Comments are due on October 7, regarding the FCC’s Eighteenth Section 706 Report Notice of Inquiry (Notice) in Docket 24-214. Section 706 of the 1996 Telecommunications Act requires the Commission to conduct an annual inquiry regarding the deployment of “Advanced Telecommunications Capability (i.e., broadband) to All Americans in a Reasonable and Timely Fashion.”
In last year’s Inquiry, the FCC adopted the goals of universal deployment, adoption, affordability, availability, and equitable access to broadband throughout the United States. The latest Inquiry continues these goals and asks for industry comments on the following issues.
Fixed and Mobile Broadband Relationship
The Commission has found that fixed and mobile broadband are complementary services that meet the sections 706 requirements.
We seek comment on the above findings and whether they continue to apply to today’s broadband market. Should we continue treating fixed and mobile services as complementary? Is the 2024 Report’s conclusion that deployment of advanced telecommunications capability requires access to both fixed and mobile broadband services still appropriate? We also seek comment on the degree of substitutability between mobile and fixed services, and how that has changed over time. What data exist concerning the cross-elasticity of demand between the services? How do the characteristics of typical fixed and mobile broadband service plans compare—for example, in terms of price, data allowances, throttling policies, overage fees, etc.? (Notice, at para. 10).
Fixed Broadband
For fixed broadband, the agency’s speed standard continues to be 100/20 Mbps. Have there been any significant changes in fixed broadband providers’ offerings or consumers’ usage that would warrant a change in the fixed speed benchmark at this time? Should the long-term speed goal be 1,000/500 Mbps?
Mobile Broadband
In previous reports, the Commission declined to adopt a mobile advanced telecommunications capability benchmark due to the inherent variability in the performance characteristics of mobile service, both geographically and temporally. Instead, it used multiple speed metrics to evaluate the deployment of advanced telecommunications capability for mobile services. Should it continue to do so? Alternatively, should the FCC adopt a single speed benchmark to assess whether mobile broadband services are being deployed in a reasonable and timely fashion? If so, what should that benchmark be? Should it consider using a minimum speed using a minimum speed of 35/3 Mbps as the benchmark, or are there other speed benchmarks the Commission should consider?
Number of Providers
The FCC is interested in the number of available fixed and mobile broadband providers. It proposes to present data showing the percentage of land area, population, and road miles covered by one or more, two or more, and three or more providers, and provide the population data were further broken out by urban and rural populations, as well as tribal and non-tribal population. Should provider data continue to be required to be provided this way?
Broadband Adoption
Last year’s Report evaluated adoption (the rate at which people who have a broadband service available to them subscribe to the service) as a universal service goal, and examined adoption barriers, including “the affordability of devices used to access broadband services (including those used by people with disabilities), the lack of information about programs that make broadband services more affordable, such as the Affordable Connectivity Program (ACP), and digital literacy.” The Commission proposes to evaluate broadband adoption in the same way as last year, but asks if there are additional barriers holding back broadband deployment?
Affordability
Data shows that broadband adoption is heavily influenced by income. The higher the income, the higher the broadband adaptation. Is this still true? How is the best way for the Commission to measure broadband affordability?
Some readers of this blog might see this latest FCC investigation is a required procedural activity with minimal impact on them. That would be a mistake. Broadband deployment or lack thereof is becoming a major source of embarrassment for the current administration. Broadband providers are on notice that many potential new requirements are coming. Providers need to let the FCC know at every opportunity what services, speeds and locations are possible and actually available, and where they are not, before more requirements become law.