARKET REVIEW AND FORECAST 1–3 (2012)); 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. 10-133,
Fifteenth Report, 26 FCC Rcd 9664, 9791, para. 207 (2011) (Fifteenth Mobile Wireless Competition Report),
available at http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-11-103A1_Rcd.pdf.
5 Fifteenth Mobile Wireless Competition Report, 26 FCC Rcd 9664, 9735–40, paras. 108–15.
6 Connect America Fund; A National Broadband Plan for Our Future; Establishing Just and Reasonable Rates for
Local Exchange Carriers; High-Cost Universal Service Support; Developing an Unified Intercarrier Compensation
Regime; Federal-State Joint Board on Universal Service; Lifeline and Link-Up; Universal Service Reform—
(continued….)
3

Federal Communications Commission

FCC 12-90

millions of Americans over the coming years, and set the country on a path to universal availability of
fixed and mobile communication networks capable of providing voice and broadband services where
people live, work, and travel within a decade. The Commission also revised the universal service Lifeline
program to advance the affordability of broadband for Americans.7 Among other things, the Commission
adopted a goal of ensuring broadband availability for low-income Americans, clarified that consumers
may apply their Lifeline discount to bundled offerings that include broadband, and established a
“Broadband Pilot Program.”8
4.
The Commission has taken numerous steps to implement the reforms in both the USF/ICC
Transformation Order and Lifeline Reform and Modernization Order. For example, the Wireline
Competition Bureau (Bureau) announced support amounts for the first phase of the Connect America
Fund to spur immediate new broadband buildout on April 25, 2012 and on July 24, 2012, and a number of
carriers committed to use over $110 million to deploy broadband to unserved areas in 37 states.9 The
Bureau is also moving forward with the Broadband Pilot Program and issued a Public Notice on April 30,
2012 soliciting applications from eligible telecommunications carriers (ETCs) to participate in the pilot
and by the July 2, 2012 deadline received twenty four applications.10 In addition, the Wireless
Telecommunications Bureau is preparing for the auction—to take place on September 27—that will
award one-time support to carriers that commit to provide 3G or better mobile voice and broadband
services to unserved road miles across the country where Americans live, work, and travel.11 We are
(Continued from previous page)


Mobility Fund, WC Docket Nos. 10-90, 07-135, 05-337, 03-109, GN Docket No. 09-51, CC Docket Nos. 01-92, 96-
45, WT Docket No. 10-208, Report and Order and Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, 26 FCC Rcd 17663
(2011) (USF/ICC Transformation Order), available at http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-11-
161A1_Rcd.pdf, pets. for review pending sub nom. In re FCC 11-161, No. 11-9900 (10th Cir. filed Dec. 8, 2011);
Order on Reconsideration, 26 FCC Rcd 17633 (2011); Second Order on Reconsideration, 27 FCC Rcd 4648 (2012);
Third Order on Reconsideration, 27 FCC Rcd 5622 (2012).
7 Lifeline and Link Up Reform and Modernization; Lifeline and Link Up; Federal-State Joint Board on Universal
Service; Advancing Broadband Availability Through Digital Literacy Training
, WC Docket Nos. 11-42, 03-109, 12-
23, CC Docket No. 96-45, Report and Order and Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, 27 FCC Rcd 6656 (2012)
(Lifeline Reform and Modernization Order); see also infra Section II.
8 Lifeline Reform and Modernization Order, 27 FCC Rcd at 6660, para. 3.
9 See Press Release, FCC, FCC Kicks-Off “Connect America Fund” with Major Announcement: Nearly 400,000
Unserved Americans in Rural Communities in 37 States Will Gain Access to High-Speed Internet Within Three
Years: Marks Beginning of Most Significant Public-Private Effort in History to Connect 19 Million Unserved
Homes and Businesses by 2020 (WCB rel. July 25, 2012) (FCC Public-Private Effort Press Release) (noting the
public-private effort to expand broadband to unserved Americans), available at
http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-315413A1.pdf; Wireline Competition Bureau Announces
Support Amounts for Connect America Fund Phase One Incremental Support
, WC Docket Nos. 10-90, 05-337,
Public Notice, 27 FCC Rcd 4203 (2012), available at http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-12-
639A1.pdf.
10 See Wireline Competition Bureau Announces Application Procedures and Deadline for Applications to
Participate in the Broadband Adoption Lifeline Pilot Program
, WC Docket No. 11-42, Public Notice, 27 FCC Rcd
4840 (2012) (Lifeline Pilot Program Public Notice), available at
http://transition.fcc.gov/Daily_Releases/Daily_Business/2012/db0430/DA-12-683A1.pdf; see also Lifeline Reform
and Modernization Order
, 27 FCC Rcd at 6802–03, para. 341. By the July 2, 2012 deadline—and with one
company receiving an extension deadline of July 9, 2012—the Bureau received 24 applications.
11 See Mobility Fund Phase I Auction Scheduled for September 27, 2012, Comment Sought on Competitive Bidding
Procedures for Auction 901 and Certain Program Requirements
, AU Docket No. 12-25, Public Notice, 27 FCC Rcd
530 (2012) (Mobility Fund Phase I Auction Public Notice), available at
http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-12-121A1.pdf; Mobility Fund Phase I Auction Scheduled for
September 27, 2012
, AU Docket No. 12-25, Public Notice, 27 FCC Rcd 4725 (2012) (Mobility Fund Phase I
Procedures Public Notice
), available at http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-12-641A1_Rcd.pdf.
4

Federal Communications Commission

FCC 12-90

optimistic that as this implementation proceeds, broadband will increasingly be available to all
Americans.
5.
Nevertheless, this implementation work is far from complete, and new broadband
deployments resulting from the USF/ICC Transformation Order have only just begun.12 Nineteen million
Americans live where fixed broadband networks do not reach; 14.5 million of those live in rural America.
Nearly a third of residents of Tribal lands lack access to fixed broadband networks. Only 40 percent of
Americans that have the option to do so adopt fixed broadband meeting the speed benchmark,13 citing
barriers such as lack of affordability, lack of digital literacy, and a perception that the Internet is not
relevant or useful to them.14 In addition, as many as 80 percent of E-rate-funded schools and libraries say
their broadband connections do not fully meet their needs.15 And the available international broadband
data, though not fully comparable to U.S. data, suggest that the United States may lag behind a number of
other developed countries with regard to some broadband metrics, including universal availability,
although the United States leads the world in other respects.16 Many of the unserved Americans live in
areas where there is no business case to offer broadband, and where, until the reforms in the USF/ICC
Transformation Order
are more fully implemented, public efforts to extend broadband are unlikely to
reach.17
6.
As we implement these initiatives and contemplate others, we are mindful that technology


12 See Mississippi Business Journal Staff, FCC Reforms Prompt $53M Investment in State by AT&T, MISS. BUS. J.,
Mar. 13, 2012 (reporting that AT&T is investing $53 million, the vast majority of which will be used to enable
broadband expansion throughout Mississippi, as a result of the Commission’s universal service fund reforms),
available at http://msbusiness.com/2012/03/fcc-reforms-prompt-53m-investment-in-state-by-att/.
13 See infra tbl. 17.
14 See infra Section V.
15 47 U.S.C. § 1302(b) (stating the Commission’s inquiry must include “in particular, elementary and secondary
schools and classrooms”); HARRIS INTERACTIVE, INC., on behalf of the FCC, 2010 E-RATE PROGRAM AND
BROADBAND USAGE SURVEY: REPORT, 26 FCC Rcd 1 at 2 (2011) (FCC E-RATE SURVEY). As explained below, we
lack comprehensive data regarding the actual level of broadband service in our nation’s elementary and secondary
schools, nor is there record evidence showing what bandwidth or speeds are required by schools today. See infra
Section IV.F.3.
16 See International Comparison Requirements Pursuant to the Broadband Data Improvement Act; International
Broadband Data Report
, IB Docket No. 10-171, GN Docket 11-121, Third Report, DA 12-1334 at para. 7 (IB rel.
Aug. 21, 2012) (2012 International Broadband Data Report). Based on Organization for Economic Co-operation
and Development (OECD) data, the International Bureau found that United States ranks 7th (compared to 9th at the
time of the previous report) for wireless (mobile) broadband penetration on a per capita basis, and ranks 15th
(similar to Japan, Finland, and Canada) for wired (e.g., [digital subscriber line (DSL)] or cable) broadband
penetration on a per capita basis. Id. para. 7. U.S. wired broadband adoption continues to lag behind such countries
as South Korea, the United Kingdom, and Germany, but exceeds adoption rates in Israel, Australia, and the
European Union average. Id. With respect to speeds, our review of data on average actual download speeds
reported by a sample of consumers from 38 countries (including the United States and Hong Kong Special
Administrative Region of the People’s Republic of China), finds that the United States ranks 24th in average actual
speeds purchased and experienced by consumers. Id. para. 8. The United States ranks 17th when based on a
stratified sampling technique using weighted average actual download speed. Id. For the first time, the
International Bureau took a close look at the broadband prices for both fixed and mobile service plans around the
world, including detailed price information for mobile broadband plans, broken down by technology (e.g.,
smartphones, stick modems, and tablets) and found that U.S. prices for standalone fixed broadband are in the mid-
level range in our 38 country survey, but are higher in higher speed tiers. Id. para. 9. The International Bureau also
found that the prices per gigabytes (GB) of data for fixed broadband plans with usage limits and for smartphone data
plans with usage limits are on the lower end of the countries we surveyed. Id.
17 See infra Section II.
5

Federal Communications Commission

FCC 12-90

does not stand still. Just as it was proved false that “[n]o one will need more than 637 kb of memory for a
personal computer—640K ought to be enough for anybody,”18 we anticipate that what may be adequate
today likely will not meet our needs in the future. From 1999 to 2010, the Commission considered
service of 200 kilobits per second (kbps) in both directions adequate.19 In the 2010 Sixth Broadband
Progress Report
, the Commission took what it described as “the overdue step” of increasing the speed
benchmark to 4 megabits per second (Mbps) download and 1 Mbps upload (4 Mbps/1 Mbps, or “speed
benchmark”) to reflect that “network capabilities, consumer applications and expectations . . . have
evolved in ways that demand increasing amounts of bandwidth.”20 The 2010 National Broadband Plan
recommended that the Commission periodically reconsider the benchmark and, in addition, set a goal of
100 million U.S. homes having affordable access to actual download speeds of at least 100 Mbps and
actual upload speeds of at least 50 Mbps by 2020, to create the world’s most attractive market for
broadband applications, devices, and infrastructure.21 Broadband is a transformative infrastructure,22 and
Americans increasingly are using broadband at home and on their smartphones and tablet computers
everywhere they go—at home, school, work, and travel. The market, in turn, has responded to these
needs. Recent trends show providers offering much higher speeds: Verizon is offering up to 300 Mbps/65
Mbps for FiOS,23 while CenturyLink is offering up to 40 Mbps/5 Mbps.24 In May 2012, Comcast raised
the monthly data limit for its subscribers to 300 GB, up from 250 GB.25 According to industry reports,
DOCSIS 3.0, which is capable of 100 Mbps speeds and even higher speeds, has been deployed to 82% of
U.S. households.26 On the mobile front, change is accelerating. Providers have continued to expand their


18 L. Gordon Crovitz, Editorial, Technology Predictions Are Mostly Bunk, WALL ST. J., Dec. 27, 2009 (quoting
prediction of Bill Gates in 1981), available at
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748704039704574616401913653862.html.
19 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, Amended by the Broadband Data Improvement Act
, GN Docket Nos. 09-137, 09-
51, Report, 25 FCC Rcd 9556, 9558, para. 4 (2010) (2010 Sixth Broadband Progress Report).
20 Id.
21 OMNIBUS BROADBAND INITIATIVE (OBI), FCC, CONNECTING AMERICA: THE NATIONAL BROADBAND PLAN, GN
Docket No. 09-51 at 9 (2010) (2010 NATIONAL BROADBAND PLAN).
22 Reed Hundt, Commentary, Abundanomics: The Politics of Plentitude, DETROIT NEWS, June 28, 2012, available at
http://www.detroitnews.com/article/20120628/OPINION01/206280328.
23 See, e.g., VERIZON, INTERNET OFFERS, http://www.buyverizon.com/fios-internet.aspx (offering up to 300 Mbps/65
Mbps).
24 CENTURYLINK, HIGH-SPEED INTERNET/DSL SERVICE OFFERS, http://www.centurylink.com/home/internet/
(offering up to 40 Mbps/5 Mbps). Comcast may double the speed of its $39.95 monthly Economy high-speed
Internet tier from 1.5 Mbps to 3 Mbps, following plans to increase the speed of the broadband package. See Steve
Donahue, Comcast May Double Speed of Economy High-Speed Internet Tier, FIERCECABLE, Feb. 1, 2012, available
at
http://www.fiercecable.com/story/comcast-may-double-speed-economy-high-speed-internet-tier/2012-02-01.
25 Since 2008, Comcast has had a 250 GB monthly data usage threshold on residential accounts and has temporarily
suspended its caps in nontest markets. See Comcast Announcement Regarding An Amendment to Our Acceptable
Use Policy, http://xfinity.comcast.net/terms/network/amendment/; Cathy Avgiris, Comcast to Replace Usage Cap
With Improved Data Usage Management Approaches
, COMCASTVOICES (BLOG) (May 17, 2012),
http://blog.comcast.com/2012/05/comcast-to-replace-usage-cap-with-improved-data-usage-management-
approaches.html.
26 NCTA, INDUSTRY DATA (NCTA DOCSIS DEPLOYMENT), http://www.ncta.com/Statistics.aspx; see also Press
Release, Comcast, Comcast Doubles Speeds of Two Xfinity Internet Speed Tiers at No Additional Cost to
Customers (July 24, 2012) (announcing plans to offer a 305 Mbps/65 Mbps service) (Comcast Press Release),
available at http://www.comcast.com/About/PressRelease/PressReleaseDetail.ashx?PRID=1205&SCRedirect=true.
6

Federal Communications Commission

FCC 12-90

coverage,27 but are also deploying new, faster, and more spectrally-efficient mobile network technologies,
most notably Long Term Evolution (LTE), which offers advertised download speeds as high as 5–12
Mbps.28 In the summer of 2010, there was no LTE deployment in the United States.29 Just 18 months
later, in January 2012, three mobile wireless providers had launched LTE networks,30 and best available
estimates are that these LTE networks (combined) covered 211 million people.31
7.
The evolution of the market must inform the Commission’s ongoing assessment of
broadband deployment just as it informs the industry’s own efforts. In this report, we assess our nation’s
progress to date using the existing speed benchmark of 4 Mbps/1 Mbps. At the same time, we also
provide extensive new data on the deployment of mobile services and on the availability of next-
generation, very high speed networks.32 We will explore in the next Inquiry whether to update our speed
benchmark. The Inquiry will also consider whether and how to incorporate mobility as an essential
element of “advanced telecommunications capability”33 in light of the Commission’s decision in the


27 Best available estimates of mobile broadband coverage by 3G or better technologies (including CDMA EV-DO,
EV-DO Rev. A, WCDMA/HSPA, HSPA+, mobile WiMAX, and LTE) indicate growth from 98.1% of the U.S.
population in November 2009 to 99.4% in January 2012. 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. 09-66, Fourteenth Report, 25 FCC Rcd 11407,
11487–88, para. 122 (2010), available at http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-10-81A1_Rcd.pdf
(Nov. 2009 figure); Commission estimates based on census block analysis of Mosaik CoverageRight coverage
maps, January 2012, with population data are from the 2010 Census (Jan. 2012 figure). In addition, the percentage
of the population covered by at least four mobile broadband providers increased from 58 percent to 79 percent
during that period. Id. at 11449, tbl. 7 (Nov. 2009 figure); Commission estimates based on census block analysis of
Mosaik CoverageRight coverage maps, January 2012, with population data are from the 2010 Census (Jan. 2012
figure).
28 Fifteenth Mobile Wireless Competition Report, 26 FCC Rcd at 9736–37, para. 109; VERIZON WIRELESS,
NETWORK FACTS, http://aboutus.vzw.com/bestnetwork/network_facts.html.
29 Fifteenth Mobile Wireless Competition Report, 26 FCC Rcd at 9736, 9743, tbls. 11, 13.
30 See id. at 9736–37, 9740, paras. 109, 115 (Verizon Wireless and MetroPCS); Press Release, AT&T, 4G LTE from
AT&T Available in Chicago (Sept. 19, 2011), available at http://www.att.com/gen/press-
room?pid=21165&cdvn=news&newsarticleid=32813.
31 The Commission estimates based on census block analysis of Mosaik CoverageRight coverage maps, January
2012. Population data are from the 2010 Census.
32 The benchmark we adhere to in this report refers to actual speeds, not advertised or “up to” speeds. We rely on
SBI Data to estimate fixed broadband deployment. See infra Section IV.B. The SBI Data provide information
about areas where broadband has been deployed and the maximum advertised speed that a broadband service
provider can deliver within a typical service interval (7 to 10 business days). 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. 10-159, Seventh Broadband Progress Report
and Order on Reconsideration, 26 FCC Rcd 8008, 8078, para. 1, App. F (2011) (2011 Seventh Broadband Progress
Report
). As we explained in the last report, the SBI Data on advertised speed may not accurately represent
consumers’ actual broadband speed. See id. at 8083–85, paras. 16–19, App. F. As explained below, in the First
Measuring Broadband America Report
, among other things, the report established for the first time that the majority
of residential wireline broadband consumers are receiving performance close to the level advertised by their
providers. See infra Section IV.F.2; OFFICE OF ENGINEERING AND TECHNOLOGY & CONSUMER AND
GOVERNMENTAL AFFAIRS BUREAU, FCC, MEASURING BROADBAND AMERICA: A REPORT ON CONSUMER WIRELINE
BROADBAND PERFORMANCE IN THE U.S. 4 (2011) (FIRST MEASURING BROADBAND AMERICA REPORT), available at
http://www.fcc.gov/cgb/measuringbroadbandreport/Measuring_U.S._-_Main_Report_Full.pdf.
33 47 U.S.C. § 1302(d)(1) (defining advanced telecommunications capability).
7

Federal Communications Commission

FCC 12-90

USF/ICC Transformation Order to set universal access to mobile broadband as a distinct universal
service goal, and whether to incorporate an evaluation of next-generation high speed services in the
Commission’s evaluation of broadband deployment.34 The Commission recently identified hundreds of
thousands of unserved road miles in census blocks lacking 3G or better wireless service for purposes of
Mobility Fund Phase I.35 In the next Inquiry, we will also consider how best to assess mobile broadband
coverage and whether the Commission should similarly analyze mobile deployment by examining road
miles as it is doing for Phase I of the Mobility Fund.36 In addition, we expect to consider whether our
broadband benchmark or benchmarks should incorporate standards regarding latency and capacity,37
which the USF/ICC Transformation Order recognized as critical components for evaluating broadband
service quality.38 Each year, we must examine whether Americans have access to “high-speed, switched,
broadband telecommunications capability that enables users to originate and receive high-quality voice,
data, graphics, and video telecommunications using any technology.”39 Market offerings, and consumer
demand, continue to expand and change, and our evaluation under section 706 necessarily should reflect
those developments.

II.

BACKGROUND

8.
Section 706(b) requires the Commission annually 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).”40 In conducting this inquiry, the
Commission must “determine whether advanced telecommunications capability is being deployed to all
Americans in a reasonable and timely fashion.”41 The Commission must also provide “[d]emographic
information for unserved areas,”42 and an international comparison in its annual broadband report.43 If the
Commission finds that broadband is not being deployed to all Americans in a reasonable and timely
fashion, the Commission “shall take immediate action to accelerate deployment of such capability by
removing barriers to infrastructure investment and by promoting competition in the telecommunications


34 See USF/ICC Transformation Order, 26 FCC Rcd at 17667, 17696–702, paras. 1, 90–104. Our last inquiry was
released in August 2011 and the USF/ICC Transformation Order was released in November 2011. 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; A National Broadband
Plan for Our Future
, GN Docket No. 11-121, Notice of Inquiry, 26 FCC Rcd 11800 (2011) (Eighth Broadband
Notice of Inquiry
).
35 See Mobility Fund Phase I Procedures Public Notice (identifying road miles in unserved census blocks eligible
for Mobility Fund Phase I support). This Public Notice and related information are available on the Auction 901
web page at http://wireless.fcc.gov/auctions/901/.
36 USF/ICC Transformation Order, 26 FCC Rcd at 17783, para. 330; see also Mobility Fund Phase I Procedures
Public Notice
.
37 See USF/ICC Transformation Order, 26 FCC Rcd at 17696–702, paras. 90–104.
38 See id. at 17667–70, 17672, 17674, 17696–705, 17771–825, paras. 1, 3–5, 8, 10, 17, 28, 90–108, 295–497.
39 47 U.S.C. § 1302(d)(1).
40 47 U.S.C. § 1302(b). In 2008, the BDIA required the Commission to publish its reports “annually” instead of
“regularly.” BDIA § 103(a)(1), 122 Stat. at 4096; 47 U.S.C. § 1302(b).
41 47 U.S.C. § 1302(b).
42 Id. § 1302(c).
43 Id. § 1303(b).
8

Federal Communications Commission

FCC 12-90

market.”44
9.
Previous Broadband Progress Reports. This is the Eighth Broadband Progress Report
since Congress enacted section 706.45 Following legislation emphasizing the importance of broadband,46
the Commission found, in the last two broadband reports, that broadband was not being deployed to all
Americans in a reasonable and timely fashion.47 In the 2011 Seventh Broadband Progress Report, based
on data reported as of June 30, 2010, the Commission found that as many as 26 million Americans live in
areas unserved by broadband.48 The Commission further observed that “[m]any of these Americans live
in areas where there is no business case to offer broadband, and where existing public efforts to extend
broadband are unlikely to reach; they have no immediate prospect of being served, despite the growing
costs of digital exclusion.”49 The Commission also determined that availability encompasses more than
physical deployment of broadband networks, and thus the assessment should include factors such as
broadband cost, quality, and adoption by consumers.50 The Commission concluded that the evidence
regarding such factors “provide[s] further indication that broadband is not being reasonably and timely
deployed and is not available to all Americans.”51
10.
Actions Taken Subsequent to the 2011 Seventh Broadband Progress Report. As
explained above, the Commission has taken significant steps since the last report to promote broadband
through the Commission’s recent USF/ICC Transformation Order.52
11.
USF/ICC Transformation Order. On October 27, 2011, the Commission adopted the
USF/ICC Transformation Order that comprehensively reforms and modernizes the universal service
system to ensure the universal availability of fixed and mobile communication networks capable of
providing voice and broadband services where people live, work, and travel.53 Relevant to this report, the
USF/ICC Transformation Order represents a significant policy step to connect all Americans to


44 Id. § 1302(b).
45 As required by section 706(b), on August 5, 2011, we initiated an inquiry to fulfill our annual responsibility of
examining broadband deployment and availability. See Eighth Broadband Notice of Inquiry; 47 U.S.C. § 1302(b).
46 Congress amended section 706 of the 1996 Act in 2008 finding that broadband “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.” 47 U.S.C. § 1301(1); see also, e.g., id. § 1301(2)
(“Continued progress in the deployment and adoption of broadband technology is vital to ensuring that our Nation
remains competitive and continues to create business and job growth.”); id. § 1305(k)(2) (directing the Commission
to develop a National Broadband Plan that would “seek to ensure that all people of the United States have access to
broadband capability”).
47 2011 Seventh Broadband Progress Report, 26 FCC Rcd at 8009, para. 1; Sixth Broadband Progress Report, 25
FCC Rcd at 9558, para. 2. The first five reports concluded that, even though certain groups of Americans were not
receiving timely access to broadband, broadband deployment “overall” was reasonable and timely during that
period. 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; A National Broadband
Plan for Our Future
, GN Docket Nos. 09-51, 09-137, Notice of Inquiry, 24 FCC Rcd 10505, 10508–10, paras. 5–9
(2009) (summarizing the five prior broadband reports).
48 2011 Seventh Broadband Progress Report, 26 FCC Rcd at 8009, para. 1.
49 See id. (citing 2010 NATIONAL BROADBAND PLAN).
50 Id. at 8020–21, paras. 18–20.
51 Id. at 8010, para. 2.
52 See supra at paras. 3–4; see also USF/ICC Transformation Order, 26 FCC Rcd at 17709, para. 115.
53 USF/ICC Transformation Order, 26 FCC Rcd at 17667, para. 1.
9

Federal Communications Commission

FCC 12-90

broadband by accelerating deployment of modern communications networks.54 The USF/ICC
Transformation Order
is expected to help connect millions of unserved Americans to high-speed Internet
and voice service over the next six years.55 The order establishes the Connect America Fund, which relies
on incentive-based, market-driven policies, including competitive bidding, to distribute universal service
funds as efficiently and effectively as possible to make broadband available to homes, businesses, and
community anchor institutions in areas that do not, or would not otherwise, have broadband.56 The
Bureau announced support amounts for the first phase of the Connect America Fund to spur immediate
new broadband buildout on April 25, 2012 and on July 24, 2012, and a number of carriers committed to
use over $110 million to deploy broadband to unserved areas in 37 states.57 The USF/ICC
Transformation Order
also explains that the next phase of the reforms will use a combination of a
forward-looking broadband cost model and competitive bidding to efficiently disburse ongoing support
for the deployment of networks providing both voice and broadband service. The Bureau is actively
engaged in developing this phase of the reform and, most recently on June 8, 2012, sought comment on
model design and data inputs.58 We expect that these reforms will expand broadband availability to
millions more unserved Americans.
12.
The USF/ICC Transformation Order also established a universal service support
mechanism dedicated exclusively to mobile services—the Mobility Fund.59 The Commission has
allocated financial support to expand mobile broadband nationwide.60 Phase I of the Mobility Fund will
provide up to $300 million in one-time support to address gaps in mobile services by supporting the
build-out of current- and next-generation mobile networks in areas where these networks are
unavailable.61 This support will be awarded by reverse auction with the objective of maximizing the
coverage of road miles in eligible unserved areas within the established budget.62 The Phase I auction is
scheduled to take place on September 27, 2012.63 In addition, the Commission has designated $50
million for Mobility Fund Phase I support exclusively for Tribal lands (Tribal Mobility Fund), which will


54 Press Release, FCC, FCC Releases ‘Connect America Fund’ Order to Help Expand Broadband, Create Jobs,
Benefit Consumers (Nov. 18, 2011), available at http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-
311095A1.pdf.
55 Id.
56 See FCC, CONNECT AMERICA FUND & INTERCARRIER COMPENSATION REFORM ORDER, EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
(2011) (USF/ICC EXECUTIVE SUMMARY), available at http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-
310692A1.pdf.
57 See FCC Public-Private Effort Press Release.
58 See Wireline Competition Bureau Seeks Comment on Model Design and Data Inputs for Phase II of the Connect
America Fund
, WC Docket Nos. 10-90, 05-337, Public Notice, 27 FCC Rcd 6147 (2012), available at
http://transition.fcc.gov/Daily_Releases/Daily_Business/2012/db0608/DA-12-911A1.pdf.
59 USF/ICC Transformation Order, 26 FCC Rcd at 17771–825, paras. 295–497.
60 Id.
61 Id. See Mobility Fund Phase I Auction Public Notice; Mobility Fund Phase I Procedures Public Notice. This
auction will be the first to award high-cost universal service support through reverse competitive bidding envisioned
by the USF/ICC Transformation Order, awarding one-time support to carriers that commit to provide 3G or better
mobile voice and broadband services in areas where such services are unavailable, without exceeding the budget of
$300 million.
62 USF/ICC Transformation Order, 26 FCC Rcd at 17781–83, paras. 322–28.
63 Mobility Fund Phase I Auction Public Notice.
10

Federal Communications Commission

FCC 12-90

be awarded by auction in 2013.64 Phase II of the Mobility Fund will provide $500 million annually for
ongoing support of mobile services.65 The Commission sought comment on the details for Mobility Fund
Phase II in a further notice adopted in the USF/ICC Transformation Order.66
13.
The USF/ICC Transformation Order also phases down certain regulated charges for the
exchange of traffic among carriers—known as intercarrier compensation—and transitions specified rates
previously set, via one of several complex methodologies, to a simplified, uniform bill-and-keep
methodology, which over time will reduce hidden subsidies on consumers’ bills. This reduction will
increase efficiency and eliminate impediments to the deployment of broadband networks.67 Intercarrier
compensation reform will provide benefits to all Americans through improved service and lower costs as
consumers increasingly shift from traditional telephone service68 to alternatives, including Voice over
Internet Protocol (VoIP), mobile calling and texting, and email.69
14.
Additional Commission Initiatives. In addition to the USF/ICC Transformation Order,
we briefly summarize initiatives since the last report designed to accelerate broadband availability that
include, but are not limited to:70
·
Measuring Broadband Performance. On August 2, 2011, the Commission released the First


64 USF/ICC Transformation Order, 26 FCC Rcd at 17819, para. 481; Mobility Fund Phase I Procedures Public
Notice
.
65 Id. at 17824, para. 494. Up to $100 million of this amount annually is designated for support to Tribal lands. Id.
66 Id. at 18069–85, paras. 1121–88.
67 Id. at 17904–14, paras. 736–59. These reforms will apply the bill-and-keep framework to terminating access and
some transport traffic. The Commission seeks comment in portions of the further notice in the USF/ICC
Transformation Order
on the transition and recovery for originating switched access and for certain common and
dedicated transport rate elements. Id. at 17873, 18109–20, paras. 653, 1297–1325.
68 On December 6, 2011 and December 14, 2011, the Commission held public workshops to examine the transition
from the public switched telephone network (PSTN) to new technologies including, among other things, how to
continue reliability, accessibility, and ubiquity in the PSTN even as the market shifts away from PSTN services to
other technologies. Through these workshops, the Commission sought input on the technical, economic, and policy
issues that must be addressed to minimize disruption during this transition. See FCC Workshops on the Telephone
Network in Transition
, Public Notice, 26 FCC Rcd 16354 (2011), available at
http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-11-1958A1_Rcd.pdf.
69 USF/ICC Transformation Order, 26 FCC Rcd at 17872–956, paras. 648–846. The USF/ICC Transformation
Order
adopts rules for a measured, gradual transition to a bill-and-keep methodology for terminating switched
access rates and adopts a recovery mechanism to provide carriers with certain and predictable revenue streams. Id.
at 17873, para. 651.
70 In addition to the initiatives listed herein, the Commission has been active in reexamining its rules applicable to
various technologies focusing on the availability of ATC to all Americans. For example, on December 15, 2011, the
Commission continued its reexamination of the fundamentals of its video relay services rules, including setting forth
proposals to improve the structure and efficiency of the program and promoting residential broadband adoption by
low-income Americans with disabilities. See Structure and Practices of the Video Relay Service Program;
Telecommunications Relay Services and Speech-to-Speech Services for Individuals with Hearing and Speech
Disabilities
, CG Docket Nos. 10-51, 03-123, Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, 26 FCC Rcd 17367, 17369,
17375, 17385, paras. 1, 11, 29–30 (2011). On October 24, 2011, the Commission fundamentally affirmed its rules
for Access Broadband over Power Line (Access BPL) systems and also modified certain rules designed to balance
between the dual objectives of providing for Access BPL technology that has potential applications for broadband
and Smart Grid while protecting incumbent radio services against harmful interference. See Amendment of Part 15
Regarding New Requirements and Measurement Guidelines for Access Broadband Over Power Line Systems
Carrier Current Systems, Including Broadband Over Power Line Systems
, ET Docket Nos. 04-37, 03-104, Second
Report and Order, 26 FCC Rcd 15712, 15713, para. 1 (2011).
11

Federal Communications Commission

FCC 12-90

Measuring Broadband America Report,71 which presented the results of the first nationwide study
of broadband performance to the home, using measurement technology deployed in the
consumer’s home.72 Among other things, the report established for the first time that the majority
of residential wireline broadband consumers are receiving performance close to the level
advertised by their providers.73 On July 19, 2012, the Commission released the Second
Measuring Broadband America Report.
74 The Commission found “striking across-the-board
improvements on key metrics underlying user performance.”75 In particular, the Commission
found that ISP promises of performance are more accurate, ISPs are more consistent in their
ability to deliver advertised speeds, and consumers are subscribing to faster speed tiers and
receiving faster speeds.76
·
Wireless Backhaul Reform. On August 9, 2011, the Commission made available new spectrum,
covering almost two-thirds of the U.S. landmass, for microwave wireless backhaul facilities.77
These facilities are an essential component of many broadband networks, particularly mobile
wireless networks.78 Continuing its reform of rules governing use of microwave frequencies for
wireless backhaul as part of the FCC’s Broadband Acceleration Initiative, on August 3, 2012, the
Commission released an order that permits fixed microwave operators to use smaller antennas in
certain microwave bands, which can result in significant cost savings to operators.79


71 See generally FIRST MEASURING BROADBAND AMERICA REPORT.
72 The First Measuring Broadband America Report was the culmination of a year-long effort involving the
cooperation of Internet Service Providers (ISPs) representing 86 percent of all residential wireline broadband
consumers in the United States to measure broadband performance to the homes of a representative sampling of
thousands of volunteers. Id. at 3. Individual tests were performed on each volunteer’s broadband service. Id. The
report found that “[f]or most participating broadband providers, actual download speeds are substantially closer to
advertised speeds than was found in data from early 2009 and discussed in a subsequent FCC white paper, though
performance can vary significantly by technology and specific provider.” Id. at 4; see also OBI, BROADBAND
PERFORMANCE (OBI Technical Paper No. 4, 2010) (2010 OBI BROADBAND PERFORMANCE) (providing a prior effort
to determine advertised versus actual broadband speeds delivered to the home), available at
http://download.broadband.gov/plan/fcc-omnibus-broadband-initiative-(obi)-technical-paper-broadband-
performance.pdf.
73 The First Measuring Broadband America Report also identified ISPs that fell short of advertised speeds. FIRST
MEASURING BROADBAND AMERICA REPORT at 4. A few months after the report was released, the FCC noticed a
significant improvement by a major ISP and announced the results in a blog post. FCC Announces Commencement
of 2012 Measuring Broadband America Performance Study of Residential Broadband Service in the United States
,
Public Notice, 27 FCC Rcd 1680 (2012) (2012 Measuring Broadband Public Notice).
74 OFFICE OF ENGINEERING AND TECHNOLOGY & CONSUMER AND GOVERNMENTAL AFFAIRS BUREAU, FCC, 2012
MEASURING BROADBAND AMERICA JULY REPORT: A REPORT ON CONSUMER WIRELINE BROADBAND PERFORMANCE
IN THE U.S. 4 (2011) (SECOND MEASURING BROADBAND AMERICA REPORT), available at
http://transition.fcc.gov/cgb/measuringbroadbandreport/2012/Measuring-Broadband-America.pdf.
75 Id. at 4.
76 Id. at 4–5.
77 Amendment of Part 101 of the Commission’s Rules to Facilitate the Use of Microwave for Wireless Backhaul and
Other Uses and to Provide Additional Flexibility to Broadcast Auxiliary Service and Operational Fixed Microwave
Licensees; Petition for Rulemaking filed by Fixed Wireless Communications Coalition to Amend Part 101 of the
Commission’s Rules to Authorize 60 and 80 MHz Channels in Certain Bands for Broadband Communications
, WT
Docket No. 10-153, RM-11602, Report and Order, Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, and Memorandum
Opinion and Order, 26 FCC Rcd 11614 (2011) (2011 Wireless Backhaul Report and Order).
78 Id. at 11615, para. 1.
79 Amendment of Part 101 of the Commission’s Rules to Facilitate the Use of Microwave for Wireless Backhaul and
(continued….)
12

Federal Communications Commission

FCC 12-90

·
Twenty-First Century Communications and Video Accessibility Act of 2010 (CVAA)
Implementation.80 Congress enacted the CVAA to ensure that the 54 million Americans with
disabilities have access to the modern and innovative communications technologies of the 21st
century, including Internet and digital technologies that use broadband.81 The Commission has
completed the following broadband-related CVAA rulemakings and actions, among others:
o Accessibility Clearinghouse and Accessibility and Innovation Initiative (A&I Initiative).
The A&I Initiative, launched on July 26, 2010, promotes collaborative problem-solving
among stakeholders on accessibility solutions, such as accessible applications for mobile
phones and websites, to enable people with disabilities to reap the full benefit of
broadband communication technologies.82 In October 2011, the Commission also
launched the Accessibility Clearinghouse, a web-based repository of information about
accessibility solutions for telecommunications and advanced communications services
and equipment, and for Internet browsers on mobile phones.83
o Advanced Communications Services (ACS). On October 7, 2011, the Commission
adopted rules requiring ACS providers and equipment manufacturers to ensure that their
services and equipment are accessible to and usable by individuals with disabilities, if
achievable.84 Under the rules, ACS includes electronic messaging, non-interconnected
VoIP, and other broadband-related communication services.
o Closed Captioning over Internet Protocol. On January 12, 2012, the Commission
adopted rules requiring the provision of closed captioning on video programming
delivered using Internet protocol when such programming was first published or
(Continued from previous page)


Other Uses and to Provide Additional Flexibility to Broadcast Auxiliary Service and Operational Fixed Microwave
Licensees; Petition for Rulemaking filed by Fixed Wireless Communications Coalition to Amend Part 101 of the
Commission’s Rules to Authorize 60 and 80 MHz Channels in Certain Bands for Broadband Communications
, WT
Docket No. 10-153, RM-11602, Second Report and Order, Second Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, Second
Notice of Inquiry, Order on Reconsideration, and Memorandum Opinion and Order, FCC 12-37 (rel. Aug. 3, 2012)
(2012 Wireless Backhaul Second Report and Order), available at
http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-12-87A1.pdf.
80 CVAA, Pub. L. No. 111-260, 124 Stat. 2751 (2010) (as codified in various sections of 47 U.S.C.); Pub. L. No. 11-
265, 124 Stat. 2795 (2010) (technical amendments to the CVAA).
81 Id. A study from Pew Internet found that only 41 percent of Americans with disabilities, however, have
broadband access at home compared to the national average of 69 percent. SUSANNAH FOX, PEW INTERNET,
AMERICANS LIVING WITH DISABILITY AND THEIR TECHNOLOGY PROFILE 3 (2011), available at
http://pewinternet.org/~/media//Files/Reports/2011/PIP_Disability.pdf, cited in Implementation of Sections 716 and
717 of the Communications Act of 1934, as Enacted by the Twenty-First Century Communications and Video
Accessibility Act of 2010; Amendments to the Commission’s Rules Implementing Sections 255 and 251(a)(2) of the
Communications Act of 1934, as Enacted by the Telecommunications Act of 1996; Accessible Mobile Phone Options
for People Who Are Blind, Deaf-Blind, or Have Low Vision
, CG Docket Nos. 10-213, 10-145, WT Docket No. 96-
198, Report and Order and Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, 26 FCC Rcd 14557, 14560, para. 3 (2011) (ACS
Order
). Both Congress and the Commission have recognized that this gap must be closed in order to afford persons
with disabilities to share fully in the economic, social, and civic benefits of broadband. See ACS Order. 26 FCC
Rcd at 14561, para. 5.
82 See BROADBAND.GOV, ACCESSIBILITY AND INNOVATION INITIATIVE,
http://www.broadband.gov/accessibilityandinnovation/.
83 See FCC, ACCESSIBILITY CLEARINGHOUSE, http://apps.fcc.gov/accessibilityclearinghouse/.
84 See generally ACS Order, 26 FCC Rcd 14557.
13

Federal Communications Commission

FCC 12-90

exhibited on television with captions.85 These rules will ensure that programs delivered
over broadband networks are accessible to individuals who are deaf or hard of hearing.
o National Deaf-Blind Equipment Distribution Program. On July 1, 2012, the Commission
launched a pilot program to provide up to $10 million of support to entities that distribute
equipment designed to make telecommunications, Internet access, and advanced
communications services accessible to low-income individuals who are deaf-blind.86
·
Open Internet. On December 21, 2010, the Commission adopted the Open Internet Order, which
supports the Internet’s virtuous cycle of investment and innovation by providing greater clarity
and certainty regarding the continued freedom and openness of the Internet.87 The rules adopted
in this order, which became effective on November 20, 2011,88 create a framework that aims to
ensure the Internet remains an open platform in the coming years—one characterized by free
markets and free speech—and one that continues to enable consumer choice, end-user control,
competition through low barriers to entry, and the freedom to innovate without permission.89
Edge providers90—many of which are small businesses and individual entrepreneurs—have relied
on this openness to innovate new services such as those used with Internet-based smartphones
and other wireless devices.91 The “app economy” has experienced tremendous growth since 2010
and now accounts for nearly half a million jobs.92 The increase in new uses of the network


85 Closed Captioning of Internet Protocol-Delivered Video Programming: Implementation of the Twenty-First
Century Communications and Video Accessibility Act of 2010
, MB Docket No. 11-154, Report and Order, 27 FCC
Rcd 787 (2012).
86 Commission Announces Entities Certified to Participate in the National Deaf-Blind Equipment Distribution
Program
, DA 12-1050 (rel. July 2, 2012); Implementation of the Twenty-First Century Communications and Video
Accessibility Act of 2010, Section 105, Relay Services for Deaf-Blind Individuals
, CG Docket No. 10-210, Report
and Order, 26 FCC Rcd 5640 (2011).
87 See generally Preserving the Open Internet; Broadband Industry Practices, GN Docket No. 09-191, WC Docket
No. 07-52, Report and Order, 25 FCC Rcd 17905 (2010) (Open Internet Order), available at
http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-10-201A1_Rcd.pdf.
88 Preserving the Open Internet, 76 Fed. Reg. 59192 (Sept. 23, 2011), available at
http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/FR-2011-09-23/pdf/2011-24259.pdf.
89 See Open Internet Order, 25 FCC Rcd at 17908, para. 10.
90 Id. at 17907, para. 4 n.2 (explaining the term “edge provider” is used to refer to content, application, service, and
device providers, because they generally operate at the edge rather than the core of the network).
91 MICHAEL MANDEL, TECHNET, WHERE THE JOBS ARE: THE APP ECONOMY 1 (Feb. 7, 2012) (MICHAEL MANDEL
APP ECONOMY), available at http://www.technet.org/wp-content/uploads/2012/02/TechNet-App-Economy-Jobs-
Study.pdf; see Open Internet Order, 25 FCC Rcd at 17910–11, para. 13. Streaming video and cloud computing are
other examples of edge providers creating new services that contribute to the Internet’s virtuous cycle of innovation
and investment.
92 MICHAEL MANDEL APP ECONOMY at 1; see also DELOITTE, TRENDS IN VENTURE CAPITAL: STATE OF THE IPO
MARKET 19 (June 22, 2011) (noting that nearly 65 percent of venture capitalists predict that investment in new
media and social networking will rise over the next five years), available at
http://www.nvca.org/index.php?option=com_docman&task=doc_download&gid=753&Itemid=93; Press Release,
PricewaterhouseCoopers LLP and National Venture Capital Association, Annual Venture Investment Dollars
Increase 22% Over Prior Year, According to the MoneyTree Report (Jan. 20, 2012) (noting that, in 2011, Internet-
specific companies attracted nearly $7 billion in venture capital funding, a 68 percent increase in dollars and 24
percent increase in deals from 2010), available at
https://www.pwcmoneytree.com/MTPublic/ns/moneytree/filesource/exhibits/11Q4MTPressrelease.pdf.
14

Federal Communications Commission

FCC 12-90

corresponds with an increase in home broadband adoption and smartphone ownership,93 which
leads to further network improvements and infrastructure investment, and that spurs yet further
innovative uses.94
·
Modernizing Lifeline. On January 31, 2012, the Commission modernized the USF’s Lifeline
Program, which ensures the availability of communications to low-income Americans. Among
other things, the Commission adopted a goal of ensuring the availability of broadband service for
low-income Americans, clarified that consumers may apply their Lifeline discount to bundled
offerings that include broadband, and established a “Broadband Pilot Program.”95 The pilot will
be an 18-month program and will allocate up to $25 million to test and determine how Lifeline
can best be used to increase broadband adoption among Lifeline-eligible consumers.96 The
Bureau issued a Public Notice on April 30, 2012 soliciting applications from ETCs to participate
in the pilot and received a number of applications by the July 2, 2012 deadline.97
·
VoIP Outage Reporting Requirements. On February 21, 2012, the Commission extended the
outage reporting requirements contained in Part 4 of the Commission’s Rules—previously only
applicable to legacy telecommunications services—to interconnected VoIP services (typically
provided over broadband networks).98 The Commission reported that, as of December 31, 2010,
31 percent of the more than 87 million residential telephone subscriptions in the United States
were provided by interconnected VoIP providers—an increase of 21 percent (from 22.4 million to
27.1 million residential lines) in the last year.99 The Commission continues to evaluate whether
to extend outage reporting requirements to broadband Internet service providers.100
·
Advanced Wireless. On March 21, 2012, the Commission took steps to free up 40 megahertz of
spectrum in the 2 GHz band spectrum for mobile broadband by proposing to remove rules that


93 See infra tbl. 17 (showing an increase in fixed home broadband adoption across three analyzed speed tiers from
June 2010 to June 2011); Open Internet Order, 25 FCC Rcd at 17910–11, para. 14; AARON SMITH, PEW INTERNET,
46% OF AMERICAN ADULTS ARE SMARTPHONE OWNERS: SMARTPHONE USERS NOW OUTNUMBER USERS OF MORE
BASIC MOBILE PHONES WITHIN THE NATIONAL ADULT POPULATION 2 (2012) (2012 PEW SMARTPHONE SURVEY),
available at http://pewinternet.org/~/media//Files/Reports/2012/Smartphone%20ownership%202012.pdf; America’s
New Mobile Majority: A Look at Smartphone Owners in the U
.S., NIELSENWIRE (BLOG), May 7, 2012
(NIELSENWIRE SMARTPHONE OWNERS), http://blog.nielsen.com/nielsenwire/?p=31688 (finding that over 50% of
mobile subscribers have a smartphone); see also US REMAINS AT FOREFRONT OF LTE SERVICE ADOPTION,
TELEGEOGRAPHY (Mar. 15, 2012) (finding that the United States leads the world in 4G adoption), available at
http://www.telegeography.com/products/commsupdate/articles/2012/03/15/us-remains-at-forefront-of-lte-service-
adoption/.
94 See Open Internet Order, 25 FCC Rcd at 17910, para. 14.
95 Lifeline Reform and Modernization Order, 27 FCC Rcd at 6660, para. 3.
96 Id. at 6802–03, para. 341.
97 See Lifeline Pilot Program Public Notice, 27 FCC Rcd 4840; see also Lifeline Reform and Modernization Order,
27 FCC Rcd at 6802–03, para. 341.
98 Proposed Extension of Part 4 of the Commission’s Rules Regarding Outage Reporting to Interconnected Voice
Over Internet Protocol Service Providers and Broadband Internet Service Providers
, PS Docket No. 11-82, Report
and Order, 27 FCC Rcd 2650 (2012), available at http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-12-
22A1_Rcd.pdf. Collecting these data will help the Commission help ensure the Nation’s 9-1-1 systems are as
reliable and resilient as possible and also allow us to monitor compliance with the statutory 9-1-1 obligations of
interconnected VoIP service providers. Id. at 2651, para. 1.
99 Id. at 2700–01, App. B para. 3.
100 Id. at 2656, para. 9 (determining that this issue “deserves further study”).
15

Federal Communications Commission

FCC 12-90

have limited this spectrum to satellite use. 101 This effort is consistent with the National
Broadband Plan’s recommendation and reflects the Commission’s commitment to allow flexible
use of spectrum, to allocate large blocks of contiguous spectrum, and to make spectrum available
in bands that are internationally harmonized.102
·
Incentive Auctions. On April 27, 2012, in response to the recently enacted Spectrum Act,103 the
Commission took preliminary steps toward making a portion of the UHF and VHF frequency
bands (U/V bands) currently used by the broadcast television service available for new uses,
while also preserving the integrity of the television broadcast service.104 The spectrum to be
repurposed will serve to further address this nation’s growing demand for wireless broadband
services, promote ongoing innovation and investment in mobile communications, and help to
ensure that the United States keeps pace with the global wireless revolution.105
·
International Data Collection. Today, in the 2012 International Broadband Data Report, the
International Bureau provided an update on steps the Commission is taking to obtain better, more
globally standardized broadband data in order to help the Commission better meet its statutory
obligations under section 706.106 The International Bureau recognized the need for better
international data but also noted the Commission’s recent efforts to improve the available data,
both domestically and internationally.107 To further this goal, in October 2011, for example, the
Commission hosted a two-day OECD broadband metrics workshop in Washington, D.C. focusing
on the need to standardize terms, benchmarks and indicators, and data collection and reporting
tools/methods employed by the OECD and member countries.108 Ofcom, the U.K. regulator for
communication services, hosted an OECD follow-up workshop in London in June 2012.109
15.
Broadband Technology Opportunities Program (BTOP) and Broadband Initiatives
Program (BIP). Recognizing the unique difficulties in deploying broadband to rural areas and Tribal
lands, in 2009, Congress allocated approximately $7 billion in grants and loans to expand broadband
deployment and adoption in unserved and underserved areas through NTIA’s Broadband Technology
Opportunities Program (BTOP) and Rural Utilities Service’s (RUS’s) Broadband Initiatives Program


101 See Service Rules for Advanced Wireless Services in the 2000-2020 MHz and 2180-2200 MHz Bands, Fixed and
Mobile Services in the Mobile Satellite Service Bands at 1525-1559 MHz and 1626.5-1660.5 MHz, 1610-1626.5
MHz and 2483.5-2500 MHz, and 2000-2020 MHz and 2180-2200 MH
z, Service Rules for Advanced Wireless
Services in the 1915-1920 MHz, 1995-2000 MHz, 2020-2025 MHz and 2175-2180 MHz Bands
, ET Docket No. 10-
142, WT Docket Nos. 04-356, 12-70, Notice of Proposed Rulemaking and Notice of Inquiry, 27 FCC Rcd 3561
(2012) (Wireless Services in 2000-2020 MHz NPRM and NOI), available at
http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-12-32A1.pdf.
102 Id. at 3567, para. 11.
103 See Middle Class Tax Relief and Job Creation Act of 2012, Pub. L. No. 112-96, § 6102, 126 Stat. 156, 205
(2012) (Middle Class Tax Relief Act), available at http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/PLAW-112publ96/pdf/PLAW-
112publ96.pdf.
104 Innovation in the Broadcast Television Bands: Allocations, Channel Sharing and Improvements to VHF, ET
Docket No. 10-235, Report and Order, 27 FCC Rcd 4616 (2012) (Incentive Auctions Order), available at
http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-12-45A1.pdf.
105 Id. at 4617, para. 1.
106 See 2012 International Broadband Data Report para. 11.
107 Id. paras. 22, 39.
108 Id. para. 40.
109 Id. para. 42.
16

Federal Communications Commission

FCC 12-90

(BIP).110 Now that all the funds have been dedicated to projects that will bring robust broadband to
unserved and underserved areas of the country, we are beginning to see the impact of the investment.111
NTIA invested approximately $4 billion in BTOP projects resulting in deployment of 45,196 new or
upgraded network miles across the country,112 connection and/or improved service for more than 2,211
community anchor institutions,113 and indications that the projects led 259,446 households to subscribe to
broadband services.114 While their projects are ongoing, BTOP recipients have already entered into
nearly 400 interconnection agreements with third-party providers to leverage or interconnect with their
networks.115 RUS has funded $3.5 billion in BIP projects that will bring broadband service to an
additional 2.8 million households, reaching nearly 7 million people, 360,000 businesses, and 30,000


110 The BIP and BTOP Programs are authorized by the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009. See
American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009, Pub. L. No. 111-5, 123 Stat. 115, 128 (Recovery Act); see also
RUS, ABOUT THE RECOVERY ACT BIP, http://www.rurdev.usda.gov/utp_bip.html (ABOUT THE RECOVERY ACT BIP)
(explaining RUS’s BIP Program); NTIA, BROADBAND TECHNOLOGY OPPORTUNITIES PROGRAM (BTOP)
QUARTERLY PROGRAM STATUS REPORT at 1 (March 2012) (2012 NTIA’S BTOP QUARTERLY REPORT) (explaining
NTIA’s BTOP Program), available at http://www.ntia.doc.gov/files/ntia/publications/12th-btop-quarterly-
congressional-report-march-2012.pdf. In 2009, the Recovery Act allocated $2.5 billion for RUS’s BIP program and
$4.7 billion in grants for NTIA’s BTOP program, for a total of $7.2 billion in budget authority. See Recovery Act,
123 Stat. at 118, 128. RUS used its $2.5 billion allocation for both grants and loans. On August 10, 2010, Congress
rescinded $302 million from NTIA’s BTOP Program, reducing NTIA’s funding to approximately $4.4 billion
equaling in total, approximately $6.9 billion. See Pub. L. No. 111-226, § 302, 124 Stat. 2389, 2404 (2010); see also
2012 NTIA’S BTOP QUARTERLY REPORT at 1. According to RUS, it may award and obligate funds in excess of its
budget authority when it makes loans. Therefore, RUS notes, the total investment under the BIP and BTOP exceeds
$7 billion. See GAO, GAO-11-371T, Recovery Act: BROADBAND PROGRAMS AWARDS AND RISKS TO OVERSIGHT
2–3 (Feb. 10, 2011) (“RUS awarded funds to 320 projects, including more than $2.3 billion for grants and about $87
million for loans. According to RUS, the budget authority of $87 million for loans supports almost $1.2 billion in
total loans, and a combined loan and grant award amount of more than $3.5 billion.”).
111 Under RUS’s BIP Program, by September 30, 2010, there were 320 awards obligated that totaled $3.529 billion.
See ABOUT THE RECOVERY ACT BIP. The total awards were 285 last-mile projects that total over $3 billion, the 12
middle-mile awards total $172.6 million, four satellite awards for $100 million, and 19 technical assistance awards
for over $3.4 million in 45 states and one territory. Id. In March 2012, NTIA reported that it had invested
approximately $4 billion in 233 BTOP projects benefitting every state, five territories, and the District of Columbia.
2012 NTIA’S BTOP QUARTERLY REPORT at 1. NTIA’s BTOP Program reports considerable progress during the last
quarter regarding deployment. See id. at 2–3. NTIA indicates that it has reached 90 percent of its fiscal year 2012
goal to deploy 50,000 new or upgraded network miles across the country. Id. at 3. NTIA adds that recipients
deployed more than 16,000 network miles during the past quarter, bringing the total number of miles to 45,196. Id.
According to NTIA, through December 31, 2011, network deployment was underway in 47 states and territories. Id.
NTIA has also invested in sustainable adoption programs. See NTIA, GRANTS AWARDED: SUSTAINABLE
BROADBAND ADOPTION, http://www2.ntia.doc.gov/sustainableadoption.
112 2012 NTIA’S BTOP QUARTERLY REPORT at 3. For example, Northwest Open Access Network’s (NoaNet)
expansion in the state of Washington is expected to promote affordable broadband access for approximately 380,000
households, 18,000 businesses, and 1,300 anchor institutions including government offices, public safety and
medical centers, and schools. Id. Additionally, ComNet’s GigE PLUS Availability Coalition project in western
Ohio is expected to provide more affordable broadband access in to 737,000 households, 165,000 businesses, and
2,900 institutions. Id.
113 Id. at 4.
114 Id. at 6.
115 Lawrence E. Strickling, Testimony Before the Committee on Energy and Commerce and Subcommittee on
Communications Technology (May 16, 2012), available at
http://www.ntia.doc.gov/speechtestimony/2012/testimony-assistant-secretary-strickling-broadband-loans-and-grants.
17

Federal Communications Commission

FCC 12-90

anchor institutions across more than 300,000 square miles.116 The BIP projects are expected to create
more than 25,000 immediate and direct jobs.117
16.
Additional USDA & RUS Programs. Additionally, RUS administers the substantially
underserved trust area (SUTA) provisions of the 2008 Farm Bill.118 SUTA provides a pathway for Tribal
communities to access the RUS telecommunications loan and grant programs more easily as a means for
increasing the rate of deployment and adoption across all Tribal communities. RUS has proposed new
rules under SUTA,119 and SUTA provisions authorize RUS to waive matching requirements, give projects
on trust lands the highest funding priority, and authorize loans with interest rates as low as 2 percent.120
The USDA also continues to administer a variety of non-BIP loan and grant programs targeted
specifically to communities and regions that have inadequate access to telecommunications and
broadband service or investment capital.121 Projects financed under RUS’s Telecommunications
Infrastructure Loan Program and Broadband Loan Program have provided broadband access to more than
3.6 million rural households, businesses, and community organizations.122
17.
SBI Data. Since July 2009, NTIA, in coordination with the Commission, has been
collecting data concerning where broadband is deployed across the nation as part of the State Broadband
Initiative (SBI) Grant Program.123 The data collected as part of the SBI Grant Program helped populate a


116 Jonathan Adelstein, Testimony Before the Senate Committee on Indian Affairs at 5 (Jun. 7, 2012), available at
http://www.rurdev.usda.gov/SupportDocuments/rdCongTestimonyAdelsteinJune7-2012.pdf; see also USDA,
BROADBAND INITIATIVES PROGRAM (BIP) AWARDS REPORT: ADVANCING BROADBAND: A FOUNDATION FOR STRONG
RURAL COMMUNITIES at 3–4 (Jan. 2011) (2011 BIP AWARDS REPORT), available at
http://www.rurdev.usda.gov/supportdocuments/RBBreport_V5ForWeb.pdf. More than 1 million K–12 students
attend school within areas served by BIP awards (more than 3,300 schools in 44 states), and 600 rural healthcare
facilities are served by BIP awards (facilities are located in 123 BIP served areas in 40 states). 2011 BIP AWARDS
REPORT at 4.
117 Id. at 3.
118 Food, Conservation, and Energy Act of 2008, Pub. L. No. 110-246, § 6105, 122 Stat. 923, 1196 (2008) (2008
Farm Bill); see also USDA RURAL DEVELOPMENT—PROGRAMS OVERVIEW, RURAL UTILITIES SERVICE,
IMPLEMENTATION OF THE SUTA INITIATIVE (SUTA OVERVIEW), http://www.rurdev.usda.gov/suta.html.
119 Department of Agriculture, Rural Utilities Service, Substantially Underserved Trust Areas, 76 Fed. Reg. 63846
(Oct. 14, 2011) (to be codified at 7 C.F.R Pt. 1700).
120 See SUTA OVERVIEW.
121 See, e.g., Press Release, USDA, Agriculture Secretary Vilsack Announces Funding to Expand and Improve
Broadband Services in Rural Areas (Nov. 14, 2011), available at
http://www.usda.gov/wps/portal/usda/usdahome?contentid=2011/11/0485.xml&navid=NEWS_RELEASE&navtype
=RT&parentnav=LATEST_RELEASES&edeployment_action=retrievecontent; see also CHMN. JULIUS
GENACHOWSKI, FCC, BRINGING BROADBAND TO RURAL AMERICA: UPDATE TO REPORT ON A RURAL BROADBAND
STRATEGY, GN Docket No. 11-16, 26 FCC Rcd 8681, 8692–93, paras. 15–16 (2011) (2011 RURAL BROADBAND
UPDATE), available at http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-307877A1.pdf, attached to
Chairman Genachowski Releases Update to 2009 Rural Broadband Report
, GN Docket No. 11-16, Public Notice,
26 FCC Rcd 8680 (2011).
122 See Letter from R. Matthew Warner, Attorney Advisor, FCC, on behalf of the Rural Utilities Service, to Marlene
H. Dortch, Secretary, FCC, GN Docket No. 11-121, App. (Jul. 17, 2012), available at
http://apps.fcc.gov/ecfs/document/view?id=7021989631.
123 To comply with requirements under the BDIA and the Recovery Act, NTIA in July 2009 established the SBI
Grant Program. See Department of Commerce, NTIA, State Broadband Data and Development Grant Program,
Docket No. 0660-ZA29, Notice of Funds Availability, 74 Fed. Reg. 32545 (July 8, 2009) (NTIA State Mapping
NOFA
), available at http://www.ntia.doc.gov/files/ntia/publications/fr_broadbandmappingnofa_090708.pdf;
Department of Commerce, NTIA, State Broadband Data and Development Grant Program, Docket No. 0660-ZA29,
(continued….)
18

Federal Communications Commission

FCC 12-90

national broadband inventory map that was first made public in February 2011 and most recently updated
March 2012.124 In accordance with the Recovery Act, this map allows consumers to determine broadband
deployment in any region of the nation through a website that is interactive and searchable. As we did in
last year’s 2011 Seventh Broadband Progress Report, we rely on these data as key inputs into our
analysis of broadband deployment and availability.125

III.

BENCHMARKING BROADBAND

18.
Section 706(d)(1) 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.”126 In each of the
reports the Commission has conducted under section 706, it has relied on a speed benchmark for
determining whether a service satisfies this statutory definition.127 In the 2010 Sixth Broadband Progress
Report
, the Commission updated this speed benchmark from 200 kbps in both directions128 to services
that offer actual download (i.e., to the customer) speeds of at least 4 Mbps and actual upload (i.e., from
the customer) speeds of at least 1 Mbps (4 Mbps/1 Mbps, or “speed benchmark”).129
19.
In this report, we continue to rely upon this speed benchmark, which the Commission has
used in the two most recent broadband reports.130 We find that this speed benchmark still reflects the
(Continued from previous page)


Notice of Funds Availability; Clarification, 74 Fed. Reg. 40569 (Aug. 12, 2009); see also NTIA, STATE
BROADBAND INITIATIVE, http://www2.ntia.doc.gov/SBDD.
124 NATIONAL BROADBAND MAP, http://broadbandmap.gov/; Press Release, Moira Vahey, NTIA Unveils National
Broadband Map and New Broadband Adoption Survey Results (Feb. 17, 2011) (NTIA National Broadband Plan
Press Release
), available at http://www.ntia.doc.gov/press-
releases/2011/commerce%C3%A2%E2%82%AC%E2%84%A2s-ntia-unveils-national-broadband-map-and-new-
broadband-adoption-survey; Anne Neville, New Data for the National Broadband Map (NATIONAL BROADBAND
MAP) BLOG (Mar. 2, 2012), http://www.broadbandmap.gov/blog/2712/new-data-for-nbm/.
125 See infra Section IV.B; see also 2011 Seventh Broadband Progress Report, 26 FCC Rcd at 8017–18, 8078, para.
13, App. F.
126 47 U.S.C. § 1302(d)(1).
127 See 1999 First Broadband Progress Report, 14 FCC Rcd 2398, 2406, para. 20 (defining “broadband” as a service
capable of supporting upstream and downstream speeds in excess of 200 kbps in the last mile); Inquiry Concerning
the Deployment of Advanced Telecommunications Capability to All Americans in a Reasonable and Timely Fashion
,
CC Docket No. 98-146, Second Report, 15 FCC Rcd 20913, 20919–21, para. 10 (2000); Inquiry Concerning the
Deployment of Advanced Telecommunications Capability to All Americans in a Reasonable and Timely Fashion
, CC
Docket No. 98-146, Report, 17 FCC Rcd 2844, 2850, para. 9 (2002); Availability of Advanced Telecommunications
Capability in the United States
, GN Docket No. 04-54, Fourth Report to Congress, 19 FCC Rcd 20540, 20551-52
(2004); Inquiry Concerning the Deployment of Advanced Telecommunications Capability to All Americans in a
Reasonable and Timely Fashion
, GN Docket No. 07-45, Fifth Report, 23 FCC Rcd 9615, 9616, para. 2 (2008); 2010
Sixth Broadband Progress Report
, 25 FCC Rcd at 9563, para. 11; 2011 Seventh Broadband Progress Report, 26 FCC
Rcd at 8019, para. 15.
128 See 2010 Sixth Broadband Progress Report, 25 FCC Rcd at 9559–64, paras. 5–10 (discussing the 200 kbps
symmetrical standard).
129 Id. at 9563, para. 11. As discussed below, we believe the 3 Mbps/768 kbps tier in our SBI Data is the best proxy
for 4 Mbps/1 Mbps for purposes of this report. See infra para. 29.
130 See 2011 Seventh Broadband Progress Report, 26 FCC Rcd at 8019, para. 15; 2010 Sixth Broadband Progress
Report
, 25 FCC Rcd at 9563, para. 11. The benchmark we adhere to in this report refers to actual speeds, not
advertised or “up to” speeds. We rely on SBI Data to estimate fixed broadband deployment. The SBI Data provides
information about areas where broadband has been deployed and the maximum advertised speed that a broadband
service provider can deliver within a typical service interval (7 to 10 business days). See 2011 Seventh Broadband
Progress Report
, 26 FCC Rcd at 8078, App. F para. 1. As we explained in the last report, the SBI Data on advertised
(continued….)
19

Federal Communications Commission

FCC 12-90

requirements in section 706(d)(1) and generally “enables users to originate and receive high-quality voice,
data, graphics, and video telecommunications using any technology.”131 For instance, broadband service
offering 4 Mbps/1 Mbps enables users to stream high-definition video and engage in basic video
conferencing.132 Maintaining the speed benchmark from prior years also simplifies the measurement of
progress from the prior two years.133
20.
We are cognizant that demand changes over time. Usage trends are driving up demand
for bandwidth and services, and users are attaching multiple Internet-enabled devices to a single, shared
household broadband connection.134 The 2010 National Broadband Plan recommended the 4 Mbps/1
Mbps speed benchmark we are using for this report,135 but also recommended that the Commission should
“review and reset” this benchmark every four years.136 We will seek comment on the broadband speed
benchmark in the next Inquiry to ensure that our analysis keeps pace with evolving consumer demand and
technologies.137
(Continued from previous page)


speed may not accurately represent consumers’ actual broadband speed. Id. at 8083–85, App. F paras. 16–19. As
explained above, First Measuring Broadband America Report, among other things, established for the first time that
the majority of residential wireline broadband consumers are receiving performance close to the level advertised by
their providers. See infra Section IV.F.2; FIRST MEASURING BROADBAND AMERICA REPORT at 4.
131 47 U.S.C. § 1302(d)(1).
132 See 2010 OBI BROADBAND PERFORMANCE at 9 (listing types of online content and services and the broadband
data rates required by that content or service); OFFICE OF ENGINEERING AND TECH. & CONSUMER AND
GOVERNMENTAL AFFAIRS BUREAU, FCC, BROADBAND SPEED GUIDE (2011), available at
http://www.fcc.gov/guides/broadband-speed-guide; see also FIRST MEASURING BROADBAND IN AMERICA REPORT at
6–7.
133 See infra Section IV.B; 2011 Seventh Broadband Progress Report, 26 FCC Rcd at 8019, para. 15 (stating that
“[w]e continue to believe that the benefits of having a consistent yardstick to gauge progress in the broadband
market outweigh any benefits that might be achieved by revising the threshold this year”); 2010 Sixth Broadband
Progress Report
, 25 FCC Rcd at 9565, para. 13 (adding that “[o]ur present goal in selecting a benchmark to measure
broadband availability is one shared with prior Commissions: to ‘giv[e] us a relatively static point at which to gauge
the progress and growth in the advanced services market from one Report to the next’”). For the reasons above, we
decline to adopt any of the recommendations in the record to modify the broadband benchmark at this time. See, e.g.,
AT&T Comments at 24 (benchmark should be decreased from 4 Mbps/1 Mbps to 3 Mbps/768 kbps to reflect the fact
that consumers are able to access the services they currently demand with less bandwidth); CTIA Comments at 18
(recommending that the Commission revise its definition of broadband to account for mobility); FTTH Council
Comments at 5–6, 7–9 (suggesting that the Commission should adopt a “tiered-approach,” Minimum: 384 kbps/1.5
kbps, Average: 12 Mbps/2.5 Mbps, Maximum: 101 Mbps/20 Mbps, with 100 Mbps/50 Mbps to 100 Million Homes by
2020; measure peak hours as an appropriate measure of consumer demand; and consider the increase in cloud
computing); NATOA Comments at 3 (urging the Commission to adopt a symmetric 10 Mbps at peak times).
134 OFFICE OF ENGINEERING AND TECH. & CONSUMER AND GOVERNMENTAL AFFAIRS BUREAU, FCC, HOUSEHOLD
BROADBAND GUIDE (2011), available at http://www.fcc.gov/guides/household-broadband-guide; see also FTTH
Council Comments at 8 (stating that the majority of families that have home wireless networks are now using them
for multiple uses with multiple devices and more than 70 percent are doing so five to seven days a week).
135 See 2010 NATIONAL BROADBAND PLAN at 135; see also 2011 Seventh Broadband Progress Report, 26 FCC Rcd at
8019, para. 15 n.86 (citing 2010 NATIONAL BROADBAND PLAN at 135); 2010 Sixth Broadband Progress Report, 25
FCC Rcd at 9566, para. 15 n.64 (same).
136 See 2010 NATIONAL BROADBAND PLAN at 135.
137 For instance, consumers are also beginning to want broadband to be “[a]lways on, always available—just like
your electricity or water supplies—broadband is ready, steady, communication power.” See EBS, WHITEPAPER:
THE BUSINESS BENEFITS OF BROADBAND 2, available at www.e-b-
s.co.uk/_EBS2/File/TheBusinessBenefitsOfBroadband.pdf. There is evidence that consumers want to both access
the Internet at home, as well as on the go. See John Horrigan, Broadband Adoption and Use in America 24 (OBI
(continued….)
20

Federal Communications Commission

FCC 12-90

21.
As discussed, the 2010 National Broadband Plan also recommended that the Commission
set a goal of 100 million U.S. homes having affordable access to actual download speeds of at least 100
Mbps and actual upload speeds of at least 50 Mbps by 2020, to create the world’s most attractive market
for broadband applications, devices, and infrastructure.138 In this report, we provide additional data about
the availability of broadband at high speeds. In the Inquiry, we propose that the Commission identify
multiple speed tiers in future reports to assess the country’s progress for our universalization goal, as well
as additional goals—such as affordable access to 100 Mbps/50 Mbps to 100 million homes by 2020—to
ensure that we remain forward thinking and are prepared to satisfy future needs as well as immediate
demands.
22.
In the USF/ICC Transformation Order, the Commission also considered latency and
capacity as core characteristics that affect what consumers can do with their broadband service.139 Based
on these characteristics, the Commission adopted minimum service standards for broadband networks on
speed, latency, and capacity because they “reflect technical capabilities and user needs that are expected
at this time to be suitable for today and the next few years.”140 The Commission required, as a condition
of receiving federal high-cost universal service support, that all ETCs must provide “actual download and
upload speeds, latency, and usage limits (if any) [that are] reasonably comparable to the typical speeds,
latency, and usage limits (if any) of comparable broadband services in urban areas.”141
23.
Latency is a measure of the time it takes for a packet of data to travel from one point to
another in a network and often is measured by round-trip time in milliseconds. For example, real-time
VoIP services can be supported with speeds as low as 100 kbps, but require low latency for users to
converse normally.142 High-quality video, by contrast, can be delivered satisfactorily with somewhat
higher latencies, but requires higher bandwidth. In the USF/ICC Transformation Order, the Commission
found that “latency affects a consumer’s ability to use real-time applications, including interactive voice
or video communication, over the network.”143 Based on this finding, the Commission required ETCs “to
offer sufficiently low latency to enable use of real-time applications, such as VoIP” indicating that latency
of less than 100 milliseconds would likely be sufficient.144
24.
Capacity is the total volume of data sent and/or received by the end user over a period of
time. It is often measured in gigabytes (GB) per month. The Commission also adopted specific
minimum standards with respect to capacity. In the USF/ICC Transformation Order, the Commission
noted that “a usage limit significantly below” many of the highest monthly data tiers currently offered by
broadband providers (e.g., a 10 GB monthly data limit) would not be reasonably comparable to residential
terrestrial fixed broadband in urban areas.145
25.
As discussed in more detail below, the Commission’s decision to identify latency and
(Continued from previous page)


Working Paper No. 1, 2010) (Horrigan, Broadband Adoption and Use in America), available at
http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-296442A1.pdf.
138 See supra Section I; 2010 NATIONAL BROADBAND PLAN at 9.
139 See USF/ICC Transformation Order, 26 FCC Rcd at 17696–702, paras. 90–104.
140 Id. at 17703, para. 106.
141 Id. at 17696, para. 91.
142 Id. at 17698, para. 96.
143 Id.
144 Id.
145 Id. at 17703, paras. 99–100. The Commission also noted that “250 GB appears to be reasonably comparable to
major current urban broadband offerings.” Id. at 17698, para. 96.
21

Federal Communications Commission

FCC 12-90

capacity as core components of broadband service and to propose adopting specific minimum service
standards for fixed-terrestrial broadband informs our treatment of mobile and satellite broadband services
in this report. Because we did not seek comment on these issues in our last Broadband Progress Notice of
Inquiry, however, we do not set specific latency or capacity minimums as part of our broadband
benchmark at this time. In the next Inquiry, we will ask whether we should set such standards, and if so,
how these benchmarks relate to our treatment of mobile and satellite service.146

IV.

STATUS OF BROADBAND DEPLOYMENT AND AVAILABILITY

26.
This section sets forth the results of our inquiry into the deployment and availability of
broadband to all Americans. In section IV.A, we address the scope of our inquiry, as mandated by
Congress. In section IV.B, we discuss the data used in this report to assess deployment and adoption. In
section IV.C, we analyze SBI Data to identify regions that currently are not served by broadband and
provide a demographic analysis of those unserved areas.147 In section IV.D, we discuss broadband
adoption. In section IV.E, we discuss international broadband service capability. In section IV.F, we
discuss availability to all Americans including home adoption rates and data regarding broadband at
elementary and secondary schools. In section IV.G, we analyze the data and conclude that broadband is
not yet “being deployed to all Americans in a reasonable and timely fashion.”148

A. Broadband “Deployment” and “Availability” Are Broader Than Physical Deployment

27.
As the Commission concluded in the 2011 Seventh Broadband Progress Report,
Congress intended the annual section 706(b) inquiries to be broader than a narrow examination of
physical network deployment.149 We find no reason to depart from this conclusion and continue to
interpret section 706 in the same manner for purposes of this report. Congress did not define the terms
“deployment” and “availability” as used in section 706(b), but required the Commission to assess the
availability of broadband, and then directed that specific findings be made regarding deployment.150 As
explained in the last report, the legislative history further supports the view that Congress expects us to
examine more than physical availability.151 Accordingly, our inquiry includes an assessment of a variety
of factors indicative of broadband availability, such as broadband cost, quality, and adoption by
consumers.152

B. Technologies and Data Sources Included

28.
We base our assessment of broadband deployment upon the most comprehensive and
geographically granular deployment data publicly available—the SBI Data—using the data collected as of


146 See generally 47 U.S.C. § 1302; see also infra Section IV.B.
147 47 U.S.C. § 1302(c).
148 Id. § 1302(b).
149 Id.; 2011 Seventh Broadband Progress Report, 26 FCC Rcd at 8020–21, paras. 18–20.
150 2011 Seventh Broadband Progress Report, 26 FCC Rcd at 8020–21, para. 18.
151 See id. at 8021, para. 19 (“The legislative history of section 706 further supports the view that Congress expects
us to examine more than physical availability. The Senate Report explains that the Commission ‘shall include an
assessment . . . of the availability, at reasonable cost, of equipment needed to deliver advanced broadband
capability.’ The Senate Report also states that the goal of section 706 is ‘to promote and encourage advanced
telecommunications networks, capable of enabling users to originate and receive affordable, high-quality voice,
data, image, graphics, and video telecommunications services.’ Broadband service that is not, for example, of a
quality sufficient to enable high-quality voice, data, image, graphics, and video telecommunications services does
not satisfy these goals. This history closely accords with the goals of the BDIA, which recently amended section
706, and emphasizes Congress’s interest in the cost, quality and adoption of broadband.”) (citations omitted).
152 Id. at 8020–21, paras. 18–19.
22

Federal Communications Commission

FCC 12-90

June 30, 2011.153 The SBI Data are collected semi-annually through state-led efforts and maintained by
NTIA for the National Broadband Map, in collaboration with the Commission. The Commission relied
on the June 30, 2010 collection of these data in making its finding regarding broadband deployment in the
previous broadband report.154 These data are generally collected by census block and contain information
about each broadband provider’s advertised ability to deliver broadband services of a particular
technology type and speed.155 Below, we highlight key aspects of our analysis of SBI Data for purposes
of this report.
29.
First, as in the previous two reports, we continue to assess broadband deployment using a
speed tier that approximates the 4 Mbps/1 Mbps speed benchmark.156 The SBI Data are collected by pre-
determined speed tiers, none of which are 4 Mbps/1 Mbps. The SBI established nine tiers of advertised
download speeds and 11 tiers of advertised upload speeds, for 99 possible combinations.157 Of the 99
speed tier combinations collected in the SBI Data, the closest tier to our speed benchmark lies at 3 Mbps
download and 768 kbps upload speeds (3 Mbps/768 kbps). Consistent with the last report, we use the 3
Mbps/768 kbps tier as a proxy for the 4 Mbps/1 Mbps speed benchmark in making our statutory
assessment of deployment.158
30.
Second, in this report, we now rely solely on the SBI Data to determine fixed broadband
deployment.159 Prior to the collection of the SBI Data, the Commission estimated broadband deployment
by drawing inferences from the residential broadband subscribership data the Commission collects on
Form 477. In the 2011 Seventh Broadband Progress Report, the Commission relied on SBI Data to
determine broadband deployment levels for the report’s finding, but also presented an estimate of
broadband deployment based on Form 477 Data “to provide continuity with previous broadband reports,
and for additional confirmation of our assessment of broadband deployment.”160 Using Form 477 Data to
estimate broadband deployment was necessary in the absence of better data. However, the Commission
has always recognized that Form 477 subscribership data are a problematic indicator of physical network
deployment.161 For example, the presence of some broadband subscribers in a census tract or county does
not necessarily imply that a broadband network has been deployed extensively throughout that area.162


153 See infra Sections IV.D, IV.F.
154 See 2011 Seventh Broadband Progress Report, 26 FCC Rcd at 8022, para. 21.
155 See NTIA State Mapping NOFA, 74 Fed. Reg. at 32557.
156 2011 Seventh Broadband Progress Report, 26 FCC Rcd at 8023, para. 25.
157 Modernizing the FCC Form 477 Data Program, Development of Nationwide Broadband Data To Evaluate
Reasonable and Timely Deployment of Advanced Services to All Americans, Improvement of Wireless Broadband
Subscribership Data, and Development of Data on Interconnected Voice over Internet Protocol (VoIP)
Subscribership, Service Quality, Customer Satisfaction, Infrastructure and Operating Data Gathering, Review of
Wireline Competition Bureau Data Practices
, WC Docket Nos. 11-10, 07-38, 08-190, 10-132, Notice of Proposed
Rulemaking, 26 FCC Rcd 1508, 1532, para. 60 (2011) (Modernizing Form 477 NPRM).
158 2011 Seventh Broadband Progress Report, 26 FCC Rcd at 8023, para. 25.
159 We also rely on SBI Data in combination with Form 477 Data to estimate broadband adoption. See infra Section
IV.D.
160 See 2011 Seventh Broadband Progress Report, 26 FCC Rcd at 8024, para. 28.
161 Id.; Modernizing Form 477 NPRM, 26 FCC Rcd at 1522, para. 33; 2010 Sixth Broadband Progress Report, 25
FCC Rcd at 9569–70, para. 21.
162 The estimates of the number of unserved relying on Form 477 Data vary significantly based on two assumptions
used in the analysis: the size of the geographical unit, and the threshold the Commission relies upon to estimate
whether broadband has been deployed in that geographic area. See, e.g., 2011 Seventh Broadband Progress Report,
26 FCC Rcd at 8026, para. 31 tbl. 1 (showing that Form 477 analysis based on counties and a 1 percent “de minimis
(continued….)
23

Federal Communications Commission

FCC 12-90

Because improved SBI broadband deployment data are available, we no longer find it necessary to use the
Form 477 subscribership data to estimate broadband deployment. NTIA has now collected several rounds
of SBI Data,163 and we have growing confidence in the fixed deployment estimates based on these data.164
In this report, we therefore limit our use of the Form 477 subscribership data to analyze broadband
adoption.
31.
Third, we again base our deployment finding on SBI Data for all fixed terrestrial
broadband technologies, including fiber to the home, xDSL, cable modem, and fixed wireless.165
32.
Fourth, we include in this report significantly more data on mobile services in light of the
recent growth in the coverage of higher-speed mobile networks and given the Commission’s finding in
the USF/Transformation Order that mobile should be an independent universal service goal.166
33.
The growth of mobile deployment and demand for these services in recent years is
significant. Today, Americans increasingly are using their smartphones and other mobile devices
everywhere they go—at home, work, and travel—in addition to their home broadband connection.
Americans are also able to purchase mobile plans that offer much higher speeds than in the past, and
many forecast that the demand for mobile broadband services will only continue to increase. According
to one commenter, consumers are choosing mobile broadband at a much faster rate than any other
technology, and it is outpacing fixed broadband adoption.167 Another commenter indicates that
“[i]ndustry analysts anticipate the U.S. wireless industry as a whole will invest between $23 billion to $53
billion in 4G network deployment between 2012 and 2016.”168 Other evidence suggests that many
consumers who subscribe to fixed services concurrently subscribe to mobile data services, reflecting
mobile’s additional utility to Americans today.169 Moreover, one report estimates that approximately 46%
of American adults owned a smartphone as of February 2012,170 and a prior survey showed that 87% of
smartphone owners used the Internet or e-mail on their smartphone as of May 2011.171
(Continued from previous page)


threshold” result in an estimate of 12.2 million unserved Americans but an analysis based on census tracts and a 5
percent de minimis threshold result in an estimate of 51.0 million unserved Americans). Additionally, it is possible
that one or more broadband networks could be deployed throughout a geographic area even if no one subscribes to
broadband. In those instances, our Form 477 analysis would not capture this deployment in its estimate.
163 Since 2009, when NTIA began the collection of broadband data, NTIA has required the carriers to update the
data twice a year, over a five-year period, which NTIA and the Commission will use to update the National
Broadband Map. In this report, we base our estimate on SBI Data as of June 30, 2011 data, which is the third
collection to date. See NTIA State Mapping NOFA, 74 Fed. Reg. at 32545.
164 2011 Seventh Broadband Progress Report, 26 FCC Rcd at 8023, para. 24 (stating that “it is the first time [SBI
Data] have been collected, and the initial round of data has some significant limitations” but explaining “as the [SBI
Data] improve, so will our deployment estimates.”).
165 See infra App. B.
166 USF/ICC Transformation Order, 26 FCC Rcd at 17667, para. 1.
167 CTIA Comments at 9–10 (citing INDUSTRY ANALYSIS AND TECHNOLOGY DIVISION, FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS
COMMISSION, INTERNET ACCESS SERVICES: STATUS AS OF JUNE 30, 2010 at 1 (Mar. 2011)).
168 TIA Comments at 5.
169 See Horrigan, Broadband Adoption and Use in America at 24 (finding that mobile broadband is a supplementary
service for broadband users).
170 2012 PEW SMARTPHONE SURVEY at 2; NIELSENWIRE SMARTPHONE OWNERS (finding that over 50% of mobile
subscribers have a smartphone).
171 See AARON SMITH, PEW INTERNET, 35% OF AMERICAN ADULTS OWN A SMARTPHONE at 3 (2011), available at
http://pewinternet.org/~/media//Files/Reports/2011/PIP_Smartphones.pdf.
24

Federal Communications Commission

FCC 12-90

34.
Our increased discussion of mobile deployment in this report also reflects the
Commission’s recent finding in the USF/Transformation Order that mobile should be an independent
universal service goal.172 Recognizing the growing impact of and demand for mobile services, the
Commission’s policy goal in the USF/ICC Transformation Order was to ensure Americans have access to
both fixed and mobile broadband services. The Commission stated that it sought to “ensure that robust,
affordable voice and broadband service, both fixed and mobile, are available to Americans throughout the
nation.”173
35.
Despite our increased reporting on mobile broadband deployment and availability, we do
not include the mobile data in our statutory finding in this report for two reasons. First, as detailed below,
we have concerns that the available data sources for measuring mobile broadband may overstate
deployment to a significant degree. Second, as noted above, in the USF/ICC Transformation Order, the
Commission considered latency and capacity as core characteristics that affect what consumers can do
with their broadband service.174 The Commission identified potential standards on latency and usage
capacity with respect to fixed broadband services, but did not do so for mobile services, and the latency
and capacity of many mobile broadband services may not be comparable to those of fixed broadband
services.175 In any event, even if we included all LTE, WiMax, and HSPA+ service reported by Mosaik
as meeting our broadband speed threshold, the number of unserved Americans would remain high (more
than 14 million people), and we would likely reach the same 706 finding.176
36.
Concerns about the Available Data Regarding Mobile Broadband Deployment. Our
report includes two sources of mobile data—SBI Data and Mosaik Solutions (Mosaik Data).177 Although
these data provide a useful tool for measuring developments in mobile broadband deployment, we have
concerns that they overstate the extent of mobile broadband coverage meeting our speed benchmark.
37.
With respect to the SBI Data on mobile deployment, we have concerns that providers are
reporting services as meeting the broadband speed benchmark when they likely do not. We identified in
our previous broadband report concerns that SBI Data overstate deployment.178 That report was based on
SBI Data reflecting network status as of June 30, 2010, a time when most mobile broadband services
relied on CDMA EV-DO/EV-DO Rev A or WCDMA/HSPA technologies. We noted that SBI Data
indicated relatively widespread deployment of technologies meeting the 3 Mbps/768 kbps speed
benchmark, but emphasized that “although mobile networks deployed as of June 30, 2010 may be capable
of delivering peak speeds of 3 Mbps/768 kbps or more in some circumstances, the conditions under which


172 USF/ICC Transformation Order, 26 FCC Rcd at 17667, para. 1.
173 Id.
174 See supra Section III.
175 We thus do not “ignore” or “neglect” the true progress that is being made in deploying wireless services, as our
dissenting colleague suggests. See infra Dissenting Statement of Commissioner Ajit Pai (Pai Statement). To the
contrary, this report includes more data on mobile broadband deployment than any prior report. Rather, we note that
the nature of the available data, and concerns about data caps and latency characteristics of these services limits our
ability to make concrete findings about mobile deployment at this time or, as the dissent suggests, to simply treat
mobile services as substitutes for fixed services in all areas where they may be deployed, contrary to our USF/ICC
Transformation Order
.
176 See infra tbl. 15. For this purpose, we rely on SBI and Mosaik Data as our best estimate given the limitations of
both datasets.
177 Mosaik was formerly known as “American Roamer.” See MOSAIK SOLUTIONS (FORMERLY AMERICAN ROAMER),
http://www.mosaik.com/.
178 2011 Seventh Broadband Progress Report, 26 FCC Rcd at 8023, para. 26.
25

Federal Communications Commission

FCC 12-90

these peak speeds could actually occur are relatively rare.”179 In other words, these technologies do not
reliably deliver speeds that meet our proxy for the speed benchmark, despite how they were reported in
some portions of the SBI Data, raising concerns that including these data would overstate the deployment
of broadband meeting the speed benchmark. We therefore excluded SBI mobile wireless data from our
deployment estimate in the prior report.180
38.
This report relies on SBI Data reflecting network status as of June 30, 2011. This data set
includes the older CDMA EV-DO/EV-DO Rev A and WCDMA/HSPA technologies as before, and the
more recently-deployed, higher-speed LTE, mobile WiMAX, and HSPA+ technologies. While these
newer technologies are more likely to deliver speeds that meet our speed benchmark, the SBI Data do not
allow us to distinguish the areas covered by the older technologies within the coverage by mobile wireless
data networks reported at 3 Mbps/768 kbps or more, again raising concerns that including the SBI Data
on mobile wireless would overstate the deployment of broadband meeting the speed benchmark. In this
report, therefore, we continue to exclude SBI mobile wireless data from our deployment finding.
39.
This report for the first time examines an additional data source on mobile broadband
deployment, the Mosaik Data. The Mosaik Data provide the Commission with a set of maps of the
boundaries of the network coverage areas, by technology, of every operational, facilities-based, terrestrial
mobile wireless provider in the United States and its territories.181 Using these maps and population data
from the Census Bureau, we can estimate the percentage of the U.S. population covered by (1) a certain
number of providers, (2) different types of network technologies, and (3) the mobile broadband networks
of individual service providers.182
40.
We have questions, however, on how we should interpret the Mosaik Data to estimate
mobile broadband deployment. While the Mosaik Data distinguish coverage by particular mobile
wireless network technologies, including LTE, WiMAX, and HSPA+, these technologies may not meet
the benchmark depending on the version of the technology deployed, the configuration of the network,
the amount of spectrum used, and the type of backhaul connection to the cell site. This is particularly true
of certain HSPA+ deployments.183 Additionally, in the 2012 State of Mobile Public Notice, the
Commission noted that the Mosaik Data likely overstates the coverage actually experienced by
consumers.184 While many mobile wireless service providers report coverage to Mosaik, each uses a


179 Id.
180 Id.
181 Wireless Telecommunications Bureau Seeks Comment on the State of Mobile Wireless Competition, WT Docket
No. 11-186, Public Notice, 26 FCC Rcd 15595, 15597 (2012) (2012 State of Mobile Public Notice), available at
http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-11-1856A1_Rcd.pdf.
182 Id.
183 There are different versions of HSPA+ with varying peak data speeds—including HSPA+ (14.4 Mbps), HSPA+
(21 Mbps), and HSPA+ (42 Mbps)—which are not distinguishable in the Mosaik HSPA+ coverage maps. See
Fifteenth Mobile Wireless Competition Report
, 26 FCC Rcd at 9737, 9739, paras. 110, 114; Sascha Segan, AT&T
Defines 4G as HSPA 14.4
, PCMAG.COM, May 5, 2011 (PCMagazine HSPA 14.4), available at
http://www.pcmag.com/article2/0,2817,2384959,00.asp; Press Release, T-Mobile, T-Mobile Expands America’s
Largest 4G Network and Showcases 4G Experiences at 2012 CES (Jan. 10, 2012), available at http://newsroom.t-
mobile.com/articles/t-mobile-expands-network-showcases-4g-at-ces. In addition, at least one major wireless
provider reports that its HSPA+ speeds can vary depending on the type of backhaul connection to the cell site. See
AT&T, COVERAGE LEGEND TERMS, http://www.wireless.att.com/coverageviewer/popUp_legend.jsp (“AT&T’s 4G
HSPA+ network is capable of delivering 4G speeds when combined with enhanced backhaul”); PCMagazine HSPA
14.4
. We also note that LTE speeds can vary depending on the amount of spectrum used in each channel. Sascha
Segan, Why Is AT&T LTE Fast in Houston, Slow in Chicago?, PCMAG.COM, Sept. 21, 2011, available at
http://www.pcmag.com/article2/0,2817,2393286,00.asp.
184 2012 State of Mobile Public Notice, 26 FCC Rcd at 15597.
26

Federal Communications Commission

FCC 12-90

different definition of coverage.185 The Commission also found that the data were not consistent across
geographic areas and service providers.186 Thus, as with the SBI Data, relying on Mosaik Data would
likely overestimate mobile broadband deployment capable of meeting the speed benchmark.
41.
Finally, as in the Commission’s last report, we also exclude satellite from our deployment
finding.187 Although the uniformity of satellite reporting has improved in the SBI Data over the past year,
as of June 30, 2011, there was not a commercially available satellite offering that could provide 4 Mbps/1
Mbps broadband service to consumers.188
42.
We note that, on January 16, 2012, ViaSat—formerly WildBlue—began offering
broadband service of 12 Mbps/3 Mbps through its ViaSat-1 satellite.189 HughesNet has announced that it
launched its high throughput satellite—ECHOSTAR XVII—on July 6, 2012.190 These developments
raise the issue of how satellite services should be included in future Commission reports. As noted above,
in the USF/ICC Transformation Order, the Commission focused on latency as one of the core
characteristics that affects what consumers can do with their broadband service.191 Satellite service
generally has latency over 100 milliseconds192 and latency may affect a user’s ability to “to originate and
receive high-quality voice, data, graphics, and video telecommunications using any technology,” as
required by section 706.193 Thus, in the next Inquiry, we will also explore how we can best estimate
satellite deployment based upon the Commission’s findings in the USF/ICC Transformation Order.
43.
In light of these decisions, in the sections that follow and solely for purposes of this
report, we use the term “broadband” to reflect fixed broadband service that meets the speed benchmark,
unless otherwise specified.


185 Id. We note that both SBI Data and Mosaik collect advertised speeds from providers. Unlike Mosaik, with the
SBI Data collection, broadband providers must provide broadband coverage in the provider’s service area as
required by NTIA in the NTIA State Mapping NOFA. See NTIA State Mapping NOFA, 74 Fed. Reg. at 32557.
186 2012 State of Mobile Public Notice, 26 FCC Rcd at 15597.
187 2011 Seventh Broadband Progress Report, 26 FCC Rcd at 8023, para. 26 n.112 (excluding satellite due to
incomplete SBI Data and evidence that these services were offered below 4 Mbps/1 Mbps).
188 See INDUSTRY ANALYSIS AND TECHNOLOGY DIVISION, FCC, INTERNET ACCESS SERVICES: STATUS AS OF JUNE
30, 2011 at 26 (June 2012) (JUNE 2012 IAS REPORT) (finding that there were zero reported residential subscriptions
at 3 Mbps/768 kbps as of June 2011), available at
http://transition.fcc.gov/Daily_Releases/Daily_Business/2012/db0614/DOC-314630A1.pdf. See, e.g., HUGHESNET,
PACKAGE DEALS AND OFFERS, http://www.satellitestarinternet.com/hughesnet_plans_pricing.html#available
(offering 2 Mbps/300 kbps in its “Fastest” package).
189 See VIASAT, EXEDE, http://www.exede.com/internet-packages-pricing. The 2010 National Broadband Plan also
noted that while there is enough capacity for many people to use satellite service, there may not be enough capacity
for everyone to do so. Consequently, unlike fixed broadband service, this satellite service will be a first come, first
served service. See 2010 NATIONAL BROADBAND PLAN at 137. As noted above, in the next Inquiry, we will explore
whether we should consider latency and capacity under section 706 in the next report. See supra Section III.
190 Press Release, Hughes, Hughes Echostar XVII Satellite with Jupiter High Throughput Technology Successfully
Launched (July 6, 2012) (reporting the launch of HughesNet’s new high speed satellite), available at
http://www.hughes.com/HNS%20Library%20Press%20Release/07-06-12_EchoStar_XVII_Launch.pdf.
191 See USF/ICC Transformation Order, 26 FCC Rcd at 17698, para. 96.
192 Greg Berlocher, Minimizing Latency in Satellite Networks, SATELLITE TODAY, at 1–2, Sept. 1, 2009, available at
http://www.satellitetoday.com/via/features/Minimizing-Latency-in-Satellite-Networks_31811.html.
193 47 U.S.C. § 1302(d)(1) (defining “advanced telecommunications capability” as a service that enables users to
originate and receive high-quality voice, data, graphics, and video telecommunications using any technology).
27

Federal Communications Commission

FCC 12-90

C. Broadband Deployment Estimates

44.
This section presents our broadband deployment estimates, provides a demographic
analysis of the areas without access to broadband, and reports the progress made in deploying broadband
since the last report. The Commission has made several improvements to our data analysis since the last
report. Here, we identify whether the Americans who lack access to fixed broadband meeting the speed
benchmark live in rural areas, on federally recognized Tribal lands, or in U.S. Territories.194 We include
additional charts and printed maps compared to prior reports and we also make the analysis publicly
available in an interactive online map.195 This interactive map shows the census block areas with and
without access to fixed broadband meeting the speed benchmark, indicates rural and non-rural areas, and
identifies Tribal land boundaries and U.S. Territories. This map also includes the demographic analysis
indicated in section 706(c) (i.e., the population, average population density, and average per capita
income) in pop-up screens for each county. The mouse-over also shows the type and percentage of fixed
broadband technology available in each county. Based on our analysis, we find that the broadband
deployment gap remains significant as approximately 19 million Americans lack access to fixed
broadband meeting the speed benchmark and approximately 76 percent of these Americans reside in rural
areas. Americans residing on Tribal lands and in U.S. Territories generally have even less access to fixed
broadband meeting the speed benchmark. We present these results below.
1.

Americans Without Access to Fixed Broadband Meeting the Speed
Benchmark

45.
Table 1 estimates the number of Americans and households without access to fixed
broadband meeting the speed benchmark based upon SBI census block data as of June 30, 2011.196


194 This analysis of rural areas is similar to and builds upon the analysis conducted in the Rural Broadband Update.
See 2011 RURAL BROADBAND UPDATE.
195 See ONLINE SECTION 706 FIXED BROADBAND DEPLOYMENT MAP, available at http://www.fcc.gov/maps/section-
706-fixed-broadband-deployment-map; see also infra App. I.
196 As explained above, our estimate is based upon fixed broadband services. See supra Section IV.B. Our analysis
of the SBI Data estimates the unserved population of each census block by subtracting the population of each served
census block from the total population of each census block. See infra Apps. B (providing a complete description of
underlying data), C (providing a listing by state of the proportion of the state population without access to fixed
broadband); see also infra Apps. D, G. In addition, we have included an interactive online map of the areas without
access to the fixed broadband benchmark. See ONLINE SECTION 706 FIXED BROADBAND DEPLOYMENT MAP,
available at http://www.fcc.gov/maps/section-706-fixed-broadband-deployment-map; see also infra App. I. We
have also included information concerning unserved census blocks on the Commission’s website. See FCC, EIGHTH
BROADBAND PROGRESS REPORT, http://www.fcc.gov/reports/eighth-broadband-progress-report. We provide two
files that can be downloaded: (1) a zip file, SBI_noaccess_3_768June2011.zip (containing a csv file with data about
each census block without access to the fixed broadband benchmark) and (2) a README file. For each census
block without access, the csv file includes: (1) the fips code identifying the census block; (2) the American Indian
Area Alaska Native Area Hawaiian Home Land Class Code identifying whether the census block is a Tribal land;
(3) the Tribe categorization used in this report; (4) a rural dummy variable designating whether the census block is
in a rural area; and (5) the population within the census block without access to fixed broadband benchmark. The
README file includes instructions on how to examine the file, the names of the variables, and the characteristics of
each variable.
28

Federal Communications Commission

FCC 12-90

Table 1

Americans and Households Without Access to Fixed Broadband Meeting the Speed Benchmark

All Americans

Americans

All American

Households

(Millions)

Without Access

Households

Without Access

(Millions / %)
(Millions)
(Millions / %)
315.9
19.0 / 6.0%
119.2
7.0 / 5.9%
46.
As Table 1 indicates, we find that approximately 19 million Americans living in 7 million
households lack access to fixed broadband meeting our speed benchmark. This means roughly one out of
seventeen Americans—6 percent—still lack access to fixed broadband meeting the speed benchmark.197
2.

Rural Areas Without Access to Fixed Broadband Meeting the Speed
Benchmark

47.
Table 2 identifies the number of Americans residing in rural and non-rural areas that lack
access to fixed broadband meeting the speed benchmark. We rely on the 2010 Census block rural
designations to identify rural and non-rural.198

Table 2

Americans Residing in Rural and Non-Rural Areas

Without Access to Fixed Broadband Meeting the Speed Benchmark

All Americans

Americans

Percentage of Americans

(Millions / %)

Without Access

Without Access

(Millions / %)

All Americans

315.9
19.0
6.0%

Americans in Rural Areas

61.0 / 19.3%
14.5 / 76.2%
23.7%

Americans in Non-Rural Areas

254.9 / 80.7%
4.5 / 23.8%
1.8%
48.
Approximately 14.5 million of the 19 million (or 76 percent) Americans without access
to fixed broadband meeting the speed benchmark reside in rural areas. In comparison, 4.5 million of the
19 million (or 24 percent) of Americans living in non-rural areas are without access to these services.199
The percentage of Americans without access in rural areas is 23.7 percent as compared to 1.8 percent in
non-rural areas. These figures indicate that nearly one in four rural Americans lack access to fixed
broadband meeting our speed benchmark. These data reflect that rural Americans are more than thirteen
times more likely to lack access to fixed broadband than Americans in non-rural areas.200
3.

Tribal Lands Without Access to Broadband Meeting the Speed Benchmark

49.
Table 3 identifies the number of Americans residing on Tribal lands that lack access to
fixed broadband meeting the speed benchmark. Our assessment of Tribal lands is conducted by
examining the census blocks that have been identified by the U.S. Census Bureau (Census Bureau) as


197 We note that it is possible that the Americans unserved by fixed broadband may have access to mobile and/or
satellite broadband. But given our concerns with the mobile and satellite data as discussed above, we are unable to
conduct this assessment. See supra Section IV.B.
198 See infra App. B.
199 In this report, the designation of a census block as rural is based upon the 2010 Census. See id.
200 See infra App. C (providing the population residing in rural areas of each state and the proportion of the rural
population without access to fixed broadband meeting the benchmark).
29

Federal Communications Commission

FCC 12-90

federally recognized Tribal lands for the 2010 Census.201

Table 3

Americans Residing on Tribal Lands

Without Access to Fixed Broadband Meeting the Speed Benchmark

All Americans

Americans

Percentage of Americans

(Millions / %)

Without Access

Without Access

(Millions / %)

All Americans

315.9
19.0
6.0%

Americans Residing on Tribal Lands

3.9 / 1.2%
1.1 / 5.9%
29.0%
50.
Approximately 29 percent of Americans residing on Tribal lands are without access to
fixed broadband meeting the speed benchmark compared to only 6 percent of Americans overall.202 The
percentage of unserved Americans living on Tribal lands is approximately five times the national average.
51.
Table 4 identifies the number of Americans residing on Tribal lands in rural and non-
rural areas that lack access to fixed broadband meeting the speed benchmark.203

Table 4

Americans Residing on Tribal Lands

Without Access to Fixed Broadband Meeting the Speed Benchmark

All Tribal

Americans Residing

Percentage of Americans

Lands

on Tribal Lands

Residing on Tribal Lands

(Millions / %)

Without Access

Without Access

(Millions / %)

All Tribal Lands

3.9
1.1
29.0%

Tribal Lands in Rural Areas

2.0 / 50.7%
1.0 / 86.5%
49.5%

Tribal Lands in Non-Rural

1.9 / 49.3%
0.2 / 13.5%
7.9%

Areas

52.
Nearly 50 percent of Americans residing on Tribal lands in rural areas lack access to
fixed broadband meeting the speed benchmark, compared to only 6 percent of Americans overall.204 The
percentage of unserved Americans living on Tribal lands in rural areas is more than eight times the
national average.
53.
In Table 5 we disaggregate these data for all federally recognized Tribal lands into four
groups and identify for each group the number of Americans without access to fixed broadband meeting
the speed benchmark. For purposes of this report, we disaggregate all federally recognized Tribal groups
into the four groupings: (1) Tribal Lands in the Lower 48 States, (2) Alaskan Village Areas, (3) Tribal


201 See infra App. B.
202 Id. (defining Tribal lands), App. E (reporting, by state, the number of Americans residing on Tribal lands without
access to the fixed broadband meeting the benchmark). See also ONLINE SECTION 706 FIXED BROADBAND
DEPLOYMENT MAP, http://www.fcc.gov/maps/section-706-fixed-broadband-deployment-map.
203 The subcategories for the column “Americans residing on Tribal Lands Without Access” do not sum to 1.1 due to
rounding.
204 See infra App. F (reporting the number of Americans residing on Tribal lands by American Indian Area, Alaska
Native Area, and Hawaiian Home Land Class Code and disaggregating the Tribal land data between rural and non
rural areas).
30

Federal Communications Commission

FCC 12-90

Statistical Areas, and (4) Hawaiian Home Lands.205

Table 5

Americans Residing on Tribal Lands

Without Access to Fixed Broadband Meeting the Speed Benchmark

(Millions)

Americans Residing

Percentage of Americans

on Tribal Lands

Residing on Tribal Lands

Without Access

Without Access

(Millions)

All Tribal Lands

3.9
1.1
29.0%

Tribal Lands in the Lower 48

1.1
0.5
48.2%

States
Alaskan Village Areas

0.2
0.1
39.5%

Tribal Statistical Areas

2.5
0.5
20.4%

Hawaiian Home Lands

0.0308
0.0001
0.4%
54.
Access to fixed broadband can vary significantly among the different groups on Tribal
lands.206 More than 48 percent of Americans residing on Tribal Lands in the Lower 48 States lack access
to fixed broadband meeting our speed benchmark compared to less than 1 percent of Americans residing
on Hawaiian Home Lands.
4.

U.S. Territories Without Access to Broadband Meeting the Speed
Benchmark

55.
Table 6 identifies the number of Americans residing in U.S. Territories that lack access to
fixed broadband meeting the speed benchmark.207

Table 6

Americans Residing in the U.S. Territories

Without Access to Fixed Broadband Meeting the Speed Benchmark

All Americans

Americans

Percentage of Americans

(Millions / %)

Without Access

Without Access

(Millions / %)

All Americans

315.9
19.0
6.0%

Americans Residing in the U.S.

4.1 / 1.3%
2.2 / 11.6%
54.0%

Territories

56.
Approximately 54 percent of Americans residing in U.S. Territories are without access to


205 See infra App. B (defining the Tribal lands categories). The categories we use for purposes of this report fall into
one of the categories of the American Indian Area Alaska Native Area Hawaiian Home Land Class Code
(AIANHHCC). We aggregate these Tribal lands categories into 4 groups: Tribal Lands in the Lower 48 States
(AIANHHCC Areas 1 through 4); Tribal Statistical Areas (AIANHHCC Area 5); Alaskan Village Areas
(AIANHHCC Area 6) and Hawaiian Home Lands (AIANHHCC Area 7). We note that the Tribal Statistical Areas
are largely in Oklahoma, but they also include areas in California, New York, and Washington.
206 The overarching goal of the Hawaiian Homes Commission Act is to establish Hawaiian Home Lands and to
provide homesteading opportunities for Native Hawaiians, and to advance related economic development purposes.
See Hawaiian Homes Commission Act, ch. 42, 42 Stat. 108 (1921), as amended.
207 The U.S. Territories are American Samoa, Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands, Guam, Puerto Rico,
and United States Virgin Islands. See infra Apps. C, D.
31

Federal Communications Commission

FCC 12-90

fixed broadband meeting the speed benchmark compared to only 6 percent of Americans overall. The
percentage of unserved Americans living in U.S. Territories is approximately nine times the national
average.
5.

Americans Without Access Between June 2010 to June 2011

57.
This year’s report relies on SBI Data as of June 30, 2011 and last year’s report relied on
SBI Data as of June 30, 2010. Thus, we are able to report the change in unserved Americans from June
2010 to June 30, 2011. Table 7 compares the change in one year for the following three speed categories:
768 kbps/200 kbps; 3 Mbps/768 kbps; and 6 Mbps/1.5 Mbps.

Table 7

Americans Without Access to Fixed Broadband

From June 30, 2010 to June 30, 2011

Amended June 2010208

June 2011

(Millions)
(Millions)
768 kbps/200 kbps
16.0
9.6
3 Mbps/768 kbps
26.4
19.0
6 Mbps/1.5 Mbps
62.6
48.3
58.
The number of Americans without access to fixed broadband meeting the speed
benchmark has declined from 26 million in June 30, 2010 to 19 million in June 30, 2011. As we
explained in the last report,209 the SBI Data as of June 30, 2010 was the first collection and with any new
collection “some misinterpretation of reporting instructions can be expected whenever a new data
collection is implemented.”210 While a variety of factors contributed to the decrease in the number of
unserved Americans, significant factors likely include: (1) an increase in the number of providers
submitting or correcting data about the services they offer;211 (2) providers reporting expanded broadband
deployment; and (3) providers reporting higher-speed broadband services (i.e., services above the speed
benchmark in areas where they had offered only lower-speed services previously).212
6.

Broadband Deployment By Technology

59.
Chart 1 reports the percentage of Americans with access to fixed broadband meeting the
speed benchmark by technology.


208 While the Commission, in the last report, estimated the number of unserved for SBI Data as of June 30, 2010 was
26,160,339, due to an internal calculation error, the estimate should have been 26,393,806 unserved Americans. 2011
Seventh Broadband Progress Report
, 26 FCC Rcd at 8051. We underestimated the number of unserved Americans in
the last report by 231,422 or 0.2 million. The SBI Data as of June 30, 2010 was amended to correct for this error.
209 Id. at 8078, App. F.
210 Id. at 8078, 8082, para. 8, App. F.
211 The total number of new providers submitting data in June 2011 was 540.
212 Determining the precise contribution of each of the three factors would require making assumptions about where
in a census block homes are located because the SBI Data as of June 30, 2011 were reported using a different set of
geographies (2010 Census) than the SBI Data as of June 30, 2010 (which used 2000 census areas). In addition, there
are a number of areas where providers reported smaller footprints that meet the benchmark—areas that moved from
“served” to “unserved” between the June 2010 and June 2011 data sets. These reductions presumably corrected
prior overstatements of either speed or the footprint.
32

Federal Communications Commission

FCC 12-90

Chart 1

Households With Access to the

Fixed Broadband Speed Benchmark by Technology

Any Fi xed

Cable

DSL

Fixed Wireless

Other Copper

Fi ber

0%
20%
40%
60%
80%
100%
60.
Overall, more than 94 percent of Americans have access to fixed broadband meeting the
speed benchmark. Cable providers continue to report the largest coverage area (85 percent) followed by
DSL providers (79 percent).
7.

Section 706 Fixed Broadband Deployment Map

61.
In conjunction with this report, for the first time, we have created an interactive online
map that shows the census block areas of the United States with and without access to fixed broadband
meeting the speed benchmark.213 The map also indicates rural and non-rural areas, and identifies the
Tribal land boundaries. The map allows visitors to view the demographic analysis indicated in section
706(c) (i.e., population, population density, and per capita income) in “mouse over” pop-up windows for
each county. The mouse-over also shows the type and percentage of fixed broadband technology
available in each county. We have also attached a printed version of this map in Appendix I.214
8.

Demographic Analysis of the Areas Without Access to Broadband Meeting
the Speed Benchmark

62.
We provide a demographic analysis of the areas without access to fixed broadband
meeting the speed benchmark and report, as required by section 706(c), the average population, average
population density (pop./sq. mi.) and average per capita income.215 We also provide further analysis by
examining these demographics in served and unserved Non-Urban areas and Tribal land areas. We also
conduct other demographic analysis of the areas by considering whether there are significant statistical


213 See ONLINE SECTION 706 FIXED BROADBAND DEPLOYMENT MAP, http://www.fcc.gov/maps/section-706-fixed-
broadband-deployment-map; see also infra App. I. The SBI Data used to create this map are the same data used to
create and update the National Broadband Map. NATIONAL BROADBAND MAP, http://broadbandmap.gov/. We also
note that the SBI Data used for the online map is the same data relied upon in the report except the online map is
based on population and housing units and the report estimates are based on population and households. See infra
App. B.
214 See infra App. I.
215 47 U.S.C. § 1302(c) (directing the Commission to determine the population, the population density, and the
average per capita income for unserved areas to the extent that Census Bureau data are available).
33

Federal Communications Commission

FCC 12-90

differences in the median household income, proportion of population living in poverty, education level,
and racial composition of these areas compared to areas with access to these services.
63.
To complete the demographic analysis in this section, we aggregate the SBI Data up to
the census tract level. As noted above, the SBI Data is collected by census block, the smallest geographic
unit reported by the Census Bureau.216 Household income data as well as other demographic information,
however, are not reported at the census block level. Therefore, we conduct our analysis based upon
census tract level data. Because areas that lack access to broadband generally are smaller than a census
tract, many census tracts are partially served and partially unserved. For purposes of this analysis, a
census tract is categorized as “Census Tracts Without Full Access” if any of the census blocks within the
census tract are without full access.217 We compare demographic data for census tracts in which some of
the residents lack access to fixed broadband meeting the speed benchmark to census tracts in which all
residents have access to fixed broadband meeting the speed benchmark. This approach is conservative
because some of the census tracts classified as without access to fixed broadband meeting the speed
benchmark have only a small area that lacks access to fixed broadband meeting the speed benchmark.
64.
Instead of reporting demographic results for rural and non-rural as we did above, we
report results for Urban and Non-Urban areas.218 The Census Bureau defines Urban and Non-Urban at the
census tract level and we must therefore rely on these definitions rather than the rural definition to
conduct our demographic analysis. The 2010 Census classifies a census tract as part of the “Urban core”
if it is smaller than 3 square miles and has a population density of at least 1,000 people per square mile.219
All other census tracts are “Non-Urban.”
65.
We report results for three groups of federally recognized Tribal lands: (1) Tribal Lands
in the Lower 48 States, (2) Alaskan Village Areas, and (3) Tribal Statistical Areas.220 We do not
separately report information for Hawaiian Home Lands, as we did above, because there are too few
observations for the statistical analysis.221 We use the same approach we used last year and designate a
census tract as Tribal land if at least 50 percent of the land area within the census tract is Tribal land.222
66.
Finally, we conduct hypothesis testing at the 95 percent confidence level to determine if
there is a significant difference in the demographics between areas without access to fixed broadband
meeting the speed benchmark and areas with access to these services. A star (*) indicates that there is a
statistically significant difference in the mean for the demographic being examined.
a.

Demographics Required by Statute of the Unserved Areas
(Population, Population Density, and Per Capita Income)

67.
Table 8 reports the average population, average population density (pop./sq. mi.), and
average per capita income for served and unserved areas.223


216 See infra App. B.
217 See 2011 Seventh Broadband Progress Report, 26 FCC Rcd at 8082, para. 9 (using this same analysis).
218 See supra tbl. 2.
219 Department of Commerce, Urban Area Criteria for the 2010 Census, Part II, Docket Number 1107143893-1393-
01, Notice of Final Program Criteria, 76 Fed. Reg. 53030, 53040 (Aug. 24, 2011).
220 See infra App. B.
221 Id.
222 2011 Seventh Broadband Progress Report, 26 FCC Rcd at 8038, para. 60.
223 See 47 U.S.C. § 1302(c); see also infra App. B. As part of our section 706(c) inquiry, we must compile a list of
geographical areas that are not served by broadband and determine for each unserved area, the average population,
average population density (pop./sq. mi.), and average per capita income. Appendix D provides demographic
(continued….)
34

Federal Communications Commission

FCC 12-90

Table 8

Comparison of Census Tracts Without Full Access to Fixed Broadband Meeting the Speed Benchmark

to Census Tracts With Full Access to Fixed Broadband Meeting the Speed Benchmark

Areas (Census Tracts)

Average

Average

Average Per

Population

Population Density

Capita Income

(pop./sq. mi.)
($2010)

Census Tracts Without Access (25,268)

4,427.6*
925.0*
$24,519*

Census Tracts With Access (47,953)

4,173.9
7,557.3
$28,324
68.
Census tracts without access to fixed broadband meeting the speed benchmark tend to
have statistically significantly higher average population, lower population densities, and lower average
per capita incomes than areas with access to these services.224
b.

Demographics of Non-Urban Areas

69.
Table 9 compares the demographic data for Non-Urban areas with and without access to
fixed broadband meeting the speed benchmark.225

Table 9

Comparison of Non-Urban Areas With Full Access to Fixed Broadband Meeting the Speed Benchmark

to Non-Urban Areas Without Full Access to Fixed Broadband Meeting the Speed Benchmark

Non-Urban Areas (Census Tracts)

Average

Average

Average Per

Population

Population Density

Capita Income

(pop./sq. mi.)
($2010)

Census Tracts Without Access (21,068)

4,479.8*
269.6*
$24,517*

Census Tracts With Access (10,252)

4,854.8
800.2
$30,583
70.
Non-Urban census tracts without access to fixed broadband meeting the speed benchmark
have a lower average population, population density, and per capita income than Non-Urban areas with
access to fixed broadband meeting the speed benchmark, and the differences are all statistically
significant.226 These results are consistent with our prior findings in the last two reports.227
(Continued from previous page)


information for counties with unserved Americans. See infra App. D. The number of observations reported in these
tables is determined by the statistical test with the least observations. For example, while population is available for
all 74,134 census tracts included in this analysis, per capita income is available only for 73,221 of the 74,134 census
tracts. Specifically, per capita income is available only for 47,953 census tracts with full access and 25,268 census
tracts without full access.
224 We note that the average population densities shown are the average of the population densities of the census
tracts for the category. They are not the “overall population densities” (i.e., the total served population in the
category divided by total land area for the category). The overall population density for areas without access is 33.8
people per square mile compared to 995.1 people per square mile for areas with access to fixed broadband meeting
the benchmark. We note that our findings with respect to average population may be a result that most of the census
tracts without access are in rural areas and tend to be very large.
225 See infra App. B.
226 We find that the “overall population density” is 28.4 people per square mile in non-Urban areas without access to
fixed broadband meeting the benchmark compared to 300.5 people per square mile in non-Urban areas with access
to these services. See supra note 224 (explaining “overall population density”).
227 See, e.g., 2011 Seventh Broadband Progress Report, 26 FCC Rcd at 8023, para. 38.
35

Federal Communications Commission

FCC 12-90

c.

Demographics of Tribal Lands

71.
Table 10 compares the demographic data for Tribal land with and without access to fixed
broadband meeting the speed benchmark.228

Table 10

Comparison of Tribal Lands Without Full Access to Fixed Broadband Meeting the Speed Benchmark

to Tribal Lands With Full Access to Fixed Broadband Meeting the Speed Benchmark

Federally Recognized Tribal Lands (Census Tracts)

Average

Average

Average

Population

Population

Per Capita

Density

Income

(pop./sq. mi.)
($2010)

Tribal Lands in the Lower 48 States Without Access (216)

3,514.9
118.7*
$17,004*

Tribal Lands in the Lower 48 States With Access (45)

3,408.6
1,589.9
$26,700

Alaskan Village Areas Without Access (24)

4,584.2
128.8*
$27,707

Alaskan Village Areas With Access (10)

3,652.1
708.1
$27,853

Tribal Statistical Areas Without Access (370)

3,830
235.9*
$20,653*

Tribal Statistical Areas With Access (310)

3,634
2,200.0
$24,175

72.
Generally, the three Tribal land categories without access to fixed broadband meeting the
speed benchmark have lower population density and lower average per capita income than areas with
access to these services. We note that some of these findings may not be statistically significant because
of a small sample size or because many of the census tracts designated as Tribal lands include non-Tribal
land areas.
d.

Other Demographic Measures (Median Household Income, Poverty
Rate, Education, and Race)

73.
We consider whether areas with and without access to fixed broadband meeting the speed
benchmark have statistically significant differences with respect to median household income, poverty
rate, the proportion of the population with a college degree, and the proportion of the population that
identifies as “White Only.”229 We report this demographic information for: (1) all Americans; (2)
Americans residing in Non-Urban areas; and (3) Americans residing on federally recognized Tribal lands.
We discuss each category below. The results of this analysis suggests that census tracts without access to
fixed broadband meeting the speed benchmark are generally Non-Urban and thus tend to be poorer, less
educated, and predominantly “White.”
(i)

All Americans

74.
Table 11 compares the demographic data for all Americans with and without access to
fixed broadband meeting the speed benchmark.


228 See infra App. B.
229 Id.
36

Federal Communications Commission

FCC 12-90

Table 11

Comparison of Census Tracts Without Full Access to Fixed Broadband Meeting the Speed Benchmark

to Census Tracts With Full Access to Fixed Broadband Meeting the Speed Benchmark

All Areas (Census Tracts)

Median

Percentage of

Percentage

Percentage of

Household

Population

of College

Population That

Income

Living in

Educated

Identifies as

($2010)

Poverty

Non-White

Census Tracts Without Access (25,206)

$50,382*
14.8*
29.1%*
17.4%*

Census Tracts With Access (47,821)

$57,633
15.4
37.1%
31.2%
75.
Americans without access to fixed broadband meeting the speed benchmark tend to have
lower median household income, a smaller percentage of the population that live in poverty, a smaller
percentage of college-educated population, and a smaller percentage of the population that self identifies
as non-White than areas with access to these services.230 These differences are statistically significant.
(ii)

Americans Residing in Non-Urban Areas

76.
Table 12 compares the demographic data for served and unserved Non-Urban areas.231

Table 12

Comparison of Non-Urban Census Tracts Without Full Access to Fixed Broadband Meeting the Speed

Benchmark to Non-Urban Census Tracts With Access to Fixed Broadband Meeting the Speed Benchmark

Non-Urban Areas (Census Tracts)

Median

Percentage of Percentage of

Percentage of

Household

Population

College

Population That

Income

Living in

Educated

Identifies as

($2010)

Poverty

Non-White

Census Tracts Without Access (20,998)

$50,909*
14.0%*
28.3%*
14.9%*

Census Tracts With Access (10,088)

$65,700
11.0%
38.2%
18.0%
77.
Comparing the results of Tables 11 and 12 reveals that census tracts without access tend
to be Non-Urban (i.e., most of the tracts without access to fixed broadband are in non-urban areas). In
addition, census tracts without access to fixed broadband meeting the speed benchmark have a
statistically significant smaller median household income, higher proportion of the population living in
poverty, less education, and a smaller proportion of the population that self identifies as non-White than
tracts with access to these services. These trends remain even when accounting for urban and non-urban
population (i.e., when comparing only non-urban areas without access to non-urban areas with access).
(iii)

Americans Residing on Federally Recognized Tribal Lands

78.
Table 13 compares the demographic data for served and unserved Tribal land areas.232


230 Id. (defining variables).
231 Id. (defining Non-Urban areas).
232 Id. (describing the Tribal land categories).
37

Federal Communications Commission

FCC 12-90

Table 13

Comparison of Census Tracts on Tribal Lands That Include Unserved Areas to

Census Tracts on Tribal Lands That Include Only Served Areas

Federally Recognized Tribal Lands

Median

Percentage of

College

Percentage of

(Census Tracts)

Household

Population

Educated

Population That

Income

Living in

Percentage

Identifies as

($2010)

Poverty

Non-White

Tribal Lands in the Lower 48 States

$37,561*
27.4%*
22.1%*
64.4%*

Without Access (226)
Tribal Lands in the Lower 48 States

$45,717
19.9%
32.4%
31.8%

With Access (45)
Alaskan Village Areas Without Access

$60,239
10.5%
29.7%
12.2%*
(24)
Alaskan Village Areas With Access (10)

$64,185
9.4%
29.8%
28.0%

Tribal Statistical Areas Without Access

$42,254*
17.4%
23.6%*
24.9%
(369)
Tribal Statistical Areas With Access

$46,740
16.7%
30.4%
27.0%
(310)
79.
We find mixed results with respect to the three Tribal land categories. Tribal lands
without access to fixed broadband meeting the speed benchmark generally have lower Median Household
Income and less education then areas with access to these services. For Tribal lands in the Lower 48
States, we find a statistically larger proportion of the population residing in poverty and self-identifying as
Non-White in areas without access as compared to the areas with access. We note that some differences
are not statistically significant. As noted above, this may be the result of the aggregation process that
results in many census tracts including non-Tribal land areas or, in the case of the Alaskan Village Areas,
due to a small number of observations.
e.

Graphical Representation of the Relationship Between Broadband
Deployment and Demographic Characteristics

80.
To provide a graphical representation of the relationship between fixed broadband
deployment and the demographic characteristics that are likely related to deployment, we examine how
the deployment rate233 for fixed broadband meeting the speed benchmark varies with median household
income and population density. We present the results at the county level because summarizing these
data at this level is likely to be more understandable and informative then presenting the results at the
census tract level.
(i)

Broadband Deployment Increases with Median Household
Incomes

81.
As shown in Chart 2, fixed broadband deployment in a county increases significantly
with increases in median household income. Chart 2 uses the format of a boxplot (also known as a box-
and-whiskers plot). We analyze the deployment rate against the quintile ranking for county level median
household income. This chart provides information about how deployment varies by this income


233 The deployment rate is the ratio of population with access to fixed broadband meeting the benchmark to the
population in the area examined. See infra App. G (Overall Fixed Broadband Deployment Rates by State)
(reporting deployment rates for fixed broadband services of at least 768 kbps/200 kbps, 3 Mbps/768 kbps, and 6
Mbps/1.5 Mbps).
38

Federal Communications Commission

FCC 12-90

measure. Each column represents 20% (one fifth) of the counties in the country (i.e., 643 to 644 counties)
with the left-most column representing those counties with the lowest median household income, and the
right-most column representing counties with the highest median household income. The deployment
rate for each group of counties is represented by the box and whiskers. For each quintile:
· the shaded box depicts the range from the 25th to 75th percentiles of deployment rates for
that group of counties;
· the horizontal bar inside each shaded box (that separates each box into two segments)
represents the median deployment rate for that group of counties;
· the plus sign inside each box represents the average deployment rate for that group of
counties; and
· the small un-shaded boxes represent individual observations that are unusually small or
large.234
82.
Summary statistics for the deployment rates associated with each median household
quintile are reported in the chart above the boxplot. By way of illustration, we consider the lowest
median household quintile in the left-most column and the highest median household quintile in the right-
most column. The counties with the lowest median household income (i.e., counties in the lowest quintile
or first quintile) have an average deployment rate of 65.3 percent and a group standard deviation of 28.8.
The 25th percentile deployment rate for these counties is 51.8 percent and the 75th percentile deployment
rate is 88.4 percent. In contrast, the counties with the highest median household income have an average
deployment rate of 88.4 percent and a group standard deviation of 19.1. The 25th percentile deployment
rate for these counties is 86.0 percent and the 75th percentile deployment rate is 99.3 percent. We find a
statistically meaningful difference between the average deployment rates between the lowest and the
highest median household income county groups.


234 The interquartile range is the difference between 75th percentile and the 25th percentile. The notch at the end of
the top “whisker” is located at 1.5 times the interquartile range above the 75th percentile. The notch at the end of
the bottom “whisker” is located at 1.5 times the interquartile range below the 25th percentile.
39

Federal Communications Commission

FCC 12-90

(ii)

Broadband Deployment Increases with Population Density

83.
Our analysis also shows that fixed broadband deployment in a county increases
significantly with increases in population density. Chart 3 is a boxplot of deployment rate against the
quintile ranking for county level population density. Among other things, this chart illustrates that, the
counties with the lowest population density have an average deployment rate of 63.7 percent and a group
standard deviation of 29.4. The 25th percentile deployment rate for these counties is 49.0 percent and the
75th percentile deployment rate is 86.3 percent. In contrast, the counties with the highest population
density have an average deployment rate of 90.5 percent and group standard deviation of 22.9. The 25th
percentile deployment rate for these counties is 95 percent and the 75th percentile deployment rate is 99.7
percent. We find a statistically meaningful difference between the average deployment rates between the
lowest and the highest population density county groups.
84.
The results of Charts 2 and 3 suggest that, at the county level, there is wide variability in
deployment rates across measures of income and population density. These charts also show that
variability in deployment rates is greater for lower values of median household income and population
density than for higher values of these demographics. This can be seen by the steady increase in the
summary statistics (i.e., average, median, percentile), and the steady reduction in the interquartile range
(the difference between the 25th and 75th percentile figures) and the group standard deviation, as one
compares columns from the left to the right).
40

Federal Communications Commission

FCC 12-90

9.

Mobile Deployment and Trends

85.
The deployment estimates above do not include mobile wireless services. In this section,
we provide estimates of mobile wireless broadband deployment between June 30, 2010 and June 30,
2011, and rely on SBI Data and/or Mosaik Data to gain insight into the effect of these different data
sources on the estimate of Americans without access.235 We believe it is important to report these
estimates given the growth of mobile deployment in recent years and the ability of providers to offer
consumers much higher speeds.236 The growing impact and demand for mobile services is significant,
and we report estimates of mobile deployment to help ensure a comprehensive picture of what services
are available to Americans.
86.
SBI Mobile Broadband Trends. Table 14 reports the number of Americans without
access to mobile broadband services between June 30, 2010 and June 30, 2011. We compare the change
for the three speed categories, at least 768 kbps/200 kbps, at least 3 Mbps/768 kbps and at least 6 Mbps/
1.5 Mbps.


235 For purposes of the analysis in this section, we refer to the services as mobile broadband. See supra Section
IV.B.
236 Id.
41

Federal Communications Commission

FCC 12-90

Table 14

Americans Without Access to Mobile Services

SBI Data From June 30, 2010 to June 30, 2011

Amended June 2010

June 2011

(Millions / %)
(Millions / %)

At Least 768 kbps/200 kbps

15.4 / 5.0%
5.1 / 1.6%

At Least 3 Mbps/768 kbps

66.4 / 21.4%
19.7 / 6.2%

At Least 6 Mbps/1.5 Mbps

232.3 / 74.8%
104.5 / 33.1%
87.
Based upon SBI Data, the number of Americans without access to mobile broadband at
the 3 Mbps/768 kbps speed declined significantly between June 2010 and June 2011.237 As we explained
above, we have concerns that the SBI Data estimates of mobile deployment are likely overstated.238 In
the SBI Data, providers do not distinguish between coverage by the previously deployed, slower mobile
technologies (CDMA EV-DO/EV-DO Rev A or WCDMA/HSPA) that likely do not meet the speed
benchmark and coverage by the more recently deployed, higher-speed technologies (LTE, mobile
WiMax, and HSPA+) that are more likely to meet the speed benchmark.239
88.
SBI Data and Mosaik Fixed and Mobile Deployment Estimates. We report the
deployment estimates for mobile broadband services drawn from SBI and Mosaik Data individually and
together. In this report, for the first time, we present results combining both fixed and mobile. In the
recent USF/ICC Transformation Order, the Commission indicated that it is working to ensure that
Americans have access to both fixed and mobile broadband. The Commission stated that it sought to
“ensure that robust, affordable voice and broadband service, both fixed and mobile, are available to
Americans throughout the nation.”240 Using both SBI Data and Mosaik Data, we consider whether
Americans have access to: (1) a fixed broadband service; (2) a mobile broadband service; (3) a fixed or a
mobile service; and (4) a fixed and a mobile broadband service, each meeting the 3 Mbps/768 kbps speed
benchmark.
89.
The top portion of Table 15 reports estimates of the number of Americans without access,
based only upon SBI Data. The remainder of Table 15 reports estimates of the number of Americans
without access based upon SBI Data for fixed and Mosaik Data for mobile services.241 We noted above
that we have concerns with the SBI Data to estimate mobile deployment.242 We also have concerns that
the Mosaik Data estimates may overstate deployment.243 While the Mosaik Data provide an estimate of
deployment by technology, including LTE, mobile WiMax, and HSPA+, the speeds delivered by these
technologies can vary depending on the version of the technology deployed, the configuration of the
network, the amount of spectrum used, and the type of backhaul connection to the cell site.244 Because
HSPA+ speeds are particularly dependent on these variables and may or may not meet the speed


237 We use 3 Mbps/768 kbps as our proxy for 4 Mbps/1 Mbps. Id.
238 Id.
239 Id; 2011 Seventh Broadband Progress Report, 26 FCC Rcd at 8023, para. 26.
240 USF/ICC Transformation Order, 26 FCC Rcd at 17667, para. 1.
241 See supra Section IV.B. We note that because these Mosaik Data provide an estimate of deployment based on
the type of technology, we must infer speed by technology. As explained above, various technologies may or may
not meet the broadband benchmark. Id. We recognize that this is an imperfect approximation of deployment.
242 Id.
243 Id.
244 Id.
42

Federal Communications Commission

FCC 12-90

benchmark, as discussed above,245 our results below first exclude and then include HSPA+.

Table 15

Americans Without Access to Broadband Meeting the Speed Benchmark

Technology and Data Source

Americans

Percentage

Without Access

Without Access

(Millions)

Number of Americans Without Access (SBI Data)

Fixed Broadband (SBI)

19.0
6.0%

Mobile Broadband (SBI)

19.7
6.2%

Either Fixed or Mobile Broadband (SBI)

5.5
1.7%

Both Fixed and Mobile Broadband (SBI)

33.1
10.5%

Number of Americans Without Access (SBI Fixed Data and Mosaik Mobile Data)

WiMAX and LTE Technologies


Mobile Broadband (Mosaik)

150.0
47.6%

Either Fixed (SBI) or Mobile (Mosaik) Broadband

17.5
5.5%

Both Fixed (SBI) and Mobile (Mosaik) Broadband

151.5
48.0%
WiMAX, LTE, and HSPA+ Technologies

Mobile Broadband (Mosaik)

94.1
29.8%

Either Fixed (SBI) or Mobile (Mosaik) Broadband

14.2
4.5%

Both Fixed (SBI) and Mobile (Mosaik) Broadband

98.8
31.3%
90.
The number of Americans without access varies depending on the data source and
methodology used. For example, based upon the SBI Data, we estimate that 19.7 million Americans are
unserved by mobile wireless data services at the 3 Mbps/768 kbps speed benchmark. In contrast, the
Mosaik Data suggest that the number of Americans unserved by such mobile services at the 3 Mbps/768
kbps speed benchmark ranges from 94 million to over 150 million, depending upon whether the HSPA+
technology is excluded or included in the analysis. In general, because many carriers report that the
previously-deployed mobile technologies—including CDMA EV-DO/EV-DO Rev A or
WCDMA/HSPA—are capable of meeting the speed benchmark in the SBI Data, our estimates of
Americans without access to broadband are greater with the Mosaik Data than with the SBI Data.246 The
Mosaik Data excluding HSPA+ may also overstate the number of unserved as compared to the Mosaik
Data including HSPA+.247 Finally, the number of unserved Americans increases regardless of the data
source when estimating the population without access to both fixed and mobile broadband service. For
example, the number of Americans without access to both fixed and mobile broadband service would
range from 33.1 million to 151.5 million depending upon the data source used for mobile deployment.
10.

Section 706 Mobile Deployment Map

91.
We have created an interactive online map, that shows, based on SBI Data, the census
block areas of the United States with and without access to mobile services at 768 kbps/200 kbps services


245 Id.
246 Id.
247 Id.
43

Federal Communications Commission

FCC 12-90

and services meeting the speed benchmark.248 We have also attached a printed version of this map in
Appendix J.
11.

Next Generation Broadband Services

92.
Higher-speed broadband (10 Mbps and above) is increasingly available in many areas of
the country. We must keep in mind these developments as we assess the current market and project
consumer demand and expectations in the future. For example, cable providers have made much progress
on rolling out DOCSIS 3.0, which is capable of 100 Mbps speeds and even higher speeds.249 And,
Americans continue to demand and subscribe to higher services.250 We will examine in the next Inquiry
whether we should identify multiple speed tiers in these reports to assess the country’s progress toward
our universalization goal, as well as additional goals—such as affordable access to 100 Mbps/50 Mbps to
100 million homes by 2020.251 These higher speeds are important as we have seen that greater bandwidth
allows for greater utilization of higher data speeds by innovators at the edge of the networks, which in
turn drives greater demand and utility of broadband.252 For these reasons, we present the SBI Data as of
June 2011 showing how many Americans are served with fixed broadband for downloads speeds of 10
Mbps, 25 Mbps, 50 Mbps, and 100 Mbps.253

Table 16

Americans With Access to High Speed Broadband Services

All Areas in the U.S. (Millions / %)

10 Mbps Download
282.1 / 89.3%
25 Mbps Download
201.6 / 63.8%
50 Mbps Download
172.8 / 54.7%
100 Mbps Download
85.0 / 26.9%

93.
While the industry is reporting even greater DOCSIS 3.0 deployment capable of 100
Mbps and higher speeds today (approximately 82% of U.S. households), our analysis here is based on
June 2011 SBI Data.254 Cable providers may not offer such high-speed services to consumers for
technical or other reasons yet and deployment of these networks may not be reflected in the June 2011
SBI Data collection. Nevertheless, we anticipate that as consumers demand these higher speeds, we
expect more providers who have deployed DOCSIS 3.0 to offer these next generation services and our


248 See ONLINE SECTION 706 MOBILE DEPLOYMENT MAP, http://www.fcc.gov/maps/section-706-mobile-
deployment-map; see also infra App. J. For purposes of the analysis in this section, we refer to the services as
mobile broadband. This does not affect our concerns that the older mobile technologies do not meet our benchmark
and our decision to exclude mobile wireless services from our deployment estimate. See supra Section IV.B. As
explained above, we exclude mobile services in our deployment estimate due to data consistency and because we are
unable to validate which mobile services meet the benchmark. Id.
249 NCTA DOCSIS DEPLOYMENT; Comcast Press Release (announcing plans to offer a 305 Mbps/65 Mbps service).
250 SECOND MEASURING BROADBAND AMERICA REPORT at 5.
251 See supra Section III.
252 Id. at Section II (discussing Open Internet Order).
253 While we do not report upload speeds here, in the next Inquiry, we will ask parties to identify what multiple
speed tiers in future reports we could adopt to ensure that we remain forward thinking and are prepared to satisfy
future needs as well as immediate demands.
254 See supra Section I; NCTA DOCSIS DEPLOYMENT.
44

Federal Communications Commission

FCC 12-90

deployment estimates of these services to similarly increase in future reports.

D. Broadband Adoption

94.
New Fixed Adoption Rate Methodology. In this report, for the first time, we calculate
fixed broadband adoption rates using both Form 477 data and SBI Data. In the 2011 Seventh Broadband
Progress Report
, we relied solely upon the Form 477 subscription data to estimate fixed adoption,255 but
recognized the limitations of this approach.256 Form 477 Data indicate the number of subscriptions in an
area, but not the number of people who have access to service.257 Accordingly, as the Commission stated,
“we can only calculate a subscription rate (the number of subscriptions as a fraction of the total number of
households) rather than an adoption rate (the number of subscriptions as a fraction of the number of
households who have access to broadband).”258 A simple example may be instructive. Imagine an area
with 20 homes, in which 10 of the homes have access to broadband, and all 10 subscribe to broadband.
The adoption rate in this area would be 100 percent (10 subscriptions in 10 homes that have access). On
the other hand, the subscription rate would be 50 percent (10 subscriptions in 20 homes).
95.
In this report, we combine the Form 477 Data reported at the census tract level with SBI
Data aggregated up to the census tract level, and calculate an adoption rate: the ratio of residential
connections to fixed broadband at a specified level of service quality (i.e., speed) (Form 477 Data)
divided by the total number of households in the area with access to advertised broadband services of that
service quality (SBI Data). We use Form 477 subscription data as a proxy for adoption.259 Our adoption
rate should include all household that subscribe to a residential broadband service. However, this does
not account for households that use services for free at their local library, community center, or a retail
establishment that offers free access to WiFi.
96.
We have insufficient information to calculate an adoption rate for mobile services. Our
adoption rate is a measure of connections to the service divided by the number of households with access
to the service. We believe it is reasonable to assume that households that choose to subscribe to a fixed
service are more than likely to have a single fixed broadband connection. In contrast, we cannot assume
that households that choose to subscribe to a mobile data service have a single mobile connection. Thus,
calculating a mobile adoption rate based upon the Form 477 mobile data would be misleading because the
numerator would be a count of mobile handsets to which a data service is subscribed. This would
overstate adoption of the service because it would include households with multiple mobile handsets
connections.
1.

Broadband Adoption Rates Between June 2010 and June 2011

97.
Table 17 reports adoption rates for fixed broadband services, including services that meet
the speed benchmark, that is, at least 3 Mbps/768 kbps, as well as services with speeds of at least 768


255 See 2011 Seventh Broadband Progress Report, 26 FCC Rcd at 8038, para. 58 (stating that 33 percent of
American households have a connection advertised as being capable of delivering at least 3 Mbps/768 kbps).
256 See id. at 8027, para. 34 n.133 ( “Form 477 subscription data, as currently collected, are also an imperfect
measure of adoption.”); see also id. (adding that “[s]ince these data are collected based on a relatively large
geographical unit—the census tract—the difference between those two figures can be significant. In addition, as
broadband subscriptions grow to include multiple devices at a single location (e.g., a wired and a mobile wireless
connection; or multiple mobile devices in a single home, if analyzing state-level data), the number and rate of
subscriptions would not say much about the fraction of households that have adopted a service. One could find
subscription rates above 100 percent in an area even if many households in that area have not adopted broadband.”).
257 Id.
258 Id.
259 Our adoption rates measure adoption of services at or above the benchmark. See infra App B.
45

Federal Communications Commission

FCC 12-90

kbps/200 kbps and at least 6 Mbps/1.5 Mbps.260

Table 17

Overall Fixed Broadband Adoption Rates for the United States as a Whole

Adoption Rate

Adoption Rate

(June 2010)
(June 2011)

At Least 768 kbps/200 kbps

62.6%
64.0%

At Least 3 Mbps/768 kbps

36.6%
40.4%

At Least 6 Mbps/1.5 Mbps

24.0%
27.6%
98.
These data suggest increases in the adoption of fixed broadband services at all speed
levels between June 2010 and June 2011. The increase is small at the 768 kbps/200 kbps level, but higher
at the higher speeds, including a 10%, year over year increase in speeds of at least 3 Mbps/768 kbps.261
2.

Broadband Adoption Rates in the U.S. Compared to Adoption Rates in Non-
Urban Areas

99.
We examine adoption rates for Urban and Non-Urban areas by comparing the adoption
rate for Americans in these areas to the adoption rate for the United States as a whole (i.e., total
residential subscribers for the group to total served households for the group). Table 18 reports the
overall fixed broadband adoption rates in Urban and Non-Urban areas.


260 The figures in Table 17 are for the United States as a whole. We recognize that the adoption rate as of June 2010
overstates the adoption rate because it is based upon 2009 Geolytics household data to estimate served households.
The June 2011 adoption rate is based upon 2011 Geolytics household data. We report overall adoption rates for
each state. See infra App. H (Overall Fixed Broadband Adoption Rates by State). The adoption rates in Appendix
H are calculated for the state as a whole and include services at or above the particular threshold. “At least 768
kbps/200 kbps” captures the number of Americans that subscribe to a fixed service at that speed or higher.
261 We note the Horrigan, Broadband Adoption and Use in America adoption report and NTIA’s Exploring the
Digital Nation
adoption report provide different adoption estimates of 33 percent and 32 percent, respectively. The
Horrigan study estimated that 67 percent of U.S. households contain a broadband user who accesses the service at
home. Horrigan, Broadband Adoption and Use in America at 3. NTIA reported that, in 2010, more than two-thirds
(68 percent) of all American households utilized broadband Internet access services, up four percentage points (64
percent) from the previous year. ECONOMICS AND STATISTICS ADMINISTRATION & NTIA, EXPLORING THE DIGITAL
NATION: COMPUTER AND INTERNET USE AT HOME 1 (2011) (DIGITAL NATION NOV. 2011), available at
http://www.ntia.doc.gov/files/ntia/publications/exploring_the_digital_nation_computer_and_internet_use_at_home_
11092011.pdf. We note that these data are from surveys of consumers as compared to our adoption rate, which
relies on the Commission’s Form 477 data or carrier-reported subscription data of their broadband services at
particular speeds. We note that consumer surveys might be capturing much slower speeds than the Form 477 data
because the Form 477 data reports that approximately 67 percent of households subscribe to speeds of 200 kbps or
greater. See JUNE 2012 IAS REPORT. This speed benchmark is similar to, for example the Horrigan study (67%)
and similar to the NTIA report (68%).
46

Federal Communications Commission

FCC 12-90

Table 18

Overall Fixed Broadband Adoption Rates in All Urban and Non-Urban Areas

Overall Adoption

Overall Adoption

Overall Adoption

Rate for Fixed

Rate for Fixed

Rate for Fixed

768 kbps/200 kbps
3 Mbps/768 kbps
6 Mbps/1.5 Mbps

All Americans

64.0%
40.4%
27.6%

Americans in All Urban Areas

65.0%
43.0%
30.0%

Americans in All Non-Urban Areas

62.7%
36.8%
24.0%
100.
Our data indicate that the overall adoption rates in Non-Urban areas are lower than the
overall adoption rates in Urban areas.
101.
Table 19 reports the average adoption rate for fixed broadband services in Urban and
Non-Urban areas and reports whether there is a statistically significant difference in the average adoption
rates between these areas.

Table 19

Average Fixed Broadband Adoption Rates in Urban and Non-Urban Census Tracts

(Census Tracts)

Average Adoption

Average Adoption

Average Adoption

Rate for Fixed

Rate for Fixed

Rate for Fixed

768 kbps/200 kbps
3 Mbps/768 kbps
6 Mbps/1.5 Mbps

Urban Census Tracts (41,442)

62.4%*
41.2%*
28.4%*

Non-Urban Census Tracts (29,575)

59.1%
34.2%
21.4%
102.
The data indicate that, on average, the adoption rate for fixed broadband services is
significantly greater in Urban areas than Non-Urban areas for fixed broadband meeting the speed
benchmark.
3.

Broadband Adoption Rates in the U.S. Compared to Adoption Rates on
Tribal Lands

103.
We also compare adoption rates for the United States as a whole to adoption rates on
Tribal lands. We examine the following two categories of federally recognized Tribal lands: (1) the
Tribal Lands in the Lower 48 States and (2) Tribal Statistical Areas.262


262 See infra App. B. We do not separately report Alaskan Village Areas and Hawaiian Home Lands to maintain
firm confidentiality.
47

Federal Communications Commission

FCC 12-90

Table 20

Overall Fixed Broadband Adoption Rates on Tribal Lands

Overall Adoption

Overall Adoption

Overall Adoption

Rate for Fixed

Rate for Fixed

Rate for Fixed

768 kbps/200 kbps
3 Mbps/768 kbps
6 Mbps/1.5 Mbps

All Areas in the United States

64.0%
40.4%
27.6%

All Tribal Land Areas

51.2%
25.9%
19.9%

Tribal Lands in the Lower 48 States

47.1%
32.5%
15.2%

Tribal Statistical Areas

52.0%
23.6%
20.1%
104.
The overall adoption rate for fixed broadband meeting the speed benchmark is lower for
all Tribal land areas than the adoption rate for the United States as a whole.263
105.
Table 21 reports the average adoption rates for fixed broadband services on Tribal lands
to non-Tribal lands and reports whether there is a statistically significant difference in the average
adoption rates between these areas.

Table 21

Average Fixed Broadband Adoption Rates on Tribal and Non-Tribal Lands

(Census Tracts)

Average Adoption

Average Adoption

Average Adoption

Rate for Fixed

Rate for Fixed

Rate for Fixed

768 kbps/200 kbps
3 Mbps/768 kbps
6 Mbps/1.5 Mbps

Non-Tribal Lands (60,460)

61.2%*
38.4%*
25.9%*

Tribal Lands (503)

48.0%
24.8%
16.6%
106.
The analysis indicates that, on average, the adoption rates for fixed broadband meeting
the speed benchmark, as well as other lower speed tiers, are significantly lower on Tribal lands than on
non-Tribal lands.
4.

Broadband Adoption Rates in the U.S. Compared to Adoption Rates in the
U.S. Territories

107.
We also compare adoption rates for the United States as a whole to adoption rates in the
U.S. Territories.264


263 The figures in this table are only those Tribal lands in which at least 50 percent of the land area of the census tract
lies within a Tribal land. We note that our process resulted in only two census tracts being designated as Hawaiian
Home Lands, and we cannot determine if the adoption rate is representative of all the other Hawaiian Home Land
areas. Id.
264 For the U.S. Territories, we do not report adoption rates for 6 Mbps/1.5 Mbps to maintain firm confidentiality.
We do not indicate here whether there is a statistically significant difference in the average adoption rates because
there are too few observations in the U.S. Territories.
48

Federal Communications Commission

FCC 12-90

Table 22

Overall Fixed Broadband Adoption Rates in the U.S. Territories

Overall Adoption Rate for

Overall Adoption Rate for

Fixed 768 kbps/200 kbps

Fixed 3 Mbps/768 kbps

All Areas in the United States

64.0%
40.4%

All U.S. Territories

32.2%
3.1%
108.
The overall adoption rate for fixed broadband meeting the speed benchmark is lower in
the U.S. Territories than the adoption rate for the United States as a whole.
109.
Table 23 reports the average adoption rates for fixed broadband services in the U.S.
Territories and the U.S. as a whole.

Table 23

Average Fixed Broadband Adoption Rates in the U.S. Territories and the U.S. as a Whole

(States)

Average Adoption Rate for

Average Adoption Rate for

Fixed 768 kbps/200 kbps

Fixed 3 Mbps/768 kbps

All Areas in the United States (56)

60.7%
39.5%

All U.S. Territories (5)

35.1%
10.7%
110.
The analysis indicates that, on average, the adoption rate for fixed broadband meeting the
speed benchmark is lower in the U.S. Territories than the U.S. as a whole.
5.

Distribution of County Level Broadband Adoption Rates

111.
Table 24 summarizes the distribution of the county level adoption rates for fixed
broadband meeting the speed benchmark. Adoption rates for each county are ordered from lowest to
highest and divided into five groups (or quintiles). For example, the first quintile row reports the range of
adoption rates for those counties with the lowest adoption rate. For the first quintile, the counties with the
lowest adoption rates ranges from 0.0 percent to 5.2 percent.

Table 24

Overall Fixed Broadband Adoption Rates

Counties

Range of Adoption

Rates

First Quintile—(Counties with the Lowest Adoption Rates or Bottom 20 Percent)

0.0
5.2

Second Quintile

5.2
14.8

Third Quintile

14.8
27.5

Fourth Quintile

27.5
42.9

Fifth Quintile—(Counties with the Highest Adoption Rates or Top 20 Percent)

43.0
100.0
112.
The data show that, in general, the county level adoption rate is fairly low for the bottom
60 percent of counties (the first three quintiles) where the adoption rate is less than 28 percent and, that as
one moves up from the lowest quintile to the highest quintile, the range of adoption rates increases. For
example, the first quintile row reports the range of adoption rates for those counties with the lowest
adoption rate. For the first quintile, the adoption rate for fixed broadband meeting the speed benchmark
or faster speeds ranges is only 5.2 percentage points (0.0–5.2). In contrast, the range of adoption rates for
the top quintile (those counties with the highest fixed broadband adoption rates) is 57 percentage points
49

Federal Communications Commission

FCC 12-90

(43.0–100.0).
a.

Graphical Representation of the Relationship Between Adoption
Rate and Demographic Characteristics

113.
We also examine the relationship between the county level adoption rate for fixed
broadband meeting the speed benchmark and two demographic variables, the county level median
household income and the county level population density. Our analysis shows that the adoption rate in a
county increases with both median household income and population density. We present the results at
the county level because summarizing the data at this level is likely to be more understandable and
informative then presenting the results at the census tract level.
(i)

Adoption Rate Increases with Median Household Income

114.
Chart 4 is a boxplot of the county level adoption rates against the quintile ranking for the
county level median household income. Among other things, this chart shows that the counties with the
lowest median household income have an average adoption rate for fixed broadband meeting the speed
benchmark of 16.6 percent and a group standard deviation of 23.5. For the counties in this quintile, the
25th percentile adoption rate is 1.6 percent and the 75th percentile adoption rate is 22.2 percent. In
contrast, the counties with the highest median household income have an average adoption rate for fixed
broadband meeting the speed benchmark of 41.0 percent and a group standard deviation of 23.5. For the
counties in this quintile (the counties with the highest median household income), the 25th percentile
adoption rate is s 22.6 percent and the 75th percentile adoption rate is 56.1 percent.
50

Federal Communications Commission

FCC 12-90

(ii)

Adoption Rate for Broadband Increases with Population
Density

115.
Our analysis shows that the adoption rate in a county increases with population density.
Chart 5 plots the county level adoption rate against the quintile ranking for the county level population
density. This chart shows that the counties with the lowest population density have an average adoption
rate for fixed broadband meeting the speed benchmark of 20.1 percent and a group standard deviation of
21.9. The 25th percentile adoption rate for these counties is 2.7 percent and the 75th percentile adoption
rate is 31.9 percent. In contrast, the counties with the highest population density have an average
adoption rate of 41.3 percent with a group standard deviation of 24.7. For the counties in the top quintile
of population densities, the 25th percentile adoption rate is 24.5 percent and the 75th percentile is 56.1
percent.
116. The results of Charts 4 and 5 suggest that, at the county level, there is wide variability in
adoption rates across median household income and population density. This can be seen by the increase
in the interquartile range (the difference between the adoption rate between the 25th and 75th percentiles)
as one examines the table from lowest to highest quintile for either median household income or
population density. In addition, the charts illustrate that the variability in adoption rates generally
increases with increases in the county median household income and county population density. Finally,
we find that the average adoption rate for those counties with the highest rank order median household
income group (or population density) is greater than the average adoption rate for those counties in the
lowest rank median household income group (or population density).
51

Federal Communications Commission

FCC 12-90

E. International Broadband Service Capability

117.
Section 1303(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 speed benchmarks
for broadband service utilized by the Commission to reflect different speed tiers.”265 As was the case
with prior reports,266 we are incorporating by reference a report from our International Bureau.267
118.
The 2012 International Broadband Data Report released today found that in 2011, U.S.
investment in wired and wireless network infrastructure rose 24% with current trends showing that
“providers are offering higher speeds, more data under their usage limits, and more advanced technology
in both fixed and mobile broadband.”268 The International Bureau recognized that OECD data ranks the
United States first out of 28 countries in cable modem coverage and Americans “have been quick to adopt
4G LTE technology, securing the United States’ position as the world leader in LTE adoption.”269 The
2012 International Broadband Data Report also found, based on OECD data, the United States ranks 7th
(compared to 9th at the time of the previous report) for wireless (mobile) broadband penetration on a per
capita basis, and ranks 15th (similar to Japan, Finland, and Canada) for wired (e.g., DSL or cable)
broadband penetration on a per capita basis.270 U.S. wired broadband adoption continues to lag behind
such countries as South Korea, the United Kingdom, and Germany, but exceeds adoption rates in Israel,
Australia, and the European Union average.271 With respect to speeds, our review of data on average
actual download speeds reported by a sample of consumers from 38 countries (including the United States
and Hong Kong Special Administrative Region of the People’s Republic of China), finds that the United
States ranks 24th in average actual speeds purchased and experienced by consumers.272 The United States
ranks 17th when based on a stratified sampling technique using weighted average actual download
speed.273 For the first time, the International Bureau took a close look at the broadband prices for both
fixed and mobile service plans around the world, including detailed price information for mobile
broadband plans, broken down by technology (e.g., smartphones, stick modems, and tablets) and found
that U.S. prices for standalone fixed broadband are in the mid-level range in our 38 country survey, but
are higher in higher speed tiers.274 The International Bureau also found the prices per GB of data for
fixed broadband plans with usage limits and for smartphone data plans with usage limits are on the lower


265 47 U.S.C. § 1303(b).
266 See 2011 Seventh Broadband Progress Report, 26 FCC Rcd at 8039, para. 62; International Comparison
Requirements Pursuant to the Broadband Data Improvement Act; International Broadband Data Report
, IB Docket
No. 10-171, Second Report, 26 FCC Rcd 7378, 7395, para. 52 (2011) (2011 International Broadband Data Report),
available at http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-11-732A1_Rcd.pdf; 2010 Sixth Broadband
Progress Report
, 25 FCC Rcd at 9573, para. 27; International Comparison Requirements Pursuant to the
Broadband Data Improvement Act International Broadband Data Report
, GN Docket No. 09-47, First Report, 25
FCC Rcd 11963, 11963, para. 1 (2010).
267 The 2012 International Broadband Data Report explains that the report satisfies the Commission’s obligations
under the BDIA. See 2012 International Broadband Data Report para. 39.
268 Id. para. 2.
269 Id. paras. 2–3.
270 Id. para. 7.
271 Id.
272 Id. para. 8.
273 Id.
274 Id. para. 9.
52

Federal Communications Commission

FCC 12-90

end of the countries we surveyed.275 This international analysis serves as useful benchmark for assessing
our progress in comparison to other nations.

F. Other Indicators of Availability to All Americans

119.
In addition to the considerations discussed above, our inquiry assesses broadband
availability by examining factors such as broadband cost, quality, and adoption.276 While we have access
to what providers advertise for the price of broadband services on their websites, we do not currently have
data sufficient to analyze the prices that consumers in fact pay for broadband, and we are unaware of any
adequate third-party sources that capture this.277 We base our analysis on our adoption rates noted
above278 and, for service quality, on the recent First Measuring Broadband America Report that presents
the results of the Commission’s nationwide study of fixed broadband performance (DSL, cable, and fiber-
to-the-home) and the Commission’s Second Measuring Broadband America Report that provides an
update on the First Measuring Broadband America Report.279
1.

Home Broadband Adoption

120.
Fixed Adoption Rates. In this ever changing global digital economy, access to broadband
has become essential. Americans are now able to use broadband for virtually every aspect of their life,
from communicating with family and friends to obtaining important information about health care and
government services. We find that many services today are increasingly only offered online.280 Our
assessment of adoption rates also gives us reason to be concerned that broadband may not be available to
all Americans. Even though broadband is becoming a necessity of modern life, and the benefits of
broadband are immense and growing rapidly, only 64 percent of American households adopt service


275 Id.
276 See supra Section IV.D.
277 In February 2011, the Commission adopted an NPRM to reform the Commission’s data collection regarding
broadband and local telephone service after more than a decade of rapid innovation in the marketplace for these
services and is contemplating collecting pricing information on broadband services. Modernizing Form 477 NPRM,
26 FCC Rcd 1508. We also note that last year in the 2011 International Broadband Data Report, the International
Bureau collected broadband prices for both fixed and mobile service plans but in this year’s 2012 International
Broadband Data Report
, the International Bureau presents a summary and analysis of fixed and mobile broadband
prices from the United States and other countries. See 2011 International Broadband Data Report, 26 FCC Rcd at
7381, para. 7; 2012 International Broadband Data Report paras. 9, 29–37, Apps. B, C. The 2012 International
Broadband Data Repor
t, however, evaluates advertised prices rather than prices that consumers actually pay.
278 See supra Section IV.D.
279 See generally FIRST MEASURING BROADBAND AMERICA REPORT; SECOND MEASURING BROADBAND AMERICA
REPORT.
280 Some banks are “online only.” See, e.g., ING DIRECT OVERVIEW, http://home.ingdirect.com/about-us (providing
banking throughout the United States and instead of having branches, has eight “cafes” in eight different cities in the
United States). Some encyclopedias are online only. See Joab Jackson, Encyclopedia Britannica Goes Online Only,
COMPUTERWORLD (Mar. 26, 2012), available at
http://www.computerworld.com/s/article/9225506/Encyclopaedia_Britannica_Now_Online_Only; see, e.g.,
WIKIPEDIA: ABOUT, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:About. Online educational opportunities are increasing.
See, e.g., Press Release, MIT, MIT Launches Online Learning Initiative (Dec. 19, 2011), available at
http://web.mit.edu/newsoffice/2011/mitx-education-initiative-1219.html. And those without a home Internet
connection are at a disadvantage when applying for jobs. See WALMART, WELCOME TO THE HIRING CENTER,
https://hiringcenter.walmartstores.com/OnlineHiringCenter/initialPage.jsp (requiring a 30–60 minute online
application that can be saved and returned to later).
53

Federal Communications Commission

FCC 12-90

faster than 768 kbps/200 kbps.281 Significantly fewer American households—only 40 percent—adopt
fixed broadband meeting the speed benchmark.282 The broadband adoption rates for American
households are lower, on average, in the counties with the lowest median household income, in areas
outside of urban areas, on Tribal lands, and in U.S. Territories.283
121.
NTIA’s Broadband Adoption Analysis. An NTIA study of broadband adoption supports
our finding of an adoption gap.284 On October 10, 2011, NTIA published Exploring the Digital Nation,
which presents the results of a broadband adoption survey of 54,300 households.285 For purposes of this
study, NTIA defined broadband as Internet access services faster than dial-up, which includes a number
of services that fall below our speed benchmark.286 NTIA reports that, as of October 2010, more than 68
percent of households used broadband Internet access service, up from 64 percent one year earlier.287
NTIA also found that “[a]pproximately 80 percent of households had at least one Internet user, either at
home or elsewhere.”288
122.
NTIA also reports that demographic and geographic disparities demonstrate a persistent
digital divide among certain groups.289 For example, broadband adoption at home by rural, low-income,
and minorities lagged significantly behind other groups of Americans.290 NTIA stated that “households
with lower incomes and less education, as well as Blacks, Hispanics, people with disabilities, and rural
residents were less likely to have home Internet access service.”291 The results also showed that Asian
households displayed the highest rates of broadband adoption (81 percent), followed by White (72
percent), Hispanic (57 percent), and Black (55 percent) households.292 NTIA noted that Asian households
on average were more likely to have broadband Internet access services than White households.293
Further, households without computers comprised the vast majority of non-adopters of home broadband
Internet access services.294 Income was positively correlated with broadband service subscriptions: the


281 See supra tbl. 17. While we find low broadband adoption rates, the Second Measuring Broadband America
Report
found that, on average, customers subscribed to faster speed tiers in 2012 than in 2011. SECOND MEASURING
BROADBAND AMERICA REPORT at 5.
282 See supra tbl. 17.
283 See supra Chart 5, tbls. 19, 21, 23.
284 DIGITAL NATION NOV. 2011 at 5.
285 NTIA used the terms “adoption,” “use,” “utilization,” “access,” and “connection” interchangeably to indicate that
a household reported having Internet access service. Id. at v n.1; see also supra Section IV.D.1.
286 DIGITAL NATION NOV. 2011 at 5 n.6 (“[a] household with at least one of the following high-speed, high capacity,
two-way Internet services is considered to have broadband: DSL, cable modem, fiber optics, satellite, mobile
broadband, or some other non-dial-up Internet connection.”)
287 Id. at v, 5. NTIA adds that a “[a] shrinking share of home Internet users- about three percent of households in
2010- used dial-up to access the Internet, down from five percent in 2009.” Id. at 5. NTIA also found that a small
share of households (six percent) utilized mobile broadband services at home in 2010. Id. at 7.
288 Id.
289 Id. at ii.
290 Id.
291 Id. at 11. However, differences in socio-economic attributes do not entirely explain why certain racial and ethnic
groups or rural residents lagged in adoption.
292 Id. at 29.
293 Id.
294 Id. at 11.
54

Federal Communications Commission

FCC 12-90

higher the income of the household, the more likely it is to subscribe for broadband service.295
2.

Measuring Broadband America Reports Found that Residential Wireline
Broadband Services Deliver Quality Service and Speeds Reasonably
Commensurate with Advertised Offerings

123.
We include in our section 706(b) inquiry consideration of the quality of broadband
services that are deployed and made available to consumers.296 On August 2, 2011, in the First
Measuring Broadband America Report
, the Commission released results of the first nationwide study of
home residential wireline broadband performance in the United States, using measurement technology
deployed in the consumer’s home.297 The results enable consumers to compare the performance of
different broadband offerings.298 The Commission examined service offerings from 13 of the largest
broadband providers at the time299—which collectively account for approximately 86 percent of all U.S.
wireline broadband connections—using automated, direct measurements of broadband performance
delivered to the homes of thousands of volunteer broadband subscribers from February through June
2011.300 The Commission focused on three technologies—DSL, cable, and fiber-to-the-home—and
broadband performance in three typical speed ranges—less than 3 Mbps, between 3 and 10 Mbps, and
greater than 10 Mbps.301 Measurements for satellite and fixed terrestrial wireless technologies were not
included in the report due to the low number of samples.302 On July 19, 2012, the Commission released
the Second Measuring Broadband America Report that followed the structure of the First Measuring
Broadband America Report
and conducted the same measurements to provide a useful baseline for
comparison.303 In the Second Measuring Broadband America Report, the Commission compares
broadband performance between data collected in March 2011 (data used and released in the First


295 Id. at 12 (showing that 93 percent of households with incomes of over $100,000 subscribe to broadband service;
whereas, only 43 percent of households that have less than $25,000 subscribe to a broadband service).
296 See 2011 Seventh Broadband Progress Report, 26 FCC Rcd at 8021, para. 19 (“Broadband service that is not, for
example, of a quality sufficient to enable high-quality voice, data, image, graphics, and video telecommunications
services does not satisfy these goals. This history closely accords with the goals of the BDIA, which recently
amended section 706, and emphasizes Congress’s interest in the cost, quality and adoption of broadband.” (footnotes
omitted)).
297 See FIRST MEASURING BROADBAND AMERICA REPORT at 3.
298 See id. at 3.
299 The First Measuring Broadband America Report indicates that the participating ISPs were: AT&T (DSL);
Cablevision (cable); CenturyLink (DSL); Charter (cable); Comcast (cable); Cox (cable); Frontier (DSL); Mediacom
(cable); Insight (cable); Qwest (DSL); TimeWarner (cable); Verizon (DSL and fiber-to-the-home); and Windstream
(DSL). See id. at 31 n.10. Since the report, two of these providers—Qwest and CenturyLink—have merged. See
Applications Filed by Qwest Communications International Inc. and CenturyTel, Inc. d/b/a CenturyLink for Consent
to Transfer Control
, WC Docket No. 10-110, Memorandum Opinion and Order, 26 FCC Rcd 4194 (2011)
(CenturyLink/Qwest Merger).
300 To do this, the Commission used measurement technology deployed in these volunteers’ homes. See FIRST
MEASURING BROADBAND AMERICA REPORT at 3.
301 Id. at 10. To account for network variances across the United States, volunteers were recruited from the four
Census Regions: Northeast, Midwest, South, and West. These speed ranges were chosen to provide alignment with
broadband tiers as categorized in the “Form 477” reports that the Commission uses as its primary tool for collecting
data about broadband networks and services. Id. at 33 n.26.
302 Id. at 33 n.25; see also FCC, Raw Bulk Data 2011—Measuring Broadband America Report,
http://www.fcc.gov/measuring-broadband-america/raw-bulk-data-2011#rawbulk (providing links to the raw data
sets, which includes the results from the satellite and fixed terrestrial wireless technologies).
303 SECOND MEASURING BROADBAND AMERICA REPORT at 8.
55

Federal Communications Commission

FCC 12-90

Measuring Broadband America Report) with data collected in April 2012.304 The Commission found that
accurate delivery of advertised performance by ISPs has improved overall since the last report.305 Below,
we highlight the Commission’s findings.
124.
Actual Speeds. The results of the First Measuring Broadband America Report indicate
that most of the broadband providers studied deliver actual speeds that are generally 80 percent to 90
percent of advertised speeds or better, although performance varies by technology and service provider.306
These results are significantly better than those of the 2010 OBI Broadband Performance study,
conducted pursuant to the 2010 National Broadband Plan, which found actual speeds were roughly 50
percent of those advertised.307 The First Measuring Broadband America Report found that even during
peak usage periods—between 7:00 pm and 11:00 pm on weeknights, when more home users are online
and service quality declines—most major broadband providers deliver actual speeds that are at least 80
percent of advertised speeds.308 The report also found that, while there are some differences between
technologies, DSL, cable, and fiber-to-the-home all are delivering quality service generally consistent
with the speeds advertised.309 The Second Measuring Broadband America Report found that ISP
performance has improved with ISPs delivering on average 96 percent of advertised speeds during peak
intervals, and with five ISPs routinely meeting or exceeding advertised rates.310
125.
Download Speeds/Upload Speeds. The First Measuring Broadband America Report
found that on average, during peak periods, DSL-based services delivered download speeds that were 82
percent of advertised speeds, cable-based services delivered 93 percent of advertised speeds, and fiber-to-
the-home services delivered 114 percent of advertised speeds.311 The Second Measuring Broadband
America Report
found that all technologies improved, concluding that on average, during peak periods,
DSL-based services delivered download speeds that were 84 percent of advertised speeds, cable-based
services delivered 99 percent of advertised speeds, and fiber-to-the-home services delivered 117 percent
of advertised speeds.312
126.
The First Measuring Broadband America Report found that the peak period speeds were
lower than 24-hour average speeds313 by 0.4 percent for fiber-to-the-home services, 5.5 percent for DSL-
based services, and 7.3 percent for cable-based services.314 In comparison, the Second Measuring
Broadband America Report
found that peak period speeds were lower than 24-hour average speeds by 0.8


304 Id. at 4, 14.
305 Id. at 4–5.
306 Press Release, FCC, FCC Unveils New Research That Measured Broadband Performance; Continues Consumer
Empowerment Campaign To Help Americans Choose The Right Broadband Service Package At Home (Feb. 17,
2011), available at http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-308834A1.pdf; FIRST MEASURING
BROADBAND AMERICA REPORT at 26–27.
307 2010 OBI BROADBAND PERFORMANCE at 12; 2010 NATIONAL BROADBAND PLAN at 21; see also FIRST
MEASURING BROADBAND AMERICA REPORT at 4.
308 FIRST MEASURING BROADBAND AMERICA REPORT at 4, 18.
309 Id. at 18–21.
310 SECOND MEASURING BROADBAND AMERICA REPORT at 10.
311 FIRST MEASURING BROADBAND AMERICA REPORT at 4.
312 SECOND MEASURING BROADBAND AMERICA REPORT at 10.
313 FIRST MEASURING BROADBAND AMERICA REPORT at 32 n.18 (stating that a 24-hour average was computed each
day and then averaged over Monday through Sunday).
314 Id. at 4.
56

Federal Communications Commission

FCC 12-90

percent for fiber-to-the-home services, 3.4 percent for DSL-based services and 4.1 percent for cable-based
services.315 The First Measuring Broadband America Report also found that peak period performance
results for upload speeds were similar to or better than those for download speeds. The upload speeds
were not significantly affected during peak periods, showing an average decrease of only 0.7 percent from
the 24-hour average speed.316 The report found that on average, DSL-based services delivered 95 percent
of advertised upload speeds, cable-based services delivered 108 percent, and fiber-to-the-home services
delivered 112 percent.317 The Second Measuring Broadband America Report found with respect to
upload speeds, on average, DSL-based services delivered 103 percent, and cable-based services delivered
110 percent of advertised upload speeds, and fiber-to-the-home services delivered 106 percent.318
127.
Latency. The Commission in the First Measuring Broadband America Report also tested
latency, which is the time it takes for a packet of data to travel from one designated point to another in a
network.319 The fiber-to-the-home services provided 17 milliseconds (ms) round-trip latency on average,
while cable-based services averaged 28 ms, and DSL-based services averaged 44 ms. The Second
Measuring Broadband America Report
found that latency was largely unchanged from last year as fiber-
to-the-home services provided 18 ms round-trip latency on average, while cable-based services averaged
26 ms, and DSL-based services averaged 43 ms.320
128.
Applications (Web Browsing, VoIP, Streaming Video). The First Measuring Broadband
America Report found in specific tests designed to mimic basic web browsing—accessing a series of web
pages, but not streaming video or using video chat sites or applications—that performance increased with
the higher subscribed-to speed tier, but only up to about 10 Mbps.321 Latency and other factors reduced
performance at the highest speed tiers.322 The report also found that, for these high speed tiers, consumers
are unlikely to experience much if any improvement in basic web browsing from subscribing to higher
speeds—e.g., moving from a 10 Mbps broadband offering to a 25 Mbps offering. The Second Measuring
Broadband America Report
had comparable results.323
129.
The First Measuring Broadband America Report assessed VoIP and video streaming
capabilities of the broadband services. The report found that VoIP services, which can be used with a
data rate as low as 100 kbps but require relatively low latency, were adequately supported by all of the
broadband service tiers.324 The report noted that VoIP quality might suffer during times when household
bandwidth is shared by other services, but the VoIP measurements the Commission utilized were not
designed to detect such effects.325 The report found that video streaming should work well across all
technologies tested, provided that the consumer has selected a broadband service tier that matches the


315 SECOND MEASURING BROADBAND AMERICA REPORT at 10.
316 FIRST MEASURING BROADBAND AMERICA REPORT at 5.
317 Id.
318 SECOND MEASURING BROADBAND AMERICA REPORT at 11.
319 FIRST MEASURING BROADBAND AMERICA REPORT at 5; see also USF/ICC Transformation Order, 26 FCC Rcd
17663, 17698, para. 96 (for purposes of the report, the Commission defined latency “as the round-trip time from the
consumer’s home to the closest server used for speed measurement within the provider’s network.”).
320 SECOND MEASURING BROADBAND AMERICA REPORT at 11–12.
321 FIRST MEASURING BROADBAND AMERICA REPORT at 6.
322 Id. at 5.
323 SECOND MEASURING BROADBAND AMERICA REPORT at 12.
324 FIRST MEASURING BROADBAND AMERICA REPORT at 6.
325 Id.
57

Federal Communications Commission

FCC 12-90

quality of streaming video desired.326 The Second Measuring Broadband America Report found similar
results.327
130.
We are continuing to study broadband performance and are currently expanding the
Measuring Broadband project to include satellite broadband, as well as fixed wireless technologies.328
We intend to publish an additional report in 2012 and are pursuing ways to ensure that mobile broadband
consumers have detailed and accurate information about actual mobile broadband performance.329
3.

Elementary and Secondary Schools May Lack a Sufficient Level of
Broadband Service

131.
Section 706(b) requires that we examine the availability of broadband to “elementary and
secondary schools and classrooms.”330 We rely again on the results of the one-time survey of E-rate
funded schools and libraries.331
132.
In January 2011, the Commission released the results of a survey of E-rate funded
schools and libraries.332 The goal of the survey was to collect data on the current state of broadband
connectivity and challenges that schools and libraries face now and in the future.333 As many as 80
percent334 of E-rate recipients say that their broadband connections do not fully meet their needs, and 78
percent of recipients say that they need additional bandwidth.335 The survey results suggest that E-rate
recipients face challenges when trying to provide students higher-bandwidth applications.336 Changes in
2010 to the E-rate program are designed to help improve high-speed connectivity among E-rate
recipients337 and also to create initiatives to promote broadband.338 For instance, schools and libraries can


326 Id.
327 SECOND MEASURING BROADBAND AMERICA REPORT at 13.
328 Id. at 49.
329 Id.; 2012 Measuring Broadband America Public Notice.
330 47 U.S.C. § 1302.
331 FCC E-RATE SURVEY.
332 Id.
333 Id. at 2.
334 Id.
335 Id. at 7 (showing that only 22 percent of respondents believe their connection speeds completely meet their
needs).
336 Id. at 9 (showing that broadband is more likely to be inadequate with more data intensive applications, like video-
conferencing). Last year, we also examined SBI Data at anchor schools but noted that the speed threshold was likely
insufficient for a school system. See 2011 Seventh Broadband Progress Report, 26 FCC Rcd at 8036–37, para. 56.
SBI defines “anchor institutions” as “schools, libraries, medical and healthcare providers, public safety entities,
community colleges and other institutions of higher education, and other community support organizations and
entities.” Id. While we note that 3 Mbps/768 kbps is not is insufficient for a school system, similar to last year, we
present the results of SBI Data with respect to anchor institutions. Based upon SBI Data as of June 30, 2011, more
than 47.5 percent of the roughly 43,534 K–12 schools that speed tier information is available for have 3 Mbps/768
kbps or greater.
337 See Schools and Libraries Universal Service Support Mechanism; A National Broadband Plan for Our Future,
CC Docket No. 02-6, GN Docket No. 09-51, Sixth Report and Order, 25 FCC Rcd 18762, 18764, para. 5 (2010).
338 Id. (“We adopt a number of the proposals put forward in the E-rate Broadband NPRM. The revisions we adopt
today fall into three conceptual categories: (1) enabling schools and libraries to better serve students, teachers,
librarians, and their communities by providing more flexibility to select and make available the most cost-effective
(continued….)
58

Federal Communications Commission

FCC 12-90

now use universal service funds more efficiently to bring higher-speed broadband at lower cost to their
communities.339 The Commission also launched a pilot program to investigate the merits and challenges
of wireless off-premises connectivity services for mobile learning devices, and to help the Commission
determine whether and how those services should ultimately be eligible for E-rate support.340 As part of
the pilot program, the Commission authorized up to $10 million for funding year 2011 to support a small
number of innovative, interactive off-premise wireless connectivity projects for schools and libraries.341
133.
We lack comprehensive data regarding the actual or desired level of broadband service in
our nation’s elementary and secondary schools. NTIA has stated that, “based on studies by state
education technology directors, most schools need a connection of 50 to 100 Mbps per 1,000 students.”342
While school systems will need speeds substantially faster than the speed benchmark, we find, based on
SBI Data, that providers offer download speeds of at least 25 Mbps to only 63.7 percent of the nation’s
schools, suggesting that many schools may not have a sufficient level of broadband service.343 The
Department of Education also has developed the School and Broadband Availability Map, in
collaboration with NTIA and the Commission.344 This map relies on the SBI Data and other primary data
sources concerning colleges and public schools345 to show information about the type of school, the
location of the school, and the maximum download speed providers advertise in the area where the school
is located.346 This map is a tool to better understand the state of broadband at schools across the country,
but it doesn’t provide comprehensive information on what resources schools have.
134.
In light of the foregoing, although we do not have precise or comprehensive data
regarding the availability of broadband to “elementary and secondary schools and classrooms,” it
continues to appear that many schools and classrooms are underserved by broadband today.

G. Broadband Is Not Yet Being Deployed to All Americans in a Reasonable and Timely

Fashion

135.
Based on the data presented above, we conclude that broadband is not yet being deployed
to all Americans in a reasonable and timely fashion.347 Our analysis shows that the nation’s broadband
(Continued from previous page)


broadband and other communications services; (2) simplifying and streamlining the E-rate application process; and
(3) improving safeguards against waste, fraud, and abuse.”).
339 Id. at 18764, para. 6.
340 Id. at 18785–87, paras. 44–50.
341 Id. at 18785–86, para. 46.
342 NTIA National Broadband Plan Press Release.
343 See Schools in the Community Anchor Institution data of the National Broadband Map, available at
http://www2.ntia.doc.gov/files/broadband-data/All-NBM-CAI-June-2011.zip (download).
344 DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION, SCHOOLS & BROADBAND AVAILABILITY MAP, http://maps.ed.gov/broadband/.
345 NATIONAL BROADBAND MAP, http://www.broadbandmap.gov/. To build the education broadband availability
tool set, four primary data sources were used: NTIA U.S. Broadband Availability Data (Fall 2010) for nationwide
broadband availability, NTIA U.S. Community Anchor Institutions (Fall 2010) for PK–12 school, college and
university connectivity, NCES Integrated Postsecondary Education Data System (2009) for data on U.S. colleges
and universities, and NCES Common Core of Data (2008–09) for data on pre-kindergarten through grade 12 public
schools.
346 See NATIONAL BROADBAND MAP, COMMUNITY ANCHOR INSTITUTIONS,
http://www.broadbandmap.gov/community-anchor-institutions (showing community anchor institutions within a
radius of whatever address is entered).
347 47 U.S.C. § 1302(b). We adopt the same statutory construction of section 706(b) as we did in the 2011 Seventh
Broadband Progress Report
. See 2011 Seventh Broadband Progress Report, 26 FCC Rcd at 8032–35, paras. 46–52.
(continued….)
59

Federal Communications Commission

FCC 12-90

deployment gap remains significant and is particularly pronounced for Americans living in rural areas and
on Tribal lands. We find that as of June 30, 2011, approximately 19 million Americans did not have
access to fixed broadband. Significantly, approximately 76 percent of these Americans reside in rural
areas. Our analysis further shows that Americans residing on Tribal lands disproportionately lack access
to fixed broadband.348 And the available international broadband data, though not perfectly comparable
to U.S. data, suggest that the availability and deployment of broadband in the United States may lag
behind a number of other developed countries in certain respects, although we also compare favorably to
some developed countries in other respects.349 Moreover, as many as 80 percent of E-rate recipients say
that their broadband connections do not fully meet their needs, and 78 percent of recipients say that they
need additional bandwidth.350 These data combined with our findings concerning availability above
provide further indication that broadband is not yet being reasonably and timely deployed to all
Americans.351
136.
Private industry is continuing to build out broadband and has invested significantly into
broadband networks to date.352 Some reports indicate that wireline companies have averaged
(Continued from previous page)


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.” Id. at 8033, para. 47. We interpret “all Americans” as having
its ordinary meaning, and thus as establishing the goal of universal broadband availability for every American. Id. at
8033, para. 48. We find that “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.” Id. at 8033, para. 49. As
indicated in the last report, broadband “deployment” and “availability” are broader than physical deployment of
broadband. See supra para. 27. For example, we might conclude that a service is not reasonably deployed if it is
not of sufficient quality. See 2011 Seventh Broadband Progress Report, 26 FCC Rcd at 8020, paras. 18–20.
Although we find a significant number of Americans are unserved by broadband today, we note that for fixed
services, the Commission found in the First Measuring Broadband America Report and the Second Measuring
Broadband America Report
that residential wireline broadband services deliver quality of service and speeds
reasonably commensurate with advertised offerings. FIRST MEASURING BROADBAND AMERICA REPORT at 4;
SECOND MEASURING BROADBAND AMERICA REPORT at 4–5.
348 See supra Section IV.C.3.
349 See supra Section IV.E.
350 See supra Section IV.F.3; FCC E-RATE SURVEY at 2, 7 (showing that only 22 percent of respondents believe their
connection speeds complete meet their needs).
351 We incorporate by reference here our findings concerning availability to all Americans above. See Section IV.F.
We reject commenters claims that there is pervasive broadband coverage throughout the United States, and the
Commission should therefore conclude that broadband is being deployed to all Americans in a reasonable and
timely fashion. See AT&T Comments at 3, 6; Comcast Comments at 16–17; CTIA Comments at 3; TIA Comments
at 10; USTelecom Comments at 2; Sprint Reply at 1. While we recognize broadband has been deployed to most
Americans, we still find that a large number of Americans remain unserved and may remain unserved.
352 See AT&T Comments at 1–2, 10–11; CTIA Comments at 5–8. Others are also continuing to explore ways to
deploy next generation networks nationwide. See, e.g., INTERNET2, available at
http://www.internet2.edu/resources/AboutInternet2.pdf; John Markoff, Partnership to Bring Ultra-Speed Internet to
Six Communities
, N.Y. TIMES, May 22, 2012 (discussing Gigabit Squared’s partnership with Gig.U and with public
and private universities to deliver “ultrahigh-speed Internet service” to six communities), available at
http://www.nytimes.com/2012/05/23/technology/partnership-plans-to-bring-ultrahigh-speed-internet-to-six-
communities.html?_r=3; Press Release, EPB, Chattanooga Announces Nationals Only 150 Mbps Residential
Internet Offer: Chattanooga Area Ten Years Ahead of FCC’s National Broadband Plan (June 4, 2010) (“EPB Fiber
Optics, Chattanooga’s municipally-owned fiber-to-the-home network, announced it will introduce a 150 Mbps
symmetrical residential Internet product later this month.”), available at
https://www.epb.net/downloads/news/chattanooga-announces-nations-only-150-mbps-residential-internet-offer.pdf.
60

Federal Communications Commission

FCC 12-90

approximately $41 billion a year between 1996 and 2010 in capital expenditures to expand their
networks,353 and mobile providers have been spending billions of dollars to deploy mobile broadband
networks.354 Although data limitations hinder our ability to quantify mobile broadband deployment, it is
clear that higher-speed mobile broadband services have been significantly deployed since our last report.
137.
While we recognize these efforts, it appears that millions of Americans may be left
without access to broadband indefinitely absent the strides we are making with broadband deployment
with universal service reforms.355 The large deployment gap we find today356 is likely due to the very
challenging economics posed by many unserved and underserved areas.357 To this end, the Recovery
Act’s approximately $7 billion in one-time funding for the BTOP and BIP programs marked a significant
down payment to expand broadband to unserved and underserved areas.358 While we noted in the last
report that those funds will not fully address the challenges we face in bringing broadband to these
areas,359 NTIA and RUS continue the progress and promise of these programs for many Americans.360 To
help bring broadband to the remaining unserved and underserved areas,361 the Commission adopted its


353 USTelecom Comments at 5.
354 See CTIA Comments at 3–8.
355 USTELECOM, RESEARCH BRIEF 2 chart 2 (Apr. 20, 2012) (showing declining capital expenditures for wireline
broadband providers from 2008 to 2011), available at
http://www.ustelecom.org/sites/default/files/documents/042012_Investment_2011_Research_Brief.pdf; see also
USTelecom Comments at 5 (showing annual spending on broadband deployment down substantially after 2001).
Moreover, in some rural areas where broadband networks are deployed, providers have not yet upgraded the
infrastructure and those consumers remain unable to receive broadband meeting the benchmark needed to ensure
“advanced telecommunications capability” is available. Eric Mack, Bringing Broadband to the Boonies, Part 2:
DSL’s Dark Side
; CNET, Mar. 27, 2012 (Bringing Broadband to the Boonies), http://news.cnet.com/8301-
17938_105-57401255-1/bringing-broadband-to-the-boonies-part-2-dsls-dark-side/?part=rss&tag=feed&subj=.
356 AT&T and others believe that we should reverse this conclusion and conclude that broadband is not being
deployed in a reasonable and timely manner for only those parts of the country that are unserved. See, e.g., AT&T
Comments at 25; Puerto Rico Telephone Company Comments, GN Docket No. 10-159, at 6 (asking the
Commission to conclude that “broadband is not being deployed in Puerto Rico and other insular areas”). However,
while there are pockets of unserved areas across the country, the language of the statute requires the Commission to
make its determination regarding all Americans, and we see no benefit to bifurcating our answer under section 706
in that manner. Also, as shown in the online map, the landscape of the unserved areas is so complex that bifurcating
the country would not be practical. See ONLINE SECTION 706 FIXED BROADBAND DEPLOYMENT MAP,
http://www.fcc.gov/maps/section-706-fixed-broadband-deployment-map; see also infra App. I.
357 2011 Seventh Broadband Progress Report, 26 FCC Rcd at 8034–35, para. 51. The 2010 National Broadband
Plan estimated that $24 billion would be needed to bring broadband to all unserved Americans. See generally 2010
NATIONAL BROADBAND PLAN, Ch. 8 (discussing the economics of serving unserved areas).
358 See supra Section II.
359 See 2011 Seventh Broadband Progress Report, 26 FCC Rcd at 8034–35, para. 51 n.175 (stating that “[t]hese
programs do not focus exclusively on last-mile projects, and even if they did, the full amount appropriated to these
programs is less than one-third of the estimated amount needed to bring broadband to all unserved areas. NTIA
reports that ‘middle-mile’ rather than ‘last-mile’ projects comprise the ‘vast majority’ of BTOP awards directed at
broadband infrastructure deployment.”).
360 See supra Section II.
361 See 2010 NATIONAL BROADBAND PLAN at 136 (“Because service providers in [areas with low population density]
cannot earn enough revenue to cover the costs of deploying and operating broadband networks, including expected
returns on capital, there is no business case to offer broadband services in these areas. As a result, it is unlikely that
private investment alone will fill the broadband availability gap.”); id. at 21 (stating that “it is unlikely there will be
(continued….)
61

Federal Communications Commission

FCC 12-90

comprehensive USF/ICC Transformation Order, which created the Connect America Fund to, among
other things, accelerate broadband build-out to Americans living in “costly-to-serve communities where
even with our actions to lower barriers to investment nationwide, private sector economics still do not add
up, and therefore the immediate prospect for stand-alone private sector action is limited.”362 While it will
take some time to realize the full benefits of the reforms, this effort will assist in bringing broadband to
Americans living in rural, insular, and other high-cost areas, including Tribal lands.
138.
In sum, as we have held in the last two reports, the standard against which we measure
our progress is universal broadband deployment. We have not achieved this goal as of yet and likely will
not achieve it in any reasonable timeframe absent continued implementation of the Commission’s
broadband-related initiatives, including its universal service reforms.363 Measured against this standard,
the data demonstrate that broadband is not being reasonably and timely deployed to all Americans. We
would likely reach this same finding even if we considered the best available mobile data. Over 14
million Americans lack access, even if access to either fixed or mobile broadband is considered adequate
and even when all LTE, WiMax, and HSPA+ deployments are included.364

V.

REMOVING BARRIERS TO INFRASTRUCTURE INVESTMENT & PROMOTING
COMPETITION

139.
Because we determine that broadband deployment is not reasonable and timely, the
statute directs the Commission to “take immediate action to accelerate deployment of such capability by
removing barriers to infrastructure investment and by promoting competition in the telecommunications
market.”365 In the last report, we found that there are many barriers to infrastructure investment.366 High
costs of deploying and operating broadband networks and low adoption rates present barriers.367 We
continue to identify and reduce potential obstacles to deployment, competition, and adoption—concepts
that in the past report we found to be interrelated.368 We will continue to take steps to remove barriers
and maximize Americans’ access to—and the adoption of—affordable broadband.
140.
We continue to review the key barriers identified in the last report. These include: (1)
costs and delays in building out networks; (2) broadband service quality; (3) lack of affordable broadband
Internet access services; (4) lack of access to computers and other broadband-capable equipment; (5) lack
of relevance of broadband for some consumers; (6) poor digital literacy; and (7) other reasons, such as
consumers’ lack of trust in broadband and Internet content and services, including concerns about
(Continued from previous page)


a significant change in the number of unserved Americans based on planned upgrades over the next few years,
although some small companies may upgrade their networks to support broadband in currently unserved areas”).
362 USF/ICC Transformation Order, 26 FCC Rcd at 17668–69, para. 5.
363 Private industry, state and local governments, and federal agencies, including the Commission, continue to work
on closing this broadband deployment gap. See supra Section II.
364 See supra tbl. 15 (showing that over 14 million Americans lack access to either fixed or mobile broadband, using
SBI Data for fixed services and Mosaik Data for mobile services). As explained above, we consider the SBI Data
not to be a reliable indicator of the deployment of mobile broadband services, not just because of the likelihood of
over-reporting but because the data set includes deployment of technologies that do not meet our speed benchmark.
See supra paras. 36–40, 89 & tbl. 15.
365 See 47 U.S.C. § 1302(b).
366 See 2011 Seventh Broadband Progress Report, 26 FCC Rcd at 8040, para. 65; see generally 2010 NATIONAL
BROADBAND PLAN at 167–99.
367 2011 Seventh Broadband Progress Report, 26 FCC Rcd at 8040, para. 65.
368 Id.
62

Federal Communications Commission

FCC 12-90

inadequate privacy protections.369
141.
Costs and Delays in Building Out Networks. We seek to ensure ubiquitous access to and
participation in the digital economy. Such ubiquity offers benefits not only to those who are not currently
connected; it offers benefits to all Americans. A large proportion of unserved areas are in rural areas or
on Tribal lands. The challenges of building out broadband in these particular areas are significant.
Building out new networks on Tribal lands and in rural areas is costly as infrastructure often must be built
over long distances, and lower population density and generally lower incomes present fewer revenue-
generating opportunities for service providers.370 We have acknowledged that there is no business case
for broadband investment in some parts of the nation.371 Moreover, in some rural areas where broadband
networks are deployed, providers have not yet upgraded the infrastructure and those consumers remain
unable to receive broadband meeting the speed benchmark needed to ensure “advanced
telecommunications capability” is available.372
142.
Other obstacles to deployment include providers’ difficulty in accessing key inputs for
broadband infrastructure, such as utility poles, conduits, rooftops, and rights-of-way.373 As NTIA notes,
“[a]ccess to rights-of-way—the conduits, corridors, trenches, tower sites, and other physical passage ways
that modern communications networks traverse—is critical for the deployment of broadband services.”374
With regard to wireless broadband, permitting obstacles for cell towers,375 and the limited supply of
wireless spectrum continue to present challenges to deployment.376 These obstacles delay or prevent
broadband deployment, and are likely to limit competitive entry, raise costs, lower service quality and
have other negative impacts on businesses and consumers.377
143.
The Commission has taken several steps to remove barriers to broadband deployment and
adoption. On October 27, 2011, the Commission adopted the USF/ICC Transformation Order, which
will target the $4.5 billion spent annually to ensure rural connectivity towards support for fixed and
mobile voice and broadband facilities in areas that would otherwise not have service, including rural and
insular areas, and on Tribal lands.378 The policies adopted in the USF/ICC Transformation Order will
stimulate high-quality fixed and mobile voice and broadband service in regions where it is not


369 Id.
370 See TIM KELLY ET AL., WORLD BANK, WHAT ROLE SHOULD GOVERNMENTS PLAY IN BROADBAND
DEVELOPMENT? (2009), available at http://www.oecd.org/ict/4d/43631862.pdf; see also 2010 NATIONAL
BROADBAND PLAN at 136–39.
371 2011 Seventh Broadband Progress Report, 26 FCC Rcd at 8040, para. 66; 2010 NATIONAL BROADBAND PLAN at
136.
372 Bringing Broadband to the Boonies.
373 Id.
374 NTIA, STATE AND LOCAL RIGHTS OF WAY,
http://www.ntia.doc.gov/legacy/ntiahome/staterow/statelocalrow.html.
375 Petition for Declaratory Ruling to Clarify Provisions of Section 332(c)(7)(B) to Ensure Timely Siting Review and
to Preempt Under Section 253 State and Local Ordinances that Classify All Wireless Siting Proposals as Requiring
a Variance
, WT Docket No. 08-165, Declaratory Ruling, 24 FCC Rcd 13994 (2009) (establishing a 90-day time
limit for tower permitting decisions).
376 2010 NATIONAL BROADBAND PLAN at xii, Ch. 5.
377 2011 Seventh Broadband Progress Report, 26 FCC Rcd at 8040, para. 66; 2010 NATIONAL BROADBAND PLAN at
136.
378 See USF/ICC Transformation Order, 26 FCC Rcd 17663.
63

Federal Communications Commission

FCC 12-90

economically viable, without subsidies, to deploy and/or operate modern communications networks.379
These policies include establishment of a Mobility Fund—initially funded with $300 million, as well as
$50 million for a Tribal Mobility Fund—to provide dedicated support to expand mobile broadband
nationwide to tens of thousands of road miles where millions of Americans live, work, and travel.380 The
Commission will be implementing these reforms for the next several years.381 The Bureau announced
support amounts for the first phase of the Connect America Fund to spur immediate new broadband
buildout on April 25, 2012 and on July 24, 2012, a number of carriers committed to use over $110 million
to deploy broadband to unserved areas in 37 states.382
144.
In 2011, the Commission launched the Broadband Acceleration Initiative that focused on
removing barriers to build-out and expediting cost-cutting initiatives.383 The Pole Attachment Order,384
part of this initiative, adopted a pricing methodology that lowered the pole attachment rate for wireline,
wireless, and cable companies’ broadband attachments to a level closer to the rate paid by cable
providers, thus encouraging broadband competition and investment.385 Additionally, the Commission
lowered costs of deployment through greater certainty by establishing a specific timeline for access. 386
Indeed, at least one wireless infrastructure provider has documented to the Commission how this order
was essential in achieving cost savings through lower rates and expanding broadband networks through a
greater ability to attach equipment in a timely manner.387 The Commission has also initiated an inquiry
about regulations and practices that impede build-out at all levels of government: Tribal, federal, state,
and local.388 As part of this inquiry, the Commission has provided recommendations to the administration
and executive branch agencies in the last year on identifying ways in which the federal government can
streamline its processes to ease infrastructure deployment on federal lands.389 The Commission is also
working with state, local, and Tribal officials through the Intergovernmental Advisory Council to foster
best practices. In addition, Congress took action to streamline mobile broadband deployments by
requiring a state or local government to approve any eligible facilities request for a modification of an
existing wireless tower or base station that does not substantially change the physical dimensions of such


379 See id. at 17709, para. 115.
380 See id. at 17771–825, paras. 295–497. Additional Mobility Fund funding consists of $50 million for Phase I
support on Tribal lands and $500 million for Phase II support. See supra Section II.
381 See USF/ICC EXECUTIVE SUMMARY paras. 8, 19 (discussing multi-year implementation efforts).
382 See FCC Public-Private Effort Press Release.
383 FCC, THE FCC’S BROADBAND ACCELERATION INITIATIVE, REDUCING REGULATORY BARRIERS TO SPUR
BROADBAND BUILDOUT 1 (2011) (BROADBAND ACCELERATION INITIATIVE), available at
http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-304571A2.pdf; see Acceleration of Broadband Deployment:
Expanding the Reach and Reducing the Cost of Broadband Deployment by Improving Policies Regarding Public
Rights of Way and Wireless Facilities Siting
, WC Docket No. 11-59, Notice of Inquiry, 26 FCC Rcd 5384 (2011)
(ROW NOI) (inquiring about regulations and practices at all levels of government that slow broadband deployment).
384 See Implementation of Section 224 of the Act, A National Broadband Plan for Our Future, WC Docket No. 07-
245, GN Docket No. 09-51, Report and Order and Order on Reconsideration, 26 FCC Rcd 5240 ( 2011).
385 Id. at 5243–45, 5295–38, paras. 8, 126–220.
386 Id. at 5243–45, para. 8.
387 See Letter from Norine Luker, Senior Director Utility Administration, NextG Networks, to Marlene H. Dortch,
Secretary, FCC, WC Docket No. 07-245 (filed Feb. 22, 2012).
388 See generally ROW NOI.
389 Press Release, The White House, Executive Order—Accelerating Broadband Infrastructure Deployment (Jun. 14,
2012), available at http://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-office/2012/06/14/executive-order-accelerating-
broadband-infrastructure-deployment.
64

Federal Communications Commission

FCC 12-90

tower or base station.390
145.
We have also continued our efforts to free critical spectrum and make it available for
deployment and innovation of mobile broadband networks. Since the last report, on August 9, 2011, in
the 2011 Wireless Backhaul Report and Order, we removed regulatory barriers and made available as
much as 650 megahertz, which covers almost two-thirds of the U.S. landmass, for microwave wireless
backhaul.391 Such facilities are an essential component of many broadband networks, particularly mobile
wireless networks. Based on the recommendations in the 2010 National Broadband Plan, this reform
permits fixed microwave operations in several spectrum bands previously reserved for specialized
microwave services where wireless backhaul is the only practical middle mile solution.392 We sought
comment on additional ways to increase the flexibility, capacity, and cost-effectiveness of the microwave
bands, while protecting incumbent licensees in these bands.393 In a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking
released in March 2012, we proposed to increase the supply of spectrum for mobile broadband by
removing unnecessary barriers to enable flexible use of spectrum currently assigned to the Mobile
Satellite Service (MSS) in the 2 GHz band.394 In particular, we sought comment on whether we should
free up 40 megahertz of spectrum in the 2 GHz band spectrum for mobile broadband by removing rules
that have limited this spectrum to satellite use.395 On April 27, 2012, in response to the recently enacted
Spectrum Act, the Commission took preliminary steps toward making a portion of the UHF and VHF
frequency bands (U/V bands) currently used by the broadcast television service available for new uses,
while also preserving the integrity of the television broadcast service.396 The spectrum to be repurposed
will serve to further address this nation’s growing demand for wireless broadband services, promote
ongoing innovation and investment in mobile communications, and help to ensure that the United States
keeps pace with the global wireless revolution.397
146.
Broadband Service Quality. Although the First Measuring Broadband America Report
and the Second Measuring Broadband America Report found that quality and speeds are reasonably
commensurate with advertised offerings, we nevertheless recognize that there likely are opportunities to
improve broadband service quality. The Commission has taken steps to understand and assess broadband
service quality of residential wireline services (DSL, cable, and fiber-to-the-home) in the recent
Measuring Broadband America Reports. As explained above, the First Measuring Broadband America
Report
established for the first time that the majority of residential wireline broadband consumers are
receiving performance close to the level advertised by their providers.398 The report also identified ISPs
that fell short of advertised speeds; a few months after the report was released, the Commission noticed a
significant improvement by a major ISP and announced the results in a blog post.399 The Second


390 Middle Class Tax Relief Act, § 6409(a)(1), 126 Stat. at 232–34.
391 See 2011 Wireless Backhaul Report and Order, 26 FCC Rcd at 11623, para. 16; see also 2012 Wireless Backhaul
Second Report and Order
.
392 2011 Wireless Backhaul Report and Order, 26 FCC Rcd at 11616, paras. 1–2.
393 Id. at 11616, para. 3.
394 See Wireless Services in 2000-2020 MHz NPRM and NOI, 27 FCC Rcd 3561.
395 Id.
396 Incentive Auctions Order, 27 FCC Rcd at 4616–17, para. 1.
397 Id.
398 The First Measuring Broadband America Report also identified ISPs that fell short of advertised speeds. FIRST
MEASURING BROADBAND AMERICA REPORT at 5.
399 2012 Measuring Broadband Public Notice, 27 FCC Rcd 1680. A few months after the report was released, the
FCC noticed a significant improvement by a major ISP and announced the results in a blog post. Joel Gurin,
(continued….)
65

Federal Communications Commission

FCC 12-90

Measuring Broadband America Report found that consumers are experiencing performance more closely
aligned with what is advertised than they experienced one year ago, adding that “[t]here is evidence that
our August 2011 Report helped prompt these changes, and had a substantial impact on both the industry
and on consumer broadband experience.”400 While this work focused on fixed broadband services, we
will continue our efforts to measure the broadband service quality of other technologies, such as satellite
and mobile services. With these services, there may be a variety of technical network and other factors—
including latency and capacity constraints—that may impact consumers’ ability to use the full range of
Internet-based applications and services.401 We are continuing to study broadband performance and are
currently expanding the Measuring Broadband project.402
147.
Lack of Affordability. NTIA found that “[h]ouseholds reporting affordability as the major
barrier to subscribing to broadband service cited both the fixed cost of purchasing a computer and the
recurring monthly subscription costs as important factors.403 The report further shows that, among dial-up
households stating expense or affordability as their main reason for not having broadband, the cost of
monthly Internet access service was a more serious concern than fixed costs. The majority (75 percent) of
these households cited the monthly service cost, and another 10 percent reported both the monthly service
cost and fixed costs, as their main impediments to adopting broadband Internet access at home.404 Data
further indicate that income divide translates to digital divide. Low income households of less than
$25,000 are the least likely income group to adopt broadband or use a computer, and the opposite is true
for households with an income of more than $100,000.405
148.
In pursuit of its goal to make broadband more affordable to everyone, the Commission
adopted comprehensive reforms to the Lifeline program on January 31, 2012.406 As a universal service
program that seeks to fulfill Congress’s mandate to ensure the availability of communications to all
Americans, Lifeline for the past 25 years has helped tens of millions of low-income Americans afford
basic phone service. The order begins to modernize the program with the express goal of ensuring
availability of broadband for all low-income Americans. The Commission has established a Broadband
Pilot Program using up to $25 million in savings from other reforms to test and determine how Lifeline
can best be used to increase broadband adoption among Lifeline-eligible consumers. Starting this year,
the program will solicit applications from broadband providers and will select a number of projects to
fund.407 Lifeline will help reduce the monthly cost of broadband service, but ETC applicants will be
(Continued from previous page)


Broadband Speed: FCC Data is Improving the Market, OFFICAL FCC BLOG (Dec. 5, 2011),
http://www.fcc.gov/blog/broadband-speed-fcc-data-improving-market.
400 SECOND MEASURING BROADBAND AMERICA REPORT at 4–5.
401 See supra Section III.
402 2012 Measuring Broadband Public Notice, 27 FCC Rcd 1680; SECOND MEASURING BROADBAND AMERICA
REPORT at 49.
403 DIGITAL NATION NOV. 2011 at vi, 37; see also Horrigan, Broadband Adoption and Use in America at 5;
KATHRYN ZICKUHR & AARON SMITH, PEW INTERNET, DIGITAL DIFFERENCES 7 (2012) (showing that 10 percent of
non-Internet users do not use the Internet because it is too expensive), 8 (finding that 35 percent of dial-up users will
not switch to broadband until the price falls) (2012) (PEW INTERNET, DIGITAL DIFFERENCES), available at
http://pewinternet.org/~/media//Files/Reports/2012/PIP_Digital_differences_041312.pdf.
404 DIGITAL NATION NOV. 2011 at 36.
405 Id. at 44 (showing that 42.9 percent of households with incomes of less than $25,000 adopt broadband and 54.4
percent use a computer and showing that 92.6 percent of households with incomes of more than $100,000 adopt
broadband and 96 percent use a computer).
406 Lifeline Reform and Modernization Order, 27 FCC Rcd at 6660, para. 3.
407 See Lifeline Pilot Program Public Notice, 27 FCC Rcd 4840.
66

Federal Communications Commission

FCC 12-90

expected to help address other challenges to broadband adoption, including the provision of no-cost or
low-cost devices to participants in their pilot project and digital literacy training.408 If the pilot is
successful, the program may be expanded in the future.
149.
As part of its Broadband Adoption Initiative, the Commission helped facilitate “Connect
to Compete.”409 In May 2011, Chairman Genachowski issued a challenge to help close the adoption gap.
This is a first-of-its-kind national nonprofit initiative to address the barriers to broadband adoption, digital
literacy, and the employment skills gap. The program targets families with children who are eligible for
free school lunch. In response, many private and grassroots community organizations have partnered
together. For example, thirteen broadband cable providers, covering all 50 states, have agreed to offer 1
Mbps Internet service for $9.95 plus tax per month, with no installation fees and a no- or low-cost modem
rental fee. This offering lasts for two years with a three year sign-up window.
150.
Efforts of network operators are also helpful in making broadband affordable.410 The
Commission’s efforts to speed deployment411 and free spectrum412 may lead to more competitive offerings
and help bring down the cost of broadband for many Americans. The Commission is also investigating
the need for IP-to-IP interconnection rules, which could add certainty to some providers’ business
models.413 As part of their merger agreements, some companies are also implementing measures to help
improve adoption in their footprints.414
151.
Lack of Access to Computers. Another barrier to adoption is the cost of equipment
necessary to access broadband. NTIA’s October 10, 2011, Exploring the Digital Nation found that
“[f]ifteen percent of non-adopters of Internet service indicate that an inadequate or no computer is the
major reason they do not go online from home.”415 In a large-scale study of broadband adoption in low-
income communities, researchers found that hardware, software, and equipment maintenance fees deter


408 Lifeline Reform and Modernization Order, 27 FCC Rcd at 6804–05, para. 349.
409 See CONNECT2COMPETE (CONNECT2COMPETE), www.connect2compete.org; Broadband Adoption Taskforce,
Presentation to the FCC (Nov. 30, 2011) (FCC Broadband Adoption Presentation), available at
http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-311281A1.pdf; see also Press Release, FCC, FCC
Chairman Genachowski & Connect2Compete Partners Announce Adoption Pilot Program (May 31, 2012),
available at http://transition.fcc.gov/Daily_Releases/Daily_Business/2012/db0531/DOC-314389A1.pdf.
410 See 2010 NATIONAL BROADBAND PLAN at 33–49.
411 Since the last report, the Commission has continued its Broadband Acceleration Initiative and worked with the
administration and executive branch agencies and state and local governments to encourage deployments along
rights of way and collocation of new and upgraded communications facilities. See supra Sections I, II.
412 See, e.g., 2011 Wireless Backhaul Report and Order.
413 See USF/ICC Transformation Order, 26 FCC Rcd at 18044–45, paras. 1009–11.
414 See, e.g., Letter from Melissa E. Newman, Vice President—Federal Regulatory Affairs, CenturyLink, to Marlene
H. Dortch, Secretary, FCC, WC Docket No. 10-110 (filed Apr. 16, 2012) (redacted) (submitting CenturyLink’s first
Semi-Annual Report on its “Internet Basics” adoption program), available at
http://apps.fcc.gov/ecfs/document/view?id=7021910757. See Applications of Comcast Corporation, General
Electric Company and NBC Universal, Inc.; For Consent to Assign Licenses and Transfer Control of Licensees
, MB
Docket No. 10-56, Memorandum Opinion and Order, 26 FCC Rcd 4238, 4379, App. A at Part XVI (2011)
(describing Comcast’s Broadband Opportunity Program, which will make an Economy version of Comcast’s
Broadband Internet Access Service available to eligible customers for $9.95 a month, require no installation or
modem charges, and provide a computer for less than $150); CenturyLink/Qwest Merger, 26 FCC Rcd at 4218, App.
C at Part II (describing CenturyLink’s commitment to offer affordable broadband service and reduced cost of
computer equipment to qualifying customers).
415 DIGITAL NATION NOV. 2011 at vi, 35; see also PEW INTERNET, DIGITAL DIFFERENCES at 7 (showing that 12
percent of non-Internet users do use the Internet because they don’t have a computer).
67

Federal Communications Commission

FCC 12-90

some low-income consumers from taking up broadband service, even if they have had it previously.416 In
the Lifeline Reform and Modernization Order, ETC applicants to the Broadband Pilot Program are
expected to help address challenges to broadband adoption, including the provision of no-cost or low-cost
devices to participants.417 Two partners in the Connect to Compete program will help to alleviate this
problem by offering computers for $150418 and $250419 respectively, and these computers will come
loaded with Windows 7 and Microsoft Office.420
152.
Lack of Relevance. NTIA’s Exploring the Digital Nation found that the most common
reason households without broadband Internet or dial-up service gave for not subscribing was lack of
interest.421 NTIA found that 28 percent of households that owned a computer, but did not have Internet
access, explained that they did not need it.422 For those households that did not own a computer, the
perceived lack of need to access the Internet was the top reason why Internet was not accessed at home.423
The Commission is collaborating with the Connect-to-Compete program, which is offering new content
that may promote relevancy of broadband to consumers.424 At least six of the Connect to Compete
partners—Arise Virtual Solutions, CareerBuilder.com, Glassdoor.com, Indeed.com, Monster.com, and
oDesk—will have content that is part of a portal to promote job skills. CareerBuilder.com, for instance,
will offer online prep and certification courses for $1 per course in high demand employment areas and
will release a “Skills Gap Monitor” that lists the top 5 “in-demand jobs” for which further online training
or certification could serve as a qualification.425 At least six other partners—Brainfuse, Discovery
Education, EverFi, LearningExpress, MetrixLearning, and Sesame Workshop—will contribute to a portal
with customized education content. Discovery Education, for example, will provide educational video
clips and digital lessons to help bolster student achievement and proven resources for student success will
be accessible free of charge to America’s neediest students and their parents.426
153.
Poor Digital Literacy. The 2012 Pew Internet Digital Differences survey found that 21
percent of non-adopters cite factors pointing to digital literacy as the main reason they are not online.427
In a prior survey, many of these users have reported that they would need assistance to begin using the


416 DHARMA DAILEY ET AL., SOCIAL SCIENCE RESEARCH COUNCIL, BROADBAND ADOPTION IN LOW INCOME
COMMUNITIES 25–36 (2010) (noting that price pressures for low-income consumers include more than the monthly
fee for service), available at http://webarchive.ssrc.org/pdfs/Broadband_Adoption_v1.1.pdf.
417 Lifeline Reform and Modernization Order, 27 FCC Rcd at 6804–05, para. 349.
418 Redeemtech’s refurbished $150 computers will have a Core 2 Duo processor, 2GB of RAM, 80GB hard drive,
DVD player, and a wireless card. The computers will have a 90 day warranty and have family settings. Phone tech
support will also be available. See FCC Broadband Adoption Presentation.
419 Microsoft will offer new education laptops starting at $250. Id.
420 CONNECT2COMPETE.
421 DIGITAL NATION NOV. 2011 at 35; PEW INTERNET, DIGITAL DIFFERENCES at 7 (showing that 42 percent of non-
Internet users do use the Internet for reasons relating to a lack of interest (i.e., “just not interested,” “it’s a waste of
time,” and “don’t want it/need it” answers)).
422 DIGITAL NATION NOV. 2011 at 36.
423 Id.
424 CONNECT2COMPETE.
425 FCC Broadband Adoption Presentation.
426 Id.
427 PEW INTERNET, DIGITAL DIFFERENCES at 7; see also Horrigan, Broadband Adoption and Use in America at 5
(“22 percent of non-adopters cite factors pointing to lack of digital literacy as the main reason they are not online.”).
68

Federal Communications Commission

FCC 12-90

Internet.428 A lack of digital skills can keep people from subscribing to a service at home, and impacts the
number of activities they do online.429 The Lifeline Broadband Pilot Program expects its ETC applicants
to promote digital literacy with its participants.430 In addition, at least two partners in the Connect-to-
Compete program have committed to promoting digital literacy. Best Buy will offer in-person basic
digital literacy training beginning in 20 cities, including training the trainers, with plans to expand to
additional communities, and Microsoft will provide basic digital literacy training and advanced training,
including training on Microsoft Office, beginning in 15 states with plans to go nationwide. Microsoft will
also provide a new online training portal.431
154.
Consumers’ Lack of Trust in Broadband. A recent private survey indicated that 94
percent of consumers are concerned about online privacy and more than half think about it often.432 The
Broadband Adoption and Use in America survey similarly found that this concern is also prevalent in
non-adopters.433 To make sure that consumers are getting consistent and clear information and guidance
from government agencies, the Commission has partnered with the FTC, the Department of Commerce,
and the Small Business Administration on a number of education efforts like Net Cetera434 and OnGuard
Online,435 which offer advice on how to protect children’s personal information and guard against identity
theft. The Commission has also worked with industry to better protect against cybersecurity threats.436
155.
We must continue to address all the obstacles we have identified to achieve universal
broadband deployment and availability. One study estimates that the consumer surplus gain for
households from home broadband use relative to no home Internet connection is roughly $32 billion in
annual economic value, or about $100 for every American, every year.437 Since our conclusion in the


428 See Horrigan, Broadband Adoption and Use in America at 32.
429 Id. at 4 (finding that current broadband users who displayed a greater level of familiarity with various terms
associated with computers and the Internet engaged in a greater number and range of activities online than those less
familiar with the concepts); see also Eszter Hargittai, An Update on Survey Measures of Web-Oriented Digital
Literacy
, 27 SOC’L SCI. COMPUTER REV., 130, 130–137 (2009) (assessing this method for determining the levels of
digital literacy), available at http://webuse.org/p/a25 (click “PDF” to download).
430 Lifeline Reform and Modernization Order, 27 FCC Rcd at 6804–05, para. 349.
431 FCC Broadband Adoption Presentation.
432 TRUSTe Research & Harris Interactive, 2011 Consumer Research Results, Privacy and Online Behavioral
Advertising 11 (2011) (discussing the results of its survey), available at http://www.truste.com/ad-privacy/TRUSTe-
2011-Consumer-Behavioral-Advertising-Survey-Results.pdf.
433 Of broadband users at home, 56 percent strongly agree that too much inappropriate content are available online,
compared to 65 percent of non-adopters; 39 percent of adopters strongly agree it is too easy for their personal
information to be stolen online, compared to 57 percent of non-adopters; and 24 percent of adopters agree the
Internet is too dangerous for children, compared to 46 percent of non-adopters. Horrigan, Broadband Adoption and
Use in America
at 4, 6; see also PEW INTERNET, DIGITAL DIFFERENCES at 7 (showing that 1 percent of non-Internet
users do use the Internet because they are worried about viruses/spyware/spam).
434 ONGUARDONLINE.GOV, NET CETERA: CHATTING WITH KIDS ABOUT BEING ONLINE,
http://onguardonline.gov/features/feature-0004-featured-net-cetera-toolkit.
435 ONGUARDONLINE.GOV, www.onguardonline.gov.
436 See Press Release, FCC, FCC Advisory Committee Adopts Recommendations to Minimize Three Major Cyber
Threats, Including Anti-Bot Code of Conduct, IP-Route HiJacking Industry Framework, and Secure DNS Best
Practices (Mar. 22, 2012), available at http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-313158A1.pdf.
437 See MARK DUTZ ET AL., COMPASS LEXECON, commissioned by the Internet Innovation Alliance, THE
SUBSTANTIAL CONSUMER BENEFITS OF BROADBAND CONNECTIVITY FOR U.S. HOUSEHOLDS 26 (July 2009),
available at http://internetinnovation.org/files/special-reports/CONSUMER_BENEFITS_OF_BROADBAND.pdf.
69

Federal Communications Commission

FCC 12-90

2011 Seventh Broadband Progress Report that broadband was not being deployed to all Americans in a
reasonable and timely fashion,438 we have made progress on promoting competition and removing
barriers to infrastructure investment, as required by the statute.439 We will continue to improve the data
we collect to better inform our policies440 and continue to adopt policies that will accelerate broadband
deployment, remove barriers to infrastructure investment, and promote competition in
telecommunications markets.441
156.
In addition to addressing those challenges, we also must continue to protect the freedom
and openness of the Internet. As the Commission recognized in the Open Internet Order, “[t]he Internet’s
openness . . . enables a virtuous circle of innovation in which new uses of the network—including new
content, applications, services, and devices—lead to increased end-user demand for broadband, which
drives network improvements, which in turn lead to further innovative network uses.”442 The
Commission further found that “[e]ach round of innovation increases the value of the Internet for
broadband providers, edge providers, online businesses, and consumers,” while, by contrast, “[r]estricting
edge providers’ ability to reach end users, and limiting end users’ ability to choose which edge providers
to patronize, would reduce the rate of innovation at the edge and, in turn, the likely rate of improvements
to network infrastructure.”443 As discussed above, the open Internet rules were adopted to ensure the
continuation of the Internet’s virtuous cycle of innovation and investment, and the Commission must
continue to prioritize those efforts consistent with the mandate of section 706.444

VI.

ORDERING CLAUSE

157.
Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that, pursuant to section 706 of the Telecommunications
Act of 1996, as amended, 47 U.S.C. § 1301 et seq., this Report IS ADOPTED.
FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION
Marlene H. Dortch
Secretary


438 2011 Seventh Broadband Progress Report, 26 FCC Rcd at 8009, 8032–35, paras. 1, 46–52.
439 See supra Section II.
440 See, e.g., Modernizing Form 477 NPRM, 26 FCC Rcd at 1508, para. 1 (proposing rules 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”).
441 See 2010 NATIONAL BROADBAND PLAN at xi–xv.
442 Open Internet Order, 25 FCC Rcd at 17911, para. 14.
443 Id.
444 See supra Section II (discussing the Open Internet Order).
70

Federal Communications Commission

FCC 12-90

APPENDIX A

Commenters

Commenter

Abbreviation

American Library Association
ALA
AT&T Inc.
AT&T
Broadband Alliance of Mendocino County
BAMC
Comcast Corporation
Comcast
CTIA - The Wireless Association
CTIA
Fiber-to-the-Home Council
FTTH Council
Free State Foundation
Free State Foundation
Information Use Management & Policy Institute
Information Institute
Internet 2 K20 Initiative’s National CAI Data Collection
Internet2 K20
Working Group
Massachusetts Department of Telecommunications and
MDTC
Cable
MetroPCS Communications, Inc.
MetroPCS
National Association of Telecommunications Officers and NATOA
Advisors
Navajo Nation Telecommunications Regulatory
NNTRC
Commission
Organization for the Promotion and Advancement of
OPASTCO
Small Telecommunications Companies, the National
Telecommunications Cooperative Association, and the
Western Telecommunications Alliance
Rex Buddenberg
Rex Buddenberg
SouthEast Association of Telecommunications Officers
SEATOA
and Advisors
Telecommunications Industry Association
TIA
United States Telecom Association
USTelecom
Verizon and Verizon Wireless
Verizon

Reply Commenters

Commenter

Abbreviation

Comcast Corporation
Comcast
CTIA - The Wireless Association
CTIA
Fiber-to-the-Home Council
FTTH Council
Maneesh Pangasa
SouthEast Association of Telecommunications Officers
SEATOA
and Advisors
Sprint
Sprint
71

Federal Communications Commission

FCC 12-90

APPENDIX B

Data Sources and Definitions

Data Sources

SBI Data. Our estimate of deployment is based upon SBI Data as of June 30, 2011. We also compare
these results with SBI Data as of June 30, 2010. We include the following broadband services (with
corresponding technology codes): Asymmetric xDSL (10), Symmetric xDSL (20), Other Wireline (all
copper-wire based technologies other than xDSL) (30), Cable Modem—DOCSIS 3.0 (40), Cable
Modem—Other (41), optical carrier (fiber to the home) (50), Terrestrial Fixed Wireless
(provisioned/equipped over licensed spectrum (71) or over spectrum used on an unlicensed basis (70)),
Electric Power Line (90), and a catch all category, All Other (0). The data for mobile wireless service
provide us with an estimate of mobile network deployment by speed, but we do not rely upon these
mobile data to estimate where mobile wireless services meet the speed benchmark.
Mosaik Data. Mosaik was formerly known as “American Roamer.” We report some estimates with the
Mosaik Data as of July 31 2011. The data for mobile wireless service provide us with an estimate of
mobile network deployment by technology, but we do not rely upon these mobile data to estimate where
mobile wireless services meets the speed benchmark.
Form 477 Data. The adoption rates rely on Residential Form 477 subscription data as of June 30, 2011.
We include the following fixed broadband services: Asymmetric xDSL, Symmetric xDSL, Other
Wireline (all copper-wire based technologies other than xDSL, Cable Modem, optical carrier (fiber to the
home), Terrestrial Fixed Wireless (provisioned/equipped over licensed spectrum or over spectrum used
on an unlicensed basis), Electric Power Line, and a catch all category, All Other.
Demographic Data. We rely primarily upon 2011 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 2010 Census for
population and household count. We rely on the ACS Five-Year Estimates 2006–2010 for income,
education, and race-identification data. These data are based upon surveys conducted from January 1,
2006 to December 31, 2010. We use these data rather than data from the 2010 Census because the ACS
estimates will be updated each year and will enable us to examine trends over time. 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 conducted only for the fifty states, the District of
Columbia and Puerto Rico; they did 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

Adoption Rate. We measure adoption of services at or above the speed benchmark. Because fixed
broadband services are not available throughout all areas, we measure adoption in this report by
examining the ratio of the number of residential Form 477 broadband subscriptions to the total number of
households in which this same minimum broadband speed service is available as evidenced in the SBI
Data. We calculate adoption rates for four geographic areas: the census tract, the county, the state, and
the United States as a whole.
Deployment Rate. We measure deployment of services at or above the speed benchmark. The

Federal Communications Commission

FCC 12-90

deployment rate is the ratio of the population with access to the fixed broadband service to the total
population. We calculate deployment rates for three geographic areas: the county, the state, and the
United States as a whole.
Educational Attainment. ACS Five-Year Estimates 2006–2010. We measure educational attainment as
the portion of the population aged 25 years old and older that has attained at least an Associates Degree.1
Income Measures. ACS Five-Year Estimates 2006–2010. We report three income measures: per capita
income, median (household) income, and the poverty rate (the proportion of the population living below
the poverty level as defined by the Office of Management and Budget).2 Per capita income and median
household income in the past twelve months are measured in 2010 Inflation-Adjusted Dollars. The
survey reports the population for which income data are available and the population living below the
poverty threshold appropriate for that person’s family size and composition. The population living below
the poverty level is the sum of people in families and the number of unrelated individuals with incomes in
the last twelve months below the poverty threshold.3
Land Area. The land area is based upon the 2010 Census and measured in square miles of land.
Non-Urban Area. A census tract that is not part of the “Urban core.”
Non-White Proportion. ACS Five-Year Estimates 2006–2010. We examine the portion of the population
in the area that self-identifies solely as being White and the portion that does not self-identify solely as
being White.4 Survey respondents to the ACS can select multiple races to which they identify and results
from the 2010 Census indicate that approximately 2.9 percent of the population identifies with more than
one race. Thus, to simplify the assessment of how subscription patterns may be affected by the racial
demographics of the geographic area of interest, we examine the proportion of the population that
identifies as non-White.
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. We use the most recent population data available for each area.
Rural Areas. The designation of a census block as rural is based upon the 2010 Census.
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 the 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 off-reservation trust


1 See U.S. CENSUS, AMERICAN COMMUNITY SURVEY, PUERTO RICO COMMUNITY SURVEY, 2010 SUBJECT
DEFINITIONS 59–61 (2010) (discussing Educational Attainment measures), available at
http://www.census.gov/acs/www/Downloads/data_documentation/SubjectDefinitions/2010_ACSSubjectDefinitions.
pdf.
2 See id. at 77–83 (discussing Income Measures in the Past 12 Months and adjustments to the data for inflation),
102–05 (discussing poverty measures).
3 See id. at 102–05.
4 See id. at 105–12 (discussing racial classifications).
73

Federal Communications Commission

FCC 12-90

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 state-
recognized areas from the analysis of Tribal lands.
For purposes of this report, we aggregate these Tribal lands into 4 groups: Tribal Lands in the Lower 48
States (areas 1 through 4 defined above); Tribal Statistical Areas (area 5 defined above); Alaskan Village
Areas (area 6 defined above) and Hawaiian Home Lands (area 7 defined above).
Because demographic data are generally not available at the census block, we aggregate the SBI Data up
to the census tract. However, 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 particular Tribal land
grouping is determined by the Tribal land that accounts for the largest proportion of the census tract.
Because this process resulted in only two census tracts being designated as a Hawaiian Home Land we
exclude this Tribal group from our demographic analysis because there are too few observations for the
statistical analysis.
Urban Area. A census tract is defined as being Urban if it is in the “Urban Core.” A census tract is in the
“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. This definition is consistent with the Census Bureau’s criteria for identifying
initial Urban Core areas for the 2010 Census.


5 The statistical areas are largely in Oklahoma, but also include areas in California, New York, and Washington.
74

Federal Communications Commission

FCC 12-90

Appendix C

Americans Without Access to Fixed Broadband Meeting the Speed Benchmark by State

All Areas

Non-Rural Areas

Rural Areas

Areas

Population Population Percentage Population Population Percentage Population Population Percentage

(Millions)

Without

of
(Millions)

Without

of
(Millions)

Without

of

Access

Population

Access

Population

Access

Population

(Millions)

Without

(Millions)

Without

(Millions)

Without

Access

Access

Access

United States

315.887
18.992
6.0
254.886
4.521
1.8
61.000
14.471
23.7

Alabama

4.824
0.549
11.4
2.851
0.046
1.6
1.973
0.503
25.5

Alaska

0.715
0.140
19.6
0.471
0.021
4.4
0.244
0.119
48.9

Arizona

6.571
0.312
4.7
5.903
0.073
1.2
0.667
0.239
35.8

Arkansas

2.946
0.400
13.6
1.660
0.031
1.8
1.286
0.370
28.8

California

37.781
1.238
3.3
35.893
0.574
1.6
1.887
0.664
35.2

Colorado

5.112
0.221
4.3
4.409
0.043
1.0
0.703
0.178
25.3

Connecticut

3.581
0.027
0.7
3.153
0.015
0.5
0.427
0.011
2.6

Delaware

0.910
0.029
3.1
0.757
0.009
1.1
0.153
0.020
13.0

District of
Columbia

0.606
0.000
0.0
0.606
0.000
0.0
0.000
0.000
Not Apply

Florida

18.954
0.584
3.1
17.265
0.343
2.0
1.689
0.241
14.3

Georgia

9.861
0.336
3.4
7.412
0.093
1.3
2.449
0.243
9.9

Hawaii

1.362
0.021
1.5
1.250
0.001
0.1
0.112
0.020
17.7

Idaho

1.604
0.209
13.1
1.134
0.015
1.3
0.470
0.195
41.4

Illinois

12.907
0.423
3.3
11.430
0.045
0.4
1.476
0.378
25.6

Indiana

6.519
0.282
4.3
4.731
0.061
1.3
1.788
0.221
12.4

Iowa

3.064
0.218
7.1
1.969
0.014
0.7
1.095
0.204
18.7

Kansas

2.874
0.220
7.7
2.139
0.021
1.0
0.735
0.199
27.0

Kentucky

4.370
0.458
10.5
2.555
0.040
1.5
1.815
0.418
23.0

Louisiana

4.602
0.406
8.8
3.380
0.044
1.3
1.223
0.362
29.6

Maine

1.326
0.063
4.7
0.512
0.006
1.2
0.814
0.057
7.0

Maryland

5.776
0.186
3.2
5.038
0.044
0.9
0.738
0.142
19.2
75

Federal Communications Commission

FCC 12-90

Appendix C

Americans Without Access to Fixed Broadband Meeting the Speed Benchmark by State

All Areas

Non-Rural Areas

Rural Areas

Areas

Population Population Percentage Population Population Percentage Population Population Percentage

(Millions)

Without

of
(Millions)

Without

of
(Millions)

Without

of

Access

Population

Access

Population

Access

Population

(Millions)

Without

(Millions)

Without

(Millions)

Without

Access

Access

Access

Massachusetts

6.557
0.064
1.0
6.034
0.030
0.5
0.523
0.033
6.4

Michigan

9.823
0.616
6.3
7.326
0.055
0.8
2.497
0.561
22.4

Minnesota

5.329
0.427
8.0
3.909
0.033
0.8
1.420
0.394
27.7

Mississippi

2.979
0.362
12.1
1.470
0.018
1.2
1.509
0.343
22.8

Missouri

6.020
0.454
7.5
4.240
0.024
0.6
1.780
0.430
24.2

Montana

1.000
0.267
26.7
0.559
0.022
4.0
0.441
0.245
55.4

Nebraska

1.839
0.186
10.1
1.351
0.025
1.9
0.488
0.161
33.0

Nevada

2.762
0.063
2.3
2.602
0.015
0.6
0.160
0.048
30.2

New
Hampshire

1.316
0.099
7.5
0.794
0.020
2.5
0.522
0.079
15.2

New Jersey

8.809
0.063
0.7
8.342
0.037
0.4
0.466
0.026
5.6

New Mexico

2.098
0.298
14.2
1.627
0.078
4.8
0.471
0.220
46.7

New York

19.466
0.246
1.3
17.125
0.002
0.0
2.342
0.245
10.4

North Carolina

9.727
0.627
6.4
6.452
0.134
2.1
3.276
0.493
15.0

North Dakota

0.675
0.107
15.9
0.407
0.010
2.5
0.268
0.097
36.2

Ohio

11.522
0.397
3.4
8.979
0.041
0.5
2.543
0.356
14.0

Oklahoma

3.788
0.615
16.2
2.513
0.072
2.9
1.276
0.543
42.5

Oregon

3.885
0.132
3.4
3.153
0.005
0.2
0.732
0.127
17.3

Pennsylvania

12.725
0.218
1.7
10.011
0.033
0.3
2.715
0.185
6.8

Rhode Island

1.045
0.002
0.2
0.950
0.000
0.0
0.096
0.002
2.3

South Carolina

4.702
0.549
11.7
3.127
0.153
4.9
1.575
0.395
25.1

South Dakota

0.822
0.173
21.1
0.468
0.015
3.2
0.354
0.158
44.6

Tennessee

6.421
0.440
6.8
4.266
0.039
0.9
2.155
0.400
18.6

Texas

25.707
1.521
5.9
21.805
0.443
2.0
3.903
1.078
27.6
76

Federal Communications Commission

FCC 12-90

Appendix C

Americans Without Access to Fixed Broadband Meeting the Speed Benchmark by State

All Areas

Non-Rural Areas

Rural Areas

Areas

Population Population Percentage Population Population Percentage Population Population Percentage

(Millions)

Without

of
(Millions)

Without

of
(Millions)

Without

of

Access

Population

Access

Population

Access

Population

(Millions)

Without

(Millions)

Without

(Millions)

Without

Access

Access

Access

Utah

2.845
0.052
1.8
2.578
0.007
0.3
0.267
0.045
16.7

Vermont

0.625
0.059
9.4
0.243
0.001
0.2
0.381
0.058
15.2

Virginia

8.063
0.878
10.9
6.085
0.134
2.2
1.978
0.744
37.6

Washington

6.827
0.217
3.2
5.742
0.028
0.5
1.085
0.189
17.4

West Virginia

1.858
0.854
45.9
0.903
0.283
31.4
0.955
0.571
59.8

Wisconsin

5.710
0.396
6.9
4.010
0.006
0.1
1.700
0.390
23.0

Wyoming

0.574
0.076
13.2
0.371
0.004
1.1
0.203
0.072
35.4

U.S. Territories

4.102
2.215
54.0
2.926
1.213
41.5
1.176
1.002
85.2

American
Samoa

0.056
0.044
78.6
0.012
0.004
30.9
0.043
0.040
92.0

Commonwealth
of the Northern
Mariana
Islands

0.054
0.054
100.0
0.039
0.039
100.0
0.015
0.015
100.0

Guam

0.159
0.086
54.3
0.046
0.000
0.1
0.114
0.086
76.1

Puerto Rico

3.725
1.922
51.6
2.779
1.120
40.3
0.946
0.802
84.8

United States
Virgin Islands

0.109
0.109
100.0
0.051
0.051
100.0
0.058
0.058
100.0
77

Federal Communications Commission

FCC 12-90

Appendix D

Americans Without Access to Fixed Broadband

Meeting the Speed Benchmark by County

County

County

County

County Per

Population Population

Capita

Without

Density

Income

Access

($2010)

Alabama

Autauga
8,622
93.1
24,568
Baldwin
16,096
117.3
26,469
Barbour
7,988
30.9
15,875
Bibb
9,592
37.0
19,918
Blount
4,519
90.1
21,070
Bullock
4,355
17.5
20,289
Butler
4,227
27.1
16,916
Calhoun
7,808
196.9
20,574
Chambers
5,210
56.9
16,626
Cherokee
8,294
47.2
21,322
Chilton
13,180
63.5
20,517
Choctaw
3,622
15.1
17,214
Clarke
11,506
20.7
17,372
Clay
6,781
23.0
18,332
Cleburne
6,122
27.1
17,490
Coffee
9,540
75.2
22,797
Colbert
13,286
92.0
21,079
Conecuh
8,617
15.5
15,755
Coosa
3,211
17.8
19,209
Covington
7,482
37.1
19,822
Crenshaw
7,359
23.0
19,793
Cullman
7,982
110.5
20,284
Dale
18,585
89.4
21,722
Dallas
4,423
44.6
16,646
DeKalb
4,145
92.6
18,152
Elmore
7,934
130.6
22,640
Escambia
11,629
40.4
16,259
Etowah
4,938
195.6
20,439
Fayette
8,917
27.4
17,711
Franklin
10,006
50.4
18,094
Geneva
11,345
47.2
18,351
Greene
4,820
13.9
14,738
Hale
7,698
24.2
16,523
Henry
7,239
31.1
19,716
Houston
9,966
178.4
22,725
Jackson
6,834
49.3
18,905
Jefferson
8,347
592.1
26,529
Lamar
7,180
23.9
19,789
78

Federal Communications Commission

FCC 12-90

Appendix D

Americans Without Access to Fixed Broadband

Meeting the Speed Benchmark by County

County

County

County

County Per

Population Population

Capita

Without

Density

Income

Access

($2010)
Lauderdale
20,431
140.0
22,341
Lawrence
9,713
49.6
19,370
Lee
3,848
235.6
22,794
Limestone
6,857
152.4
24,007
Lowndes
3,506
15.6
16,524
Macon
6,707
34.9
16,380
Madison
20,535
426.6
29,918
Marengo
5,672
21.4
18,323
Marion
10,236
41.4
19,030
Marshall
2,645
167.2
19,875
Mobile
12,760
338.1
21,548
Monroe
10,237
22.3
17,652
Montgomery
5,526
293.5
24,622
Morgan
4,053
208.6
23,090
Perry
4,630
14.6
13,433
Pickens
6,200
22.2
16,278
Pike
13,206
49.1
19,013
Randolph
6,037
39.6
19,844
Russell
4,739
83.4
17,415
St. Clair
12,406
137.2
22,192
Shelby
4,152
255.3
33,978
Sumter
6,464
15.1
14,460
Talladega
11,363
111.8
18,713
Tallapoosa
2,743
58.3
22,542
Tuscaloosa
14,443
149.6
22,546
Walker
11,468
84.6
20,516
Washington
4,281
16.2
18,824
Wilcox
4,957
13.2
12,573
Winston
10,018
39.8
18,055

Alaska

Aleutians East
3,269
0.5
22,279
Aleutians West
5,372
1.2
29,920
Anchorage
1,755
171.0
34,678
Bethel
17,145
0.4
18,584
Bristol Bay
981
1.9
31,260
Denali
133
0.1
42,245
Dillingham
4,877
0.3
22,597
Fairbanks North Star
19,827
13.4
30,395
Haines
391
1.1
27,979
Hoonah-Angoon
1,657
0.3
24,932
79

Federal Communications Commission

FCC 12-90

Appendix D

Americans Without Access to Fixed Broadband

Meeting the Speed Benchmark by County

County

County

County

County Per

Population Population

Capita

Without

Density

Income

Access

($2010)
Juneau
508
11.6
34,923
Kenai Peninsula
21,983
3.5
29,127
Ketchikan Gateway
42
2.8
29,520
Kodiak Island
5,273
2.1
26,413
Lake and Peninsula
1,642
0.1
15,161
Matanuska-Susitna
5,586
3.8
27,910
Nome
9,520
0.4
20,549
North Slope
9,228
0.1
22,109
Northwest Arctic
7,590
0.2
21,278
Petersburg
1,062
1.2
30,971
Prince of Wales-Hyder
2,576
1.4
24,193
Sitka
184
3.1
29,982
Skagway
30
2.1
35,536
Southeast Fairbanks
5,331
0.3
27,657
Valdez-Cordova
833
0.3
30,703
Wade Hampton
7,608
0.4
11,269
Wrangell
344
0.9
28,731
Yakutat
659
0.1
28,576
Yukon-Koyukuk
4,712
0.0
18,614

Arizona

Apache
57,074
6.5
12,294
Cochise
1,807
21.6
23,010
Coconino
48,181
7.3
22,632
Gila
20,736
11.4
19,600
Graham
6,804
8.4
15,644
Greenlee
184
4.8
21,281
La Paz
10,755
4.6
21,165
Maricopa
27,505
426.2
27,816
Mohave
20,734
15.3
21,523
Navajo
58,306
11.0
16,745
Pima
9,052
109.1
25,093
Pinal
19,911
74.9
21,716
Santa Cruz
8,480
39.5
16,209
Yavapai
19,844
26.7
25,527
Yuma
2,591
36.8
18,418

Arkansas

Arkansas
1,075
19.1
22,142
Ashley
4,733
23.4
18,779
Baxter
2,219
76.1
21,513
Benton
7,311
271.2
25,186
80

Federal Communications Commission

FCC 12-90

Appendix D

Americans Without Access to Fixed Broadband

Meeting the Speed Benchmark by County

County

County

County

County Per

Population Population

Capita

Without

Density

Income

Access

($2010)
Boone
10,479
63.4
20,507
Bradley
4,619
17.7
18,845
Calhoun
4,923
8.5
16,457
Carroll
6,668
44.0
19,743
Chicot
2,834
18.0
14,668
Clark
6,206
26.7
17,186
Clay
1,146
24.8
18,892
Cleburne
4,492
47.1
20,371
Cleveland
2,522
14.4
19,481
Columbia
6,411
31.7
20,110
Conway
7,637
38.7
19,909
Craighead
2,520
139.0
21,728
Crawford
5,214
105.9
18,715
Crittenden
6,051
83.9
18,241
Cross
4,822
28.8
18,248
Dallas
1,523
12.0
16,457
Desha
1,264
16.7
17,582
Drew
7,757
22.3
18,903
Faulkner
3,918
179.0
22,811
Franklin
2,602
29.9
18,010
Fulton
1,367
19.8
17,067
Garland
5,355
143.5
22,786
Grant
3,615
28.5
22,229
Greene
11,620
73.7
18,225
Hempstead
4,953
31.1
17,177
Hot Spring
19,297
54.1
18,248
Howard
5,500
23.4
18,216
Independence
19,899
48.2
19,912
Izard
1,654
23.5
17,737
Jackson
6,689
28.2
14,874
Jefferson
21,331
87.9
18,681
Johnson
5,060
39.2
16,937
Lafayette
5,055
14.3
17,699
Lawrence
6,042
29.4
15,168
Lee
5,015
17.1
13,103
Lincoln
5,474
25.0
15,024
Little River
7,641
24.6
18,808
Logan
3,031
31.5
19,121
Lonoke
1,690
91.3
22,473
Madison
5,154
19.3
18,611
81

Federal Communications Commission

FCC 12-90

Appendix D

Americans Without Access to Fixed Broadband

Meeting the Speed Benchmark by County

County

County

County

County Per

Population Population

Capita

Without

Density

Income

Access

($2010)
Marion
11,177
28.2
19,532
Miller
1,824
69.8
19,654
Mississippi
4,438
51.6
17,736
Monroe
1,485
13.1
17,084
Montgomery
2,442
12.2
20,010
Nevada
2,185
14.4
21,020
Newton
7,910
10.1
15,904
Ouachita
7,028
35.3
18,244
Perry
3,144
19.1
19,844
Phillips
13,491
30.6
15,244
Pike
1,395
18.7
18,122
Poinsett
3,456
32.3
16,625
Polk
4,466
24.1
16,913
Pope
2,590
77.3
19,693
Prairie
696
13.2
18,134
Pulaski
4,333
506.5
27,158
Randolph
2,964
27.6
18,751
St. Francis
12,372
43.7
13,693
Saline
7,527
151.6
24,584
Scott
3,580
12.8
17,668
Searcy
2,963
12.5
15,298
Sebastian
1,750
239.0
22,284
Sevier
2,031
30.9
15,590
Sharp
2,954
28.6
16,570
Stone
2,255
20.6
16,090
Union
5,677
39.9
20,447
Van Buren
5,389
24.6
17,999
Washington
7,626
220.2
22,421
White
5,879
75.7
20,900
Woodruff
761
12.0
18,344
Yell
10,235
24.2
16,345

California

Alameda
1,969
2064.5
33,961
Alpine
1,055
1.5
32,159
Amador
6,872
63.9
26,329
Butte
868
135.1
23,404
Calaveras
13,208
45.0
28,408
Colusa
1,111
19.1
21,317
Contra Costa
10,228
1479.6
37,818
Del Norte
2,608
28.8
18,974
82

Federal Communications Commission

FCC 12-90

Appendix D

Americans Without Access to Fixed Broadband

Meeting the Speed Benchmark by County

County

County

County

County Per

Population Population

Capita

Without

Density

Income

Access

($2010)
El Dorado
12,321
106.0
34,393
Fresno
101,185
160.0
20,329
Glenn
696
21.8
19,987
Humboldt
57,613
37.7
24,025
Imperial
28,880
43.4
16,395
Inyo
9,412
1.8
26,762
Kern
241,472
106.4
20,100
Kings
69,699
112.6
17,875
Lake
174
51.5
21,531
Lassen
5,233
7.8
19,756
Los Angeles
24,705
2451.2
27,344
Madera
23,977
72.7
18,724
Marin
9,952
488.9
53,940
Mariposa
6,552
12.6
27,064
Mendocino
29,903
25.1
23,357
Merced
21,544
134.9
18,041
Modoc
8,615
2.5
20,536
Mono
5,596
4.7
27,321
Monterey
70,236
128.7
25,776
Napa
84
184.1
34,310
Nevada
20,799
103.0
30,727
Orange
715
3844.3
34,017
Placer
11,814
251.8
35,680
Plumas
684
7.7
28,732
Riverside
43,187
313.1
24,431
Sacramento
6,144
1478.0
26,953
San Benito
4,979
40.2
25,508
San Bernardino
55,610
103.2
21,867
San Diego
78,813
743.1
30,715
San Joaquin
43,034
497.9
22,851
San Luis Obispo
37,615
82.5
29,790
San Mateo
6,000
1628.2
43,958
Santa Barbara
9,709
156.5
29,731
Santa Clara
668
1411.3
39,804
Santa Cruz
95
597.4
32,862
Shasta
13,960
46.8
23,772
Sierra
259
3.4
27,389
Siskiyou
4,483
7.2
22,179
Solano
3,845
502.0
28,649
Sonoma
8,277
308.3
32,597
83

Federal Communications Commission

FCC 12-90

Appendix D

Americans Without Access to Fixed Broadband

Meeting the Speed Benchmark by County

County

County

County

County Per

Population Population

Capita

Without

Density

Income

Access

($2010)
Stanislaus
19,865
347.3
22,064
Tehama
450
21.8
20,198
Trinity
13,959
4.4
22,073
Tulare
46,581
94.7
17,966
Tuolumne
33,912
24.8
25,483
Ventura
6,291
450.9
32,348
Yolo
40
201.0
27,420
Yuba
460
117.7
19,937

Colorado

Adams
1,604
388.3
23,999
Alamosa
17
21.6
18,820
Arapahoe
2,190
726.1
31,898
Archuleta
4,817
9.2
25,421
Baca
293
1.5
21,472
Bent
56
4.3
16,505
Boulder
821
408.9
36,947
Chaffee
4,873
17.6
26,110
Cheyenne
206
1.0
22,999
Clear Creek
1,016
22.7
34,506
Conejos
81
6.5
17,541
Costilla
88
2.9
16,525
Crowley
4,423
7.5
18,966
Custer
2,513
5.8
26,860
Delta
1,190
27.6
22,080
Dolores
339
2.0
19,244
Douglas
462
347.6
42,418
Eagle
11,381
32.0
36,753
Elbert
5,711
12.4
34,782
El Paso
18,425
296.0
27,945
Fremont
5,995
30.5
19,083
Garfield
4,930
19.9
28,457
Gilpin
658
36.7
33,591
Grand
4,337
8.1
30,055
Gunnison
3,130
4.8
28,490
Hinsdale
200
0.8
43,293
Huerfano
1,882
4.3
23,139
Jackson
747
0.9
23,814
Jefferson
1,593
702.6
34,714
Kiowa
238
0.8
22,877
Kit Carson
1,878
3.8
21,086
84

Federal Communications Commission

FCC 12-90

Appendix D

Americans Without Access to Fixed Broadband

Meeting the Speed Benchmark by County

County

County

County

County Per

Population Population

Capita

Without

Density

Income

Access

($2010)
Lake
1,540
19.8
20,437
La Plata
6,786
30.8
29,836
Larimer
2,822
117.1
30,046
Las Animas
6,268
3.3
21,887
Lincoln
1,171
2.1
23,440
Logan
5,072
12.2
22,564
Mesa
12,699
45.5
27,067
Mineral
298
0.8
46,358
Moffat
2,636
3.0
24,563
Montezuma
9,404
12.7
24,616
Montrose
1,786
19.0
23,613
Morgan
4,352
22.2
20,181
Otero
3,181
15.0
18,056
Ouray
870
8.5
29,051
Park
3,879
7.3
31,663
Phillips
4,447
6.5
23,453
Pitkin
3,361
17.9
64,381
Prowers
85
7.6
18,429
Pueblo
24,219
67.8
21,609
Rio Blanco
1,708
2.1
28,382
Rio Grande
1,413
13.2
17,199
Routt
12,407
10.2
33,079
Saguache
2,924
2.0
18,686
San Juan
59
1.7
31,232
San Miguel
4,017
5.7
38,247
Sedgwick
1,029
4.2
21,652
Summit
2,370
46.5
35,770
Teller
4,694
41.8
28,726
Washington
2,098
1.9
23,125
Weld
4,081
65.1
24,732
Yuma
3,288
4.3
21,872

Connecticut

Fairfield
385
1470.6
48,295
Hartford
5,370
1221.1
33,151
Litchfield
2,179
205.5
35,848
Middlesex
5,340
449.1
37,519
New Haven
3,308
1429.7
31,720
New London
7,205
410.3
32,888
Tolland
2,679
372.0
33,108
Windham
124
232.5
26,457
85

Federal Communications Commission

FCC 12-90

Appendix D

Americans Without Access to Fixed Broadband

Meeting the Speed Benchmark by County

County

County

County

County Per

Population Population

Capita

Without

Density

Income

Access

($2010)

Delaware

Kent
13,932
285.0
24,194
New Castle
1,688
1270.4
31,220
Sussex
12,959
215.3
26,779

District of Columbia

District of Columbia
218
9921.1
42,078

Florida

Alachua
8,763
285.2
24,741
Baker
2,009
47.7
19,593
Bay
3,179
223.3
25,033
Bradford
9,006
99.0
16,997
Brevard
703
536.8
27,606
Broward
25,037
1430.5
28,631
Calhoun
2,344
26.2
15,091
Charlotte
8,128
230.4
26,938
Citrus
2,923
247.1
22,551
Clay
12,104
324.4
26,872
Collier
11,122
161.8
37,046
Columbia
7,213
87.1
19,366
DeSoto
3,589
54.8
15,989
Dixie
3,931
23.6
17,066
Duval
43,619
1137.9
25,854
Escambia
14,153
451.1
23,474
Flagler
1,007
208.2
24,939
Franklin
517
22.2
21,005
Gadsden
1,991
91.2
16,843
Gilchrist
321
49.4
18,309
Glades
3,452
16.1
17,872
Gulf
1,142
27.5
17,968
Hamilton
4,106
28.8
15,794
Hardee
5,991
44.6
14,668
Hendry
8,447
34.9
14,734
Hernando
1,886
376.5
22,775
Highlands
7,301
98.9
19,579
Hillsborough
8,250
1218.5
27,062
Holmes
9,467
41.8
15,285
Indian River
145
278.2
31,918
Jackson
12,888
55.0
17,177
Jefferson
3,742
24.5
19,647
Lafayette
3,568
16.7
18,069
86

Federal Communications Commission

FCC 12-90

Appendix D

Americans Without Access to Fixed Broadband

Meeting the Speed Benchmark by County

County

County

County

County Per

Population Population

Capita

Without

Density

Income

Access

($2010)
Lake
11,621
326.2
25,323
Lee
22,915
809.1
29,445
Leon
7,296
417.6
25,803
Levy
3,791
37.1
18,703
Liberty
3,329
10.3
17,003
Madison
6,051
27.6
16,346
Manatee
6,923
438.5
28,072
Marion
14,071
214.8
22,384
Martin
2,146
268.7
35,772
Miami-Dade
128,691
1320.1
22,957
Monroe
3,148
72.8
35,516
Nassau
5,334
115.6
29,089
Okaloosa
11,635
192.1
28,621
Okeechobee
1,118
52.8
19,664
Orange
84
1283.0
25,490
Osceola
576
210.0
20,536
Palm Beach
26,698
669.0
33,610
Pasco
4,306
639.7
24,164
Pinellas
1,885
3319.6
28,742
Polk
13,129
343.1
21,881
Putnam
9,577
102.5
18,402
St. Johns
12,257
328.4
36,027
St. Lucie
2,137
502.4
23,296
Santa Rosa
5,677
151.5
25,384
Sarasota
8,732
686.4
33,045
Seminole
6
1372.0
29,795
Sumter
6,280
179.3
24,180
Suwannee
1,289
61.3
18,782
Taylor
4,332
22.3
18,649
Union
2,734
64.7
13,657
Volusia
6,755
450.8
24,768
Wakulla
1,698
52.5
21,892
Walton
5,916
54.2
27,746
Washington
9,974
44.0
18,470

Georgia

Appling
6,598
36.5
18,977
Atkinson
285
25.4
15,456
Bacon
11,047
43.4
17,110
Baker
3,011
10.0
16,379
Baldwin
1,073
178.6
17,488
87

Federal Communications Commission

FCC 12-90

Appendix D

Americans Without Access to Fixed Broadband

Meeting the Speed Benchmark by County

County

County

County

County Per

Population Population

Capita

Without

Density

Income

Access

($2010)
Banks
394
80.7
19,497
Barrow
345
453.8
20,882
Bartow
3,181
221.8
22,241
Ben Hill
549
71.2
15,529
Berrien
1,427
43.5
16,049
Bibb
324
623.2
21,436
Bleckley
2,034
61.3
18,960
Brantley
18
41.6
18,905
Brooks
1,089
33.2
20,346
Bryan
752
71.9
28,365
Bulloch
31,995
106.7
17,812
Burke
2,614
28.0
15,934
Butts
326
130.5
20,963
Calhoun
1,048
24.4
12,452
Camden
275
83.4
22,022
Candler
354
46.3
16,068
Carroll
867
225.7
20,523
Catoosa
1,125
398.5
22,563
Charlton
1,501
15.7
16,652
Chatham
11,239
629.7
25,397
Chattahoochee
7,124
42.0
22,202
Chattooga
284
83.7
15,158
Cherokee
387
528.1
30,217
Clarke
108
990.1
19,839
Clay
849
16.4
13,353
Clinch
971
8.6
16,709
Cobb
318
2052.9
33,110
Coffee
1,085
74.4
16,664
Colquitt
681
85.1
17,362
Columbia
422
437.7
29,479
Cook
884
76.6
16,528
Coweta
723
299.5
26,161
Crawford
1,386
38.9
20,692
Crisp
2,702
86.3
17,187
Dade
1,869
95.4
20,168
Dawson
265
109.2
25,557
Decatur
1,056
47.0
17,833
DeKalb
3
2607.2
28,412
Dodge
1,785
44.2
16,288
Dooly
5,135
37.8
14,871
88

Federal Communications Commission

FCC 12-90

Appendix D

Americans Without Access to Fixed Broadband

Meeting the Speed Benchmark by County

County

County

County

County Per

Population Population

Capita

Without

Density

Income

Access

($2010)
Dougherty
1,567
288.3
19,210
Douglas
469
685.6
24,515
Early
1,059
21.3
16,330
Echols
284
9.4
14,201
Effingham
4,190
113.0
23,465
Elbert
2,059
57.1
17,100
Emanuel
2,135
33.6
16,076
Evans
1,711
61.1
19,072
Fannin
286
62.0
21,103
Fayette
479
554.0
35,076
Floyd
6,399
189.7
20,640
Forsyth
130
820.2
35,385
Franklin
1,314
84.7
19,276
Fulton
4,163
1790.7
37,211
Gilmer
220
67.6
20,439
Glascock
835
21.9
16,844
Glynn
504
193.5
28,040
Gordon
3,226
157.8
18,285
Grady
368
55.7
17,785
Greene
571
41.2
24,943
Gwinnett
197
1928.0
26,901
Habersham
431
159.9
19,286
Hall
730
474.3
23,675
Hancock
4,991
20.0
10,925
Haralson
2,005
102.6
19,033
Harris
1,003
70.6
31,073
Hart
13,050
109.2
19,124
Heard
2,011
40.4
18,077
Henry
74
649.0
25,773
Houston
561
378.8
25,206
Irwin
1,127
27.0
16,561
Jackson
581
187.6
22,473
Jasper
3,208
38.3
20,263
Jeff Davis
4,369
46.3
15,730
Jefferson
3,204
32.0
15,165
Jenkins
2,184
24.0
17,629
Johnson
5,056
33.4
15,659
Jones
227
73.8
21,598
Lamar
179
100.8
17,725
Lanier
1,400
56.6
16,894
89

Federal Communications Commission

FCC 12-90

Appendix D

Americans Without Access to Fixed Broadband

Meeting the Speed Benchmark by County

County

County

County

County Per

Population Population

Capita

Without

Density

Income

Access

($2010)
Laurens
2,153
60.4
19,387
Lee
2,105
81.1
23,867
Liberty
2,046
127.0
18,662
Lincoln
766
37.9
19,627
Long
5,027
37.0
15,068
Lowndes
2,189
224.7
20,041
Lumpkin
1,785
108.2
20,088
McDuffie
820
85.4
17,261
McIntosh
10,415
34.1
20,964
Macon
870
36.7
12,902
Madison
325
100.6
18,975
Marion
437
23.9
17,729
Meriwether
4,646
43.8
18,295
Miller
892
21.8
19,895
Mitchell
4,848
46.2
16,322
Monroe
4,206
68.1
23,656
Montgomery
1,110
38.2
17,168
Morgan
3,779
52.4
27,732
Murray
116
114.8
16,925
Muscogee
3,172
876.2
22,514
Newton
645
379.3
21,583
Oconee
505
184.3
34,271
Oglethorpe
403
34.5
17,572
Paulding
2,629
475.0
23,450
Peach
392
187.5
18,681
Pickens
103
129.7
25,892
Pierce
3,860
60.9
18,283
Pike
1,627
85.2
21,051
Polk
794
135.7
18,214
Pulaski
544
47.9
16,621
Putnam
3,235
62.3
25,576
Quitman
1,283
16.9
13,642
Rabun
398
44.3
22,471
Randolph
1,494
17.8
17,632
Richmond
478
620.6
20,604
Rockdale
47
670.8
24,367
Schley
780
31.3
16,122
Screven
8,672
22.8
16,189
Seminole
130
37.0
19,263
Spalding
437
330.2
19,607
90

Federal Communications Commission

FCC 12-90

Appendix D

Americans Without Access to Fixed Broadband

Meeting the Speed Benchmark by County

County

County

County

County Per

Population Population

Capita

Without

Density

Income

Access

($2010)
Stephens
1,709
147.6
18,285
Stewart
1,330
13.1
15,612
Sumter
7,483
67.7
17,436
Talbot
1,382
17.4
18,007
Taliaferro
918
8.8
13,955
Tattnall
6,083
53.9
16,742
Taylor
2,668
23.8
14,693
Telfair
4,197
38.0
13,420
Terrell
263
27.4
15,553
Thomas
648
83.3
21,261
Tift
792
158.0
18,394
Toombs
2,554
75.7
17,974
Towns
4,292
64.0
21,527
Treutlen
30
35.0
16,710
Troup
2,596
164.0
19,699
Turner
432
30.8
15,973
Twiggs
2,155
25.1
15,904
Union
547
67.7
24,182
Upson
355
83.7
17,398
Walker
2,048
155.1
19,440
Walton
834
267.7
22,521
Ware
2,250
41.2
18,295
Warren
1,180
20.2
15,987
Washington
5,559
31.4
15,033
Wayne
1,162
47.5
18,393
Webster
938
13.4
16,295
Wheeler
1,698
25.1
10,043
White
247
114.1
23,680
Whitfield
349
360.5
19,780
Wilcox
1,926
24.6
12,692
Wilkes
2,717
22.5
16,993
Wilkinson
515
21.4
17,929
Worth
3,972
37.8
18,348

Hawaii

Hawaii
18,297
46.9
26,194
Honolulu
335
1580.2
29,516
Kauai
365
109.3
26,513
Maui
1,517
134.2
29,180

Idaho

Ada
1,042
382.7
27,915
91

Federal Communications Commission

FCC 12-90

Appendix D

Americans Without Access to Fixed Broadband

Meeting the Speed Benchmark by County

County

County

County

County Per

Population Population

Capita

Without

Density

Income

Access

($2010)
Adams
1,160
2.9
22,730
Bannock
8,107
75.0
21,275
Bear Lake
720
6.1
19,284
Benewah
7,725
12.2
18,312
Bingham
12,919
22.1
18,633
Blaine
3,512
8.2
32,656
Boise
4,195
3.7
24,288
Bonner
18,868
23.8
24,745
Bonneville
9,737
57.7
23,218
Boundary
6,083
8.9
18,011
Butte
1,109
1.3
20,414
Camas
1,158
1.1
19,659
Canyon
1,013
332.8
18,366
Caribou
1,819
3.9
20,637
Cassia
2,747
9.1
17,782
Clark
1,009
0.6
19,737
Clearwater
3,658
3.6
20,507
Custer
468
0.9
22,625
Elmore
3,872
8.8
20,388
Franklin
2,233
19.6
17,967
Fremont
3,154
7.2
18,616
Gem
488
30.2
20,431
Gooding
6,569
21.4
17,694
Idaho
11,003
1.9
18,980
Jefferson
11,728
25.1
19,019
Jerome
7,236
38.5
16,947
Kootenai
13,401
114.4
24,418
Latah
2,646
34.5
20,218
Lemhi
1,985
1.8
21,699
Lewis
1,753
8.0
18,580
Lincoln
3,351
4.4
19,011
Madison
11,096
81.7
13,735
Minidoka
116
26.9
17,747
Nez Perce
3,648
46.7
23,899
Oneida
755
3.6
17,950
Owyhee
2,735
1.5
17,373
Payette
2,369
56.7
18,814
Power
1,675
5.7
18,412
Shoshone
3,439
4.9
19,020
Teton
10,886
24.2
23,633
92

Federal Communications Commission

FCC 12-90

Appendix D

Americans Without Access to Fixed Broadband

Meeting the Speed Benchmark by County

County

County

County

County Per

Population Population

Capita

Without

Density

Income

Access

($2010)
Twin Falls
10,894
41.4
19,892
Valley
2,248
2.8
27,577
Washington
3,145
7.1
20,015

Illinois

Adams
10,789
78.4
24,308
Alexander
6,920
34.1
15,858
Bond
2,058
46.5
24,341
Boone
397
197.6
26,105
Brown
1,016
22.8
17,133
Bureau
2,980
40.4
24,103
Calhoun
4,355
20.3
23,109
Carroll
835
34.4
25,914
Cass
683
36.3
19,825
Champaign
676
203.1
24,553
Christian
2,455
48.8
21,519
Clark
3,172
32.5
23,173
Clay
3,040
29.4
20,802
Clinton
370
80.1
25,392
Coles
927
106.0
20,601
Cook
244
5526.4
29,335
Crawford
3,385
44.5
21,545
Cumberland
2,207
31.9
21,262
DeKalb
86
169.7
24,179
De Witt
2,424
41.4
24,320
Douglas
556
47.7
21,438
DuPage
2
2799.1
37,849
Edgar
2,730
29.6
22,175
Edwards
3,049
30.0
21,113
Effingham
2,519
71.3
24,843
Fayette
5,309
30.9
21,663
Ford
884
28.9
23,401
Franklin
8,999
96.8
18,504
Fulton
11,218
42.6
20,309
Gallatin
2,050
17.2
21,537
Greene
4,813
25.2
22,107
Grundy
459
123.9
27,895
Hamilton
5,265
19.5
21,602
Hancock
4,798
23.9
22,885
Hardin
779
24.0
18,515
Henderson
3,263
19.2
22,492
93

Federal Communications Commission

FCC 12-90

Appendix D

Americans Without Access to Fixed Broadband

Meeting the Speed Benchmark by County

County

County

County

County Per

Population Population

Capita

Without

Density

Income

Access

($2010)
Henry
4,050
61.2
24,915
Iroquois
4,509
26.6
23,400
Jackson
6,658
102.5
19,294
Jasper
2,314
19.5
21,467
Jefferson
16,011
67.9
21,370
Jersey
3,061
62.5
24,368
Jo Daviess
2,928
37.5
26,819
Johnson
9,035
36.7
16,402
Kane
186
1009.4
29,480
Kankakee
4,194
169.6
22,888
Kendall
291
382.0
30,565
Knox
4,442
73.3
20,908
Lake
677
1596.5
38,120
LaSalle
2,667
100.7
24,982
Lawrence
5,439
45.2
19,297
Lee
2,459
49.9
24,440
Livingston
986
37.0
23,259
Logan
9,128
48.8
22,063
McDonough
1,503
54.9
18,344
McHenry
1,282
517.6
31,838
McLean
7,623
144.2
28,167
Macon
5,726
190.1
24,726
Macoupin
12,101
55.1
23,222
Madison
640
376.5
26,127
Marion
8,633
68.7
20,493
Marshall
966
32.4
24,991
Mason
2,096
26.9
23,427
Massac
6,249
64.7
20,216
Menard
6,897
40.4
26,281
Mercer
7,511
29.2
25,332
Monroe
122
86.6
31,091
Montgomery
7,504
42.7
21,700
Morgan
4,502
62.2
23,244
Moultrie
466
44.1
22,954
Ogle
3,171
70.9
24,959
Peoria
10,431
301.9
28,157
Perry
5,033
50.4
17,926
Piatt
348
38.2
26,492
Pike
6,076
19.9
19,996
Pope
3,739
12.2
20,134
94

Federal Communications Commission

FCC 12-90

Appendix D

Americans Without Access to Fixed Broadband

Meeting the Speed Benchmark by County

County

County

County

County Per

Population Population

Capita

Without

Density

Income

Access

($2010)
Pulaski
3,818
30.2
18,444
Putnam
1,728
37.6
27,004
Randolph
3,909
57.8
19,950
Richland
2,102
44.7
22,874
Rock Island
3,295
345.4
25,071
St. Clair
367
411.5
24,770
Saline
5,888
65.5
20,903
Sangamon
13,536
227.7
28,394
Schuyler
1,840
17.2
20,649
Scott
3,459
21.1
27,530
Shelby
5,966
29.3
21,891
Stark
942
20.7
25,311
Stephenson
7,021
83.8
22,608
Tazewell
10,885
210.1
27,036
Union
9,497
43.1
19,512
Vermilion
8,342
90.4
20,218
Wabash
6,018
53.0
23,350
Warren
4,384
32.5
20,047
Washington
2,241
26.0
24,846
Wayne
8,740
23.4
21,493
White
5,343
29.4
22,081
Whiteside
3,390
85.5
23,405
Will
2,823
822.8
29,811
Williamson
10,939
158.6
22,164
Winnebago
3,176
581.8
24,008
Woodford
6,247
74.4
29,475

Indiana

Allen
3,377
543.9
24,532
Bartholomew
3,007
191.0
26,860
Benton
172
21.7
21,949
Boone
663
136.6
38,696
Brown
6,092
48.1
24,312
Carroll
2,536
53.9
23,163
Cass
11,257
94.4
20,562
Clay
24,765
75.0
20,569
Clinton
864
82.4
21,131
Crawford
9,949
34.4
18,598
Daviess
11,769
74.0
20,254
Dearborn
4,007
165.1
25,023
Decatur
764
69.0
22,719
95

Federal Communications Commission

FCC 12-90

Appendix D

Americans Without Access to Fixed Broadband

Meeting the Speed Benchmark by County

County

County

County

County Per

Population Population

Capita

Without

Density

Income

Access

($2010)
DeKalb
26
116.7
21,779
Delaware
1,383
296.4
20,405
Dubois
2,107
98.7
24,801
Elkhart
1,386
431.4
22,187
Fayette
16,344
112.4
18,928
Floyd
38
508.6
25,971
Franklin
4,108
60.3
23,090
Fulton
1,670
56.7
21,119
Gibson
7,786
68.4
22,542
Greene
2,192
60.7
20,676
Hamilton
11
714.9
38,500
Hancock
140
233.9
28,017
Harrison
2,619
81.4
23,539
Hendricks
1,096
364.1
28,880
Henry
61
126.0
19,879
Jackson
2,363
83.5
21,498
Jasper
3,402
60.5
23,676
Jefferson
2,446
90.3
21,278
Jennings
73
75.5
18,636
Johnson
473
443.8
28,224
Knox
1,233
74.4
20,381
Kosciusko
5,492
146.0
24,019
LaGrange
170
98.5
18,388
Lake
3,649
1001.0
23,142
LaPorte
11,343
187.6
22,599
Madison
274
291.4
21,722
Marion
550
2290.5
24,498
Marshall
225
106.3
22,493
Martin
8,936
30.5
21,750
Miami
2,403
97.4
18,854
Montgomery
3,481
75.7
22,788
Morgan
6,846
171.5
23,972
Newton
28
35.1
24,055
Noble
5
116.0
19,783
Ohio
2,299
70.4
25,703
Orange
5,193
49.8
19,119
Owen
2,750
55.6
20,581
Parke
5,352
38.7
19,494
Perry
7,379
50.7
20,806
Pike
5,565
38.2
20,005
96

Federal Communications Commission

FCC 12-90

Appendix D

Americans Without Access to Fixed Broadband

Meeting the Speed Benchmark by County

County

County

County

County Per

Population Population

Capita

Without

Density

Income

Access

($2010)
Porter
1,515
397.6
27,922
Posey
1,356
62.8
26,727
Pulaski
93
30.8
20,491
Putnam
6,276
79.0
20,441
Randolph
585
57.7
19,552
Ripley
1,040
64.3
22,025
Rush
4,756
42.2
21,215
St. Joseph
896
584.5
23,082
Scott
135
126.6
19,414
Shelby
1,396
108.4
26,398
Spencer
3,732
52.8
23,609
Starke
224
76.0
17,991
Steuben
77
110.1
22,950
Sullivan
9,845
47.8
20,093
Switzerland
5,825
47.8
21,214
Tippecanoe
3,483
351.1
22,203
Tipton
33
60.6
23,499
Union
4,300
46.5
19,243
Vermillion
3,255
62.8
22,178
Vigo
4,346
267.7
20,398
Wabash
9,828
79.0
20,475
Warrick
8,403
157.0
29,737
Washington
676
55.1
19,278
Wayne
1,458
170.4
21,789
White
3,683
48.5
22,323
Whitley
2,823
99.5
24,644

Iowa

Adair
1,544
13.4
23,497
Adams
881
9.4
23,549
Allamakee
3,508
22.5
21,349
Appanoose
1,331
25.6
20,084
Audubon
1,411
13.7
24,207
Benton
9,314
36.3
25,111
Black Hawk
2,052
232.9
23,357
Boone
637
46.0
25,998
Bremer
1,136
55.8
26,522
Buchanan
835
36.8
23,437
Buena Vista
1,246
35.3
21,256
Butler
3,931
25.6
24,030
Calhoun
180
16.7
23,049
97

Federal Communications Commission

FCC 12-90

Appendix D

Americans Without Access to Fixed Broadband

Meeting the Speed Benchmark by County

County

County

County

County Per

Population Population

Capita

Without

Density

Income

Access

($2010)
Carroll
754
36.6
25,094
Cass
4,641
24.7
21,787
Cedar
3,202
32.0
24,742
Cerro Gordo
2,838
77.4
25,463
Cherokee
1,419
20.6
24,507
Chickasaw
2,720
24.5
22,447
Clarke
2,294
21.5
23,271
Clay
84
29.3
25,398
Clayton
377
23.2
22,303
Clinton
3,384
70.5
23,573
Crawford
2,736
24.0
21,181
Dallas
1,097
118.0
33,051
Davis
5,639
17.4
21,970
Decatur
2,333
15.8
18,195
Delaware
705
30.5
22,578
Des Moines
5,309
97.1
22,555
Dickinson
1,123
44.0
29,459
Dubuque
2,410
155.0
25,045
Emmet
307
26.1
24,371
Fayette
1,053
28.3
21,566
Floyd
3,997
32.5
21,416
Franklin
3,720
18.3
22,507
Fremont
936
14.4
23,612
Greene
6,028
16.1
23,947
Grundy
1,063
24.8
26,916
Guthrie
2,107
18.4
26,590
Hamilton
787
26.8
24,765
Hancock
2,126
19.8
22,713
Hardin
538
30.5
24,154
Harrison
1,349
21.2
24,221
Henry
703
46.5
23,056
Howard
2,598
20.1
22,417
Humboldt
662
22.3
24,568
Ida
2,730
16.2
23,841
Iowa
1,458
27.8
26,721
Jackson
810
31.1
23,008
Jasper
2,338
50.1
23,160
Jefferson
1,017
38.6
23,853
Johnson
51
216.1
28,008
Jones
1,082
35.9
22,873
98

Federal Communications Commission

FCC 12-90

Appendix D

Americans Without Access to Fixed Broadband

Meeting the Speed Benchmark by County

County

County

County

County Per

Population Population

Capita

Without

Density

Income

Access

($2010)
Keokuk
2,158
17.9
22,088
Kossuth
928
15.9
27,415
Lee
3,550
69.0
21,324
Linn
46
298.1
28,239
Louisa
1,414
28.3
20,367
Lucas
1,756
20.4
19,967
Lyon
2,472
19.5
21,613
Madison
3,291
28.3
25,711
Mahaska
2,727
39.2
21,568
Marion
1,885
60.0
24,613
Marshall
836
71.5
22,407
Mills
3,578
34.5
25,400
Mitchell
4,118
22.9
22,820
Monona
1,192
13.1
22,774
Monroe
1,340
18.2
21,228
Montgomery
1,719
25.2
21,301
Muscatine
4,293
98.5
24,138
O'Brien
1,673
24.8
24,771
Osceola
3,542
16.0
23,063
Page
1,707
29.7
21,204
Palo Alto
151
16.6
23,071
Plymouth
3,997
28.8
28,060
Pocahontas
63
12.6
23,385
Polk
788
763.5
29,246
Pottawattamie
14,381
98.4
23,782
Poweshiek
1,243
32.1
25,218
Ringgold
1,344
9.5
21,858
Sac
3,796
17.9
23,837
Scott
2,005
364.7
27,408
Shelby
205
20.4
22,389
Sioux
6,981
43.9
21,333
Story
74
158.8
25,450
Tama
1,624
24.6
23,041
Taylor
851
11.7
21,335
Union
2,009
29.9
20,435
Van Buren
470
15.6
20,209
Wapello
2,821
82.6
22,376
Warren
4,449
82.4
28,798
Washington
920
38.2
23,979
Wayne
2,474
12.0
18,795
99

Federal Communications Commission

FCC 12-90

Appendix D

Americans Without Access to Fixed Broadband

Meeting the Speed Benchmark by County

County

County

County

County Per

Population Population

Capita

Without

Density

Income

Access

($2010)
Webster
33
52.8
22,653
Winnebago
4,670
27.0
22,684
Winneshiek
2,404
30.5
23,608
Woodbury
4,303
117.9
22,069
Worth
2,666
19.0
27,240
Wright
323
22.6
23,068

Kansas

Allen
2,207
26.4
20,195
Anderson
2,353
13.9
20,558
Atchison
849
39.0
20,995
Barber
236
4.2
23,542
Barton
1,135
31.0
23,688
Bourbon
4,740
23.8
18,596
Brown
1,826
17.4
19,555
Butler
12,832
46.5
26,436
Chase
1,194
3.5
21,890
Chautauqua
1,051
5.7
21,613
Cherokee
6,852
36.5
20,075
Cheyenne
1,282
2.7
19,460
Clark
126
2.3
24,605
Clay
710
13.4
24,858
Cloud
738
13.3
18,690
Coffey
2,013
13.6
23,744
Comanche
367
2.4
22,974
Cowley
1,708
32.1
20,720
Crawford
3,974
66.4
19,753
Decatur
938
3.2
21,966
Dickinson
1,059
23.6
22,009
Doniphan
1,605
20.2
21,704
Douglas
2,764
244.6
24,851
Edwards
760
4.8
24,899
Elk
994
4.5
20,958
Ellis
1,107
31.9
24,093
Ellsworth
2,010
9.1
21,704
Finney
1,494
28.7
20,976
Ford
1,946
31.4
19,348
Franklin
5,563
45.6
22,294
Geary
459
92.1
20,709
Gove
2,148
2.5
22,775
Graham
2,340
2.9
25,026
100

Federal Communications Commission

FCC 12-90

Appendix D

Americans Without Access to Fixed Broadband

Meeting the Speed Benchmark by County

County

County

County

County Per

Population Population

Capita

Without

Density

Income

Access

($2010)
Grant
85
13.7
25,188
Gray
143
6.8
22,606
Greeley
173
1.6
28,698
Greenwood
2,224
5.7
21,325
Hamilton
18
2.7
20,190
Harper
475
7.4
22,467
Harvey
4,309
64.3
22,890
Haskell
291
7.4
21,966
Hodgeman
452
2.2
20,859
Jackson
2,190
20.4
23,306
Jefferson
3,964
35.8
25,580
Jewell
515
3.3
22,443
Johnson
3,732
1165.6
37,882
Kearny
49
4.5
20,888
Kingman
1,387
8.9
22,861
Kiowa
191
3.3
19,430
Labette
5,003
33.5
21,021
Lane
39
2.4
25,261
Leavenworth
9,034
165.9
25,925
Lincoln
980
4.4
23,084
Linn
7,088
16.1
22,472
Logan
329
2.5
22,856
Lyon
6,053
39.8
18,245
McPherson
3,944
32.4
26,467
Marion
3,778
13.2
21,166
Marshall
2,202
11.3
21,295
Meade
177
4.6
23,909
Miami
9,125
57.7
26,218
Mitchell
1,111
9.0
23,350
Montgomery
3,102
55.3
21,037
Morris
112
8.6
23,967
Morton
26
4.3
22,862
Nemaha
3,847
14.2
22,484
Neosho
4,402
28.9
18,683
Ness
41
2.9
27,622
Norton
1,966
6.3
19,080
Osage
2,364
22.9
22,697
Osborne
908
4.3
22,536
Ottawa
216
8.4
22,665
Pawnee
1,782
9.1
17,927
101

Federal Communications Commission

FCC 12-90

Appendix D

Americans Without Access to Fixed Broadband

Meeting the Speed Benchmark by County

County

County

County

County Per

Population Population

Capita

Without

Density

Income

Access

($2010)
Phillips
1,252
6.3
21,870
Pottawatomie
1,067
26.2
25,157
Pratt
1,315
13.1
23,585
Rawlins
712
2.3
22,895
Reno
9,217
51.5
22,149
Republic
1,099
6.8
24,731
Rice
1,197
13.8
19,316
Riley
6,025
118.8
19,999
Rooks
446
5.8
23,435
Rush
82
4.6
23,608
Russell
1,409
7.8
23,243
Saline
1,500
77.5
23,669
Scott
426
6.9
28,872
Sedgwick
15,722
506.3
25,297
Seward
82
36.5
18,083
Shawnee
3,396
329.3
25,705
Sheridan
1,142
2.9
24,933
Sherman
791
5.7
22,651
Smith
1,377
4.3
23,644
Stafford
1,345
5.5
23,171
Stanton
29
3.1
19,196
Stevens
100
7.8
21,633
Sumner
155
20.2
23,114
Thomas
1,233
7.2
23,883
Trego
776
3.3
22,095
Wabaunsee
1,101
9.0
23,072
Wallace
474
1.6
23,269
Washington
2,513
6.5
20,577
Wichita
308
3.1
20,375
Wilson
2,407
16.5
18,708
Woodson
1,295
6.6
23,986
Wyandotte
770
1046.2
18,827

Kentucky

Adair
3,212
45.9
15,790
Allen
16,229
58.5
16,897
Anderson
4,226
107.6
24,516
Ballard
4,440
33.6
23,001
Barren
6,262
87.7
20,067
Bath
132
41.6
15,487
Bell
8,169
79.6
14,627
102

Federal Communications Commission

FCC 12-90

Appendix D

Americans Without Access to Fixed Broadband

Meeting the Speed Benchmark by County

County

County

County

County Per

Population Population

Capita

Without

Density

Income

Access

($2010)
Boone
13,376
494.9
28,520
Bourbon
67
69.3
21,355
Boyd
907
309.3
22,064
Boyle
3,195
159.3
22,534
Bracken
1,301
41.0
18,671
Breathitt
7,808
28.2
16,442
Breckinridge
5,494
35.6
17,757
Bullitt
667
254.0
22,791
Butler
4,661
29.7
17,236
Caldwell
3,208
37.9
19,498
Calloway
7,812
97.3
20,951
Campbell
15,571
595.7
27,096
Carlisle
3,112
26.9
17,260
Carroll
2,648
84.8
21,845
Carter
1,958
67.6
18,147
Casey
1,261
35.9
14,252
Christian
6,969
102.8
18,476
Clark
79
142.4
23,966
Clay
4,843
46.7
12,300
Clinton
2,011
52.3
14,802
Crittenden
4,183
26.1
19,463
Cumberland
3,324
22.1
15,025
Daviess
3,151
212.2
22,064
Edmonson
857
40.3
18,959
Elliott
841
34.3
13,072
Estill
950
57.9
15,725
Fayette
1,931
1055.7
28,345
Fleming
3,335
41.3
17,629
Floyd
3,564
100.0
15,883
Franklin
4,215
237.2
26,857
Fulton
983
32.5
16,908
Gallatin
2,555
84.9
17,810
Garrard
1,366
73.9
18,735
Graves
11,098
67.5
19,976
Grayson
1,826
52.1
17,443
Green
471
39.4
21,281
Greenup
1,890
107.5
21,533
Hancock
2,647
45.9
19,952
Hardin
1,249
170.4
22,997
Harlan
8,032
62.9
15,224
103

Federal Communications Commission

FCC 12-90

Appendix D

Americans Without Access to Fixed Broadband

Meeting the Speed Benchmark by County

County

County

County

County Per

Population Population

Capita

Without

Density

Income

Access

($2010)
Harrison
7,043
62.0
20,037
Hart
4,530
44.6
16,726
Henderson
1,394
106.0
22,192
Henry
3,275
53.9
21,090
Hickman
1,132
20.0
19,953
Hopkins
4,167
86.6
21,347
Jackson
12,723
39.2
13,935
Jefferson
223
1958.2
26,473
Jessamine
819
289.2
24,097
Johnson
4,465
89.4
18,486
Kenton
9,800
1004.2
27,205
Knott
6,425
46.4
16,110
Knox
3,621
83.4
14,101
Larue
1,149
54.6
18,474
Laurel
1,406
136.3
19,604
Lawrence
795
38.4
15,903
Lee
5,606
37.3
12,983
Leslie
6,281
28.0
14,753
Letcher
6,236
72.0
17,393
Lewis
2,453
28.8
14,915
Lincoln
3,794
74.0
16,985
Livingston
1,764
30.5
20,800
Logan
6,818
48.7
19,443
Lyon
1,651
39.0
19,036
McCracken
2,047
264.9
24,709
McCreary
8,502
43.4
12,197
McLean
2,441
37.7
21,071
Madison
2,760
191.7
21,536
Magoffin
2,455
43.1
13,849
Marion
1,978
58.1
18,445
Marshall
2,496
104.8
23,056
Martin
7,336
56.7
14,785
Mason
1,767
73.5
21,717
Meade
2,591
92.2
18,823
Menifee
607
31.1
15,418
Mercer
3,626
86.2
23,645
Metcalfe
2,751
35.1
16,835
Monroe
1,661
32.9
15,534
Montgomery
29
136.8
20,004
Morgan
1,068
36.4
17,705
104

Federal Communications Commission

FCC 12-90

Appendix D

Americans Without Access to Fixed Broadband

Meeting the Speed Benchmark by County

County

County

County

County Per

Population Population

Capita

Without

Density

Income

Access

($2010)
Muhlenberg
5,827
67.2
18,538
Nelson
8,651
105.8
21,763
Nicholas
233
36.0
18,452
Ohio
7,194
40.9
18,258
Oldham
578
328.6
32,702
Owen
4,951
31.1
21,754
Owsley
4,743
24.0
10,767
Pendleton
5,350
53.5
19,523
Perry
2,282
85.0
19,049
Pike
12,941
82.5
18,973
Powell
3,582
70.8
15,796
Pulaski
1,621
96.8
19,540
Robertson
1,099
22.9
15,374
Rockcastle
2,400
54.5
15,621
Rowan
165
83.6
17,435
Russell
17,134
70.2
17,868
Scott
4,318
173.7
26,838
Shelby
5,182
113.7
27,593
Simpson
3,454
74.0
20,426
Spencer
2,722
94.2
25,589
Taylor
1,186
92.6
18,014
Todd
5,321
33.5
17,460
Trigg
3,369
32.7
23,387
Trimble
1,941
58.4
21,161
Union
2,164
43.2
18,811
Warren
4,823
214.6
23,206
Washington
5,898
39.7
20,873
Wayne
3,080
45.6
16,109
Webster
2,000
40.7
18,879
Whitley
2,988
82.0
15,258
Wolfe
611
33.2
11,214
Woodford
243
133.3
28,501

Louisiana

Acadia
10,918
94.8
18,116
Allen
7,275
34.0
17,108
Ascension
1,277
385.4
26,888
Assumption
234
69.0
20,348
Avoyelles
11,855
50.8
16,944
Beauregard
19,116
31.0
21,543
Bienville
5,382
17.6
18,873
105

Federal Communications Commission

FCC 12-90

Appendix D

Americans Without Access to Fixed Broadband

Meeting the Speed Benchmark by County

County

County

County

County Per

Population Population

Capita

Without

Density

Income

Access

($2010)
Bossier
9,949
141.0
25,630
Caddo
15,816
290.9
22,594
Calcasieu
3,440
181.7
23,591
Caldwell
5,484
19.1
19,888
Cameron
1,841
5.0
24,634
Catahoula
5,334
14.8
17,166
Claiborne
9,745
22.7
16,925
Concordia
3,822
29.9
15,911
De Soto
8,565
30.6
20,112
East Baton Rouge
8,208
975.7
26,260
East Carroll
2,779
18.2
15,947
East Feliciana
6,768
44.7
18,376
Evangeline
7,811
51.5
17,561
Franklin
10,306
33.1
18,676
Grant
8,716
35.2
18,536
Iberia
6,531
128.3
20,112
Iberville
7,015
53.9
19,379
Jackson
3,820
28.6
19,308
Jefferson
1,797
1456.1
25,842
Jefferson Davis
7,853
48.8
20,487
Lafayette
5,200
836.2
26,791
Lafourche
521
90.2
22,898
La Salle
7,621
24.1
20,049
Lincoln
5,328
98.8
19,665
Livingston
3,340
203.7
23,372
Madison
3,411
19.2
13,089
Morehouse
3,261
34.8
15,713
Natchitoches
13,331
31.7
18,207
Orleans
4,151
2220.1
24,929
Ouachita
6,665
252.3
21,893
Plaquemines
2,772
27.4
23,378
Pointe Coupee
7,205
41.2
21,533
Rapides
12,960
100.9
21,982
Red River
4,708
23.2
20,044
Richland
7,021
37.4
18,060
Sabine
11,776
28.0
20,626
St. Bernard
136
122.9
19,448
St. Charles
1,277
190.0
25,728
St. Helena
6,555
27.8
16,387
St. James
636
91.7
22,509
106

Federal Communications Commission

FCC 12-90

Appendix D

Americans Without Access to Fixed Broadband

Meeting the Speed Benchmark by County

County

County

County

County Per

Population Population

Capita

Without

Density

Income

Access

($2010)
St. John the Baptist
851
216.7
20,842
St. Landry
3,825
91.4
17,839
St. Martin
4,798
71.4
20,687
St. Mary
4,123
98.4
20,057
St. Tammany
525
280.1
29,282
Tangipahoa
10,579
157.5
19,788
Tensas
1,869
8.6
15,218
Terrebonne
1,330
91.3
22,931
Union
10,192
25.8
20,375
Vermilion
6,211
49.8
21,389
Vernon
13,426
38.1
20,191
Washington
16,794
71.3
17,120
Webster
9,358
69.4
19,254
West Baton Rouge
1,834
124.9
22,101
West Carroll
3,990
32.1
16,462
West Feliciana
8,691
38.6
18,118
Winn
8,029
16.0
15,833

Maine

Androscoggin
1,224
230.1
22,752
Aroostook
9,096
10.7
20,251
Cumberland
4,567
336.9
31,041
Franklin
3,744
18.1
20,838
Hancock
5,840
34.4
26,876
Kennebec
3,185
140.7
24,656
Knox
528
108.2
25,291
Lincoln
1,106
75.1
28,003
Oxford
4,387
27.9
21,254
Penobscot
10,033
45.3
22,977
Piscataquis
3,640
4.4
19,870
Sagadahoc
567
138.2
26,983
Somerset
6,038
13.3
20,709
Waldo
1,978
53.1
22,213
Washington
3,455
12.9
19,401
York
3,280
197.9
27,137

Maryland

Allegany
12,992
176.3
20,764
Anne Arundel
2,375
1294.0
38,660
Baltimore
8,979
1342.1
33,719
Calvert
9,245
415.6
36,323
Caroline
11,397
105.5
24,294
107

Federal Communications Commission

FCC 12-90

Appendix D

Americans Without Access to Fixed Broadband

Meeting the Speed Benchmark by County

County

County

County

County Per

Population Population

Capita

Without

Density

Income

Access

($2010)
Carroll
13,734
372.6
33,938
Cecil
6,246
294.2
28,640
Charles
15,467
321.3
35,780
Dorchester
4,642
61.1
25,139
Frederick
23,173
353.9
35,172
Garrett
13,245
46.5
23,888
Harford
3,929
560.7
33,559
Howard
1,044
1151.7
45,294
Kent
5,508
73.4
29,536
Montgomery
1,628
1988.8
47,310
Prince George's
5,821
1773.7
31,215
Queen Anne's
5,817
129.8
35,964
St. Mary's
1,732
298.7
34,000
Somerset
9,044
82.6
16,919
Talbot
5,821
141.8
37,958
Washington
12,693
324.9
26,588
Wicomico
8,440
267.7
25,505
Worcester
3,134
109.5
31,520

Massachusetts

Barnstable
9,394
541.4
35,246
Berkshire
7,092
140.7
28,300
Bristol
1,676
988.4
27,736
Dukes
1,537
160.9
33,390
Essex
2,960
1511.3
33,828
Franklin
9,783
101.8
27,544
Hampden
2,389
753.3
24,718
Hampshire
3,181
300.0
28,367
Middlesex
2,235
1844.1
40,139
Nantucket
348
230.6
53,410
Norfolk
999
1698.4
42,371
Plymouth
14,223
751.0
33,333
Suffolk
93
12500.9
30,720
Worcester
7,797
528.4
30,557

Michigan

Alcona
3,161
16.3
19,904
Alger
1,439
10.4
19,858
Allegan
13,545
135.2
23,108
Alpena
2,933
51.3
21,140
Antrim
1,228
49.2
23,912
Arenac
5,436
43.0
19,073
108

Federal Communications Commission

FCC 12-90

Appendix D

Americans Without Access to Fixed Broadband

Meeting the Speed Benchmark by County

County

County

County

County Per

Population Population

Capita

Without

Density

Income

Access

($2010)
Baraga
350
9.7
19,107
Barry
8,265
106.6
24,493
Bay
3,817
242.7
23,049
Benzie
2,148
54.3
23,649
Berrien
7,285
275.5
24,025
Branch
6,479
88.3
19,049
Calhoun
13,671
191.3
22,166
Cass
9,478
106.0
22,698
Charlevoix
1,296
61.8
28,403
Cheboygan
7,603
36.0
23,038
Chippewa
4,998
24.7
20,309
Clare
9,819
54.0
18,491
Clinton
6,942
133.4
27,223
Crawford
2,232
25.0
21,002
Delta
4,338
31.4
22,064
Dickinson
1,858
34.3
23,854
Eaton
9,224
186.4
25,963
Emmet
7,031
69.8
28,308
Genesee
3,808
660.0
22,458
Gladwin
11,859
50.2
20,571
Gogebic
3,635
14.7
19,933
Grand Traverse
1,674
188.3
27,091
Gratiot
6,615
74.6
18,388
Hillsdale
11,884
77.5
20,006
Houghton
3,443
36.3
18,267
Huron
8,949
39.1
22,098
Ingham
4,890
502.4
23,883
Ionia
11,370
111.4
19,386
Iosco
5,389
46.7
20,513
Iron
1,367
10.1
19,986
Isabella
11,252
122.7
18,510
Jackson
19,337
226.2
21,947
Kalamazoo
4,739
445.9
25,138
Kalkaska
2,813
30.5
19,770
Kent
8,851
714.1
24,791
Keweenaw
887
4.0
21,307
Lake
7,131
19.8
16,084
Lapeer
14,369
136.0
25,110
Leelanau
1,694
62.1
32,194
Lenawee
4,525
132.8
22,529
109

Federal Communications Commission

FCC 12-90

Appendix D

Americans Without Access to Fixed Broadband

Meeting the Speed Benchmark by County

County

County

County

County Per

Population Population

Capita

Without

Density

Income

Access

($2010)
Livingston
11,357
319.2
31,609
Luce
2,555
7.3
17,195
Mackinac
4,593
10.7
22,170
Macomb
5,975
1748.2
26,524
Manistee
2,428
45.2
21,612
Marquette
5,348
37.1
23,347
Mason
8,546
57.8
21,760
Mecosta
8,890
76.3
18,745
Menominee
7,573
22.9
21,624
Midland
6,693
161.0
28,363
Missaukee
8,472
26.1
19,560
Monroe
4,588
276.2
25,520
Montcalm
16,533
89.4
18,569
Montmorency
4,131
17.8
19,102
Muskegon
7,656
344.5
19,719
Newaygo
17,713
59.2
20,870
Oakland
22,522
1381.6
36,138
Oceana
8,914
51.7
18,402
Ogemaw
5,492
38.0
18,321
Ontonagon
353
5.1
21,448
Osceola
11,264
41.0
17,861
Oscoda
4,788
15.0
18,524
Otsego
3,653
46.2
22,568
Ottawa
2,411
470.7
25,045
Presque Isle
7,677
20.1
20,870
Roscommon
1,140
46.3
20,194
Saginaw
9,939
247.5
21,662
St. Clair
28,872
224.7
23,828
St. Joseph
10,582
122.3
20,192
Sanilac
20,198
44.3
19,645
Schoolcraft
3,179
7.2
20,455
Shiawassee
6,107
131.7
21,869
Tuscola
13,780
68.6
19,937
Van Buren
13,395
125.4
22,002
Washtenaw
15,403
487.1
31,316
Wayne
8,203
2927.7
22,125
Wexford
9,851
57.9
19,952

Minnesota

Aitkin
7,461
8.9
22,966
Anoka
7,641
784.4
29,347
110

Federal Communications Commission

FCC 12-90

Appendix D

Americans Without Access to Fixed Broadband

Meeting the Speed Benchmark by County

County

County

County

County Per

Population Population

Capita

Without

Density

Income

Access

($2010)
Becker
15,561
24.8
24,385
Beltrami
534
17.8
21,016
Benton
9,812
94.0
23,648
Big Stone
1,473
10.5
23,746
Blue Earth
2,359
86.1
23,691
Brown
847
41.9
24,591
Carlton
12,868
41.1
23,932
Carver
5,624
262.2
35,807
Cass
7,052
14.1
24,348
Chippewa
1,968
21.3
23,610
Chisago
6,401
129.9
26,576
Clay
4,437
57.4
23,011
Clearwater
84
8.7
20,913
Cook
3,468
3.6
28,873
Cottonwood
2,256
18.1
23,162
Crow Wing
1,918
63.2
24,282
Dakota
2,273
714.0
34,142
Dodge
1,538
46.0
26,969
Douglas
2,911
57.1
25,633
Faribault
798
20.1
22,667
Fillmore
9,761
24.1
23,758
Freeborn
4,455
44.1
23,645
Goodhue
4,105
61.1
27,472
Grant
72
10.9
23,233
Hennepin
7,941
2091.0
35,902
Houston
4,891
34.1
24,865
Hubbard
9,108
22.1
24,413
Isanti
13,509
87.5
25,165
Itasca
17,289
16.9
23,465
Jackson
3,715
14.5
25,144
Kanabec
10,192
31.1
21,304
Kandiyohi
2,463
53.1
25,844
Kittson
222
4.1
25,030
Koochiching
2,027
4.2
24,576
Lac qui Parle
988
9.4
24,291
Lake
1,724
5.1
26,087
Lake of the Woods
458
3.1
27,192
Le Sueur
1,752
62.3
25,958
Lincoln
948
10.9
24,922
Lyon
5,130
36.3
23,755
111

Federal Communications Commission

FCC 12-90

Appendix D

Americans Without Access to Fixed Broadband

Meeting the Speed Benchmark by County

County

County

County

County Per

Population Population

Capita

Without

Density

Income

Access

($2010)
McLeod
1,423
75.0
27,590
Mahnomen
4,973
9.8
17,999
Marshall
1,375
5.3
24,552
Martin
358
29.2
25,321
Meeker
3,292
38.3
23,839
Mille Lacs
3,780
45.9
21,744
Morrison
8,565
29.5
22,934
Mower
6,560
54.8
23,740
Murray
2,352
12.2
24,045
Nicollet
2,508
73.5
25,656
Nobles
5,124
30.3
20,953
Norman
3,267
7.7
22,817
Olmsted
6,137
223.7
32,704
Otter Tail
28,857
28.9
23,445
Pennington
1,729
22.6
22,687
Pine
13,628
21.1
21,328
Pipestone
5,099
20.5
22,289
Polk
3,125
16.1
23,105
Pope
980
16.4
25,935
Ramsey
5,324
3344.4
28,956
Red Lake
21
9.4
23,171
Redwood
2,649
18.1
23,548
Renville
3,573
15.8
23,956
Rice
3,656
130.3
24,678
Rock
3,910
20.0
23,079
Roseau
3,378
9.3
22,975
St. Louis
36,507
32.0
25,014
Scott
1,675
370.1
33,612
Sherburne
1,741
207.5
27,376
Sibley
3,457
25.8
24,073
Stearns
9,205
112.6
24,816
Steele
6,213
85.8
25,062
Stevens
464
17.2
24,585
Swift
1,471
13.1
21,571
Todd
7,650
26.3
21,014
Traverse
907
6.2
24,188
Wabasha
4,300
41.4
26,282
Wadena
1,752
25.7
19,344
Waseca
2,392
45.4
23,121
Washington
7,956
628.5
36,248
112

Federal Communications Commission

FCC 12-90

Appendix D

Americans Without Access to Fixed Broadband

Meeting the Speed Benchmark by County

County

County

County

County Per

Population Population

Capita

Without

Density

Income

Access

($2010)
Watonwan
829
25.6
22,334
Wilkin
1,806
8.6
24,447
Winona
8,379
82.5
21,864
Wright
2,419
192.9
28,454
Yellow Medicine
1,798
13.6
23,171

Mississippi

Adams
1,120
69.5
17,473
Alcorn
7,713
93.0
17,954
Amite
7,449
17.9
16,861
Attala
6,197
26.7
17,659
Benton
3,751
21.9
14,998
Bolivar
2,268
38.6
16,051
Calhoun
3,746
25.5
15,183
Carroll
3,017
17.1
16,025
Chickasaw
6,837
34.4
15,985
Choctaw
1,758
20.5
16,545
Claiborne
2,359
19.5
12,571
Clarke
5,102
24.2
16,467
Clay
5,708
49.9
17,604
Coahoma
2,379
46.6
15,687
Copiah
5,745
37.9
17,473
Covington
2,951
47.7
17,713
DeSoto
2,653
349.2
24,531
Forrest
3,400
162.8
19,272
Franklin
1,330
14.6
21,583
George
771
48.1
19,452
Greene
1,393
20.7
14,064
Grenada
2,858
52.0
19,701
Hancock
2,785
89.8
21,935
Harrison
1,174
319.7
22,880
Hinds
6,830
281.1
20,676
Holmes
2,707
25.4
11,585
Humphreys
1,283
22.4
13,282
Issaquena
598
3.4
11,810
Itawamba
1,735
44.0
18,517
Jackson
1,145
191.8
22,655
Jasper
3,349
25.5
18,268
Jefferson
3,587
14.8
12,534
Jefferson Davis
5,221
30.4
15,120
Jones
4,779
98.3
18,632
113

Federal Communications Commission

FCC 12-90

Appendix D

Americans Without Access to Fixed Broadband

Meeting the Speed Benchmark by County

County

County

County

County Per

Population Population

Capita

Without

Density

Income

Access

($2010)
Kemper
4,937
13.5
12,903
Lafayette
5,924
76.1
21,267
Lamar
2,389
116.0
26,052
Lauderdale
3,111
114.5
20,116
Lawrence
5,702
30.3
19,142
Leake
3,674
40.8
14,617
Lee
7,545
185.7
21,831
Leflore
2,621
54.7
12,957
Lincoln
7,098
60.2
20,620
Lowndes
2,265
117.7
21,273
Madison
3,159
136.2
31,517
Marion
5,575
50.3
17,549
Marshall
8,111
53.3
16,825
Monroe
7,745
48.2
18,884
Montgomery
843
26.5
16,584
Neshoba
8,968
52.5
17,609
Newton
7,796
37.7
16,727
Noxubee
3,747
16.5
12,759
Oktibbeha
2,014
105.1
19,356
Panola
9,815
50.8
15,987
Pearl River
5,381
70.6
20,014
Perry
2,147
19.0
18,238
Pike
5,232
99.7
17,620
Pontotoc
12,384
60.5
17,820
Prentiss
5,197
60.9
17,068
Quitman
2,281
19.9
13,080
Rankin
4,219
186.4
26,637
Scott
3,940
46.6
16,608
Sharkey
1,154
11.2
14,322
Simpson
5,570
46.8
18,397
Smith
6,926
26.1
18,686
Stone
3,135
40.9
21,691
Sunflower
4,801
41.6
11,993
Tallahatchie
4,371
23.5
12,687
Tate
7,102
72.1
18,318
Tippah
7,902
48.7
16,365
Tishomingo
4,266
46.1
17,017
Tunica
2,286
23.6
15,711
Union
4,498
65.7
17,945
Walthall
8,294
38.5
16,157
114

Federal Communications Commission

FCC 12-90

Appendix D

Americans Without Access to Fixed Broadband

Meeting the Speed Benchmark by County

County

County

County

County Per

Population Population

Capita

Without

Density

Income

Access

($2010)
Warren
3,467
82.3
22,079
Washington
7,076
69.7
15,946
Wayne
7,188
25.4
17,099
Webster
2,112
24.3
17,888
Wilkinson
3,662
14.5
14,333
Winston
8,533
31.5
17,244
Yalobusha
3,127
27.0
16,623
Yazoo
6,654
30.5
14,339

Missouri

Adair
25
45.2
17,098
Andrew
2,700
40.1
24,009
Atchison
666
10.2
23,659
Audrain
2,953
36.9
18,800
Barry
1,486
46.2
19,363
Barton
3,020
20.6
19,117
Bates
8,394
20.3
19,056
Benton
7,632
27.1
19,955
Bollinger
10,393
20.0
18,172
Boone
2,220
241.1
25,124
Buchanan
845
220.4
21,638
Butler
3,406
61.7
19,368
Caldwell
4,411
22.1
19,499
Camden
9,458
67.9
25,509
Cape Girardeau
10,774
131.8
23,014
Carroll
4,431
13.2
25,021
Carter
3,031
12.5
15,881
Cass
3,704
144.8
26,326
Cedar
3,401
29.2
16,432
Chariton
3,423
10.3
19,978
Christian
630
142.8
23,720
Clark
2,794
14.2
19,114
Clay
1
570.6
28,204
Cole
24
194.4
25,935
Cooper
258
31.2
19,234
Crawford
2,079
33.3
17,317
Dade
3,157
15.9
16,638
Dallas
9,177
31.3
18,400
Daviess
2,417
14.8
19,900
DeKalb
1,514
29.7
16,916
Dent
5,468
20.9
18,111
115

Federal Communications Commission

FCC 12-90

Appendix D

Americans Without Access to Fixed Broadband

Meeting the Speed Benchmark by County

County

County

County

County Per

Population Population

Capita

Without

Density

Income

Access

($2010)
Douglas
3,131
17.0
15,117
Dunklin
2,609
58.8
16,619
Franklin
3,776
110.8
23,365
Gasconade
568
29.2
21,240
Gentry
1,941
13.5
19,021
Grundy
3,829
23.6
18,148
Harrison
8,637
12.5
18,967
Henry
5,050
31.7
20,304
Hickory
7,754
24.1
18,215
Holt
93
10.5
21,666
Howard
2,953
21.9
21,829
Howell
17,258
44.0
17,135
Iron
3,299
19.1
17,200
Jackson
1,892
1117.2
25,213
Jasper
6,499
186.8
19,899
Jefferson
4,253
335.9
24,586
Johnson
4,761
63.3
20,405
Knox
47
8.2
18,481
Laclede
9,892
47.1
19,858
Lafayette
4,068
53.1
23,043
Lawrence
247
63.7
18,777
Lewis
1,902
20.1
18,973
Lincoln
3,895
86.7
21,862
Linn
3,719
20.5
20,742
Livingston
3,227
28.6
20,295
McDonald
3,243
43.1
17,070
Macon
2,888
19.5
18,411
Madison
5,170
24.9
17,239
Maries
659
17.5
19,155
Marion
5,269
65.8
20,718
Mercer
3,797
8.4
19,031
Miller
1,685
41.9
18,202
Mississippi
1,071
34.9
15,927
Moniteau
871
37.7
19,267
Monroe
2,670
13.6
19,834
Montgomery
767
22.7
19,634
Morgan
4,615
34.6
18,789
New Madrid
2,680
27.7
18,811
Newton
7,584
93.7
20,832
Nodaway
6,565
26.5
18,909
116

Federal Communications Commission

FCC 12-90

Appendix D

Americans Without Access to Fixed Broadband

Meeting the Speed Benchmark by County

County

County

County

County Per

Population Population

Capita

Without

Density

Income

Access

($2010)
Oregon
6,151
13.7
15,093
Ozark
8,239
13.0
17,298
Pemiscot
4,598
36.7
15,841
Perry
6,663
40.2
22,200
Pettis
323
62.4
19,351
Phelps
7,318
67.1
20,817
Pike
6,828
27.6
18,769
Platte
103
214.6
34,037
Polk
1,885
49.5
18,138
Pulaski
10,576
94.8
19,800
Putnam
3,614
9.5
20,005
Ralls
5,759
21.7
22,605
Randolph
10,433
52.9
17,049
Ray
6,486
41.0
25,244
Reynolds
6,254
8.3
16,964
Ripley
8,409
22.3
15,115
St. Clair
6,578
14.5
18,309
Ste. Genevieve
9,036
36.1
22,665
St. Francois
8,871
146.4
18,852
Saline
3,013
30.9
18,581
Schuyler
86
14.5
18,410
Scotland
19
11.1
19,895
Scott
3,640
93.3
19,566
Shannon
5,175
8.5
15,309
Shelby
141
12.6
18,056
Stoddard
5,727
36.2
20,911
Stone
32
70.0
21,748
Sullivan
1,239
10.3
16,633
Taney
1,723
84.1
21,474
Texas
11,278
22.1
15,790
Vernon
10,422
25.5
18,314
Warren
3,536
78.0
24,358
Washington
11,751
33.3
16,867
Wayne
4,804
17.7
17,105
Webster
931
62.2
18,699
Worth
906
8.0
18,229
Wright
2,280
27.8
16,413

Montana

Beaverhead
3,268
1.7
21,110
Big Horn
8,043
2.6
15,066
117

Federal Communications Commission

FCC 12-90

Appendix D

Americans Without Access to Fixed Broadband

Meeting the Speed Benchmark by County

County

County

County

County Per

Population Population

Capita

Without

Density

Income

Access

($2010)
Blaine
6,532
1.5
16,813
Broadwater
3,433
4.8
19,606
Carbon
5,453
4.9
24,983
Carter
661
0.3
20,681
Cascade
4,763
30.1
22,963
Chouteau
5,371
1.5
20,202
Custer
1,964
3.1
21,676
Daniels
1,728
1.2
24,737
Dawson
2,165
3.8
24,602
Deer Lodge
2,561
12.6
21,921
Fallon
956
1.8
26,819
Fergus
4,784
2.7
22,295
Flathead
4,829
18.3
24,721
Gallatin
16,987
35.6
27,423
Garfield
1,228
0.3
22,424
Glacier
1,499
4.4
17,053
Golden Valley
449
0.8
19,319
Granite
1,101
1.8
23,222
Hill
4,442
5.6
21,420
Jefferson
5,922
7.0
26,437
Judith Basin
1,914
1.1
24,029
Lake
1,902
19.5
20,164
Lewis and Clark
11,082
18.6
25,894
Liberty
2,268
1.6
19,097
Lincoln
16,726
5.5
19,626
McCone
1,049
0.7
23,265
Madison
4,918
2.2
32,205
Meagher
1,878
0.8
17,318
Mineral
1,078
3.5
19,209
Missoula
17,595
42.7
24,343
Musselshell
4,579
2.5
20,875
Park
6,397
5.6
24,717
Petroleum
495
0.3
21,008
Phillips
4,224
0.8
24,227
Pondera
2,002
3.8
18,989
Powder River
920
0.5
21,543
Powell
2,994
3.0
17,849
Prairie
1,186
0.7
21,296
Ravalli
21,661
16.9
23,908
Richland
5,722
4.7
26,888
118

Federal Communications Commission

FCC 12-90

Appendix D

Americans Without Access to Fixed Broadband

Meeting the Speed Benchmark by County

County

County

County

County Per

Population Population

Capita

Without

Density

Income

Access

($2010)
Roosevelt
10,327
4.4
17,821
Rosebud
1,504
1.9
19,844
Sanders
3,013
4.2
18,472
Sheridan
3,320
2.0
26,537
Silver Bow
4,268
47.8
21,357
Stillwater
5,850
5.1
27,168
Sweet Grass
3,740
2.0
22,785
Teton
1,641
2.6
20,509
Toole
2,517
2.8
20,464
Treasure
198
0.7
20,882
Valley
7,357
1.5
24,305
Wheatland
2,202
1.5
18,474
Wibaux
1,006
1.1
22,579
Yellowstone
21,057
56.9
26,152

Nebraska

Adams
675
55.9
23,084
Antelope
4,396
7.7
20,419
Arthur
147
0.6
19,722
Banner
559
1.0
22,042
Blaine
105
0.7
20,586
Boone
4,336
8.0
22,790
Box Butte
1,104
10.6
23,434
Boyd
241
3.9
21,003
Brown
532
2.5
17,330
Buffalo
2,095
48.2
22,616
Burt
1,207
13.8
23,302
Butler
1,368
14.1
22,494
Cass
595
45.3
27,584
Cedar
3,350
11.8
20,595
Chase
1,044
4.3
22,730
Cherry
1,975
0.9
22,601
Cheyenne
1,931
8.4
26,983
Clay
322
11.3
21,147
Colfax
3,438
25.7
20,872
Cuming
5,273
15.9
22,783
Custer
3,569
4.2
21,685
Dakota
6,745
80.3
19,048
Dawes
2,117
6.5
18,573
Dawson
405
24.4
19,384
Deuel
429
4.3
23,758
119

Federal Communications Commission

FCC 12-90

Appendix D

Americans Without Access to Fixed Broadband

Meeting the Speed Benchmark by County

County

County

County

County Per

Population Population

Capita

Without

Density

Income

Access

($2010)
Dixon
1,947
12.9
20,478
Dodge
6,210
69.6
22,049
Douglas
2,899
1592.7
28,092
Dundy
447
2.1
24,701
Fillmore
907
10.2
21,990
Franklin
539
5.6
19,764
Frontier
654
2.8
22,374
Furnas
745
6.7
21,644
Gage
2,159
26.0
21,619
Garden
679
1.2
19,740
Garfield
417
3.6
19,235
Gosper
129
4.5
23,132
Grant
228
0.8
20,518
Greeley
2,019
4.4
19,235
Hall
2,327
109.4
22,552
Hamilton
230
16.7
23,240
Harlan
64
6.1
25,050
Hayes
909
1.4
21,977
Hitchcock
2,536
4.1
20,853
Holt
3,702
4.3
22,498
Hooker
89
1.1
21,197
Howard
2,129
11.1
22,325
Jefferson
1,490
13.0
21,976
Johnson
2,593
13.9
17,606
Kearney
745
12.4
27,227
Keith
1,549
7.8
25,315
Keya Paha
356
1.0
20,691
Kimball
751
3.9
22,263
Knox
8,592
7.8
19,894
Lancaster
620
344.5
25,949
Lincoln
1,668
14.3
25,319
Logan
506
1.4
22,320
Loup
256
1.1
20,004
McPherson
539
0.6
21,000
Madison
20,843
60.6
22,157
Merrick
3,236
16.2
21,819
Morrill
1,940
3.5
21,367
Nance
2,233
8.4
21,457
Nemaha
811
17.9
22,151
Nuckolls
130
7.7
20,299
120

Federal Communications Commission

FCC 12-90

Appendix D

Americans Without Access to Fixed Broadband

Meeting the Speed Benchmark by County

County

County

County

County Per

Population Population

Capita

Without

Density

Income

Access

($2010)
Otoe
780
25.5
23,773
Pawnee
1,195
6.2
21,865
Perkins
2,660
3.3
23,542
Phelps
2
16.8
23,951
Pierce
2,513
12.7
21,419
Platte
8,191
48.7
23,358
Polk
1,748
12.2
23,831
Red Willow
1,148
15.3
21,246
Richardson
1,138
15.1
20,516
Rock
1,384
1.5
23,871
Saline
1,394
24.6
20,431
Sarpy
1,056
680.3
29,212
Saunders
1,300
27.6
26,898
Scotts Bluff
4,951
50.4
21,212
Seward
1,245
29.2
26,386
Sheridan
2,777
2.2
20,066
Sherman
801
5.6
20,900
Sioux
987
0.6
25,824
Stanton
3,372
14.2
23,018
Thayer
524
9.1
21,648
Thomas
57
0.9
31,499
Thurston
5,740
17.7
15,686
Valley
1,129
7.4
21,058
Washington
6,886
51.8
27,884
Wayne
1,590
21.5
19,681
Webster
1,115
6.5
18,906
Wheeler
277
1.5
20,614
York
1,459
23.9
25,412

Nevada

Churchill
503
5.1
22,997
Clark
16,455
253.5
27,422
Douglas
1,413
65.7
35,239
Elko
6,758
2.9
26,879
Esmeralda
478
0.2
34,571
Eureka
1,459
0.5
30,306
Humboldt
8,638
1.7
25,965
Lander
2,335
1.1
25,287
Lincoln
218
0.5
18,148
Lyon
1,747
27.1
21,041
Mineral
910
1.3
23,226
121

Federal Communications Commission

FCC 12-90

Appendix D

Americans Without Access to Fixed Broadband

Meeting the Speed Benchmark by County

County

County

County

County Per

Population Population

Capita

Without

Density

Income

Access

($2010)
Nye
9,509
2.5
22,687
Pershing
2,950
1.1
17,519
Storey
1,400
15.8
31,079
Washoe
4,147
67.9
29,687
White Pine
4,107
1.2
21,615
Carson City
127
379.6
27,568

New Hampshire

Belknap
1,015
149.2
28,517
Carroll
2,422
51.8
28,411
Cheshire
22,242
108.9
27,045
Coos
7,078
18.2
22,976
Grafton
11,245
52.4
28,170
Hillsborough
9,172
456.7
33,108
Merrimack
14,976
156.5
30,544
Rockingham
15,944
424.7
35,889
Strafford
4,660
334.7
28,059
Sullivan
10,398
81.9
26,322

New Jersey

Atlantic
8,268
496.3
27,247
Bergen
182
3888.0
42,006
Burlington
10,543
557.9
34,802
Camden
2,371
2332.3
29,478
Cape May
1,788
382.3
33,571
Cumberland
13,287
329.6
21,883
Essex
53
6200.1
31,535
Gloucester
3,652
904.6
31,210
Hunterdon
7,619
298.6
48,489
Mercer
1,433
1634.1
36,016
Middlesex
953
2631.9
33,289
Monmouth
2,911
1339.7
40,976
Morris
803
1070.1
47,342
Ocean
2,444
917.2
29,826
Passaic
428
2735.9
26,095
Salem
1,999
200.0
27,296
Somerset
1,097
1079.7
47,067
Sussex
692
288.0
35,982
Union
21
5225.9
34,096
Warren
2,593
302.7
32,985

New Mexico

Bernalillo
21,557
582.8
26,143
122

Federal Communications Commission

FCC 12-90

Appendix D

Americans Without Access to Fixed Broadband

Meeting the Speed Benchmark by County

County

County

County

County Per

Population Population

Capita

Without

Density

Income

Access

($2010)
Catron
1,702
0.5
20,895
Chaves
116
11.1
18,504
Cibola
17,485
6.0
14,712
Colfax
3,906
3.6
21,047
Curry
21
34.2
19,925
Doña Ana
3,535
56.6
18,315
Eddy
100
13.1
24,587
Grant
11,683
7.6
21,164
Guadalupe
203
1.5
13,710
Harding
261
0.3
14,684
Hidalgo
963
1.5
17,451
Lea
4
15.1
19,637
Lincoln
45
4.3
24,290
Los Alamos
430
163.2
49,474
Luna
12,462
8.7
15,687
McKinley
53,020
13.2
12,932
Mora
4,974
2.6
22,035
Otero
119
9.7
19,255
Quay
1,398
3.1
18,234
Rio Arriba
13,378
7.0
19,913
Sandoval
20,513
37.1
25,979
San Juan
44,676
23.6
20,725
San Miguel
12,503
6.3
18,508
Santa Fe
13,917
76.7
32,188
Sierra
2,926
2.9
16,667
Socorro
7,636
2.7
17,801
Taos
23,371
15.3
22,145
Torrance
7,679
4.9
17,278
Union
1,199
1.2
19,228
Valencia
16,022
73.5
19,955

New York

Albany
3,779
579.8
30,863
Allegany
6,977
47.3
20,058
Bronx
13
33549.6
17,575
Broome
3,947
283.1
24,314
Cattaraugus
16,386
60.8
20,824
Cayuga
8,826
115.2
22,959
Chautauqua
6,604
126.8
21,033
Chemung
3,781
216.8
23,457
Chenango
833
56.4
22,036
123

Federal Communications Commission

FCC 12-90

Appendix D

Americans Without Access to Fixed Broadband

Meeting the Speed Benchmark by County

County

County

County

County Per

Population Population

Capita

Without

Density

Income

Access

($2010)
Clinton
4,459
79.0
22,660
Columbia
4,442
98.9
31,844
Cortland
1,466
98.4
22,078
Delaware
8,797
33.1
22,928
Dutchess
1,051
373.2
31,642
Erie
9,269
875.9
26,378
Essex
5,102
22.0
24,390
Franklin
10,369
31.9
19,807
Fulton
926
112.1
23,147
Genesee
1,721
121.2
24,323
Greene
1,808
76.1
23,461
Hamilton
1,072
2.8
29,965
Herkimer
5,891
45.5
21,908
Jefferson
9,790
92.0
21,823
Lewis
2,746
21.2
20,970
Livingston
269
103.1
22,923
Madison
753
112.0
24,311
Monroe
34
1130.4
26,999
Montgomery
1,266
124.8
22,347
Niagara
2,589
413.3
24,224
Oneida
4,054
193.6
23,458
Onondaga
1,359
598.3
27,037
Ontario
1,371
168.0
28,950
Orange
342
461.9
28,944
Orleans
961
109.0
20,812
Oswego
2,818
127.8
21,604
Otsego
8,137
61.8
22,902
Putnam
365
431.1
37,915
Queens
748
20772.4
25,553
Rensselaer
3,855
244.9
27,457
Rockland
24
1806.5
34,304
St. Lawrence
15,127
41.8
20,143
Saratoga
986
271.7
32,186
Schenectady
675
762.1
27,500
Schoharie
7,014
52.6
25,105
Schuyler
8,428
55.4
22,123
Seneca
7,496
107.7
21,818
Steuben
15,259
70.8
23,279
Suffolk
1,190
1635.6
35,755
Sullivan
3,605
80.4
23,422
124

Federal Communications Commission

FCC 12-90

Appendix D

Americans Without Access to Fixed Broadband

Meeting the Speed Benchmark by County

County

County

County

County Per

Population Population

Capita

Without

Density

Income

Access

($2010)
Tioga
3,108
98.2
24,596
Tompkins
5,313
213.4
25,737
Ulster
2,504
162.2
28,954
Warren
1,186
75.9
27,744
Washington
14,023
76.4
22,347
Wayne
4,558
154.8
24,092
Westchester
45
2211.2
47,814
Wyoming
3,639
70.8
20,605
Yates
3,210
74.9
23,255

North Carolina

Alamance
13,005
362.9
22,819
Alexander
2,017
144.3
20,716
Alleghany
8,936
47.7
18,919
Anson
5,583
50.5
16,856
Ashe
7,394
64.0
20,350
Avery
806
71.5
23,465
Beaufort
21,828
58.2
22,728
Bertie
6,162
30.6
17,614
Bladen
2,158
40.2
17,890
Brunswick
4,456
133.7
26,315
Buncombe
723
368.2
25,665
Burke
979
179.8
19,220
Cabarrus
158
510.4
26,165
Caldwell
1,646
176.6
19,686
Camden
981
42.9
25,544
Carteret
64
131.6
26,791
Caswell
8,506
55.6
17,814
Catawba
358
391.6
22,969
Chatham
9,697
95.1
29,991
Cherokee
4,920
61.0
20,747
Chowan
2,152
86.4
20,900
Clay
1,977
50.2
20,474
Cleveland
3,790
211.7
19,284
Columbus
10,294
62.2
18,784
Craven
18,015
146.5
24,591
Cumberland
2,153
492.0
22,285
Currituck
2,055
91.6
26,083
Dare
209
87.8
30,327
Davidson
30,050
297.4
22,268
Davie
39
158.9
26,139
125

Federal Communications Commission

FCC 12-90

Appendix D

Americans Without Access to Fixed Broadband

Meeting the Speed Benchmark by County

County

County

County

County Per

Population Population

Capita

Without

Density

Income

Access

($2010)
Duplin
4,401
72.8
16,693
Durham
282
957.2
27,503
Edgecombe
20,449
111.3
16,747
Forsyth
29,141
874.9
26,213
Franklin
9,289
126.3
21,331
Gaston
734
590.9
22,305
Gates
6,125
36.6
19,893
Graham
2,860
30.2
17,825
Granville
7,656
114.8
21,733
Greene
5
81.3
17,362
Guilford
10,917
770.3
26,267
Halifax
9,212
75.4
17,223
Harnett
2,316
198.3
19,274
Haywood
1,440
106.9
24,233
Henderson
2,424
291.9
26,061
Hertford
3,968
69.1
17,002
Hoke
1,916
124.2
17,630
Hyde
3,311
9.4
14,992
Iredell
2,284
286.7
25,610
Jackson
7,028
82.7
20,228
Johnston
12,471
221.5
22,437
Jones
3,396
21.7
20,066
Lee
602
231.8
21,061
Lenoir
15,080
148.6
19,017
Lincoln
122
269.6
23,560
McDowell
2,837
102.7
18,798
Macon
3,613
66.6
26,156
Madison
2,756
46.5
18,792
Martin
7,702
52.6
18,728
Mitchell
650
70.1
18,804
Montgomery
6,640
56.6
18,618
Moore
14,437
128.5
25,786
Nash
22,391
179.4
23,909
New Hanover
8
1077.9
29,363
Northampton
4,682
40.7
17,128
Onslow
2,743
236.3
21,048
Orange
5,121
343.8
32,912
Pamlico
1,090
39.0
23,320
Pasquotank
2,423
184.2
21,736
Pender
7,546
62.6
22,872
126

Federal Communications Commission

FCC 12-90

Appendix D

Americans Without Access to Fixed Broadband

Meeting the Speed Benchmark by County

County

County

County

County Per

Population Population

Capita

Without

Density

Income

Access

($2010)
Perquimans
3,131
56.2
22,085
Person
2,772
100.9
21,848
Pitt
36,131
264.3
21,935
Polk
2,561
86.5
24,008
Randolph
17,150
183.0
21,297
Richmond
939
98.4
17,692
Robeson
13,445
142.8
15,321
Rockingham
27,745
165.5
20,801
Rowan
2,388
274.0
21,525
Rutherford
7,413
120.4
18,961
Sampson
2,766
67.9
19,086
Scotland
2,920
113.5
16,297
Stanly
532
154.1
21,139
Stokes
17,099
106.1
20,852
Surry
40,556
138.9
20,541
Swain
2,361
26.7
19,297
Transylvania
2,994
88.7
23,939
Tyrrell
1,221
11.4
15,812
Union
2,123
337.3
28,596
Vance
2,735
178.4
17,622
Wake
2,158
1124.7
32,592
Warren
5,835
48.7
17,838
Washington
1,825
37.9
16,982
Watauga
1,932
165.0
20,961
Wayne
3,630
223.0
20,446
Wilkes
5,933
91.8
19,406
Wilson
1,468
223.2
20,691
Yancey
2,136
57.9
18,576

North Dakota

Adams
279
2.3
20,118
Barnes
2,396
7.4
26,152
Benson
4,766
4.9
14,545
Billings
507
0.7
28,666
Bottineau
1,916
3.8
26,277
Bowman
353
2.7
27,354
Burke
1,799
1.7
32,347
Burleigh
2,132
50.8
28,784
Cass
5,450
86.2
28,184
Cavalier
1,126
2.6
26,468
Dickey
221
4.6
21,824
127

Federal Communications Commission

FCC 12-90

Appendix D

Americans Without Access to Fixed Broadband

Meeting the Speed Benchmark by County

County

County

County

County Per

Population Population

Capita

Without

Density

Income

Access

($2010)
Divide
2,027
1.6
28,462
Dunn
1,444
1.7
24,832
Eddy
641
3.7
20,302
Emmons
1,598
2.3
21,358
Foster
805
5.3
27,945
Golden Valley
599
1.6
21,899
Grant
1,297
1.4
25,840
Griggs
3
3.3
24,122
Hettinger
467
2.2
24,928
Kidder
940
1.7
23,502
LaMoure
142
3.5
27,056
Logan
503
2.0
21,654
McHenry
2,404
2.8
22,911
McIntosh
805
2.7
22,608
McKenzie
6,342
2.4
27,605
McLean
4,298
4.3
27,029
Mercer
261
8.0
30,616
Morton
2,451
14.5
25,303
Mountrail
5,746
4.2
25,762
Nelson
254
3.2
22,838
Oliver
265
2.5
29,348
Pembina
68
6.5
27,019
Pierce
1,379
4.3
18,575
Ramsey
1,251
9.6
24,130
Ransom
1,594
6.3
21,995
Renville
1,085
2.7
26,856
Richland
3,723
11.2
24,342
Rolette
10,535
15.4
13,632
Sargent
649
4.4
26,553
Sheridan
685
1.3
24,286
Sioux
219
3.8
13,542
Slope
214
0.6
24,824
Stark
2,375
18.3
25,282
Stutsman
12,904
9.4
23,307
Towner
811
2.1
24,203
Traill
558
9.2
23,340
Ward
6,515
30.6
25,326
Wells
1,511
3.2
23,531
Williams
7,119
11.0
29,153

Ohio

128

Federal Communications Commission

FCC 12-90

Appendix D

Americans Without Access to Fixed Broadband

Meeting the Speed Benchmark by County

County

County

County

County Per

Population Population

Capita

Without

Density

Income

Access

($2010)
Adams
9,946
48.8
17,693
Allen
1,734
263.6
21,713
Ashland
1,729
126.2
20,558
Ashtabula
23,136
143.7
19,898
Athens
13,497
128.1
16,642
Auglaize
1,209
114.5
25,290
Belmont
26,414
131.6
20,266
Brown
5,486
91.2
20,167
Butler
1,137
795.5
25,892
Carroll
4,473
72.4
21,575
Champaign
583
93.7
23,438
Clark
598
346.5
22,110
Clermont
618
439.6
27,900
Clinton
2,621
103.5
22,163
Columbiana
14,664
201.2
19,635
Coshocton
10,221
64.8
19,635
Crawford
1,030
107.7
20,590
Cuyahoga
62
2767.3
26,263
Darke
4,472
88.1
21,483
Defiance
979
95.0
22,139
Delaware
2,617
401.3
40,682
Erie
438
305.2
25,290
Fairfield
3,341
291.1
26,130
Fayette
789
71.7
20,525
Franklin
76
2197.4
26,909
Fulton
1,709
105.4
22,804
Gallia
12,727
66.2
20,199
Geauga
2,083
233.1
32,735
Greene
3,441
391.3
28,328
Guernsey
6,775
76.2
19,187
Hamilton
5
1976.0
28,799
Hancock
1,297
140.7
25,158
Hardin
4,313
68.3
19,100
Harrison
1,822
39.2
19,318
Henry
660
67.6
22,638
Highland
9,280
78.5
18,966
Hocking
8,097
69.8
19,048
Holmes
17,201
100.0
17,009
Huron
2,309
121.1
21,743
Jackson
6,554
78.9
18,775
129

Federal Communications Commission

FCC 12-90

Appendix D

Americans Without Access to Fixed Broadband

Meeting the Speed Benchmark by County

County

County

County

County Per

Population Population

Capita

Without

Density

Income

Access

($2010)
Jefferson
3,708
169.5
20,470
Knox
5,731
116.4
21,204
Lake
235
1011.6
28,221
Lawrence
6,741
137.7
19,452
Licking
3,702
245.5
25,534
Logan
3,943
99.8
22,974
Lorain
3,580
617.2
25,002
Lucas
372
1287.4
23,981
Madison
732
93.9
23,980
Mahoning
1,634
573.6
22,824
Marion
1,516
164.6
19,849
Medina
887
411.4
29,986
Meigs
6,908
54.8
18,003
Mercer
556
88.4
22,348
Miami
701
252.2
25,006
Monroe
12,627
31.9
18,738
Montgomery
192
1150.5
24,828
Morgan
5,995
36.0
18,777
Morrow
3,558
85.6
20,795
Muskingum
9,226
129.1
20,561
Noble
4,793
36.9
20,029
Ottawa
911
161.7
27,809
Paulding
660
46.9
20,919
Perry
13,144
88.6
18,916
Pickaway
2,855
112.8
21,432
Pike
2,720
65.1
17,494
Portage
1,485
331.2
25,097
Preble
2,043
99.4
23,290
Putnam
352
71.5
24,023
Richland
7,014
249.6
21,459
Ross
1,010
113.6
20,595
Sandusky
1,645
148.6
22,286
Scioto
4,770
130.6
17,778
Seneca
1,446
102.5
20,976
Shelby
2,505
121.4
21,948
Stark
1,551
651.8
24,015
Summit
111
1306.2
26,676
Trumbull
5,256
336.3
21,854
Tuscarawas
11,171
162.8
20,536
Union
5,387
122.8
27,389
130

Federal Communications Commission

FCC 12-90

Appendix D

Americans Without Access to Fixed Broadband

Meeting the Speed Benchmark by County

County

County

County

County Per

Population Population

Capita

Without

Density

Income

Access

($2010)
Van Wert
1,073
70.0
20,772
Vinton
5,190
32.3
16,736
Warren
7,700
537.2
31,935
Washington
13,402
97.4
22,786
Wayne
10,753
206.2
22,645
Williams
1,502
89.2
21,381
Wood
1,742
203.7
26,671
Wyandot
1,849
55.3
22,553

Oklahoma

Adair
21,006
39.6
13,732
Alfalfa
2,803
6.5
21,029
Atoka
10,217
14.7
15,772
Beaver
2,971
3.1
23,525
Beckham
6,574
25.2
21,144
Blaine
11,030
13.0
19,445
Bryan
10,409
47.9
19,103
Caddo
3,145
23.0
16,787
Canadian
1,246
132.7
26,970
Cherokee
26,529
63.0
16,084
Choctaw
8,408
19.6
17,231
Cimarron
1,107
1.3
18,358
Cleveland
1,168
482.4
25,831
Coal
3,397
11.4
17,338
Comanche
93
116.2
20,778
Cotton
2,458
9.8
20,948
Craig
5,888
19.9
18,784
Creek
24,019
74.0
21,891
Custer
6,364
28.4
22,003
Delaware
10,461
56.5
20,142
Dewey
4,850
4.9
21,055
Ellis
4,257
3.5
23,767
Garfield
7,907
57.7
22,812
Garvin
2,587
34.6
20,176
Grady
56
48.3
21,687
Grant
3,129
4.5
22,204
Greer
1,127
9.7
13,241
Harmon
2,886
5.4
17,677
Harper
2,290
3.6
23,693
Haskell
5,476
22.2
18,735
Hughes
6,343
17.4
18,083
131

Federal Communications Commission

FCC 12-90

Appendix D

Americans Without Access to Fixed Broadband

Meeting the Speed Benchmark by County

County

County

County

County Per

Population Population

Capita

Without

Density

Income

Access

($2010)
Jackson
4,305
32.7
21,249
Jefferson
1,838
8.5
17,491
Johnston
4,187
17.0
18,451
Kay
5,523
50.5
21,167
Kingfisher
13,860
16.9
23,481
Kiowa
5,194
9.3
18,921
Latimer
8,117
15.5
20,353
Le Flore
34,669
31.9
17,357
Lincoln
9,903
36.0
20,774
Logan
3,213
57.6
25,090
McClain
451
62.4
23,556
McCurtain
6,912
17.9
17,456
McIntosh
11,715
32.8
16,095
Major
5,385
7.8
24,897
Marshall
3,811
43.4
18,794
Mayes
13,479
63.4
19,975
Muskogee
18,101
87.8
19,161
Noble
4,034
15.8
20,032
Nowata
4,033
18.6
20,752
Okfuskee
7,867
19.6
15,046
Okmulgee
16,610
57.2
19,071
Osage
21,929
21.1
21,446
Ottawa
3,373
67.2
17,638
Pawnee
10,649
28.9
19,520
Payne
14,871
113.3
19,540
Pittsburg
11,793
35.5
20,714
Pontotoc
7,923
52.8
21,136
Pottawatomie
7,631
88.5
19,437
Pushmataha
8,563
8.3
15,460
Roger Mills
3,810
3.3
28,427
Rogers
26,355
129.9
25,358
Seminole
4,568
40.4
17,032
Sequoyah
27,549
63.5
18,049
Stephens
5,979
52.3
22,790
Texas
5,999
10.3
21,356
Tillman
3,147
9.1
15,894
Tulsa
10,545
1070.0
26,769
Wagoner
18,861
133.4
24,049
Washington
6,578
124.1
26,663
Washita
7,231
11.9
21,511
132

Federal Communications Commission

FCC 12-90

Appendix D

Americans Without Access to Fixed Broadband

Meeting the Speed Benchmark by County

County

County

County

County Per

Population Population

Capita

Without

Density

Income

Access

($2010)
Woods
3,488
6.9
24,292
Woodward
20,517
16.5
24,635

Oregon

Baker
5,664
5.2
21,683
Benton
240
127.7
26,177
Clackamas
1,302
203.1
31,785
Clatsop
2,250
45.1
25,347
Columbia
9,007
76.0
24,613
Coos
6,105
39.6
21,981
Crook
1,839
7.2
22,275
Curry
757
13.6
23,842
Deschutes
643
54.1
27,920
Douglas
15,776
21.5
21,342
Gilliam
473
1.6
25,559
Grant
4,823
1.6
22,041
Harney
2,415
0.7
20,849
Hood River
382
43.6
23,930
Jackson
5,606
73.7
24,410
Jefferson
2,328
12.4
20,009
Josephine
12,429
50.7
21,539
Klamath
10,246
11.2
22,081
Lake
4,319
1.0
22,586
Lane
10,403
78.0
23,869
Lincoln
761
47.3
24,354
Linn
263
52.1
22,165
Malheur
13,732
3.2
16,335
Marion
1,338
271.0
21,915
Morrow
1,952
5.5
20,201
Multnomah
12
1732.5
28,883
Polk
1,285
105.3
24,345
Sherman
239
2.1
21,688
Tillamook
1,498
22.9
22,824
Umatilla
4,274
23.8
20,035
Union
3,249
12.7
22,947
Wallowa
1,314
2.2
23,023
Wasco
1,671
10.6
21,922
Washington
29
743.8
30,522
Wheeler
1,402
0.8
20,598
Yamhill
1,507
142.0
24,017

Pennsylvania

133

Federal Communications Commission

FCC 12-90

Appendix D

Americans Without Access to Fixed Broadband

Meeting the Speed Benchmark by County

County

County

County

County Per

Population Population

Capita

Without

Density

Income

Access

($2010)
Adams
2,101
196.6
25,606
Allegheny
1,508
1663.5
29,549
Armstrong
19,970
104.8
21,828
Beaver
1,982
389.6
24,168
Bedford
5,540
49.2
20,545
Berks
2,779
485.2
25,518
Blair
4,899
240.9
22,880
Bradford
385
54.4
20,979
Bucks
32
1035.2
35,687
Butler
1,020
233.5
28,446
Cambria
824
207.5
21,278
Cameron
110
12.6
21,375
Carbon
360
172.7
22,956
Centre
8,465
139.0
23,744
Chester
209
674.0
41,251
Clarion
2,520
66.4
20,259
Clearfield
7,083
71.2
Clinton
2,942
44.0
19,261
Columbia
506
139.3
22,403
Crawford
8,517
87.3
20,383
Cumberland
810
435.3
30,119
Dauphin
596
512.9
27,727
Elk
74
38.2
22,729
Erie
9,444
350.0
22,644
Fayette
5,157
172.4
19,209
Forest
1,958
18.4
14,325
Franklin
5,685
197.2
25,307
Fulton
810
34.2
21,739
Greene
4,111
66.9
20,258
Huntingdon
11,662
52.3
20,616
Indiana
9,054
107.1
20,587
Jefferson
3,444
69.2
20,305
Juniata
4,663
63.1
20,682
Lackawanna
2,676
467.6
24,152
Lancaster
4,635
555.4
25,854
Lawrence
1,304
252.2
21,467
Lebanon
5,442
373.3
25,525
Lehigh
63
1025.3
27,301
Luzerne
1,092
360.5
23,245
Lycoming
4,502
94.2
21,802
134

Federal Communications Commission

FCC 12-90

Appendix D

Americans Without Access to Fixed Broadband

Meeting the Speed Benchmark by County

County

County

County

County Per

Population Population

Capita

Without

Density

Income

Access

($2010)
McKean
158
44.2
21,022
Mercer
6,438
172.3
21,765
Mifflin
2,591
113.3
19,085
Monroe
4,051
279.3
24,824
Montgomery
83
1654.4
40,076
Montour
317
139.3
26,124
Northampton
28
813.6
28,362
Northumberland
1,467
206.0
20,654
Perry
2,050
83.7
23,701
Pike
183
107.5
27,564
Potter
121
15.8
20,594
Schuylkill
4,985
190.8
21,408
Snyder
4,348
120.2
21,072
Somerset
8,800
71.9
19,903
Sullivan
55
14.1
19,718
Susquehanna
388
52.3
22,173
Tioga
1,231
36.8
20,358
Union
588
142.9
21,612
Venango
4,459
80.9
20,522
Warren
5,104
46.9
22,170
Washington
8,074
243.0
26,045
Wayne
862
73.5
22,525
Westmoreland
7,601
354.1
25,845
Wyoming
35
71.5
22,899
York
5,173
488.4
27,196

Rhode Island

Kent
267
976.4
31,221
Newport
151
799.7
36,994
Providence
760
1523.4
25,169
Washington
1,181
382.2
34,737

South Carolina

Abbeville
78
51.4
16,653
Aiken
18,465
151.2
24,172
Allendale
2,938
25.5
14,190
Anderson
1,754
265.1
22,117
Bamberg
3,686
40.5
16,236
Barnwell
3,475
41.1
17,592
Beaufort
2,925
288.5
32,731
Berkeley
5,908
167.5
22,865
Calhoun
3,047
39.7
20,845
135

Federal Communications Commission

FCC 12-90

Appendix D

Americans Without Access to Fixed Broadband

Meeting the Speed Benchmark by County

County

County

County

County Per

Population Population

Capita

Without

Density

Income

Access

($2010)
Charleston
13,387
385.8
29,401
Cherokee
5,069
141.4
17,862
Chester
10,684
56.7
17,687
Chesterfield
3,169
58.4
17,162
Clarendon
52
57.8
16,562
Colleton
22,680
36.8
17,842
Darlington
10,303
121.8
20,096
Dillon
9,207
78.8
14,684
Dorchester
18,734
248.9
24,497
Edgefield
8,382
54.2
19,901
Fairfield
11,150
34.6
18,877
Florence
13,020
172.2
21,932
Georgetown
15,756
74.1
23,942
Greenville
2,177
588.5
25,931
Greenwood
4,933
153.6
21,728
Hampton
11,387
37.7
16,262
Horry
140,135
247.6
24,811
Jasper
8,035
38.8
17,997
Kershaw
7,368
86.5
21,777
Lancaster
2,436
143.0
19,308
Laurens
4,018
93.1
18,757
Lee
346
46.6
12,924
Lexington
40,650
383.1
26,393
McCormick
95
28.3
19,411
Marion
12,007
67.0
16,653
Marlboro
6,164
60.7
13,817
Newberry
10,581
59.9
21,410
Oconee
6,755
119.5
24,055
Orangeburg
28,498
83.4
17,579
Pickens
2,091
242.3
20,647
Richland
45,452
514.7
25,805
Saluda
9,824
44.2
18,717
Spartanburg
5,434
358.3
21,924
Sumter
1,187
161.1
18,944
Union
2,883
55.8
18,495
Williamsburg
2,944
36.9
13,513
York
9,418
347.1
25,707

South Dakota

Aurora
504
3.8
21,291
Beadle
270
13.9
23,409
136

Federal Communications Commission

FCC 12-90

Appendix D

Americans Without Access to Fixed Broadband

Meeting the Speed Benchmark by County

County

County

County

County Per

Population Population

Capita

Without

Density

Income

Access

($2010)
Bennett
2,870
2.9
16,153
Bon Homme
4,633
12.6
20,074
Brookings
2,858
40.8
20,995
Brown
413
21.4
23,878
Brule
1,368
6.5
19,779
Buffalo
1,234
4.1
11,410
Butte
1,288
4.6
20,418
Campbell
251
1.9
22,338
Charles Mix
3,346
8.3
17,403
Clark
2,223
3.8
23,909
Clay
2,059
33.9
19,518
Codington
3,355
39.6
24,781
Corson
718
1.6
13,359
Custer
6,916
5.3
24,353
Day
1,763
5.5
20,542
Deuel
691
7.1
22,276
Dewey
4,642
2.3
15,632
Edmunds
517
3.6
24,268
Fall River
6,008
4.1
21,574
Faulk
483
2.4
21,898
Grant
2,116
10.6
22,887
Gregory
3,620
4.2
21,311
Haakon
1,155
1.1
25,877
Hamlin
4,488
11.7
21,558
Hand
1,082
2.4
23,238
Hanson
413
7.6
21,391
Harding
49
0.5
22,004
Hughes
2,463
22.9
28,236
Hutchinson
2,881
8.9
21,944
Hyde
1,059
1.6
22,995
Jackson
2,579
1.6
14,568
Jerauld
1,206
3.9
24,942
Jones
727
1.0
24,630
Kingsbury
2,663
6.2
24,660
Lake
464
20.4
22,447
Lawrence
3,280
30.5
25,465
Lincoln
6,298
81.3
33,261
Lyman
2,431
2.3
16,930
McCook
2,894
9.8
25,502
McPherson
76
2.1
19,255
137

Federal Communications Commission

FCC 12-90

Appendix D

Americans Without Access to Fixed Broadband

Meeting the Speed Benchmark by County

County

County

County

County Per

Population Population

Capita

Without

Density

Income

Access

($2010)
Marshall
3,210
5.6
22,441
Meade
4,687
7.2
22,045
Mellette
2,045
1.6
16,971
Miner
692
4.1
25,450
Minnehaha
10,108
214.4
26,392
Moody
2,799
12.4
24,948
Pennington
9,615
36.9
25,894
Perkins
213
1.0
25,780
Potter
1,590
2.6
23,986
Roberts
7,342
9.2
19,825
Sanborn
41
4.0
21,055
Shannon
10,494
6.5
7,772
Spink
120
4.2
25,295
Stanley
580
2.0
27,435
Sully
1,316
1.3
26,596
Todd
8,408
7.1
11,010
Tripp
4,771
3.4
21,192
Turner
4,340
13.5
22,871
Union
4,120
31.9
33,783
Walworth
609
7.6
23,716
Yankton
3,045
43.2
24,776
Ziebach
2,675
1.4
11,069

Tennessee

Anderson
3,152
225.3
24,242
Bedford
5,244
97.3
18,471
Benton
7,198
41.7
19,114
Bledsoe
2,135
32.3
12,907
Blount
4,235
223.6
24,071
Bradley
2,554
305.3
21,444
Campbell
5,705
85.0
16,426
Cannon
63
52.8
18,076
Carroll
5,472
47.4
19,712
Carter
2,148
168.7
17,601
Cheatham
2,413
130.4
24,392
Chester
3,676
60.3
17,343
Claiborne
7,871
74.6
17,128
Clay
415
33.2
18,367
Cocke
9,521
82.7
16,957
Coffee
20
124.1
20,737
Crockett
1,198
55.0
19,742
138

Federal Communications Commission

FCC 12-90

Appendix D

Americans Without Access to Fixed Broadband

Meeting the Speed Benchmark by County

County

County

County

County Per

Population Population

Capita

Without

Density

Income

Access

($2010)
Cumberland
791
83.4
20,544
Davidson
13,821
1255.8
27,780
Decatur
901
35.0
19,757
DeKalb
184
62.2
17,976
Dickson
8,759
102.6
21,415
Dyer
1,826
75.0
19,169
Fayette
8,882
56.2
26,898
Fentress
61
36.7
17,291
Franklin
3,853
74.1
20,817
Gibson
2,668
83.3
20,065
Giles
8,971
48.2
19,778
Grainger
573
82.0
16,783
Greene
4,068
111.4
18,782
Grundy
30
38.3
14,000
Hamblen
546
392.7
21,162
Hamilton
875
624.6
26,588
Hancock
4,698
30.6
13,717
Hardeman
8,496
40.7
15,838
Hardin
6,648
45.3
18,122
Hawkins
7,258
117.6
19,600
Haywood
6,598
35.0
17,047
Henderson
5,483
53.9
19,988
Henry
8,765
57.8
20,687
Hickman
10,053
40.3
18,447
Houston
363
42.9
17,791
Humphreys
6,613
34.9
20,874
Jackson
26
37.4
17,452
Jefferson
6,513
190.8
19,680
Johnson
3,121
61.1
16,638
Knox
2,857
862.7
27,349
Lake
1,502
46.4
11,813
Lauderdale
5,387
58.9
16,006
Lawrence
21,061
67.8
18,086
Lewis
3,755
43.2
17,473
Lincoln
3,957
59.2
22,811
Loudon
2,975
216.4
27,046
McMinn
11,630
122.4
19,796
McNairy
9,298
46.8
18,488
Macon
368
72.9
16,518
Madison
2,424
176.7
22,948
139

Federal Communications Commission

FCC 12-90

Appendix D

Americans Without Access to Fixed Broadband

Meeting the Speed Benchmark by County

County

County

County

County Per

Population Population

Capita

Without

Density

Income

Access

($2010)
Marion
2,555
56.7
20,811
Marshall
6,170
83.1
20,157
Maury
4,394
135.9
23,136
Meigs
4,508
61.3
18,768
Monroe
6,433
71.6
18,651
Montgomery
3,483
327.0
22,092
Moore
1,538
49.8
26,678
Morgan
17,196
42.2
17,883
Obion
1,108
57.9
21,235
Overton
52
51.3
17,720
Perry
2,626
19.2
17,028
Pickett
2
31.0
19,327
Polk
4,319
38.5
17,481
Putnam
258
183.7
19,434
Rhea
4,549
102.0
17,655
Roane
6,576
150.6
23,196
Robertson
7,126
142.5
22,658
Rutherford
11,855
441.3
24,390
Scott
22,004
41.9
15,087
Sequatchie
74
54.4
18,094
Sevier
7,074
154.7
22,047
Shelby
11,109
1215.1
25,002
Smith
2,750
61.6
21,026
Stewart
4,323
29.2
20,670
Sullivan
743
380.7
23,263
Sumner
6,261
310.5
26,014
Tipton
9,129
135.7
21,585
Trousdale
2,886
70.2
19,996
Unicoi
1,733
98.5
20,540
Union
3,195
85.8
16,155
Van Buren
252
20.5
17,160
Warren
29
92.6
18,508
Washington
3,936
383.1
24,114
Wayne
4,395
23.2
15,814
Weakley
1,982
60.2
18,895
White
64
69.4
17,880
Williamson
10,062
326.7
41,220
Wilson
3,369
206.2
27,814

Texas

Anderson
16,684
55.7
17,465
140

Federal Communications Commission

FCC 12-90

Appendix D

Americans Without Access to Fixed Broadband

Meeting the Speed Benchmark by County

County

County

County

County Per

Population Population

Capita

Without

Density

Income

Access

($2010)
Andrews
438
10.2
29,605
Angelina
4,522
110.1
20,104
Aransas
990
93.2
25,610
Archer
1,131
10.2
23,882
Armstrong
85
2.1
24,195
Atascosa
2,764
37.2
18,461
Austin
12,301
44.5
26,959
Bailey
886
8.7
18,275
Bandera
12,107
26.1
24,249
Bastrop
3,644
84.9
22,918
Baylor
1,625
4.2
22,894
Bee
43
36.5
14,188
Bell
13,744
303.8
22,722
Bexar
2,044
1420.4
23,225
Blanco
4,641
14.7
27,010
Borden
323
0.7
40,916
Bosque
4,740
18.5
21,269
Bowie
5,853
105.5
22,293
Brazoria
54,267
237.4
27,529
Brazos
11,445
340.6
21,018
Brewster
2,963
1.5
23,577
Briscoe
50
1.8
17,652
Brooks
1,711
7.7
14,728
Brown
6,720
40.5
20,586
Burleson
8,323
26.1
21,379
Burnet
15,830
44.0
25,245
Caldwell
326
70.1
18,106
Calhoun
3,923
42.5
22,835
Callahan
4,303
15.2
22,300
Cameron
1,110
466.0
13,695
Camp
6,245
64.8
18,710
Carson
1,479
6.6
24,977
Cass
14,250
32.4
20,137
Castro
2,415
9.1
16,073
Chambers
6,917
59.7
26,453
Cherokee
24,969
48.7
17,230
Childress
2,163
10.1
16,338
Clay
784
9.7
24,565
Cochran
817
3.9
16,018
Coke
3,151
3.6
18,384
141

Federal Communications Commission

FCC 12-90

Appendix D

Americans Without Access to Fixed Broadband

Meeting the Speed Benchmark by County

County

County

County

County Per

Population Population

Capita

Without

Density

Income

Access

($2010)
Coleman
4,052
7.1
16,494
Collingsworth
903
3.4
21,726
Colorado
10,618
21.9
22,676
Comal
5,843
203.0
31,862
Comanche
4,359
15.0
18,086
Concho
2,423
4.2
17,731
Cooke
626
44.0
23,598
Coryell
18,853
72.0
18,936
Cottle
187
1.7
17,385
Crane
108
5.8
20,185
Crockett
847
1.4
24,194
Crosby
541
6.7
17,940
Culberson
577
0.6
16,060
Dallam
1,405
4.5
18,940
Dallas
575
2761.2
26,185
Dawson
675
15.4
15,288
Deaf Smith
1,916
13.2
16,687
Delta
211
20.3
20,837
Denton
622
779.4
32,538
DeWitt
1,226
22.1
20,020
Dickens
162
2.7
18,642
Dimmit
1,236
7.5
14,045
Donley
1,526
4.0
20,137
Duval
1,364
6.5
15,134
Eastland
6,039
20.0
17,973
Ector
591
156.9
22,859
Edwards
166
1.0
31,109
Ellis
709
165.8
25,346
El Paso
8,201
806.2
16,768
Erath
8,539
35.6
20,903
Falls
2,211
23.2
14,979
Fannin
1,510
38.3
20,221
Fayette
7,981
26.0
26,898
Fisher
1,657
4.4
20,516
Floyd
1,054
6.4
18,093
Foard
1,303
1.8
18,368
Fort Bend
49,401
710.9
32,016
Franklin
2,333
38.1
23,821
Freestone
5,751
22.7
23,235
Frio
751
15.2
15,036
142

Federal Communications Commission

FCC 12-90

Appendix D

Americans Without Access to Fixed Broadband

Meeting the Speed Benchmark by County

County

County

County

County Per

Population Population

Capita

Without

Density

Income

Access

($2010)
Gaines
4,932
12.0
22,785
Galveston
17,473
783.0
28,959
Garza
573
7.0
16,185
Gillespie
8,699
23.9
28,072
Glasscock
1,111
1.4
26,104
Goliad
1,999
8.5
28,120
Gonzales
181
18.8
18,716
Gray
2,802
24.9
20,567
Grayson
1,000
130.2
23,242
Gregg
6,087
450.1
23,024
Grimes
12,831
34.1
17,365
Hale
1,804
36.5
16,322
Hall
362
3.7
20,126
Hamilton
2,789
10.3
22,429
Hansford
1,494
6.2
21,095
Hardeman
693
5.8
17,401
Hardin
13,683
62.0
23,965
Harris
255,229
2459.8
26,788
Harrison
34,622
73.5
22,019
Hartley
2,163
4.2
24,616
Haskell
2,117
6.5
22,734
Hays
4,560
242.5
25,998
Hemphill
898
4.3
29,343
Henderson
13,688
89.8
21,580
Hidalgo
715
508.7
13,480
Hill
1,681
36.9
20,554
Hockley
1,605
25.3
20,255
Hood
507
124.4
30,687
Hopkins
7,419
46.2
21,163
Houston
8,138
19.3
18,813
Howard
795
39.4
17,832
Hudspeth
937
0.8
11,485
Hunt
463
102.5
21,646
Hutchinson
1,390
24.9
21,075
Irion
795
1.5
31,857
Jack
1,266
10.0
21,349
Jackson
4,684
17.1
24,337
Jasper
22,221
37.8
19,182
Jeff Davis
1,193
1.1
22,007
Jefferson
14,799
288.3
22,095
143

Federal Communications Commission

FCC 12-90

Appendix D

Americans Without Access to Fixed Broadband

Meeting the Speed Benchmark by County

County

County

County

County Per

Population Population

Capita

Without

Density

Income

Access

($2010)
Jim Hogg
207
4.7
17,163
Jim Wells
2,144
47.5
16,976
Johnson
320
212.0
23,669
Jones
12,015
21.8
15,880
Karnes
61
20.0
15,949
Kaufman
713
137.5
23,909
Kendall
9,116
53.0
36,418
Kenedy
400
0.3
16,655
Kent
83
0.9
27,021
Kerr
1,579
45.7
25,454
Kimble
2,063
3.6
27,118
King
84
0.3
39,511
Kinney
856
2.7
14,207
Kleberg
2,322
36.6
18,580
Knox
1,308
4.2
20,375
Lamar
4,443
54.9
20,588
Lamb
1,754
13.7
17,553
Lampasas
9,092
28.1
22,943
La Salle
1,721
4.6
13,542
Lavaca
2,540
19.9
23,168
Lee
2,692
26.5
23,074
Leon
6,609
15.9
22,484
Liberty
33,978
65.3
18,807
Limestone
871
25.8
18,420
Lipscomb
779
3.6
24,839
Live Oak
123
11.1
21,540
Llano
5,905
20.7
29,027
Loving
67
0.1
42,220
Lubbock
12,452
315.0
22,831
Lynn
637
6.6
19,752
McCulloch
178
7.9
20,116
McLennan
876
229.3
20,652
McMullen
199
0.6
21,358
Madison
4,881
29.5
14,245
Marion
7,977
27.3
20,125
Martin
1,798
5.3
19,695
Mason
653
4.4
23,555
Matagorda
7,886
33.5
22,623
Maverick
3,337
43.1
12,444
Medina
3,862
35.3
20,604
144

Federal Communications Commission

FCC 12-90

Appendix D

Americans Without Access to Fixed Broadband

Meeting the Speed Benchmark by County

County

County

County

County Per

Population Population

Capita

Without

Density

Income

Access

($2010)
Menard
686
2.5
23,362
Midland
2,173
156.4
30,956
Milam
3,759
24.3
21,509
Mills
30
6.7
20,438
Mitchell
2,000
10.4
13,358
Montague
2,655
21.3
22,328
Montgomery
16,758
455.3
31,959
Moore
1,273
24.8
18,239
Morris
3,551
51.1
20,292
Motley
189
1.2
19,754
Nacogdoches
7,257
69.0
18,180
Navarro
10,702
47.7
20,539
Newton
8,633
15.4
17,721
Nolan
2,308
16.9
19,973
Nueces
8
410.3
22,558
Ochiltree
1,122
11.4
21,143
Oldham
1,001
1.4
22,504
Orange
5,822
245.5
23,155
Palo Pinto
3,085
29.7
21,551
Panola
14,071
29.8
22,846
Parker
196
133.1
28,539
Parmer
1,995
11.7
16,926
Pecos
4,020
3.3
16,717
Polk
13,301
42.6
16,961
Potter
10,905
134.5
18,725
Presidio
5,709
2.0
15,635
Rains
2,463
47.9
20,855
Randall
3,718
134.2
28,668
Reagan
415
3.0
23,028
Real
570
4.8
15,074
Red River
5,520
12.4
18,105
Reeves
4,551
5.2
13,112
Refugio
907
9.6
18,638
Roberts
386
1.0
29,291
Robertson
5,516
19.4
21,113
Runnels
2,827
10.0
20,056
Rusk
29,237
58.3
22,392
Sabine
5,190
22.1
18,155
San Augustine
5,106
16.7
17,184
San Jacinto
18,323
46.9
21,453
145

Federal Communications Commission

FCC 12-90

Appendix D

Americans Without Access to Fixed Broadband

Meeting the Speed Benchmark by County

County

County

County

County Per

Population Population

Capita

Without

Density

Income

Access

($2010)
San Patricio
1,082
94.1
20,766
San Saba
31
5.3
19,721
Schleicher
1,462
2.7
21,299
Scurry
3,913
19.0
22,424
Shackelford
891
3.6
22,346
Shelby
15,406
32.2
20,103
Sherman
985
3.3
21,587
Smith
13,855
232.3
25,374
Somervell
255
46.6
26,314
Starr
4,780
50.5
11,659
Stephens
3,310
10.9
19,573
Sterling
285
1.2
20,640
Stonewall
800
1.7
25,177
Sutton
870
2.9
23,325
Swisher
116
8.8
16,513
Tarrant
12
2147.8
27,333
Taylor
12,296
144.4
22,606
Terrell
959
0.4
18,871
Terry
700
14.3
22,306
Throckmorton
312
1.8
20,677
Titus
12,966
81.7
17,520
Tom Green
11,084
73.3
22,292
Travis
1,467
1069.0
31,785
Trinity
3,256
21.2
19,828
Tyler
11,697
23.9
19,450
Upshur
25,579
67.8
21,946
Upton
335
2.7
23,112
Uvalde
1,486
17.2
17,842
Val Verde
5,719
15.7
16,615
Van Zandt
18,255
62.5
20,989
Victoria
14,954
99.4
24,146
Walker
21,452
87.0
13,920
Waller
12,178
85.5
21,621
Ward
686
13.1
20,055
Washington
12,535
56.3
25,464
Webb
7,272
76.4
14,163
Wharton
14,527
38.2
21,049
Wheeler
1,359
5.9
27,282
Wichita
7,433
208.5
22,837
Wilbarger
2,342
14.0
19,916
146

Federal Communications Commission

FCC 12-90

Appendix D

Americans Without Access to Fixed Broadband

Meeting the Speed Benchmark by County

County

County

County

County Per

Population Population

Capita

Without

Density

Income

Access

($2010)
Willacy
1,055
38.0
10,800
Williamson
9,637
395.0
29,663
Wilson
123
55.1
25,149
Winkler
180
8.5
19,309
Wise
701
66.1
24,075
Wood
14,829
65.8
21,682
Yoakum
1,664
10.1
19,937
Young
2,637
20.3
24,656
Zapata
1,218
14.4
13,915
Zavala
1,021
9.1
10,180

Utah

Beaver
129
2.6
16,131
Box Elder
3,284
8.9
20,465
Cache
553
98.7
19,670
Carbon
1,966
14.6
20,260
Daggett
520
1.5
22,862
Duchesne
2,504
6.0
21,787
Emery
1,130
2.5
19,968
Garfield
894
1.0
23,187
Grand
1,833
2.6
20,611
Iron
324
14.6
16,898
Juab
3,076
3.1
18,193
Kane
1,371
1.8
25,155
Millard
2,672
1.9
18,839
Morgan
1,963
16.1
24,276
Piute
58
2.1
16,140
Rich
384
2.3
25,376
Salt Lake
1,063
1415.0
25,041
San Juan
14,839
2.0
15,150
Sanpete
810
18.0
15,731
Sevier
53
11.1
18,856
Summit
675
19.6
40,270
Tooele
1,101
8.6
22,020
Uintah
2,390
7.5
24,160
Utah
2,772
270.5
20,210
Wasatch
849
20.7
26,873
Washington
1,336
59.7
21,378
Wayne
637
1.2
19,829
Weber
2,679
410.2
22,849

Vermont

147

Federal Communications Commission

FCC 12-90

Appendix D

Americans Without Access to Fixed Broadband

Meeting the Speed Benchmark by County

County

County

County

County Per

Population Population

Capita

Without

Density

Income

Access

($2010)
Addison
3,590
47.9
26,599
Bennington
3,795
54.8
27,962
Caledonia
5,600
48.1
22,504
Chittenden
3,718
292.3
31,095
Essex
2,691
9.5
20,040
Franklin
3,546
75.3
24,767
Grand Isle
196
85.0
30,499
Lamoille
3,724
53.4
27,164
Orange
8,428
41.9
25,951
Orleans
5,339
39.2
20,652
Rutland
3,615
66.1
25,426
Washington
2,735
86.3
28,337
Windham
4,575
56.3
27,247
Windsor
6,949
58.1
29,053

Virginia

Accomack
6,350
73.3
22,766
Albemarle
20,567
137.4
36,685
Alleghany
2,844
36.1
22,013
Amelia
10,666
36.4
24,197
Amherst
11,167
68.8
21,097
Appomattox
7,932
45.7
22,388
Augusta
21,496
77.0
23,571
Bath
2,838
8.8
22,083
Bedford
16,984
92.5
27,732
Bland
4,270
19.2
20,468
Botetourt
5,514
61.5
29,540
Brunswick
9,807
30.6
16,739
Buchanan
8,782
47.2
16,742
Buckingham
11,382
29.7
16,752
Campbell
11,397
109.8
22,044
Caroline
10,283
56.1
25,024
Carroll
29
63.3
18,670
Charles City
2,617
39.9
23,955
Charlotte
7,900
26.4
17,348
Chesterfield
9,844
760.9
31,711
Clarke
5,712
80.3
34,630
Craig
3,227
15.9
23,461
Culpeper
12,824
126.6
27,507
Cumberland
6,230
34.3
19,691
Dickenson
12,950
48.5
16,278
148

Federal Communications Commission

FCC 12-90

Appendix D

Americans Without Access to Fixed Broadband

Meeting the Speed Benchmark by County

County

County

County

County Per

Population Population

Capita

Without

Density

Income

Access

($2010)
Dinwiddie
10,674
56.4
23,423
Essex
3,775
44.4
23,795
Fairfax
1,355
2781.2
49,001
Fauquier
16,093
101.2
38,710
Floyd
1,534
40.5
21,425
Fluvanna
7,941
90.2
29,407
Franklin
16,065
82.2
23,527
Frederick
27,819
192.9
27,977
Giles
11,307
48.7
20,985
Gloucester
5,747
171.1
27,395
Goochland
15,199
79.5
38,553
Grayson
111
35.1
19,499
Greene
4,377
118.6
24,969
Greensville
8,288
41.8
17,631
Halifax
20,966
44.3
19,909
Hanover
12,404
214.0
34,201
Henrico
1,149
1331.5
33,001
Henry
16,042
141.0
19,206
Highland
2,354
5.7
25,690
Isle of Wight
3,499
114.3
29,547
James City
2,516
482.7
38,162
King and Queen
5,181
22.1
21,777
King George
2,228
137.2
32,630
King William
4,374
60.0
26,853
Lancaster
1,433
85.2
29,275
Lee
5,011
58.9
16,513
Loudoun
17,196
626.3
45,356
Louisa
25,383
69.0
27,562
Lunenburg
8,196
29.9
17,744
Madison
11,299
41.7
26,081
Mathews
3,459
104.8
27,011
Mecklenburg
5,955
52.4
20,162
Middlesex
1,508
84.5
28,539
Montgomery
16,727
246.1
22,040
Nelson
11,694
32.1
26,996
New Kent
4,186
91.2
31,741
Northampton
1,848
58.9
23,233
Northumberland
2,094
64.6
28,646
Nottoway
7,753
50.7
20,318
Orange
9,412
101.4
26,447
149

Federal Communications Commission

FCC 12-90

Appendix D

Americans Without Access to Fixed Broadband

Meeting the Speed Benchmark by County

County

County

County

County Per

Population Population

Capita

Without

Density

Income

Access

($2010)
Page
9,459
77.8
22,969
Patrick
8,083
38.3
18,396
Pittsylvania
34,032
65.6
20,652
Powhatan
4,356
109.6
25,851
Prince Edward
7,876
68.0
18,192
Prince George
2,297
133.3
25,769
Prince William
2,632
1211.0
35,737
Pulaski
9,429
109.2
20,976
Rappahannock
5,352
27.4
37,149
Richmond
4,273
48.5
19,965
Roanoke
12,230
371.7
31,046
Rockbridge
13,353
37.6
23,753
Rockingham
19,143
91.2
25,274
Russell
13,445
61.3
17,909
Scott
6,010
43.3
18,667
Shenandoah
3,227
83.8
24,502
Smyth
7,125
71.1
19,906
Southampton
7,238
31.6
21,201
Spotsylvania
7,195
305.7
31,012
Stafford
1,938
480.1
34,691
Surry
6,782
25.5
23,835
Sussex
6,692
24.9
16,735
Tazewell
7,946
86.9
19,016
Warren
8,589
178.6
29,098
Washington
18,128
98.6
23,488
Westmoreland
3,549
77.2
27,501
Wise
14,165
102.9
17,944
Wythe
7,582
63.8
20,589
York
1,037
621.8
35,823
Bedford
15
901.4
20,092
Bristol
12,322
1367.2
19,700
Buena Vista
1,440
988.6
19,030
Charlottesville
3,598
4342.9
24,578
Chesapeake
5,574
654.8
29,306
Colonial Heights
517
2312.8
26,115
Covington
2
1084.2
20,781
Danville
1,240
992.8
18,840
Emporia
62
859.8
19,245
Franklin
1
1065.8
19,453
Fredericksburg
907
2367.0
27,870
150

Federal Communications Commission

FCC 12-90

Appendix D

Americans Without Access to Fixed Broadband

Meeting the Speed Benchmark by County

County

County

County

County Per

Population Population

Capita

Without

Density

Income

Access

($2010)
Hampton
2,246
2671.1
24,051
Harrisonburg
1,531
2818.4
16,750
Lexington
407
2831.5
17,022
Lynchburg
3,416
1577.6
21,586
Martinsville
2,105
1252.4
19,766
Newport News
5,866
2611.5
24,249
Norfolk
4,713
4427.5
23,773
Norton
259
527.1
24,145
Poquoson
84
793.5
36,840
Portsmouth
3,332
2832.5
22,302
Radford
20
1664.6
16,496
Richmond
595
3437.5
26,034
Roanoke
7,036
2287.3
22,530
Salem
750
1732.2
27,081
Staunton
340
1199.4
24,077
Suffolk
4,019
213.6
28,441
Virginia Beach
3,150
1746.8
30,873
Waynesboro
379
1411.1
23,190
Williamsburg
359
1590.3
22,851
Winchester
481
2848.5
26,341

Washington

Adams
4,807
10.1
16,689
Asotin
1,144
34.4
23,731
Benton
226
104.6
27,161
Chelan
4,615
25.4
24,378
Clallam
6,902
41.6
24,449
Clark
2,533
687.2
27,828
Columbia
423
4.7
25,810
Cowlitz
3,152
91.2
22,948
Douglas
2,962
21.7
22,359
Ferry
7,172
3.4
18,021
Franklin
4,659
67.4
18,660
Garfield
955
3.2
22,825
Grant
17,640
34.3
19,718
Grays Harbor
12,751
38.4
21,656
Island
3,367
376.6
29,079
Jefferson
6,134
16.7
28,528
King
7,498
926.0
38,211
Kitsap
5,726
635.0
29,755
Kittitas
3,482
18.1
23,467
151

Federal Communications Commission

FCC 12-90

Appendix D

Americans Without Access to Fixed Broadband

Meeting the Speed Benchmark by County

County

County

County

County Per

Population Population

Capita

Without

Density

Income

Access

($2010)
Klickitat
5,663
11.0
21,553
Lewis
14,047
31.8
21,695
Mason
6,933
64.8
22,530
Okanogan
20,270
8.0
20,093
Pacific
3,990
22.5
23,326
Pierce
22,103
481.7
27,446
San Juan
2,345
90.9
35,487
Skagit
9,453
68.8
26,925
Skamania
2,972
6.8
24,140
Snohomish
10,673
346.7
30,635
Thurston
9,075
357.3
29,707
Wahkiakum
1,030
15.6
23,115
Walla Walla
321
46.7
23,027
Whatcom
10,361
97.2
25,407
Yakima
1,937
58.1
19,325

West Virginia

Barbour
8,694
49.3
17,304
Berkeley
9,120
333.0
25,460
Boone
17,055
49.1
20,457
Braxton
5,153
28.7
17,469
Brooke
7,597
266.7
22,377
Cabell
14,954
342.5
21,907
Calhoun
7,108
27.7
17,121
Clay
8,546
27.6
16,205
Doddridge
4,379
25.7
14,658
Fayette
31,796
69.4
17,082
Gilmer
3,733
25.9
13,899
Grant
7,371
25.6
19,358
Greenbrier
28,845
34.8
20,044
Hampshire
24,079
38.2
17,752
Hancock
2,986
367.6
23,118
Hardy
14,194
24.4
16,944
Harrison
12,913
167.0
21,010
Jackson
9,225
62.8
20,633
Jefferson
6,907
259.4
29,733
Kanawha
124,452
213.2
25,439
Lewis
3,289
43.1
18,240
Lincoln
8,912
49.6
16,439
Logan
28,129
80.9
18,614
McDowell
16,422
41.0
12,955
152

Federal Communications Commission

FCC 12-90

Appendix D

Americans Without Access to Fixed Broadband

Meeting the Speed Benchmark by County

County

County

County

County Per

Population Population

Capita

Without

Density

Income

Access

($2010)
Marion
10,257
182.8
20,752
Marshall
13,794
106.9
21,064
Mason
24,140
63.3
19,609
Mercer
38,173
149.1
18,431
Mineral
19,938
86.4
20,805
Mingo
18,073
63.0
17,629
Monongalia
10,681
268.7
23,116
Monroe
13,467
29.0
18,927
Morgan
7,083
77.0
20,732
Nicholas
13,302
40.7
19,359
Ohio
7,321
417.8
23,950
Pendleton
6,197
11.1
19,401
Pleasants
6,710
58.3
18,770
Pocahontas
8,508
9.2
19,763
Preston
31,470
52.3
19,329
Putnam
30,552
162.2
25,857
Raleigh
70,444
130.8
20,457
Randolph
11,160
28.5
18,472
Ritchie
1,312
23.3
18,255
Roane
11,072
30.7
15,103
Summers
13,150
37.9
15,190
Taylor
6,149
98.6
18,562
Tucker
6,438
17.1
20,020
Tyler
7,847
35.7
18,245
Upshur
7,605
68.9
18,823
Wayne
21,429
83.3
18,410
Webster
2,536
16.5
17,268
Wetzel
13,555
46.1
19,899
Wirt
4,069
24.6
18,438
Wood
4,136
236.9
22,890
Wyoming
7,307
47.5
17,662

Wisconsin

Adams
9,637
31.9
21,917
Ashland
3,510
15.4
19,730
Barron
3,696
53.1
22,666
Bayfield
2,162
10.1
24,028
Brown
2
472.2
26,816
Buffalo
3,289
20.2
22,579
Burnett
3,993
18.6
22,767
Chippewa
7,594
62.4
23,952
153

Federal Communications Commission

FCC 12-90

Appendix D

Americans Without Access to Fixed Broadband

Meeting the Speed Benchmark by County

County

County

County

County Per

Population Population

Capita

Without

Density

Income

Access

($2010)
Clark
16,690
28.6
19,797
Columbia
13,595
74.3
26,993
Crawford
5,302
29.2
21,346
Dane
5,832
412.3
32,392
Dodge
6,720
101.4
23,663
Door
8,843
57.2
29,154
Douglas
7,221
33.7
24,552
Dunn
6,639
51.8
21,624
Eau Claire
7,402
155.1
24,826
Florence
1,043
8.9
20,283
Fond du Lac
8,972
141.6
25,360
Forest
3,614
9.2
20,578
Grant
11,307
44.6
20,758
Green
3,080
63.9
26,721
Green Lake
4,348
54.2
24,973
Iowa
4,203
31.1
25,156
Iron
1,424
7.6
21,286
Jackson
7,857
20.8
20,778
Jefferson
10,221
151.1
24,729
Juneau
5,858
34.9
23,026
Kenosha
2,169
617.6
26,168
Kewaunee
876
59.7
24,574
La Crosse
3,067
255.6
24,917
Lafayette
4,586
26.4
22,026
Langlade
2,345
22.8
22,025
Lincoln
10,414
32.5
23,793
Manitowoc
1,804
138.0
25,161
Marathon
23,965
87.5
25,893
Marinette
8,763
29.6
22,999
Marquette
4,275
34.2
22,895
Menominee
89
11.7
14,794
Milwaukee
282
3932.3
23,740
Monroe
9,981
50.1
23,052
Oconto
3,806
37.7
24,521
Oneida
8,458
32.1
28,085
Outagamie
1,520
278.9
26,965
Ozaukee
32
370.9
39,778
Pepin
1,150
32.0
24,233
Pierce
10,291
72.0
26,313
Polk
8,009
48.3
24,704
154

Federal Communications Commission

FCC 12-90

Appendix D

Americans Without Access to Fixed Broadband

Meeting the Speed Benchmark by County

County

County

County

County Per

Population Population

Capita

Without

Density

Income

Access

($2010)
Portage
10,100
87.9
24,873
Price
3,856
11.1
23,125
Racine
376
591.4
26,321
Richland
7,401
30.7
21,301
Rock
4,644
224.9
23,926
Rusk
4,443
16.0
20,573
St. Croix
7,857
119.2
31,377
Sauk
8,878
75.4
25,452
Sawyer
2,714
13.2
23,527
Shawano
3,953
46.9
22,539
Sheboygan
973
226.5
24,976
Taylor
11,316
21.2
22,639
Trempealeau
4,080
39.7
23,224
Vernon
856
37.8
21,618
Vilas
8,750
24.8
27,128
Walworth
5,713
185.5
26,769
Washburn
5,173
20.0
23,221
Washington
68
309.2
30,580
Waukesha
1,223
710.9
36,752
Waupaca
9,936
69.9
23,293
Waushara
3,945
39.0
22,002
Winnebago
2,686
385.7
26,383
Wood
7,355
93.9
24,893

Wyoming

Albany
1,074
8.5
25,622
Big Horn
476
3.8
24,486
Campbell
4,074
9.9
31,968
Carbon
4,600
2.0
26,122
Converse
1,659
3.3
27,656
Crook
2,653
2.6
24,520
Fremont
10,768
4.4
24,173
Goshen
1,122
6.0
23,753
Hot Springs
163
2.4
25,269
Johnson
1,060
2.1
26,753
Laramie
2,907
34.4
27,406
Lincoln
13,249
4.6
24,421
Natrona
1,286
14.4
28,235
Niobrara
484
1.0
22,885
Park
6,738
4.1
26,203
Platte
2,293
4.1
24,185
155

Federal Communications Commission

FCC 12-90

Appendix D

Americans Without Access to Fixed Broadband

Meeting the Speed Benchmark by County

County

County

County

County Per

Population Population

Capita

Without

Density

Income

Access

($2010)
Sheridan
2,493
11.7
26,756
Sublette
2,066
2.3
31,433
Sweetwater
5,302
4.3
30,961
Teton
2,926
5.4
42,224
Uinta
7,328
10.4
24,460
Washakie
412
3.8
28,557
Weston
819
3.1
28,463

American Samoa

Eastern
20,009
Manu'a
1,143
Swains Island
17
Western
22,461

Guam

Guam
86,467

Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands

Rota
2,721
Saipan
47,784
Tinian
3,377

Puerto Rico

Adjuntas
28,193
422.8
5,974
Aguada
50,862
1648.6
7,414
Aguadilla
50,991
1395.9
7,908
Aguas Buenas
13,118
1025.0
7,494
Aibonito
30,851
1374.9
8,213
Añasco
78,107
1988.2
7,584
Arecibo
22,138
664.7
8,867
Arroyo
34,354
2289.1
7,547
Barceloneta
3,417
1023.4
8,479
Barranquitas
7,725
693.7
6,588
Bayamón
11,027
4253.3
12,180
Cabo Rojo
45,723
649.8
8,999
Caguas
26,454
2052.0
11,880
Camuy
10,531
489.5
7,368
Canóvanas
14,313
1242.1
9,852
Carolina
17,803
2907.5
13,740
Cataño
1,908
3320.1
9,893
Cayey
17,465
814.0
9,633
Ceiba
5,319
673.1
9,658
Ciales
7,821
212.1
6,376
Cidra
14,342
874.2
10,175
156

Federal Communications Commission

FCC 12-90

Appendix D

Americans Without Access to Fixed Broadband

Meeting the Speed Benchmark by County

County

County

County

County Per

Population Population

Capita

Without

Density

Income

Access

($2010)
Coamo
28,018
359.2
7,660
Comerío
12,532
724.1
6,755
Corozal
19,188
863.8
6,974
Culebra
1,496
128.9
10,349
Dorado
1,164
1694.1
14,687
Fajardo
5,844
906.4
9,949
Florida
1,344
861.6
7,336
Guánica
24,438
659.6
6,104
Guayama
60,074
924.4
8,821
Guayanilla
38,436
909.4
6,803
Guaynabo
5,030
2994.7
20,409
Gurabo
18,094
1489.5
12,155
Hatillo
5,400
1217.1
7,934
Hormigueros
18,377
1620.0
9,877
Humacao
5,834
1218.7
9,640
Isabela
45,877
829.6
6,859
Jayuya
14,525
326.2
6,976
Juana Díaz
56,389
935.6
7,928
Juncos
6,923
1491.8
8,968
Lajas
53,337
889.7
6,857
Lares
11,686
544.8
6,775
Las Marías
20,403
440.1
6,417
Las Piedras
12,124
1350.9
9,078
Loíza
14,191
1188.7
8,050
Luquillo
2,626
931.1
10,506
Manatí
5,527
703.5
8,949
Maricao
15,433
421.5
5,327
Maunabo
12,009
570.0
7,366
Mayagüez
80,071
1031.3
9,416
Moca
61,823
1228.1
6,906
Morovis
12,402
945.1
6,212
Naguabo
8,711
363.3
7,548
Naranjito
10,834
990.5
6,384
Orocovis
34,480
750.2
6,134
Patillas
24,550
525.9
6,928
Peñuelas
19,511
437.4
6,480
Ponce
118,580
1225.8
9,545
Quebradillas
23,595
1040.2
6,295
Rincón
19,153
1340.5
8,768
Río Grande
20,503
922.0
10,049
157

Federal Communications Commission

FCC 12-90

Appendix D

Americans Without Access to Fixed Broadband

Meeting the Speed Benchmark by County

County

County

County

County Per

Population Population

Capita

Without

Density

Income

Access

($2010)
Sabana Grande
41,810
1166.9
7,859
Salinas
49,998
720.9
6,944
San Germán
41,638
764.1
8,066
San Juan
17,951
6825.6
16,031
San Lorenzo
22,899
913.1
8,399
San Sebastián
25,394
788.9
6,456
Santa Isabel
28,690
843.3
8,530
Toa Alta
21,567
2212.4
11,055
Toa Baja
6,297
3040.8
10,938
Trujillo Alto
12,398
2488.7
14,588
Utuado
35,651
434.6
6,775
Vega Alta
17,150
2143.1
8,890
Vega Baja
20,862
1237.3
9,053
Vieques
8,873
174.8
8,054
Villalba
17,781
499.0
6,877
Yabucoa
20,416
780.8
7,449
Yauco
90,054
1320.6
7,374

United States Virgin Islands

St. Croix
53,424
St. John
6,938
St. Thomas
48,240
158

Federal Communications Commission

FCC 12-90

Appendix E

Tribal Lands Without Access to Fixed Broadband Meeting the Speed Benchmark by State

Tribal Lands

Population

Population

% Population

Without Access

Without Access

All Areas

3,857,121
1,118,982
29.0%

Lower 48 States

1,050,085
506,034
48.2%

Alabama

281
238
84.7%

Alaska

1,472
56
3.8%

Arizona

181,085
152,886
84.4%

California

59,626
21,022
35.3%

Colorado

13,953
4,646
33.3%

Connecticut

341
78
22.9%

Florida

3,601
798
22.1%

Idaho

31,733
20,566
64.8%

Iowa

1,049
20
1.9%

Kansas

5,787
1,156
20.0%

Louisiana

768
349
45.4%

Maine

2,548
193
7.6%

Massachusetts

78
0
0.0%

Michigan

34,137
3,799
11.1%

Minnesota

38,397
16,778
43.7%

Mississippi

7,427
2,001
26.9%

Montana

67,007
28,380
42.4%

Nebraska

8,514
6,901
81.1%

Nevada

12,010
4,391
36.6%

New Mexico

139,781
103,775
74.2%

New York

14,109
6,095
43.2%

North Carolina

9,036
3,104
34.3%

North Dakota

23,742
18,748
79.0%

Oklahoma

92,590
25,351
27.4%

Oregon

8,763
3,206
36.6%

South Carolina

853
0
0.0%

South Dakota

62,958
44,853
71.2%

Texas

1,823
999
54.8%

Utah

32,255
10,290
31.9%

Washington

128,605
13,022
10.1%

Wisconsin

38,781
3,919
10.1%

Wyoming

26,975
8,418
31.2%

Tribal Statistical Areas

2,529,095
515,261
20.4%

California

3,153
3
0.1%

New York

2,713
1,101
40.6%

Oklahoma

2,486,306
511,279
20.6%

Washington

36,923
2,879
7.8%

Alaskan Village Areas

247,105
97,578
39.5%

Hawaiian Home Lands

30,836
109
0.4%
159

Federal Communications Commission

FCC 12-90

Appendix F

Americans Without Access to Fixed Broadband Meeting the Speed Benchmark on Certain Tribal Lands

All Areas

Non-Rural Areas

Rural Areas

Tribal Lands

Population

Population

%

Population

Population

%

Population

Population

%

Without

Population

Without

Population

Without

Population

Access

Without

Access

Without

Access

Without

Access

Access

Access

All

3,857,121
1,118,982
29.0%
1,903,421
150,668
7.9%
1,953,700
968,314
49.6%

Lower 48 States

1,050,085
506,034
48.2%
360,939
83,652
23.2%
689,146
422,383
61.3%

Statistical or legal

45,105
3,422
7.6%
35,730
98
0.3%
9,375
3,324
35.5%
area administered
and/or claimed by two
or more American
Indian Tribes
Legal federally

590,706
323,726
54.8%
203,566
52,302
25.7%
387,140
271,424
70.1%
recognized American
Indian area consisting
of reservation and
associated off-
reservation trust land
Legal federally

410,951
177,923
43.3%
121,472
31,252
25.7%
289,479
146,672
50.7%
recognized American
Indian area consisting
of reservation only
Legal federally

3,323
963
29.0%
171
0
0.0%
3,152
963
30.6%
recognized American
Indian area consisting
of off-reservation
trust land only

Tribal Statistical Area

2,529,095
515,261
20.4%
1,424,974
52,104
3.7%
1,104,121
463,157
41.9%

Alaskan Village Areas

247,105
97,578
39.5%
91,150
14,912
16.4%
155,955
82,666
53.0%

Hawaiian Home Lands

30,836
109
0.4%
26,358
0
0.0%
4,478
109
2.4%
There were no census blocks with population for two categories. See supra App. B (Data Sources and Definitions).

Federal Communications Commission

FCC 12-90

Appendix G

Overall Fixed Broadband Deployment Rates by State

Area

Deployment Rate

Deployment Rate

Deployment

768 kbps/200
3 Mbps/768 kbps

Rate 6 Mbps/1.5

kbps or Faster
or Faster

Mbps or Faster

All Areas

97.0%
94.0%
84.7%

Alabama

93.1
88.6
79.8

Alaska

89.5
80.4
1.3

Arizona

98.2
95.3
84.2

Arkansas

92.7
86.4
66.4

California

98.2
96.7
90.8

Colorado

97.9
95.7
78.5

Connecticut

99.3
99.3
84.8

Delaware

98.2
96.9
91.4

District of Columbia

100.0
100.0
99.8

Florida

97.6
96.9
95.8

Georgia

97.7
96.6
92.0

Hawaii

98.5
98.5
26.6

Idaho

94.7
86.9
70.4

Illinois

98.4
96.7
92.9

Indiana

98.4
95.7
90.5

Iowa

97.4
92.9
83.5

Kansas

97.2
92.3
84.2

Kentucky

93.7
89.5
58.4

Louisiana

93.9
91.2
78.6

Maine

97.3
95.3
47.1

Maryland

97.9
96.8
89.8

Massachusetts

99.5
99.0
95.3

Michigan

96.7
93.7
89.6

Minnesota

97.3
92.0
82.1

Mississippi

90.3
87.9
75.3

Missouri

96.0
92.5
89.1

Montana

91.1
73.3
7.6

Nebraska

95.7
89.9
73.5

Nevada

99.0
97.7
96.0

New Hampshire

98.0
92.5
68.5

New Jersey

99.4
99.3
92.8

New Mexico

93.0
85.8
71.4

New York

99.2
98.7
87.2

North Carolina

97.7
93.6
87.8

North Dakota

97.0
84.1
75.6
161


Federal Communications Commission

FCC 12-90

Appendix G

Overall Fixed Broadband Deployment Rates by State

Area

Deployment Rate

Deployment Rate

Deployment

768 kbps/200
3 Mbps/768 kbps

Rate 6 Mbps/1.5

kbps or Faster
or Faster

Mbps or Faster

Ohio

97.7
96.6
79.6

Oklahoma

91.8
83.8
69.4

Oregon

98.6
96.6
94.7

Pennsylvania

98.7
98.3
88.5

Rhode Island

99.8
99.8
99.7

South Carolina

96.5
88.3
71.7

South Dakota

97.1
78.9
72.7

Tennessee

95.3
93.2
88.8

Texas

96.7
94.1
86.7

Utah

99.0
98.2
95.2

Vermont

94.6
90.6
78.3

Virginia

93.0
89.1
76.3

Washington

98.1
96.8
92.9

West Virginia

89.0
54.1
34.7

Wisconsin

96.7
93.1
80.0

Wyoming

93.2
86.8
56.4

U.S. Territories

American Samoa

30.5
21.4
0.0

Guam

45.7
45.7
45.7

Commonwealth of Northern Mariana Islands

93.3
0.0
0.0

Puerto Rico

80.5
48.4
30.0

U.S. Virgin Islands

62.4
0.0
0.0
162


Federal Communications Commission

FCC 12-90

Appendix H

Overall Fixed Broadband Adoption Rates by State

Area

Adoption Rate

Adoption Rate

Adoption Rate

768 kbps/200
3 Mbps/768
6 Mbps/1.5
kbps or Faster
kbps or Faster

Mbps or Faster

All Areas

64.0
40.4
27.6

Alabama

52.9
25.1
12.4

Alaska

58.0
^
^

Arizona

65.4
42.5
34.9

Arkansas

48.5
21.4
14.3

California

70.1
45.1
24.5

Colorado

71.9
55.1
^

Connecticut

75.0
51.0
47.9

Delaware

74.1
67.2
^

District of Columbia

65.7
55.8
42.1

Florida

69.4
42.3
29.4

Georgia

60.7
35.8
23.6

Hawaii

^
^
^

Idaho

57.3
19.4
3.8

Illinois

62.3
36.3
^

Indiana

57.4
33.8
22.9

Iowa

60.5
22.1
3.2

Kansas

61.8
26.6
18.1

Kentucky

56.2
36.5
10.6

Louisiana

55.0
29.4
22.5

Maine

64.8
22.7
8.8

Maryland

72.2
67.1
61.5

Massachusetts

76.3
69.7
57.5

Michigan

60.7
40.5
19.7

Minnesota

64.7
43.5
29.3

Mississippi

44.4
14.6
13.0

Missouri

55.2
24.0
4.9

Montana

60.9
44.2
2.0

Nebraska

66.0
45.1
^

Nevada

61.8
35.8
6.7

New Hampshire

75.4
58.2
^

New Jersey

78.2
72.5
70.7

New Mexico

56.5
35.1
22.2

New York

70.6
48.6
37.2

North Carolina

60.3
13.8
1.6

North Dakota

61.3
38.1
29.9
163


Federal Communications Commission

FCC 12-90

Appendix H

Overall Fixed Broadband Adoption Rates by State

Area

Adoption Rate

Adoption Rate

Adoption Rate

768 kbps/200
3 Mbps/768
6 Mbps/1.5
kbps or Faster
kbps or Faster

Mbps or Faster

Ohio

59.0
19.2
3.6

Oklahoma

55.8
28.0
^

Oregon

63.6
49.2
35.1

Pennsylvania

65.8
51.1
41.6

Rhode Island

^
^
^

South Carolina

55.6
21.5
10.6

South Dakota

58.6
44.5
43.6

Tennessee

52.0
33.5
24.4

Texas

59.2
29.3
14.6

Utah

68.8
47.9
32.1

Vermont

66.7
57.3
^

Virginia

69.0
62.8
59.1

Washington

67.7
54.1
45.4

West Virginia

59.2
47.4
34.9

Wisconsin

62.1
26.0
4.9

Wyoming

60.0
46.4
4.0

U.S. Territories

American Samoa

^
0.0
NA

Guam

^
^
^

Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands

^
NA
NA

Puerto Rico

30.5
^
0.0

United States Virgin Islands

^
NA
NA
A ^ signifies that data has been withheld to maintain firm confidentiality. Also, (NA) signifies that the services are
not available in the area.
164

Federal Communications Commission

FCC 12-90

APPENDIX I

Section 706 Fixed Broadband Deployment Map

165

Federal Communications Commission

FCC 12-90

APPENDIX J

Section 706 Mobile Deployment Map

166

Federal Communications Commission

FCC 12-90

APPENDIX K

Commission’s Report on Internet Access Services: Status as of June 30, 2011

This report can be found on the FCC website at
http://transition.fcc.gov/Daily_Releases/Daily_Business/2012/db0614/DOC-314630A1.pdf
167

Federal Communications Commission

FCC 12-90

STATEMENT OF

CHAIRMAN JULIUS GENACHOWSKI

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. 11-121
Today, we deliver our annual Broadband Progress Report to Congress. It is the most accurate and
comprehensive Report since its inception. The data in this report paint the clearest picture yet about the
progress we have made on broadband—and the urgent challenges that remain.
The Report’s conclusions only reaffirm what I hear all too often from small business owners,
parents, educators and others across the country—we can’t let up on our efforts to unleash the benefits of
broadband for every American. Increasing broadband deployment, increasing adoption, increasing speeds
and capacity are vital throughout our country; they’re essential to growing our innovation economy and
driving our global competitiveness.
I heard this message just last month when I visited three rural communities in Nevada and
California that either recently received new broadband, or will be getting it in the near future as a result of
our new Connect America Fund.
These meetings were a vivid reminder of why Congress directed the FCC, each year, to conduct
an “inquiry concerning the availability of advanced telecommunications capability to all Americans,” and
to “determine whether advanced telecommunications capability is being deployed to all Americans in a
reasonable and timely fashion.” As we’ve refocused the FCC on broadband, we’ve significantly
improved and expanded this report. It’s become a critical annual check-in on where we stand and what
we still have to do.
This year’s Report reflects the huge strides that both the private and public sector have made to
extend broadband, while also explaining that there’s more work to do. Fixed providers are offering
higher speeds, including through the deployment of fiber and new technologies like DOCSIS 3.0. Mobile
providers continue to expand their coverage and deploy new faster network technologies like LTE. In
fact, we’re leading the world in deploying 4G mobile broadband at scale.
At the Commission, we’ve adopted landmark reforms to our universal service programs,
particularly those targeted at increasing broadband deployment and affordability to all Americans. We’ve
created the new Connect America Fund, and just a few weeks ago, the Commission announced that nearly
400,000 residents and small business owners in 37 states will gain access to high-speed Internet within
three years as a result of the new Fund. And we’ve made universal access to mobile service and express
universal service goal for the first time ever—the first Mobility Fund auction in September will provide
funding to extend mobile broadband to thousands of unserved road miles where Americans live, work,
and travel.
We have also continued to push forward with our Broadband Acceleration Initiative to lower the
costs and increase the speed of broadband build-out. We have adopted major reforms to facilitate access
to utility poles and faster tower siting, and our National Broadband Plan recommended key initiatives in
the President’s recent Executive Order on accelerating broadband infrastructure deployment, including
the “Dig Once” initiative. We’ve laid out clear rules of the road to protect the openness of the Internet,
promoting a virtuous cycle of innovation, investment, and competition. And we’ve taken numerous steps
to unleash spectrum for broadband, both licensed and unlicensed.
168

Federal Communications Commission

FCC 12-90

Some look at the progress that’s being made and say, “Mission Accomplished.” I disagree. Our
data show that 19 million Americans remain without access to fixed broadband. The residents and
business owners I met with in California and Nevada will finally get broadband in the coming months—
but millions more, especially in rural areas and Tribal lands, are still waiting. And until we fully
implement our Connect America reforms, this gap won’t close. In this context, we cannot declare that
broadband deployment to all Americans is “reasonable and timely.”
Our data also show that a significant broadband adoption gap remains—fewer than 70% of
Americans have subscribed to fixed broadband, even counting speeds as low as 768 kbps. We have to
continue striking at the barriers that are keeping Americans offline.
And while we’ve made great strides in the rollout of next-generation high-speed services, there’s
a lot left to do. Industry reports that the upgrade of cable infrastructure to DOCSIS 3.0 technology means
that more than 80% of Americans have access to networks technically capable of 100 Mbps or more. But
our data show that just 27% of Americans are being offered broadband services at those speeds today, and
U.S. prices for these higher speed services exceed many other countries.
And while 100 Mbps is impressive progress from where we were, it’s not where we want to end
up. We need to see ongoing increases in broadband speed and capacity, so that we’re routinely talking
about gigabits, not megabits. Broadband abundance is the goal that will drive U.S. leadership in
innovation, and our finding today reflects our belief that we need to keep our feet on the accelerator.
On mobile, passage of the incentive auction concept suggested in our National Broadband Plan
reflects important progress, along with the other steps we are taking to free up new spectrum for mobile
broadband. But demand for spectrum capacity continues to increase at a dramatic rate, so we can no more
declare mission accomplished in mobile than we can in fixed broadband.
Having the very best data is critical to tackling each of these challenges. This is our first
Broadband Progress report ever to include extensive data on mobile broadband and the availability of
next-generation, high-speed services. It incorporates the most robust analysis of international data that
the Commission has ever done. And we’re releasing it with new online, interactive maps, which show
exactly where broadband is and isn’t available and provide technology-by-technology deployment
statistics for every county in the nation.
To ensure our report keeps pace with changing demands, today we also adopt a Notice of Inquiry
to seek public input on how to assess our Nation’s progress toward its broadband goals in next year’s
report. As the importance of mobile broadband continues to grow for American consumers and
businesses, mobile broadband should be incorporated in our analysis in the Ninth Broadband Progress
Report. And our report needs to formally include an evaluation the deployment of next generation
services, which promote a mindset of abundance, and fuel world-leading innovation. Today’s Inquiry
lays the foundation for these important updates.
It is our responsibility to ensure that our goals for broadband availability reflect the real needs of
American consumers and businesses. One study projects that the average Internet household will
generate over 130 gigabytes of traffic per month by 2016 at a compounded growth rate of 21% a year.
Meanwhile, the average smartphone user consumed 435 MB a month in early 2011, an increase of 89%
from the year before.
In short, the goalposts are moving. Every year consumers and businesses need higher speeds and
more capacity to keep up, innovators need new test beds for the latest technologies, and our competitors
169

Federal Communications Commission

FCC 12-90

around the world are pushing hard to gain a strategic advantage by deploying faster, higher capacity
broadband to their citizens. As broadband providers respond to meet this incredible demand, so too our
broadband benchmarks and our broadband policies must keep up with these changes to foster economic
growth, job creation, and our global competitiveness.
I thank the staff of the Wireline Competition Bureau and Wireless Telecommunications Bureau
for their excellent work on this item.
170

Federal Communications Commission

FCC 12-90

DISSENTING STATEMENT OF

COMMISSIONER ROBERT M. McDOWELL

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. 11-121
It is discouraging that, for the third year in a row, the majority has decided to clutch to its earlier
negative findings as to whether “advanced telecommunications capability is being deployed to all
Americans in a reasonable and timely fashion” pursuant to Section 706 of the Telecommunications Act of
1996.1
In reality, the growth of broadband deployment in America, especially regarding the mobile
marketplace, has been swift and strong. For instance, between 2003 and 2009, broadband deployment
steadily increased from reaching 15 percent of Americans to 95 percent of Americans.2
Furthermore, mobile broadband is the fastest growing segment of the broadband market.
America has always led the world in wireless connectivity thanks to de-regulatory policies and our lead is
growing. For instance, our country has approximately 21 percent of the globe’s 3G/4G subscribers and
approximately 69 percent of the world’s LTE subscribers even though the United States is home to less
than five percent of the global population.3 Furthermore, the investments made by American wireless
providers have been higher than their international counterparts. For example, in 2011, over $25 billion
was invested in United States’ wireless infrastructure4 compared to $18.6 billion invested in the 15 largest
European economies combined.5
The mobile market in the United States has more competition than most international markets.
Nine out of ten American consumers have a choice of at least five wireless service providers, according to
the most recent FCC statistics.6 In Europe, however, that figure is around three.7 Therefore, Americans
benefit from lower prices and higher mobile usage rates compared to consumers in the European Union


1 47 U.S.C. § 1302(b) (Section 706 of the Telecommunications Act of 1996 has since been amended by the
Broadband Data Improvement Act (BDIA), Pub. L. No. 110-385, 122 Stat. 4096 (2008) and is now codified in Title
47, Chapter 12 of the U.S. Code. It is commonly referred to as “Section 706”).
2 See, e.g., FCC, OMNIBUS BROADBAND INITIATIVE (OBI), CONNECTING AMERICA: THE NATIONAL BROADBAND
PLAN, GN Docket No. 09-51 (2010).
3 See INFORMA TELECOMS AND MEDIA (WCIS Database) (Dec. 2011).
4 See CTIA-THE WIRELESS ASSOC., CTIA SEMI-ANNUAL WIRELESS INDUSTRY SURVEY (2012),
http://www.ctia.org/advocacy/research/index.cfm/AID/10316; see also CTIA-THE WIRELESS ASSOC., SEMI-ANNUAL
2011 TOP-LINE SURVEY RESULTS 10 (2012), http://files.ctia.org/pdf/CTIA_Survey_Year_End_2011_Graphics.pdf
(providing cumulative capital investment numbers).
5 See BOA/MERRILL LYNCH EUROPEAN TELECOMS MATRIX Q112 (Mar. 30, 2012) (GLOBAL TELECOMS MATRIX
Q112) (estimating €14,368 YE 2011. Conversion at $1.2948/1€). The European countries included in the Matrix:
Austria, Belgium, Denmark, Finland, France, Germany, Greece, Italy, Netherlands, Norway, Portugal, Spain,
Sweden, Switzerland, and UK; there are 27 members of the European Union (EU).
6 Implementation of Section 6002(b) of the Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act of 1993, Annual Report and
Analysis of Competitive Market Conditions with Respect to Mobile Wireless, including Commercial Mobile
Services, WT Docket No. 10-133, Fifteenth Report, 26 FCC Rcd 9664, 9669 (2011).
7 See GLOBAL TELECOMS MATRIX Q112.
171

Federal Communications Commission

FCC 12-90

(EU)—4 cents per minute versus 17 cents generally in the EU.8 Also, wireless subscriber usage on
average in the United States is often three to seven times as much compared to some countries.9
Moreover, American consumers pay at least one-third less than consumers in many other parts of the
world.10
The instant Section 706 report does discuss advances in the deployment of mobile broadband.
Notwithstanding the fact that the number of Americans who gained access to mobile broadband grew
significantly since last year, the report discards these important statistics, in part, for being “overstated,”
and ignores them in its pre-determined 706 finding. Even if these mobile broadband statistics were
incorporated, the majority indicates that it “would likely reach this same finding even if we considered the
best available mobile data. Over 14 million Americans lack access, even if access to either fixed or
mobile broadband is considered adequate and even when all LTE, WiMax, and HSPA+ deployments are
included.”11 In other words, it appears that the majority has already tipped its hand for next year’s
report—reducing the number of unserved Americans to 14 million would still not be good enough for the
majority’s outcome-driven Section 706 purposes.

Furthermore, even if a future Section 706 report reaches the elusive “magic number,” that still
may not be adequate progress for the majority. My colleagues continue to argue that Congress did not
mean “physical” deployment when it referred to “deployment” and “availability.” Rather than look to the
plain statutory language to determine Congress’s intent, the majority has relied on legislative report
language to argue that even if broadband is physically deployed to a particular area but is not affordable,
it is not available under Section 706. That interpretation is flawed. The actual statutory language states
otherwise: as part of the inquiry, the statute requires the Commission to look at demographic information
for “geographical areas that are not served by any provider of advanced telecommunications capability.”12
Congress was directing the Commission to study whether certain areas are actually not served by a
provider, not whether consumers in certain areas choose not to adopt broadband.
This creative interpretation of Section 706 ties in nicely with the majority’s efforts to expand its
jurisdictional reach. For example, the report identifies low broadband service quality, affordability of
broadband, lack of access to computers, lack of relevance, and poor digital literacy as some of the barriers
to infrastructure investment. These are really adoption issues, not deployment issues. And, by
identifying these “barriers,” the majority has continued to use Section 706 as a tool for mission creep.13
Section 706 is narrow in scope, however, and does not provide the Commission with specific or general


8 Roger Entner, The Wireless Industry: The Essential Engine of U.S. Economic Growth, RECON ANALYTICS, at 1
(May 2012), http://reconanalytics.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/04/Wireless-The-Ubiquitous-Engine-by-Recon-
Analytics-1.pdf ).
9 See GLOBAL TELECOMS MATRIX Q112 at 71.
10 See id.
11 Para. 138 of the instant report.
12 47 U.S.C. 1302(c) (emphasis added).
13 For example, in January of 2012, over my partial dissent, the Commission established a broadband pilot program
as part of the Lifeline program. I had concerns with the establishment of the pilot, in part, because the Commission
did not have authority to pursue it under Section 706 or any other section of the Communications Act. See Lifeline
& Link Up Reform & Modernization Lifeline & Link Up Fed.-State Joint Bd. on Universal Serv. Advancing
Broadband Availability Through Digital Literacy Training
, Report and Order and Further Notice of Proposed
Rulemaking, 27 FCC Rcd 6656 (2012).
172

Federal Communications Commission

FCC 12-90

authority to do much of anything. Section 706 has a de-regulatory bent and should not be used for other
purposes beyond what Congress intended, especially creating more rules, red tape and bureaucracy.14
In sum, the Section 706 process should be used to assess the progress of broadband deployment
in our nation, as Congress intended. Unfortunately, that has not been the majority’s practice for the past
three years. Instead, the majority has used this process as an opportunity to create a pretext to justify
more regulation. The fact that the report’s closing paragraph heralds the use of Section 706 for the
majority’s adoption of unprecedented regulation of Internet network management, or “net neutrality”
rules, underscores my point. Referencing the net neutrality order, the majority says “the open Internet
rules were adopted to ensure the continuation of the Internet’s virtuous cycle of innovation and
investment, and the Commission must continue to prioritize those efforts consistent with the mandate of
section 706.”15 In reality, the 706 process has been co-opted by the majority, and used in the course of a
“cynical cycle” of regulation.
For all of these reasons, I must respectfully dissent.


14 Congress stated that “[i]f the Commission’s determination is negative, it shall take immediate action to accelerate
deployment of such capability by removing barriers to infrastructure investment and by promoting competition in
the telecommunications market.” 47 U.S.C. 1302(b).
15 Para. 156 of the instant report.
173

Federal Communications Commission

FCC 12-90

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. 11-121
I wish to commend the Staff on today’s release of the Eighth Broadband Progress Report and
Notice of Inquiry for the Ninth Broadband Progress Report. This year’s Report is more detailed than
ever before, and it closely reviews the actions taken by both the private and public sectors to advance the
availability of broadband to all Americans.
In addition to the significant investments made by industry by way of deployment to date, the
FCC has achieved many of the goals we set forth to make broadband available to those who do not
currently have it. Since last year’s Report, we have reformed the Universal Service Fund’s high-cost
program so that it directly supports the deployment of broadband-enabled networks in rural areas. We
have taken important steps to address the availability of broadband for low-income consumers through the
Lifeline program, including providing the flexibility for consumers to use their subsidy to purchase
bundled voice and broadband services. We also have implemented a pilot project that will offer
broadband service to low-income consumers. Moreover, the public-private initiative Connect-to-
Compete was launched, and similar industry-led programs are entering their second year—all of which
are providing low-cost service, equipment, and training to consumers who otherwise could not afford
broadband.
As we continue to implement our reforms and further address the barriers to deployment and
broadband adoption, I expect that the statistics presented in our annual assessment will continue to
improve. But it is clear from today’s Report that we are not ready to declare victory just yet, as
approximately 19 million Americans still lack access to terrestrial fixed broadband services that meet our
broadband definition, and the adoption gap still shows that about 1/3 of Americans do not subscribe to
broadband. Broadband service has not been made available to all Americans in a reasonable and timely
fashion. Moreover, for low-income consumers and residents of rural areas, Tribal Lands, and the
Territories, this finding is even more acute. It is necessary, therefore, that we continue to promote
reforms and policies that will ensure broadband availability to all Americans no matter where they live,
work, or travel in this great nation.
While I am pleased that we have included a discussion specific to the Territories in this year’s
Report and request comment in the NOI on the broadband challenges in the Territories, it is clear that we
must continue to pay particular attention to the specific needs of remote and insulated areas. The same
holds true for Tribal Lands. We should continue to evaluate the impact of our reforms and policies in
these areas and be open to further refining them. In doing so, it is my hope that we can make more
progress in addressing the broadband needs in those areas.
I also believe that the NOI’s review of the broadband definition, including whether we should
modify our findings to include mobile service, are important discussions that I encourage interested
parties to engage with us on. As noted in the Report and NOI, the marketplace is rapidly evolving. More
consumers are relying upon their mobile devices to access broadband than ever before. We included in
our USF Transformation Order the goal that consumers have access to mobile broadband and voice
service, by allocating $300 million in Mobility Fund Phase I and $500 million annually in Phase II.
Moreover, our inquiry includes questions about the speeds offered and consumed for fixed service, as
well as the capacity of networks, including latency and data capacity. I am particularly interested in the
174

Federal Communications Commission

FCC 12-90

data the Commission would rely upon should we modify our Ninth Broadband Progress Report. In
particular, the Commission has yet to complete its proceeding to update the Form 477 wherein we collect
broadband subscriber information. Taking the necessary steps to ensure that the Commission has the
relevant data to assess such additional broadband criteria will be crucial if we determine to include such
data in the Ninth Broadband Progress Report.

175

Federal Communications Commission

FCC 12-90

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. 11-121
Today’s report shows real progress in the deployment of advanced telecommunications capability
to all Americans. It reveals that for some, broadband services are faster and more robust than ever.
Consider, for instance, that more than 80 percent of households now have access to broadband at speeds
as high as 100 Mbps.
But at the same time, this report demonstrates that broadband remains out of reach for 19 million
Americans. The bulk of these Americans—14.5 million—live in rural areas that lack basic infrastructure
for fixed broadband service. Furthermore, nearly one in three Americans do not subscribe to broadband,
citing lack of relevance, lack of affordability, and lack of digital literacy.
These numbers are even more troubling when the United States is compared with the rest of the
world. Today, this report cites data that show that the United States is ranked fifteenth in the world for
fixed broadband penetration. We are ranked seventh in the world for mobile broadband penetration.
The United States should lead the world in broadband. Until the data unequivocally demonstrate
that we do, how can the answer to our Section 706 inquiry—whether advanced telecommunications
capability is being deployed to all Americans in a reasonable and timely fashion—be anything but no?
We know that in the 21st century access to broadband means access to opportunity. It means access to
jobs, access to education, and access to healthcare. This is the platform that will drive innovation, boost
productivity, and enhance our ability to compete with other nations. So we must make our markets the
most attractive worldwide for investment in all aspects of the digital economy.
To do so, the Commission is already taking action to advance broadband deployment and
adoption for the millions of Americans without access today. We are moving forward with
comprehensive universal service reform, implementing the 21st Century Communications and Video
Accessibility Act, and developing public and private partnerships to promote broadband adoption and
digital literacy. We are also poised to carry out the world’s first incentive auction to free up additional
spectrum for mobile broadband services. These are exciting developments, though today’s report is a
thoughtful reminder that we still have work to do before every American has access and we unequivocally
lead the world’s broadband ranks.
Though there are challenges ahead, I believe that we are up for the task. The Notice of Inquiry
we release today is a small step towards figuring out how to address these challenges, including a fresh
perspective on the consumer experience. In particular, our inquiry includes factors beyond speed, like
latency and capacity, that impact how consumers use their broadband connections. So I look forward to
tackling these issues with my colleagues and thank Commission staff for their hard work on this report.
176

Federal Communications Commission

FCC 12-90

DISSENTING 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. 11-121
From 1999 to 2008, the Commission found that broadband was being deployed to all Americans
in a reasonable and timely fashion. In 2010, however, this suddenly changed. Today, the Commission
determines for the third straight year that the objective set forth in section 706(b) of the
Telecommunications Act of 1996 is no longer being met. Because the Commission’s conclusion rests on
a flawed interpretation of the statute, and because I see the elimination of regulatory uncertainty—not the
public fisc or new regulation—as the key to accelerating broadband deployment, I respectfully dissent
from today’s report.
Official statistics tell us that the recession technically ended three years ago. Yet for many
Americans, the recovery still has not come. The Federal Reserve estimates that the economy’s output is
still $800 billion smaller than it could be.1 The unemployment rate has risen to 8.3 percent,2 which
understates our economy’s woes given that more than five million people have given up searching for
employment since the recession began.3 Even the communications sector is not immune;
telecommunications companies employ 160,000 fewer workers than they did three-and-a-half years ago,
meaning that the sector’s workforce has shrunk by over fifteen percent.4
Despite our general economic problems and the current regulatory environment, the private sector
deserves credit for what it has been able to accomplish recently when it comes to infrastructure
investment. Communications network operators invested $66 billion in 2011.5 According to State
Broadband Initiative data, private sector investment brought fixed terrestrial broadband service meeting
the Commission’s speed benchmark to 7.4 million Americans6 and mobile broadband service to 46.7
million Americans7 from June 2010 to June 2011.


1 See Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis, FRED Economic Data, http://research.stlouisfed.org/fred2/graph/ (compare
NGDPPOT to GDP as of Aug. 15, 2012).
2 See Bureau of Labor Statistics, Labor Force Statistics from the Current Population Survey, (Seas) Unemployment
Rate, http://go.usa.gov/Gw9.
3 Compare Bureau of Labor Statistics, Labor Force Statistics from the Current Population Survey, (Seas) Labor
Force Participation Rate, http://go.usa.gov/Gwk (showing that the labor force participation rate has declined from
66.0% in November 2007 to 63.7% in July 2012), with Bureau of Labor Statistics, Labor Force Statistics from the
Current Population Survey, (Seas) Civilian Labor Force Level, http://go.usa.gov/Gw0 (showing that 155 million
Americans participated in the labor force in July 2012, and accordingly 5.6 million more Americans would have
participated had the participation rate not declined from November 2007 to July 2012).
4 Bureau of Labor Statistics, Labor Force Statistics from the Current Population Survey, (Seas) Telecommunications
Labor Force Level, http://go.usa.gov/GwB (showing that telecommunications employment fell from 994,700 in
January 2009 to 830,100 in May 2012).
5 US Telecom, Broadband Investment, http://bit.ly/ygeVLS.
6 See Eighth Broadband Progress Report at tbl. 7.
7 See id. at tbl. 14.
177

Federal Communications Commission

FCC 12-90

The report sets aside this evidence because under its reading of the statute,8 progress is irrelevant.
“[T]he standard against which we measure our progress is universal broadband deployment,”9 it
maintains, and “approximately 19 million Americans did not have access to fixed broadband [in 2011].”10
In other words, because fixed broadband service meeting the Commission’s speed benchmark is not
already (or very soon to be) available to all Americans, “broadband is not yet being deployed to all
Americans in a reasonable and timely fashion.”11
My colleague, Commissioner McDowell, and my predecessor, Commissioner Baker, previously
noted problems with this interpretation of Section 706.12 I hope to flesh out some aspects of the statute
that further highlight the deficiencies in the Commission’s recent approach.
First, the Commission has consistently ignored in recent years the statute’s direction that
“advanced telecommunications capability” may be deployed “using any technology.”13 That instruction
does not permit us to segregate fixed connections from mobile connections, focusing on the former and
neglecting the latter. Instead, in making our statutory finding we should consider all broadband services
meeting the statutory definition regardless of the technologies used to deploy them. If the Commission
followed this statutory command and relied on the State Broadband Initiative data to look at all
broadband services meeting the benchmark,14 it would have concluded that 5.5 million Americans—not


8 See 47 U.S.C. § 1302 (codifying Telecommunications Act of 1996, Pub. L. No. 104-104, § 706, 110 Stat. 153 (as
amended)) (directing Commission to “determine whether advanced telecommunications capability is being deployed
to all Americans in a reasonable and timely fashion.”).
9 Eighth Broadband Progress Report at para. 138.
10 Id. at para. 135.
11 Id.
12 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. 10-159,
Seventh Broadband Progress Report and Order on Reconsideration, 26 FCC Rcd 8008, 8101 (2011) (Seventh
Broadband Progress Report
) (Dissenting Statement of Commissioner Robert M. McDowell) (calling the
Commission’s decision to adopt a 4 Mbps/1 Mbps benchmark “arbitrary,” arguing that the Commission “should
never have mandated a one-size-fits-all definition of broadband” that ignores divergent consumer preferences, and
arguing against interpretations of “availability” and “deployment” that would read those statutory terms to mean
something other than “availability” and “deployment”); 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, 9696 (2010) (Dissenting Statement of Commissioner
Meredith A. Baker) (“The goal encapsulated by section 706 is universal broadband availability. Nowhere in section
706 does it require that goal to be reached definitively in 2010. Rather, the question is whether network providers
continue to make demonstrable progress towards that goal.”).
13 47 U.S.C. § 1302(d)(1) (emphasis added).
14 In truth, we have never examined the availability of broadband service at our speed benchmark given that we have
never collected data measuring deployment at the benchmark. Instead, we have relied on the deployment of fixed
services meeting a 3 Mbps/768 kbps benchmark as the next-best thing. We should extend that same proxy to mobile
services; vague concerns that providers may be over-reporting surely apply just as much to the wireline world as the
wireless, see Eighth Broadband Progress Report at para. 37, and the widespread deployment of LTE, WiMax, and
HSPA+ in the past two years demonstrates that at least some mobile offerings in otherwise unserved areas qualify as
“advanced telecommunications capability,” id. at para. 6 & n.27; see also tbl. 15 (implying that, based on Mosaik
data, 221.7 million Americans had access to LTE, WiMax, or HSPA+ as of June 2011).
178

Federal Communications Commission

FCC 12-90

19 million—lack access to advanced telecommunications capability.15 Not only does this mistaken
interpretation lead to a 245% overstatement of the problem, it also leads the Commission to report to
Congress something it never asked for: a list of geographical areas, some of which are served by a
provider of advanced telecommunications capability and some of which are not.16
Second, I do not see how the Commission’s test can be reconciled with the statutory language
that instructs us to ask if broadband “is being deployed . . . in a reasonable and timely fashion.”17 That
language most naturally requires a comparison of broadband deployment within the country at one point
in time with broadband deployment at a later point in time, after which an assessment can be made as to
whether “reasonable and timely” advancements have been made. Our metric, in other words, is
progress—not total achievement—and Congress emphasized the point by using the progressive present
tense in its command (i.e., Congress used the phrase “is being deployed” in Section 706 rather than “is
deployed”).18
An example illustrates the point. Suppose that you are building a house and ask the contractor to
report back to you on a weekly basis whether the project “is being constructed in a reasonable and timely
fashion.” Each week, the contractor submits a report responding to the question in the negative because
the house has yet to be completed. Most people would consider such a response to be beside the point,
but the Commission essentially uses that same reasoning today.
Aside from being inconsistent with the statute’s use of the progressive present tense, the
Commission’s “are-we-there-yet” test has the added defect of reading the phrase “in a reasonable and
timely fashion” out of the statute. We should not treat statutory terms as mere surplusage,19 especially
when there is a way to read the statute that respects every word Congress chose to legislate.
Third, the Commission’s approach is a short-sighted one that disserves our goal of being a data-
driven agency. In recent years, the Commission has relied on an expansive reading of section 706(b) that
purports to grant us heretofore unknown and unspecified authorities to carry out the public interest so
long as doing so tangentially relates to broadband. But our authority under this provision only lasts so
long as our section 706 determination is negative. In other words, the Commission’s authority to enforce
net neutrality, subsidize broadband for low-income households, or support digital literacy programs20


15 Given that the Commission, in the Notice of Inquiry released today, is seeking comment on whether to add
latency and data capacity thresholds in the next report, I fail to understand how the Commission can rely on these
two issues in this report as support for its decision to exclude consideration of mobile broadband in making its
statutory finding.
16 In contrast, the statute requires the Commission to “compile a list of geographical areas that are not served by any
provider of advanced telecommunications capability.” 47 U.S.C. § 1302(c) (emphasis added).
17 Because the majority adopts the construction of the statute in the Seventh Broadband Progress Report whole
cloth, Eighth Broadband Progress Report at n.347, I address the arguments raised in that report.
18 Verizon made this precise point about the progressive tense in comments on last year’s Notice of Inquiry. But the
Commission seems to have misunderstood the argument, thinking that Verizon was making the unremarkable
observation that “is being deployed” is in the present tense. See Seventh Broadband Progress Report, 26 FCC Rcd
at 8033, para. 47 & n.163. The progressive present tense is used for actions that are occurring, without definite
starting or stopping points. The simple present tense is used for actions that occur, implying a distinct start and
finish.
19 See Duncan v. Walker, 533 U.S. 167, 174 (2001).
20 See Preserving the Open Internet; Broadband Industry Practices, GN Docket No. 09-191, WC Docket No. 07-52,
Report and Order, 25 FCC Rcd 17905, 17972, para. 123 (2010) (asserting that section 706(b) gives the Commission
“additional authority to take actions such as enforcing open Internet principles”); Lifeline and Link Up Reform and
(continued….)
179

Federal Communications Commission

FCC 12-90

hangs in the balance each year, dependent on a finding that broadband is not being deployed in a
reasonable and timely fashion. If we are willing to set an objective with no intent of reaching it, then I
suppose that this is not a problem.21 But if we believe instead that data should drive our decisions—not
vice versa—then section 706(b) can never be a reliable authority for implementing good policy since we
will eventually be forced to concede once again that broadband is being deployed in a timely and
reasonable fashion.
Finally, I do agree with the Commission that when it comes to deploying broadband
infrastructure, our country should be doing much better. But to improve our performance, the
Commission needs to take Section 706’s deregulatory imperatives to heart. Today’s report, in large
measure, misidentifies the primary barriers to infrastructure investment and broadband deployment. In
my discussions with those in the private sector responsible for making broadband investment decisions,
they do not identify the price of computers, poor digital literacy, a lack of consumer interest, or a lack of
consumer trust22 as the primary factors behind their decisions to keep tens of billions of dollars of capital
sitting on the sidelines. Rather, they indicate that their caution stems primarily from regulatory
uncertainty and in particular their concerns about whether and how Internet Protocol-based (IP) networks
are going to be regulated in the future.
As it turns out, section 706 itself supplies an answer to this problem. That provision first directs
the Commission to encourage deployment via “price cap regulation, regulatory forbearance, measures that
promote competition in the local telecommunications market, or other regulating methods that remove
barriers to infrastructure investment.”23 And if we find that broadband is not being deployed in a
reasonable and timely fashion, then we must “accelerate deployment of such capability by removing
barriers to infrastructure investment and by promoting competition in the telecommunications market.”24
In my view, there is plenty to do.
Twenty years after the advent of price-cap regulation, most price-cap carriers still must file the
same studies and accounting information as rate-of-return carriers. Sixteen years after the
Telecommunications Act of 1996, incumbent local exchange carriers still must file tariffs as if they were
local monopolists, despite competition from all corners. Thirteen years after the Commission provided a
path to pricing flexibility for special access services, carriers are facing the specter of re-regulation. Eight
years after the Vonage Order,25 we still treat interconnected VoIP providers as second-class carriers rather
than first-rate competitors. And two years after the Commission considered reclassifying broadband
(Continued from previous page)


Modernization; Lifeline and Link Up; Federal-State Joint Board on Universal Service; Advancing Broadband
Availability Through Digital Literacy Training
, WC Docket Nos. 11-42, 03-109, 12-23, CC Docket No. 96-45,
Report and Order and Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, 27 FCC Rcd 6656, 6798–99, paras. 331–32
(asserting that section 706(b) gives the Commission “authority . . . to provide USF support to ETCs through a low-
income broadband Pilot Program to subsidize low-income consumers’ purchase of broadband services”) (Lifeline
Reform Order
); Eighth Broadband Progress Report at paras. 140, 153 (suggesting poor digital literacy is a “key
barrier” to infrastructure investment and noting that Lifeline broadband pilot projects are expected to promote digital
literacy, citing Lifeline Reform Order, 27 FCC Rcd at 6805, para. 350).
21 Cf. Yoda, STAR WARS: EPISODE V—THE EMPIRE STRIKES BACK (Lucasfilm 1980) (“Always with you it cannot be
done.”).
22 See Eighth Broadband Progress Report at para. 140.
23 47 U.S.C. § 1302(a).
24 Id. § 1302(b).
25 Vonage Holdings Corporation Petition for Declaratory Ruling Concerning an Order of the Minnesota Public
Utilities Commission
, WC Docket No. 03-211, Memorandum Opinion and Order, 19 FCC Rcd 22404 (2004).
180

Federal Communications Commission

FCC 12-90

Internet access service as a telecommunications service, that docket (GN Docket No. 10-127) remains
open, a sword of Damocles hanging over every broadband investor’s head.
The directive from Congress may not be easy to carry out, but it is clear: Promote competition.
Eliminate regulatory uncertainty. Repeal archaic twentieth-century regulations that assumed regulated
monopolies running copper networks. Empower small businesses, large businesses, entrepreneurs, and
others with capital to invest in broadband infrastructure, unfettered by government mandate and
unshackled from outdated restraints. To be sure, all of this will not happen overnight. But we should
begin immediately down this path by creating an IP Transition Task Force that would develop a holistic
set of recommendations for facilitating and expediting our transition to an all-IP world. If the private
sector came to the conclusion that the Commission was committed to a deregulatory approach to IP
networks and was serious about eliminating the regulatory uncertainty surrounding the IP transition, I am
confident that broadband infrastructure investment would increase substantially and quickly.
* * *
Notwithstanding my bottom-line assessment of this item, the staff has made a significant number
of improvements to this year’s report that merit recognition. For example, the report contains a more
thorough and thoughtful analysis of deployment in rural areas, U.S. territories, and Tribal lands;
additional reporting on mobile data speeds; and a novel approach to calculating adoption rates (even if
adoption is not strictly related to the question of deployment). For all of these accomplishments and
more, I thank the analysts, the economists, the geographers, the engineers, the attorneys, and other
members of our expert staff that put this report together.
In light of their efforts, I wish that I could support this item. But for the reasons outlined above, I
must respectfully dissent.
181

Note: We are currently transitioning our documents into web compatible formats for easier reading. We have done our best to supply this content to you in a presentable form, but there may be some formatting issues while we improve the technology. The original version of the document is available as a PDF, Word Document, or as plain text.

close
FCC

You are leaving the FCC website

You are about to leave the FCC website and visit a third-party, non-governmental website that the FCC does not maintain or control. The FCC does not endorse any product or service, and is not responsible for, nor can it guarantee the validity or timeliness of the content on the page you are about to visit. Additionally, the privacy policies of this third-party page may differ from those of the FCC.