[Federal Register: April 8, 2004 (Volume 69, Number 68)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Page 18508-18515]
From the Federal Register Online via GPO Access [wais.access.gpo.gov]
[DOCID:fr08ap04-16]
=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION
47 CFR Part 54
[GN Docket No. 04-54; FCC 04-55]
Deployment of Advanced Telecommunications Capability to All
Americans in a Reasonable and Timely Fashion, and Possible Steps To
Accelerate Such Deployment
AGENCY: Federal Communications Commission.
ACTION: Notice of Inquiry; solicitation of comments.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: In this document, the Commission seeks comment on various
market, investment, and technological trends in order for the
Commission to analyze and assess whether infrastructure capable of
supporting advanced services is being made available to all Americans
in a reasonable and timely fashion.
DATES: Comments are due on or before May 10, 2004. Reply comments are
due on or before May 24, 2004.
ADDRESSES: Federal Communications Commission, 445 12th Street, SW.,
Washington, DC 20554. See SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION for further filing
instructions.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Regina M. Brown, Attorney, Wireline
Competition Bureau, Telecommunications Access Policy Division, (202)
418-7400, TTY (202) 418-0484.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: This is a summary of the Commission's Notice
of Inquiry, GN Docket No. 04-54, released March 17, 2004. The full text
of this document is available for public inspection during regular
business hours in the FCC Reference Center, Room CY-A257, 445 12th
Street, SW., Washington, DC 20554.
I. Introduction
1. In this Notice of Inquiry (Notice), the Commission begins its
fourth inquiry under section 706 of the Telecommunications Act of 1996
(the 1996 Act) into ``whether advanced telecommunications capability is
being deployed to all Americans in a reasonable and timely fashion.''
We seek comment on various market, investment, and technological trends
in order for the Commission to analyze and assess whether
infrastructure capable of supporting advanced services is being made
available to all Americans in a reasonable and timely fashion.
2. In section 706, Congress directed the Commission and the states
to encourage the deployment of advanced telecommunications capability
to all Americans. In conjunction with this objective, Congress
instructed this Commission to conduct regular inquiries concerning the
availability of advanced telecommunications capability. In so doing,
Congress recognized that the availability of infrastructure capable of
transmitting broadband or advanced services was critical to the future
of our nation. Advanced services already play a vital role, and will
continue to do so throughout the 21st century, in the
[[Page 18509]]
nation's economy and the life of its people. Many U.S. companies, both
large and small, now depend on advanced services to run various facets
of their businesses, including tracking inventory, monitoring consumer
relations, and forecasting product sales. Moreover, advanced services
have created new jobs, while enabling skilled employees to work more
effectively in their current jobs. Advanced services have also created
greater flexibility and opportunity in the workplace, particularly in
the increased use of telecommuting by employees who remain connected to
their jobs despite distance and other factors.
3. In addition to their benefits to the economy, advanced services
have a dramatic impact on everyday citizens. Advanced services improve
the educational opportunities of children and adults everywhere. High-
speed connections to the Internet allow children in rural areas from
Alaska to Florida to access the same information as schoolchildren in
urban areas. Moreover, distance learning provides more choices for
children and adults to access educational materials of distant learning
institutions.
4. Telemedicine networks made possible by advanced services save
lives and improve the standard of healthcare in sparsely-populated,
rural areas. These services bring the skills and knowledge of
specialized doctors and other medical professionals to people that
would otherwise have to travel long distances to reach them. Advanced
services also permit rural healthcare providers to utilize the latest
medical information, which, in turn, improves the general provision of
healthcare in areas of the country that have traditionally been
underserved.
5. Applications that require advanced telecommunications capability
will continue to grow exponentially. Only a few years ago, applications
and services that we take for granted today were unheard of by a vast
segment of the population. These developments are expected to reduce
the cost of communication and to spur innovation and individualization
on a previously unthinkable scale. For example, companies are
developing services and applications making use of Internet Protocol
(IP), including Voice over IP (VoIP), which are delivered over
broadband connections. This new communications environment could
provide each consumer with a highly customized, low-cost choice of
services delivered in the manner of his or her choosing. Therefore,
monitoring the progress of deployment of advanced telecommunications
platforms and determining if steps can or should be taken to further
encourage this growth is one of the Commission's most important duties.
We strongly encourage commenters to provide data and new ideas on how
to conduct this and future section 706 inquiries. We also invite the
Federal-State Joint Conference on Advanced Telecommunications Services
(Joint Conference) to submit any information that it deems appropriate
into this docket.
II. Issues for Inquiry
6. At the outset, we solicit information consistent with the
framework utilized in past reports: (i) How should we define advanced
telecommunications capability? (ii) is advanced telecommunications
capability being deployed to all Americans? (iii) is the current level
of deployment reasonable and timely? and (iv) what actions, if any, can
be taken to accelerate deployment? We intend, however, to extend our
analysis beyond the framework of our previous 706 reports to examine
additional questions of potential interest to policymakers. In
particular, we seek to develop a more rigorous analysis of the
availability of advanced telecommunications capability in different
market segments and areas of varying densities. Moreover, we seek to
develop a better understanding of the economic considerations that
support the deployment of advanced telecommunications capability. We
hope to analyze available information relating to consumer adoption and
usage of services requiring advanced telecommunications capability. We
also intend to examine trends in other nations and how our deployment
of advanced telecommunications capability affects our role in a global
economy. We welcome any additional information that commenters believe
would further public understanding and dialogue on these critical
issues.
A. What Is ``Advanced Telecommunications Capability''?
7. We seek comment on how we should define ``advanced
telecommunications capability'' for purposes of this inquiry. Since
1999, the Commission has used the terms ``advanced telecommunications
capability'' as ``high-speed, switched, broadband telecommunications
capability,'' but did not specify what speed should be encompassed
within these terms. In the past, the Commission used the terms
``advanced telecommunications capability'' and ``advanced services'' to
describe services and facilities with an upstream (customer-to-
provider) and downstream (provider-to-customer) transmission speed of
more than 200 kilobits per second (kbps). The Commission also used the
term ``high-speed'' to describe services and facilities with over 200
kbps capability in at least one direction. Given the rapid
technological changes in the marketplace, we seek comment on the need
to alter the definitional framework utilized in prior inquiries. Has
technology or the marketplace evolved such that we should redefine the
term ``advanced services'' to be speeds higher than 200 kbps in one or
both directions? Have consumer expectations with respect to bandwidth
needs changed since prior reports? What sources of information
currently exist regarding the deployment of advanced telecommunications
capability under alternative definitions? We note that we intend to
seek comment in a separate proceeding on whether to amend our existing
FCC Form 477 reporting program to gather more detailed information
about the provision of services at speeds higher than 200 kbps. Are
there reasons other than the status of technological development that
support modifying the definition? Are any other attributes, besides
speed in which a particular quantity of information can be transmitted,
relevant to the definition of advanced telecommunications capability?
8. In a report to Congress released after our last 706 inquiry, the
General Accounting Office (GAO) recommended that the Commission
``should develop a strategy for periodically evaluating whether
existing informal and experimental methods of data collection are
providing the information needed to monitor the essential
characteristics and trends of the Internet backbone market and the
potential effects of the convergence of communications services.'' The
GAO also recommended that ``if a more formal data collection program is
deemed appropriate, [the Commission] should exercise its authority to
establish such a program.'' We seek comment on the GAO's
recommendations, and whether our existing methods of data collection
relating to the Internet backbone are sufficient.
B. Is Advanced Telecommunications Capability Being Deployed to All
Americans?
9. We seek comment on whether advanced telecommunications
capability is being deployed to all Americans. In particular, we seek
comment on three general areas in order to facilitate our analysis: (1)
The availability of advanced
[[Page 18510]]
telecommunications capability and whether it has changed since the
Third Report, 66 FR 44636, August 24, 2001; (2) the economics
underlying investment in advanced infrastructure and service
deployment; and (3) various advances in advanced services technology.
10. Availability. As previously noted, the Commission began
gathering data about the provision of high-speed and advanced services
to end users in 2000. Our current data collection program requires any
facilities-based provider that has at least 250 high-speed service
lines or wireless channels in service in a state to report basic
information about its service offerings and customers twice yearly.
Each filer provides data on the total number of lines or wireless
channels by technology (i.e., service provided on coaxial cables,
wireline telephone lines, fixed wireless, or satellite). For each
``technology subtotal,'' providers report additional detail concerning
the percentage of lines that are connected to residential and small
business users, the percentage of lines that provide service at more
than 200 kbps in both directions, and the number of lines that provide
speeds exceeding 2 Mbps.
11. From this data, we obtain a verifiable count of how much
service within specified parameters is being delivered by those service
providers that responded. Given the association between subscription
and deployment, such data collection provides a means to assess the
pace at which advanced telecommunications capabilities are being made
available in different parts of the country and across different
demographic groups. Moreover, we will shortly propose to revise our
current FCC Form 477 to obtain more detailed understanding of the
provision of services with greater bandwidth than 200 kbps and the
availability of the broadband technologies that have achieved the
greatest mass market acceptance to date, cable modems and DSL
connections, which should facilitate future 706 inquiries.
12. We recognize that altering our current Form 477 reporting
framework could provide additional information that would be useful in
analyzing the state of deployment of advanced telecommunications
capabilities. Obtaining more detailed information about services at
speeds higher than 200 kbps could become a valuable tool to assist us
in future section 706 inquiries. At the same time, we encourage
commenters in this proceeding to provide us with more detailed
information about the provision of services today at speeds higher than
200 kbps.
13. We recognize that providers are not currently required to
report the number or type of high-speed service subscribers in each zip
code, but only to report the zip codes in which they had at least one
high-speed service subscriber. As a result, we cannot determine from
our data the extent to which high-speed services in a given zip code
indicates that high-speed services are widely available, or whether
they are restricted to certain types of customers located in limited
areas. The zip code data depicts areas where at least one customer
receives high-speed services in the last mile to the customer premises.
This data provides the Commission with one tool for our analysis of
whether advanced telecommunications capability is being made available
to all Americans. We also note that we will shortly propose to require
providers to indicate which technologies are being used to provide
connections in a given zip code, which should enable more accurate
mapping in the future of where specific technologies are in use, and we
will seek comment on whether to require providers to indicate the
number of subscribers in a given zip code.
14. We now have semi-annual data about subscribership to high-speed
and advanced services dating from December 1999 through June 2003.
These data represent a significant time series for analysis and
discussion. Now that the Commission has several years of data, we are
particularly interested in analyzing the trends that have developed
over time. These data show a continued, steady increase in both
residential and small business high-speed lines since our last 706
report. Cable modem and ADSL continue to be the market leading
technologies, at present. We request comment on what conclusions we
should draw from these data.
15. We welcome additional data from external sources that will
enable us to make informed judgments about whether advanced
telecommunications capability is being made available to consumers in a
reasonable and timely manner. We request objective, empirical data from
companies, think tanks, governments, analysts, consumer groups, and
others. We especially welcome data organized in ways that will enable
us to measure investment, availability, and subscription for different
technologies, companies, areas, and types of consumers. Additionally,
we seek information relating to the price points and actual speeds at
which high-speed and advanced services are being made available to
consumers, and information relating to product tiering. We also seek
data that would shed additional light on the extent to which consumers
have a choice of competing providers of advanced or high-speed
services. In addition, we seek comment on whether there are other ways
of analyzing our existing FCC Form 477 data.
16. Economics of Network Investment and Service Deployment. In the
Third Report, the Commission observed that carriers continued to invest
in the high-speed and advanced services sector in a substantial way,
resulting in increased availability of high-speed and advanced services
for consumers across the nation. The Commission took note, however,
that investment trends had generally slowed and gone through a period
of transition since the Second Report, 65 FR 11059, March 1, 2000.
Despite these trends, the Commission concluded that investment in
infrastructure for most high-speed and advanced services markets
remained strong, and that the market would continue to expand and
availability to increase.
17. We seek comment on current investment trends and the extent to
which they may reflect the availability of high-speed and advanced
services. We seek comment on the relationship between the pace of
investment, consumer demand, and general market expectations. We also
seek comment on whether providers of high-speed and advanced services
have access to sufficient levels of capital to fund infrastructure
build-out and whether additional steps should be taken to accelerate
deployment.
18. We seek to develop a greater understanding of the economics
underlying deployment of advanced telecommunications capability and
services that utilize that capability. How do the economics change over
time as certain levels of deployment and/or penetration are achieved?
Do the economics of deploying advanced telecommunications capability
reduce availability in some communities? What role could universal
service play in ensuring that deployment is reasonable and timely for
all Americans? How do providers differentiate their product among
different consumer groups? What strategies, tactics, plans,
organization, and operational structures do firms utilize to deliver
technology and related services to consumers?
19. We note that some companies offer tiered service schemes, which
permit both entry level and more sophisticated, higher bandwidth
services to be delivered over the same
[[Page 18511]]
infrastructure. To what extent could the availability of different
product tiers affect penetration in today's marketplace? To what extent
should the existence of product tiering affect our assessment of
whether advanced telecommunications capability is being deployed on a
reasonable and timely basis?
20. Trends in Developing Technologies. In prior reports, the
Commission looked closely at the various technologies currently capable
of providing high-speed and advanced services as well as those
technologies that are likely to emerge in the near future. In
particular, the Third Report described in detail several ``last mile''
technologies of high-speed systems: (1) Cable modem service; (2)
digital subscriber line (DSL, especially asymmetric DSL or ADSL); (3)
other Local Exchange Carrier (LEC)-provided wireline services; (4)
terrestrial fixed wireless service; and (5) satellite service. The
Commission determined that competition among providers within certain
technologies is emerging and that there is potential for several
different technological options for providing high-speed and advanced
services.
21. We seek comment as to any new developments in this area. Are
there new technologies that are now being used to provide high-speed or
advanced services, or likely to be used in the near future, such as Wi-
Fi or Wi-Max, or broadband over power lines? If so, how widely have
these new technologies been deployed and what percentage of customers
utilize such services? What is the role of mobile wireless
technologies? To what extent may some of these developments improve the
speed and range of services offered to consumers? Are these
technological developments likely to be particularly beneficial to
specific groups of customers, such as rural customers or customers with
disabilities? Have there been any other changes in the industry that
affect the Commission's conclusions in the Third Report?
22. We note that the Commission's Form 477 data collection program
captures the marketplace presence of broadband services that utilize
new and innovative technologies once consumer up-take of the services
reaches a certain level. Our data collection does not, however,
directly monitor the development of new technologies with likely, or
possible, application to advanced services. Nor does our data
collection program directly monitor the development of innovative
applications that utilize advanced telecommunications capability. We
therefore invite parties to bring to our attention technologies that
might be used by current or potential providers to deliver new advanced
services to consumers. In addition, we are interested in technologies
that might be used directly by consumers, e.g., within the consumer's
premises, to lower the cost or difficulty of installing or using
advanced services. We also are interested in technologies that might
enable new broadband applications of interest to consumers.
C. Is Deployment Reasonable and Timely?
23. Once we have gathered information on the deployment of advanced
telecommunications capability, section 706 requires that we determine
whether such capability is being deployed to all Americans ``in a
reasonable and timely fashion.'' We generally seek comment on whether
advanced telecommunications capability is being deployed to all
Americans in a reasonable and timely fashion and ask commenters to
describe the empirical basis for their conclusions.
24. In determining whether deployment is reasonable and timely, the
Commission examined in the Second and Third Reports various aspects of
the deployment of, and market for, advanced services. In particular, it
examined the availability of high-speed and advanced services, focusing
both on how it has changed since prior reports and how it was projected
to change in the future. Second, it examined investment in the
infrastructure to support advanced services. Third, it reviewed trends
in the alternatives available to consumers of advanced services,
assessing both the number of providers offering service through a
particular technology and the different technological options available
to consumers. We request comment on whether to modify our analytical
framework in this inquiry, and welcome suggestions of additional or
alternative criteria. Are there other areas of inquiry that would be
informative for the Commission to explore?
25. In the Third Report, the Commission specifically considered the
availability of advanced services for several groups of consumers,
including businesses, residential consumers, rural communities,
elementary and secondary schools, individuals living on tribal lands,
and persons with disabilities. Should we separately examine these
specific categories in this inquiry? Are there other types of consumers
or geographic areas, such as insular areas, that are likely to
experience broadband deployment at a different pace such that we should
also monitor the rate of deployment to those customers and areas?
26. We specifically seek comment on the status of deployment of
high-speed and advanced services to consumers living in rural areas.
Our data collection shows that subscription to advanced services in
sparsely populated zip codes has grown, and the gap in reported lines
in service between densely and sparsely populated zip codes has shrunk.
For example, in June 2003, 68.5% of the most sparsely populated zip
codes had high-speed subscribers, compared to 36.8% two years earlier.
Moreover, over the last two years, the gap between the most densely
populated zip codes and most sparsely populated zip codes had shrunk
from 61.3 percentage points to 30.4 percentage points, largely due to
increases in the number of most sparsely populated zip codes with
subscribers. What are some of the reasons for this reduction in the gap
between the most densely populated and the most sparsely populated zip
codes? To what extent is the gap in subscribership among more densely
and more sparsely populated areas due to the fact that many smaller
providers operating in rural areas may fall below the current reporting
threshold for our Form 477 data collection program? Do consumers in
rural areas enjoy choices among technologies and tiers of high-speed
services comparable to those available to consumers in urban areas? Are
high-speed services available to consumers in rural areas at rates
comparable to those rates charged in urban areas?
27. We note that the National Exchange Carrier Association (NECA)
recently published a study that concluded that technological advances
among small, mostly rural local telephone companies between 2001 and
2003 were greater than expected. In fact, the number of NECA companies
currently deploying DSL services increased from 557 in 2001 to 814 in
2003. According to the NECA report, 78.95% of member companies' access
lines now are equipped for DSL. NECA concluded that rural telephone
companies are meeting the growing consumer demand for advanced services
in spite of the hurdles they must overcome, including the lack of
economies of scale that large, non-rural companies are afforded. What
lessons can be learned from the steps taken by some NECA members to
encourage deployment in less-developed areas? Are there steps that the
Commission should take that would encourage further deployment in rural
areas?
[[Page 18512]]
28. We also seek focused comment on the deployment of advanced
telecommunications capability to low income individuals. We note that,
as of June 2003, 98.5% of the highest income zip codes reported high-
speed lines, and 78.3% of the lowest income zip codes reported high-
speed lines. By comparison, as of June 2001, 96.4% of the highest
income zip codes reported high-speed lines, and 59.1% of the lowest
income zip codes reported high-speed lines. As a result, over the last
two years, the gap between the highest income zip codes and the lowest
income ones shrunk from 37.3 to 20.2 percentage points, primarily due
to increases in the number of low-income zip codes with subscribers.
Why has the gap between the highest income zip codes and the lowest
income zip codes decreased over the past two years? Have any specific
developments occurred that account for these changes? To what extent
are firms marketing lower priced tiers of services to lower income
individuals?
29. In addition, we seek comment on the availability of advanced
telecommunications capability to individuals living on tribal lands and
in the U.S. territories. In June 2003, high-speed services were
available in 86.9% of zip codes that contain tribal territories, up
from 71.3% in June 2001. At this time, service providers report high-
speed lines in Puerto Rico and the Virgin Islands, but no service
providers report high-speed lines in the Pacific Insular Islands. Does
the information from our data collection program adequately capture the
availability of high-speed or advanced services in these areas? In
areas where services are being made available, are they being deployed
to all consumers, or just a limited number of consumers? What types of
unique challenges are there to the deployment of advanced services in
tribal areas or U.S. territories? Are these challenges similar or
distinguishable from those encountered by consumers living in rural
areas of the nation? What types of technology are being used to provide
advanced services on tribal lands? What types of technology are most
widely deployed on tribal lands and why? Are there certain types of
technological developments that may be especially promising for future
deployment in tribal areas or the U.S. territories?
30. We also seek specific comment on the deployment of advanced
telecommunications capability to elementary and secondary schools and
classrooms. The U.S. Department of Education publishes on an annual
basis various statistics relating to Internet access in U.S. public
schools and classrooms. Among other things, the most recent study
documents the steady increase in number of schools with Internet
access, and the number of instructional classrooms with Internet
access. For instance, in 2002, 99% of public schools had access to the
Internet, compared to 14% in 1996. Moreover, in 2002, 92% of public
school classrooms had access to the Internet, compared to 14% in 1996.
In 2002, 94% of public schools reported using broadband connections for
Internet access, compared to 80% in 2000 and 85% in 2001. Do these
figures support a conclusion that advanced telecommunications
capability is being deployed to elementary and secondary schools and
classrooms on a reasonable and timely basis? Are there any other
sources of information that would provide insight into whether the
deployment of advanced telecommunications services to elementary and
secondary schools and classrooms is occurring on a reasonable and
timely basis?
31. To what extent do persons with disabilities have access to
advanced telecommunications? Have there been recent developments in
adaptive technologies that improve the capacity of persons with
disabilities to access advanced telecommunications? Does the
availability of video relay services through the Telecommunications
Relay Service Fund play a role in promoting demand for and access to
high-speed services among persons with disabilities? To what extent
does income, employment, or other factors among persons with
disabilities influence their ability to access advanced or high-speed
services? How should the Commission evaluate the ``availability'' of
advanced telecommunications services for persons with disabilities,
given the unique challenges that persons with disabilities may
encounter in accessing advanced services? Are advanced services being
made available to medically underserved rural communities?
D. What Actions Can Accelerate Deployment?
32. Pursuant to the 1996 Act, ``the Commission and each State
commission * * * shall encourage the deployment on a reasonable and
timely basis of advanced telecommunications capability to all Americans
* * * by utilizing * * * price cap regulation, regulatory forbearance,
measures that promote competition in the local telecommunications
market, or other regulating methods that remove barriers to
infrastructure investment.'' The Third Report described several
examples of these and other activities that the Commission, other
governmental entities, private groups and individuals have undertaken
to promote competition and speed the deployment of advanced services.
These included Commission proceedings to establish a regulatory
framework for broadband services, promote investment through increased
opportunities for broadband competition, reform our universal service
system, and encourage the efficient use of spectrum. We note that the
Congressional Budget Office recently published a report that analyzed
the development of the residential broadband market to assess whether
structural features or regulatory obstacles impede its further rapid
growth, and concluded that federal intervention was not warranted at
this time. To the extent commenters advocate that we should undertake
additional actions to encourage the deployment of advanced
telecommunications capability, they should set forth those proposals
with specificity.
33. We also note that if we find that advanced telecommunications
capability is not being deployed in a reasonable and timely manner, we
are to ``take immediate action to accelerate deployment of such
capability by removing barriers to infrastructure investment and
promoting competition in the telecommunications market.'' Are there
groups of Americans for whom the pace of deployment justifies action
under section 706 to remove barriers to infrastructure investment or to
promote competition? If so, what would those specific actions entail,
and what would the costs and benefits of those actions be?
34. In the Third Report, the Commission expressed concern about the
difficulty some companies have faced in securing access to the rights-
of-way necessary to deploy advanced telecommunications infrastructure
in a timely manner. Based on its commitment to ensuring that rights-of-
way issues are resolved in a fair and expeditious manner, the
Commission announced that it intended to explore solutions through a
dialogue with industry and state and local colleagues, in order to
remove barriers that may hinder investment in infrastructure for
advanced or high-speed services. On October 16, 2002, the Commission
hosted a public Rights-of-Way Forum. The Rights-of-Way Forum focused on
exploring the Commission's role in facilitating discussion, identifying
model principles and practices, and developing consensus positions
among
[[Page 18513]]
local authorities, state regulators, and the industry. We invite
comment regarding the record developed at the Commission's Rights-of-
Way Forum.
35. We note that several other organizations, such as the National
Association of Regulatory Utility Commissioners (NARUC) and the
National Telecommunications and Information Administration (NTIA) have
also initiated discussions regarding rights-of-way issues. For example,
during the July 2002 NARUC conference, a study committee released a
white paper that urged the Commission to include a section in the 706
report that discusses barriers to ``deployment of broadband networks
associated with abusive rights-of-way practices of federal, state and
local units of government and steps that need to be taken to abate
those practices.'' The NARUC study committee on rights-of-way issues
also recommended the development of a set of national broadband
principles and put forth model rights-of-way access rules. In addition,
the NTIA launched a States and Local Rights-of-Way Resources Website,
which is designed to foster an exchange of ideas to improve the
management and use of rights-of-way. Further, the Commission's
Intergovernmental Advisory Committee, formerly known as the Local State
Government Advisory Committee (LSGAC), provides guidance to the
Commission on issues of importance to state, local and tribal
governments, including public rights-of-way matters.
36. We seek comment on the types of best practices that could help
create reliable and reasonable expectations regarding management of the
public rights-of-way that may help remove barriers to investment in
advanced telecommunications services. We also seek comment on methods
of facilitating resolution of rights-of-way disputes. Are the
Commission's current rules effective in resolving rights-of-way
disputes and promoting competition? We also ask commenters to discuss
the distinction between federal and state responsibilities regarding
the use of the public rights-of-way. We note that several states have
adopted specific rules and regulations concerning the administration of
the public rights-of-way. We request commenters to discuss their
experiences in states where rights-of-way rules have been enacted. In
addition, we seek comment on the types of practices used by
municipalities or communities to encourage the deployment of advanced
telecommunications capabilities. For example, we ask commenters to
discuss efforts by municipalities or communities to provide advanced
telecommunications capabilities to end-user customers or to aggregate
demand to encourage private sector deployment.
E. What are Patterns of Consumer Adoption and Usage of Services
Utilizing Advanced Telecommunications Capability?
37. We seek information about how and why consumers, both
individuals and businesses, adopt and use services utilizing advanced
telecommunications capability. We seek to develop a better
understanding of the specific applications and services that utilize
advanced platforms. If the application or service existed prior to the
advent of advanced infrastructure capable of transmitting information
at higher speeds, how has it benefited by the deployment of such
infrastructure? To what degree, if any, could these applications and
services be improved if advanced infrastructure was more ubiquitous?
Are there certain economies of scale that could be achieved if
broadband was used by more individuals or businesses? Would the same be
true if advanced telecommunications capability was deployed in more
places?
38. We also seek information about consumers of advanced services.
What types of entities, e.g., businesses or individuals, purchase
advanced services? How integral have advanced services become to these
consumers? To what degree do businesses and individuals rely on
advanced services to conduct business, sell products, or accomplish
specific tasks? We also hope to examine how other individuals or
businesses that interact with the consumers of advanced services are
indirectly affected by the use of advanced services. For example, do
customers of businesses that utilize advanced services enjoy lower
prices, greater choices, or faster service? Moreover, what applications
and services used by such individuals require access to advanced
services themselves? We request that commenters not only discuss
specific, current services and applications, but possible future ones
as well.
F. Does Deployment of Advanced Telecommunications Capability in the
United States Impact Our Role in the International Arena?
39. The United States was recently ranked 11th worldwide in
broadband use in a recent report by the International
Telecommunications Union. According to another study, the number of
broadband subscribers per inhabitant is said to be higher in South
Korea, Canada, Japan, Iceland, Sweden, Denmark, Belgium, and the
Netherlands than in the U.S. We ask parties to comment on the potential
reasons for relatively high broadband penetration rates in some foreign
nations. To the extent that these factors are different for different
countries, we ask that parties identify specific actions (or inactions)
taken to promote broadband deployment. It has been reported that
several foreign governments provide direct investment in the deployment
of advanced services. We note that the European Union is seeking
widespread broadband access in all of its fifteen member nations by
next year. What other factors have contributed to the higher
utilization of advanced services in other countries? Are there lessons
that we could learn from the experiences of other countries? Based on
these experiences, are there actions that the Commission should take to
accelerate the deployment of advanced telecommunications capability?
Are higher levels of penetration in other nations indicative of broader
availability of advanced telecommunications capability? Given that
usage of advanced services may be more ubiquitous throughout the
populations in a number of countries than in the United States, we wish
to understand the factors that have contributed to this apparent
discrepancy, including methodological or design flaws in existing
studies that may have over- or under-estimated the extent of broadband
use in particular countries.
40. How does our deployment of advanced infrastructure vis-
[agrave]-vis other nations affect the ability of our citizens to
participate in a global economy? Are domestic jobs and industries more
likely to move to other countries where the advanced services
deployment and/or penetration is higher? What effect, if any, do any
trends in this area have on international trade and the U.S. economic
position in the global economy? Commenters should not only focus on the
present impact but also on what the effect will be for the foreseeable
future.
III. Procedural Matters
41. We invite comment on the issues and questions set forth in the
Notice contained herein. Pursuant to applicable procedures set forth in
sections 1.415 and 1.419 of the Commission's rules, interested parties
may file comments as follows: comments are due on or before May 10,
2004, and reply comments are due on or before May 24, 2004. All filings
should refer to GN Docket No. 04-54. Comments may be filed using the
Commission's Electronic Comment
[[Page 18514]]
Filing System (ECFS) or by filing paper copies. See Electronic Filing
of Documents in Rulemaking Proceedings, 63 FR 24121, May 1, 1998.
42. Comments filed through ECFS can be sent as an electronic file
via the Internet to http://www.fcc.gov/e-file/ecfs.html. Generally,
only one copy of an electronic submission must be filed. In completing
the transmittal screen, commenters should include their full name,
Postal Service mailing address, and the applicable docket number, which
in this instance is GN Docket No. 04-54. Parties may also submit an
electronic comment by Internet e-mail. To receive filing instructions
for e-mail comments, commenters should send an e-mail to ecfs@fcc.gov,
and should include the following words in the body of the message: Get
form . A sample form and directions will
be sent in reply.
43. Parties that choose to file by paper must file an original and
four copies of each filing. Filings can be sent by hand or messenger
delivery, by commercial overnight courier, or by first-class or
overnight U.S. Postal Service mail (although we continue to experience
delays in receiving U.S. Postal Service mail). The Commission's
contractor, Natek, Inc., will receive hand-delivered or messenger-
delivered paper filings for the Commission's Secretary at a new
location in downtown Washington, DC. The address is 236 Massachusetts
Avenue, NE., Suite 110, Washington, DC 20002. The filing hours at this
location will be 8 a.m. to 7 p.m. All hand deliveries must be held
together with rubber bands or fasteners. Any envelopes must be disposed
of before entering the building.
44. Commercial overnight mail (other than U.S. Postal Service
Express Mail and Priority Mail) must be sent to 9300 East Hampton
Drive, Capitol Heights, MD 20743. U.S. Postal Service first-class mail,
Express Mail, and Priority Mail should be addressed to 445 12th Street,
SW., Washington, DC 20554. All filings must be addressed to the
Commission's Secretary, Office of the Secretary, Federal Communications
Commission.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
If you are sending this type of document It should be addressed for
or using this delivery method * * * delivery to * * *
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Hand-delivered or messenger-delivered 236 Massachusetts Avenue,
paper filings for the Commission's NE., Suite 110, Washington,
Secretary. DC 20002 (8 to 7 p.m.)
Other messenger-delivered documents, 9300 East Hampton Drive,
including documents sent by overnight Capitol Heights, MD 20743
mail (other than United States Postal (8 a.m. to 5:30 p.m.)
Service Express Mail and Priority Mail).
United States Postal Service first-class 445 12th Street, SW.,
mail, Express Mail, and Priority Mail. Washington, DC 20554
------------------------------------------------------------------------
45. Parties who choose to file by paper should also submit their
comments on diskette. These diskettes, plus one paper copy, should be
submitted to: Sheryl Todd, Telecommunications Access Policy Division,
Wireline Competition Bureau, Federal Communications, at the filing
window at 236 Massachusetts Avenue, NE., Suite 110, Washington, DC
20002. Such a submission should be on a 3.5-inch diskette formatted in
an IBM compatible format using Word or compatible software. The
diskette should be accompanied by a cover letter and should be
submitted in ``read only'' mode. The diskette should be clearly labeled
with the commenter's name, proceeding (including the docket number, in
this case GN Docket No. 04-54, type of pleading (comment or reply
comment), date of submission, and the name of the electronic file on
the diskette. The label should also include the following phrase ``Disk
Copy--Not an Original.'' Each diskette should contain only one party's
pleadings, preferably in a single electronic file. In addition,
commenters must send diskette copies to the Commission's copy
contractor, Qualex International, Portals II, 445 12th Street, SW.,
Room CYB402, Washington, DC 20554 (see alternative addresses above for
delivery by hand or messenger).
46. Regardless of whether parties choose to file electronically or
by paper, parties should also file one copy of any documents filed in
this docket with the Commission's copy contractor, Qualex
International, Portals II, 445 12th Street SW., CY-B402, Washington, DC
20554 (see alternative addresses above for delivery by hand or
messenger) (telephone 202-863-2893; facsimile 202-863-2898) or via e-
mail at qualexint@aol.com.
47. The full text of this document is available for public
inspection and copying during regular business hours at the FCC
Reference Information Center, Portals II, 445 12th Street, SW., Room
CY-A257, Washington, DC 20554. This document may also be purchased from
the Commission's duplicating contractor, Qualex International, Portals
II, 445 12th Street, SW., Room CY-B402, Washington, DC 20554, telephone
(202) 863-2893, facsimile (202) 863-2898, or via e-mail
qualexint@aol.com.
48. Comments and reply comments must include a short and concise
summary of the substantive arguments raised in the pleading. Comments
and reply comments must also comply with Sec. 1.49 and all other
applicable sections of the Commission's rules. We direct all interested
parties to include the name of the filing party and the date of the
filing on each page of their comments and reply comments. All parties
are encouraged to utilize a table of contents, regardless of the length
of their submission. We also strongly encourage parties to track the
organization set forth in the Notice in order to facilitate our
internal review process.
49. We note that there are many other proceedings now underway at
the Commission that include issues that could affect a company's, or
class of companies' incentive and ability to deploy advanced
telecommunications capability. If commenters wish to refer to their
filing in another proceeding, they must provide in their comments in
this proceeding a complete recitation of the pertinent information and
also attach a copy of the filing to which they refer.
50. Subject to the provisions of 47 CFR 1.1203 concerning
``Sunshine Period'' prohibitions, this proceeding is exempt from ex
parte restraints and disclosure requirements, pursuant to 47 CFR
1.1204(b)(1). Because many of the matters on which we request comment
in this Notice may call on parties to disclose proprietary information
such as market research and business plans, we suggest that parties
consult 47 CFR 0.459 about the submission of confidential information.
IV. Further Information
51. Alternative formats (computer diskette, large print, audio
recording, and Braille) are available to persons with disabilities by
contacting Brian Millin at (202) 418-7426 voice, (202) 418-7365 TTY, or
bmillin@fcc.gov. This Notice can also be downloaded in Microsoft Word
and ASCII formats at http://www.fcc.gov/ccb/universal_service/highcost
.
V. Ordering Clause
52. Pursuant to the authority contained in section 706 of the
[[Page 18515]]
Telecommunications Act of 1996, this Notice of Inquiry is adopted.
Federal Communications Commission.
Marlene H. Dortch,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 04-7531 Filed 4-7-04; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6712-01-P