Federal Communications Commission FCC 20-50 Before the ..., Study notes of Technology

Download Federal Communications Commission FCC 20-50 Before the ... and more Study notes Technology in PDF only on Docsity! Federal Communications Commission FCC 20-50 Before the Federal Communications Commission Washington, D.C. 20554 In the Matter of Inquiry Concerning Deployment of Advanced Telecommunications Capability to All Americans in a Reasonable and Timely Fashion ) ) ) ) ) ) GN Docket No. 19-285 2020 BROADBAND DEPLOYMENT REPORT Adopted: April 20, 2020 Released: April 24, 2020 By the Commission: Commissioners O’Rielly and Carr issuing separate statements; Commissioners Rosenworcel and Starks dissenting, and issuing separate statements. TABLE OF CONTENTS I.  INTRODUCTION .................................................................................................................................. 1  II.  BACKGROUND .................................................................................................................................... 4  III. EVALUATING DEPLOYMENT OF ADVANCED TELECOMMUNICATIONS CAPABILITY TO ALL AMERICANS IN A REASONABLE AND TIMELY FASHION ................ 7  A.  Defining Advanced Telecommunications Capability .................................................................... 10  B.  Demographic Information .............................................................................................................. 20  C.  Schools and Classrooms ................................................................................................................ 21  D.  Tribal Lands ................................................................................................................................... 22  IV. BROADBAND DEPLOYMENT AND AVAILABILITY .................................................................. 24  A.  Data Sources and Methodologies ................................................................................................... 24  B.  Broadband Deployment Estimates ................................................................................................. 35  1.  Deployment of Fixed Advanced Telecommunications Capability .......................................... 36  2.  Deployment of Mobile LTE .................................................................................................... 37  3.  Deployment of Fixed Services and Mobile LTE ..................................................................... 38  4.  Additional Deployment Estimates ........................................................................................... 41  C.  Demographic Data ......................................................................................................................... 42  D.  Tribal Lands Data .......................................................................................................................... 46  E.  Adoption Data ................................................................................................................................ 49  F.  Schools and Classrooms Data ........................................................................................................ 52  V.  COMMISSION EFFORTS TO CLOSE THE DIGITAL DIVIDE ...................................................... 54  A.  Removing Barriers to Investment .................................................................................................. 55  B.  Universal Service Fund .................................................................................................................. 63  C.  Access to Spectrum ........................................................................................................................ 78  VI. SECTION 706 FINDING ..................................................................................................................... 90  VII. ORDERING CLAUSE ........................................................................................................................ 95  APPENDIX 1 APPENDIX 2 APPENDIX 3 APPENDIX 4 APPENDIX 5 APPENDIX 6 Federal Communications Commission FCC 20-50 2 APPENDIX 7 APPENDIX 8 APPENDIX 9 I. INTRODUCTION 1. The Federal Communications is charged with “encourag[ing] the deployment on a reasonable and timely basis of advanced telecommunications capability to all Americans . . . by removing barriers to infrastructure investment and by promoting competition in the telecommunications market.”1 For the past three years, the Commission’s top priority has been closing the digital divide, in recognition that high-speed broadband and the digital opportunity it brings can be essential to innovation, economic opportunity, healthcare, and civic engagement in today’s modern society. We remain committed to ensuring that all Americans, including those in rural areas, Tribal lands, and disaster-affected areas, enjoy the benefits of a high-speed broadband connection. 2. Available evidence demonstrates that the digital divide continues to narrow as more Americans than ever before have access to high-speed broadband. The number of Americans lacking access to fixed terrestrial broadband service at 25/3 Mbps continues to decline, going down by more than 14% in 2018 and more than 30% between 2016 and 2018.2 The number of Americans without access to 4G Long Term Evolution (LTE) mobile broadband with a median speed of 10/3 Mbps fell approximately 54% between 2017 and 2018.3 The vast majority of Americans—surpassing 85%—now have access to fixed terrestrial broadband service at 250/25 Mbps, a 47% increase since 2017.4 Over the same period, the number of Americans living in rural areas with access to such service increased by 85%.5 This progress has been fueled in part by an approximately $80 billion investment in network infrastructure in 2018, the highest annual amount in at least the last decade.6 In 2019 alone, fiber broadband networks became available to roughly 6.5 million additional unique homes, the largest one-year increase ever, with smaller providers accounting for 25% of these new fiber connections.7 AT&T, Sprint, T-Mobile, and Verizon are also rapidly expanding their 5G capability, with 5G networks in aggregate now covering the majority of the country’s population, especially in urban areas, and more live launches planned for 2020.8 1 47 U.S.C. § 1302(a). 2 See infra Fig. 1. When we provide broadband speed figures, we present both the download and upload speeds. In the case of 25/3 Mbps, for example, we refer to broadband service that has a download speed of 25 Mbps and an upload speed of 3 Mbps. 3 See infra Fig. 2b. Consistent with our conclusion in the 2019 Report, we consider both fixed and mobile services as capable of meeting the definition of “advanced telecommunications capability.” Inquiry Concerning the Deployment of Advanced Telecommunications Capability to All Americans in a Reasonable and Timely Fashion, GN Docket No. 19-285, 2019 Broadband Deployment Report, 34 FCC Rcd 3857, 3860-61, para. 10 (2019) (2019 Report). We will continue to evaluate mobile deployment at speeds of 5/1 Mbps and 10/3 Mbps in this Report. 4 See infra Fig. 4. 5 Id. 6 See generally Patrick Brogan, Vice President for Industry Analysis, USTelecom, U.S. Broadband Investment Continued Upswing in 2018, at 1 (2019), https://www.ustelecom.org/wp-content/uploads/2019/07/USTelecom- Research-Brief-Capex-2018-7-31-19.pdf 7 Letter from Lisa R. Youngers, President and CEO, Fiber Broadband Association, to Marlene H. Dortch, Secretary, Federal Communications Commission, at 1 n.1, 2 n.5 (Dec. 16, 2019) (Fiber Broadband Association Dec. 16, 2019 Ex Parte Letter). 8 See AT&T, AT&T 5G Now Live for Consumers in 10 Markets (Dec. 13, 2019), https://about.att.com/story/2019/5g_launch.html (announcing live launch of AT&T 5G to consumers and businesses in the Birmingham, AL; Indianapolis; Los Angeles; Milwaukee; Pittsburgh; Providence, RI; Rochester, NY; San Diego, San Francisco, and San Jose, CA market areas, and plans to expand service availability to other markets (continued….) Federal Communications Commission FCC 20-50 5 continue to promote deployment of advanced telecommunications capability to all Americans,22 and even though “remarkable progress has been made[,]” it remains the case that “many people, particularly rural and Tribal areas, do not enjoy the fastest possible broadband speeds or even access to advanced telecommunications services.”23 We therefore remain committed to closing the digital divide and ensuring that all Americans can share in the benefits of access to advanced telecommunications capability, and we will continue to monitor progress toward that goal. We agree with ACA that the Commission “refin[ing] and improv[ing] its universal service programs that subsidize buildout in hard-to- serve areas” is helping fuel the growth in broadband investment.24 We also agree with commenters that urge the Commission to continue its work to expand access to spectrum to facilitate broadband deployment and 5G services in the future.25 And we agree with ADTRAN that continuing to work with “state and local governments through the [Broadband Deployment Advisory Committee (BDAC)] process to help accelerate broadband deployment” is vital to increase broadband investment and adoption across America.26 A. Defining Advanced Telecommunications Capability 10. Consistent with our conclusion in the 2019 Report, we continue to consider both fixed and mobile services as capable of meeting the definition of “advanced telecommunications capability” under section 706.27 This finding is consistent with the language of the statute, which defines advanced telecommunications capability “without regard to any transmission media or technology.”28 11. The Commission concluded at the time of both the 2018 Report and the 2019 Report that mobile services were not full substitutes for fixed service, but that both services still independently met the statutory definition of advanced telecommunications capability.29 The record before us provides some evidence that consumers increasingly rely on mobile broadband for accessing and sharing information, and they can substitute fixed and mobile broadband when accessing certain services and applications (such as e-mail or social media, for example).30 Moreover, mobile wireless providers continue to improve their networks, notably through the deployment of 5G technology, which may have performance characteristics similar to fixed services in certain environments.31 Mobile wireless providers also continue to offer new retail data plans that make mobile service an increasingly-attractive alternative to fixed services.32 22 47 U.S.C. § 1302(a). 23 Internet Innovation Alliance Comments at 7. 24 ACA Comments at 5. 25 See Colville Confederated Tribes Comments at 13; Free State Foundation Comments at 10-11; Public Knowledge et al. Comments at 35-37; WISPA Comments at 7-8; Consumer Technology Association (CTA) Reply at 7. 26 ADTRAN Comments at 14-15. 27 2019 Report, 34 FCC Rcd at 3860-61, para. 10. 28 47 U.S.C. § 1302(d)(1). 29 2019 Report, 34 FCC Rcd at 3861-62, para. 11; 2018 Report, 33 FCC Rcd at 1666-67, para. 18. 30 CTIA Comments at 12-13 (citing Pew Research Center, Mobile Factsheet (June 12, 2019), https://www.pewresearch.org/internet/fact-sheet/mobile/), 19-20 (discussing the smartphone only trend)). 31 ADTRAN Comments at 6-7; Free State Foundation Comments at 8, 10; Internet Innovation Alliance Comments at 3-4. But see Public Knowledge et al. Comments at 19-21 (arguing 5G is still years away from being a fully realized commercial service). 32 See, e.g., Verizon Wireless, Single Connected Home Plans, https://www.verizonwireless.com/plans/single-device- plan/ (last visited Mar. 26, 2020). AT&T has a mobile service that it optimizes for HD video streaming and offers 30GB mobile hotspot to connect other devices. AT&T Unlimited Elite, https://www.att.com/plans/unlimited-data- plans/ (last visited Mar. 26, 2020); see also, Xfinity Mobile Plan Details, (continued….) Federal Communications Commission FCC 20-50 6 12. The record also provides substantial evidence, however, that fixed and mobile services often continue to be used in distinct ways, and that users tend to subscribe to both services concurrently and treat them as complements.33 For example, a fixed broadband service subscriber cannot use this service while traveling. Similarly, in-home connected devices, such as smart lights, Internet-connected security devices, or smart thermostats, often include features that allow for their use outside of the home, and consumers are unlikely to be able to take full advantage of these remote monitoring capabilities without the benefit of a mobile broadband connection (in addition to their fixed broadband service).34 Mobile broadband subscribers, meanwhile, may not be able to use their mobile devices as in-home hotspots to stream large quantities of high-definition video content (due to either plan restrictions or data limits).35 While users may substitute between mobile and fixed broadband when accessing certain services and applications, the record indicates that they are not yet functional substitutes for all uses and customer groups.36 Based on the record before us, we again find that fixed broadband and mobile wireless broadband services are not functional substitutes in all cases.37 We also continue to conclude that both fixed and mobile services provide capabilities that satisfy the statutory definition of advanced telecommunications capability, and we will continue to examine the deployment of fixed and mobile wireless services, both individually and in conjunction with one another, for the purposes of this Report. 13. Performance Benchmarks for Fixed Service. We find that the current speed benchmark of 25/3 Mbps remains an appropriate measure by which to assess whether a fixed service is providing advanced telecommunications capability. We conclude that fixed services with speeds of 25/3 Mbps continue to meet the statutory definition of advanced telecommunications capability; that is, such services “enable[] users to originate and receive high-quality voice, data, graphics, and video telecommunications.”38 This finding follows the proposal in the Notice, and the record reflects significant support for maintaining the current fixed 25/3 Mbps speed benchmark.39 ITTA, for example, explains (Continued from previous page) https://www.xfinity.com/mobile/plan/details (last accessed Mar. 26, 2020) (offering Xfinity Mobile customers up to five lines for phones, watches, or tablets, mix and match data options, and the ability to access LTE networks and any of Xfinity’s WiFi hotspots). 33 New America Open Technology Institute and Access Now (Open Technology Institute & Access Now) Comments at 2-8; NTCA Comments at 2-8; Public Knowledge et al. Comments at 16-18; WISPA Comments at 2; see also Pew Research Center, Mobile Technology and Home Broadband 2019 at 21 (available at https://www.pewresearch.org/internet/2019/06/13/mobile-technology-and-home-broadband-2019/) (27% of respondents that do not subscribe to broadband at home state that a smartphone is not sufficient to do everything online that they need to do.). 34 See, e.g., Krissy Rushing, 11 Smart Apps for Your Home, https://www.hgtv.com/design/remodel/mechanical- systems/voice-control-in-the-home (last visited Mar. 26, 2020). 35 See New America & Access Now Comments at 7-8; NCC Comments at 3-5; Public Knowledge et al. at 16-17; CWA Reply at 5-6; see also NTCA Comments at 2-5. 36 Benton Foundation Comments at 9-10; Colville Confederated Tribes Comments at 3; INCOMPAS Comments at 5, 8-9; Next Century Cities Comments at 3-4; Open Technology Institute & Access Now Comments at 2-8; NTCA Comments at 1-3, 6; Public Knowledge et al. Comments at 18-21; WISPA Comments at 2; American Library Association Reply at 6; CWA Reply at 6-11; Public Knowledge et al. Reply at 8-9; USTelecom Reply at 8; Utilities Technology Council Reply at 5; WISPA Reply at 3-5; see also ITTA Comments at 7-8, 12 (asserting that Commission should continue to evaluate deployment of fixed and mobile services both individually and in conjunction with each other). 37 2019 Report, 34 FCC Rcd at 3861-62, para. 11. 38 47 U.S.C. § 1302(d)(1); see also NCTA Reply at 2 (explaining that “the statutory definition of advanced telecommunications capability is a functional one”). 39 See ACA Comments at 2; ADTRAN Comments at 7-8; Free State Foundation Comments at 3; Internet Innovation Alliance Comments at 6; ITTA Comments at 3-6; NCTA Comments at 2; USTelecom Comments at 10; WISPA Comments at 4-5; ADTRAN Reply at 3-4; NCTA Reply at 1; USTelecom Reply at 6; WISPA Reply at 6-7. Federal Communications Commission FCC 20-50 7 that “[b]y any reasonable account, the features, functions, and applications enabled by 25/3 Mbps broadband still qualify as ‘advanced’ and ‘high-quality.’”40 We agree with WISPA that since the 2015 adoption of the 25/3 Mbps benchmark, “the speed required for the applications that most broadband consumers use has not changed substantially . . . and actual subscriptions have not yet consistently surpassed the benchmark level.”41 14. We are cognizant of current market trends and the demand for robust networks, including 4K streaming, online gaming, and high definition (HD) video streaming. Some commenters submit that such factors should result in us increasing the speed benchmark.42 Although we agree that there is an “increased appetite”43 for a number of new devices and applications and “trends in the United States show that the average speeds are increasing every year,”44 the definition of advanced telecommunications capability in section 706 does not suggest that “advanced” necessarily means the highest quality service possible.45 Furthermore, we agree with NCTA that “the current demand for multiple 4K video streams in a household is minimal because the use of 4K is still nascent and the majority of households consist of only one or two people” and as such does not provide a sufficient rationale to change the current fixed speed benchmark.46 We also agree with NCTA that “adopting a ‘forward-looking’ or ‘aspirational’ definition, as some recommend, distorts the purpose of the analysis Congress has required the Commission to perform and may prove to be counter-productive in terms of new investment.”47 Therefore, we will not determine our fixed speed benchmark based on the maximum speeds available to consumers, such as gigabit service, as some commenters suggest.48 The Commission’s data shows that in the areas where gigabit service is available, only 4% of Americans living in those areas are in fact subscribing to it.49 40 ITTA Comments at 4-5; see also Internet Innovation Alliance Comments at 6 (“[W]hat Congress sought to measure – the deployment of advanced telecommunications services in a reasonable and timely fashion – is captured by the current measure.”). 41 WISPA Comments at 4-5; see also USTelecom Comments at 10 (stating that even with new technologies, “current usage patterns do not require more bandwidth than 25/3 Mbps”). 42 Benton Foundation Comments at 10; Fiber Broadband Association Comments at 4-5; INCOMPAS Comments at 4; Next Century Cities Comments at 4-5; Open Technology Institute and Access Now Comments at 3-4; Public Knowledge et al. Comments at 1-4; CWA Reply at 4-5; Public Knowledge et al. Reply at 1-2; Utilities Technology Council Reply at 3-4; Letter from Lindsay Stern, Public Knowledge, to Marlene H. Dortch, Secretary, FCC, GN Docket No. 19-285, at 1-2 (filed Jan. 21, 2020) (Public Knowledge et al. Jan. 21, 2020 Ex Parte Letter); Letter from Lindsay Stern, Public Knowledge, to Marlene H. Dortch, Secretary, FCC, GN Docket No. 19-285, at 1-3 (filed Jan. 30, 2020); New Networks Institute, Statement and Refreshing the Record, GN Docket No. 19-285, at 3 (filed Feb. 20, 2020 (New Networks February 20, 2020 Statement). 43 Next Century Cities Comments at 5. 44 Open Technology Institute and Access Now Comments at 3-4. 45 47 U.S.C. § 1302(d)(1). 46 NCTA Reply at 3-4; see also ADTRAN Comments at 7-8 (“While 4K TV purchases have been growing, they still do not comprise a majority of the new television set purchases and 4K TV content is still limited.”). 47 NCTA Reply at 3; see also WISPA Comments at 6 (“[T]he availability of advanced services is an incremental process that must be measured empirically based on year-over-year advancement rather than by setting artificial a priori goals that may be more aspirational than realistic.”); ADTRAN Reply at 5 (explaining that the benchmark “is not intended as an aspirational goal”); NCTA Reply at 3 (“While Congress has in the past asked the Commission to develop a forward-looking broadband plan, that is not the purpose of this report.”); USTelecom Reply at 6 (“There is no basis upon which the Commission could reasonably conclude that the time is ripe for a precipitous increase in the Section 706 speed benchmark.”). 48 See, e.g., INCOMPAS Comments at 4, 6-7; Fiber Broadband Association Comments at 4 n.6. 49 See FCC, Fixed Broadband Deployment Data from FCC Form 477, Data as of December 31, 2018. Federal Communications Commission FCC 20-50 10 18. Other Benchmarks. We decline suggestions of some commenters to adopt additional benchmarks. While several commenters suggest adoption of a latency benchmark,62 they do not offer a reliable and sufficiently comprehensive data source for such analysis.63 As we concluded in last year’s Report, we decline to incorporate latency into our section 706 analysis.64 We therefore disagree with FBA’s assertion that the Commission should use “a broadband experience metric [based on reliability, bandwidth, and latency, which] would better reflect how consumers are increasingly examining broadband service.”65 19. Additionally, we decline the requests of some commenters to consider data allowances and affordability.66 For purposes of this Report, such metrics fall outside the scope of our section 706 inquiry.67 We reiterate our finding in the 2019 Report that “[w]hile factors such as data allowances or pricing may affect consumers’ use of advanced telecommunications capabilities or influence decisions concerning the purchase of these services in the first instance, such considerations do not affect the underlying determination of whether advanced telecommunications capability has been deployed and made available to customers in a given area.”68 Notably, commenters in support of including non- (Continued from previous page) performance benchmarks due to carriers’ beginning deployment of 5G-capable networks); NCC Comments at 5-6 (advocating switching from LTE to a 5G standard for this report). 62 American Library Association Reply at 3; Benton Foundation Comments at 6; Public Knowledge et al. Comments at 12-13; see also Fiber Broadband Association Comments at 2-3 (advocating adoption of a “broadband experience metric” based on reliability, bandwidth, and latency). 63 We also reached this conclusion based on the records in the two most recent reports, as well. See 2019 Report, 34 FCC Rcd at 3865, para. 19; 2018 Report, 33 FCC Rcd at 1674-75, para. 36. 64 2019 Report, 34 FCC Rcd at 3865, para. 19 (finding that “[a]pplying a latency benchmark for all broadband services, whether fixed terrestrial, satellite, or mobile broadband, that would exclude from our section 706 analysis any consideration of broadband services that, on their face, would appear to provide consumers with the relevant capabilities articulated in section 706(d)(1), would prevent a reliable or complete assessment of the deployment of advanced telecommunications capability”); see also WISPA Reply at 7 (“And while latency may have some minor impacts on the user experience for such activities as gaming and video conferencing, it does not render broadband capability ‘unavailable’ as a general matter even for users interested in these discrete capabilities.”). 65 Fiber Broadband Association Comments at 2-3. 66 See Benton Foundation Comments at 4; National Digital Inclusion Alliance Comments at 1-2; Open Technology Institute & Access Now Comments at 3; Next Century Cities Comments at 1-2; CWA Reply at 3; Letter from Access Now, Benton Institute for Broadband & Society, Common Cause, MediaJustice, National Hispanic Media Coalition, New America’s Open Technology Institute, and Public Knowledge, to Marlene H. Dortch, Secretary, Federal Communications Commission at 3 (Dec. 19, 2019); Letter from the Leadership Conference on Civil and Human Rights, American Civil Liberties Union, Asian Americans Advancing Justice, Common Cause, Communications Workers of America, National Consumer Law Center, on behalf of its low-income clients, National Hispanic Media Coalition, United Church of Christ, and OC Inc. to Marlene H. Dortch, Secretary, Federal Communications Commission (Feb. 4, 2020); Public Knowledge et al. Jan. 21, 2020 Ex Parte Letter at 5. But see WISPA Reply at 8-9 (“Like variations in latency, price differentials for broadband service in the real world are incremental not vast and therefore do not suggest that service is unobtainable at a reasonable cost in areas where it is available for purchase.”) 67 ADTRAN Reply at 5 (explaining that the benchmark “is not intended as an aspirational goal”); NCTA Reply at 3 (“[A]dopting a ‘forward-looking’ or ‘aspirational’ definition, as some recommend, distorts the purpose of the analysis Congress has required the Commission to perform and may prove to be counter-productive in terms of new investment.”); WISPA Reply at 8-9 (explaining that latency and pricing information “falls outside the scope of data subject to [s]ection 706 analysis”). 68 2019 Report, 34 FCC Rcd at 3866, para. 19. Federal Communications Commission FCC 20-50 11 performance metrics fail to cite reliable, comprehensive data sources that we could use, or offer sound methodologies for incorporating these metrics into the section 706 inquiry.69 B. Demographic Information 20. Section 706(c) directs the Commission to compile a list of geographical areas that are not served by any provider of advanced telecommunications capability and, to the extent that data from the Census Bureau are available, to determine, for each unserved area, the population, the population density, and the average per capita income.70 We include a demographic data analysis below in Section IV.C.71 and show the availability of advanced telecommunications capability on a county-by-county basis with demographic information in Appendix 4.72 C. Schools and Classrooms 21. Section 706(b) also specifies that our annual inquiry concerning the availability of advanced telecommunications capability to all Americans must include “elementary and secondary schools and classrooms.”73 As in the 2019 Report, we continue to assess the current state of deployment in elementary and secondary schools in Section IV.F. below, using a short-term and long-term goal for broadband connectivity to schools of 100 Mbps per 1,000 students and staff, and 1 Gbps per 1,000 students and staff, respectively.74 D. Tribal Lands 22. We find that Tribal lands continue to face significant obstacles to broadband deployment. As reflected in both the 2018 Report and 2019 Report, deployment of advanced telecommunications capability on certain Tribal lands, particularly rural Tribal lands, lags behind deployment in other, non- Tribal areas.75 Accordingly, the Notice sought comment on whether deployment on Tribal lands still falls behind other areas and on additional considerations, such as difficulties involving rights-of-way, that could be preventing deployment that would otherwise occur.76 We recognize the need to promote and encourage the availability of broadband on Tribal lands as many of these lands are located disproportionately in rural areas, which tend to be less densely populated than rural non-Tribal areas. Further, the remote, isolated nature of these areas combined with challenging terrain and lower incomes 69 See, e.g., Benton Foundation Comments at 4; National Digital Inclusion Alliance Comments at 1-2; Open Technology Institute & Access Now Comments at 3; Next Century Cities Comments at 1-2; CWA Reply at 3. But see NCTA Reply at 2 (“None of the parties seeking to change the threshold offers any evidence that 25/3 Mbps services no longer meet the statutory definition of advanced telecommunications capability or that such connections are incapable of handling the important functions they identify, such as finding employment or conducting research for homework.”); USTelecom Reply at 6-7 (submitting that while quality of service and affordability “are important issues that the Commission addresses in other proceedings, they are not related to whether a consumer has access to broadband, the focus of this inquiry”); WISPA Reply at 7-9 (explaining that the record does not support including additional metrics that are not directly relevant to the section 706 inquiry). We similarly decline to evaluate provider conformance with state-level deployment commitments. See New Networks February 20, 2020 Statement at 7-9. 70 47 U.S.C. § 1302(c). 71 See infra Section IV.C. 72 See infra Appx. 4; see also Benton Foundation Comments at 7 (supporting use of demographic information). 73 47 U.S.C. § 1302(b). 74 See infra Section IV.F; see also ADTRAN Comments at 8-9 (supporting use of the short and long term goals); Colville Confederated Tribes Comments at 5 (supporting use of “1 Gbps per 1,000 students and staff”). 75 2019 Report, 34 FCC Rcd at 3866, para. 22, 3883-85, paras. 44-46, Figs. 10 and 11; 2018 Report, 33 FCC Rcd at 1681-86, paras. 50-57. 76 Notice, 34 FCC Rcd at 10097, para. 15. Federal Communications Commission FCC 20-50 12 increase the cost of network deployment and entry, thereby reducing the profitability of providing service.77 Although the record here is limited, it confirms that broadband deployment on Tribal lands continues to lag behind compared to other rural areas.78 The Benton Foundation explains that “[t]he challenge of deploying broadband to tribal lands is exacerbated by poverty and low population density as well as tough terrain that increases construction and operating costs;” and “on Navajo lands in the Southwest, many people live in buildings, like converted tool sheds and traditional Navajo hogans, that the federal government does not recognize as dwelling units.”79 Colville Confederated Tribes contends that “[t]he digital divide has only grown larger over the last decade as other rural areas have seen significant increases in broadband access availability while Rural Native communities lack access.”80 23. Because of challenges in accounting for all types of Tribal homes and Tribal lands and obstacles to infrastructure investment, we agree with commenters that more work is needed to spur broadband deployment in these areas.81 We therefore find it critical to continue our efforts to collect, monitor, and analyze any relevant data on Tribal lands. Below, in Section IV.D., we present our measurement of deployment data on Tribal lands, acknowledging the challenges to increasing broadband services in these areas. IV. BROADBAND DEPLOYMENT AND AVAILABILITY A. Data Sources and Methodologies 24. We continue to rely primarily on the Commission’s Form 477 deployment data to evaluate consumers’ broadband options for fixed terrestrial and mobile services.82 We agree with commenters that the Form 477 data “remains the most comprehensive data” available to complete our section 706 inquiry.83 The Form 477 deployment data is also available to the public, which increases the transparency of our analysis and permits the public to independently assess our broadband service deployment data.84 The Commission has been collecting Form 477 deployment data for several years, 77 Id. at 10096-97, paras. 14-15; see also FCC, Report on Broadband Deployment in Indian Country, Pursuant to the Repack Airwaves Yielding Better Access for Users of Modern Services Act of 2018, at 2, 19, submitted to the Senate Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation; House of Representatives Committee on Energy and Commerce (May 1, 2019): https://docs.fcc.gov/public/attachments/DOC-357269A1.pdf; Rural Digital Opportunity Fund; Connect America Fund, WC Docket Nos. 10-90, 19-126, Report and Order, 35 FCC Rcd 686 (2020) (Rural Digital Opportunity Fund Order) (creating a Rural Digital Opportunity Fund to target support to areas that lack access to 25/3 Mbps broadband service, including prioritizing bids to serve Tribal lands). 78 Benton Foundation Comments at 12-13; Colville Confederated Tribes Comments at 6; Public Knowledge et al. Reply at 13. 79 Benton Foundation Comments at 13-14. 80 Colville Confederated Tribes Comments at 6. 81 Public Knowledge et al. Reply at 13; Colville Confederated Tribes Comments at 13. 82 Some estimates for years prior to 2018 may differ from last year’s Report because some filers have revised their Form 477 data since the 2019 Report. For this year’s Report, we also exclude deployment data for one service provider due to ongoing concerns about the reliability of this filer’s data. 83 See, e.g., ADTRAN Comments at 9; NCTA Comments at 4; USTelecom Comments at 12-13; USTelecom Reply at 7; WISPA Reply at 9-10; see also 2019 Report, 34 FCC Rcd at 3868, para. 25; 2018 Report, 33 FCC Rcd at 1677, para. 43 (concluding the Form 477 data remains the most thorough and accurate data available to the Commission for the section 706 analysis). 84 FCC, Form 477 Resources, https://www.fcc.gov/economics-analytics/industry-analysis-division/form-477- resources. All Form 477 data used in this Report has been certified as accurate by the filers. We note that the Report’s analysis may understate or overstate consumers’ options for services to the extent that broadband providers fail to report data or misreport data. See FCC, Explanation of Broadband Deployment Data (Nov. 20, 2017), https://www.fcc.gov/general/explanation-broadband-deployment-data (describing quality and consistency checks performed on providers’ submitted data and explaining any adjustments made to the Form 477 data as filed). Federal Communications Commission FCC 20-50 15 29. Fixed Terrestrial Services. We find that our Form 477 deployment data for fixed terrestrial services remain the most reliable and comprehensive data to assess the availability of fixed terrestrial services to American consumers. We evaluate the deployment of fixed terrestrial services with minimum advertised speeds of 10/1 Mbps, 25/3 Mbps, 50/5 Mbps, 100/10 Mbps, and 250/25 Mbps. We use Form 477 subscribership data to calculate adoption rates for fixed terrestrial services. 30. Satellite Services. We find that Form 477 deployment data for satellite broadband service may overstate the extent to which satellite broadband is available. The Form 477 deployment data for satellite broadband indicate that satellite service offering 25/3 Mbps speeds is available to nearly all of the population.98 However, other Form 477 data indicate that satellite services have a relatively low subscription rate despite their apparent widespread availability.99 In Appendix 8, we provide deployment estimates for all fixed services, including satellite, from 2014 to 2018.100 Unless stated otherwise, our analysis is based on all fixed terrestrial services, which do not include satellite. 31. Fixed Wireless Services. We note that the Form 477 data for fixed wireless services appear to show that these services are widely available. However, these services have a sufficiently low subscription rate101 to potentially support a conclusion that the Form 477 deployment data may overstate the extent to which fixed wireless services are available. In Appendix 9, we provide deployment estimates for fixed wired services, that is, fixed services excluding fixed wireless and satellite services, for 2014 to 2018.102 32. Mobile Services. We continue to conclude that the best way to evaluate mobile broadband deployment and availability is to rely on available coverage data supplemented with Ookla’s speed test data. These data sets serve as a proxy for the likely consumer experience in a given area while providing objective data to assess deployment progress. While acknowledging certain limitations of the Form 477 data, we nonetheless elect to employ the Form 477 LTE technology coverage data in this Report because they are the most comprehensive data that we currently have on a nationwide basis over time to assess the availability of mobile LTE to American consumers.103 We use the Form 477 LTE deployment shapefiles with a minimum advertised speed of 5/1 Mbps.104 As the Commission has done in 98 More specifically, the data indicate that satellite service offering 25/3 Mbps speeds is available to 326.979 million of the 327.167 million Americans, or approximately 100% of the U.S. population. FCC Form 477 Data as of December 31, 2018. 99 Form 477 data shows that 1.7 million households currently subscribe to satellite services of at least 10/1 Mbps. FCC Form 477 Data as of December 31, 2018. While satellite signal coverage may enable operators to offer services to wide swaths of the country, overall satellite capacity may limit the number of consumers that can actually subscribe to satellite service at any one time. Notice, 34 FCC Rcd at 10099, para. 19; 2019 Report, 34 FCC Rcd at 3870, para. 28 n.98; 2018 Report, 33 FCC Rcd at 1681, para. 51 n.148. For this reason, we will continue to report satellite broadband deployment data separately. 100 See infra Appx. 8 (Deployment (Millions) of Fixed Services (Including Satellite) at Different Speed Tiers). 101 For example, as of December 31, 2018, the adoption rate for fixed wireless services of at least 10/1 Mbps is 1%. FCC Form 477 Data as of December 31, 2018. This contrasts with the 57% adoption rate for cable and the 30% adoption rate for fiber-based services at the same speeds where these services are available in the United States. Id. 102 See infra Appx. 9 (Deployment (Millions) of Fixed Wired Services at Different Speed Tiers). 103 We continue to explore ways of improving data on mobile coverage. Digital Opportunity Data Collection Order, 34 FCC Rcd at 7549-59, paras. 112-34 (seeking comment about how to obtain and verify more accurate mobile coverage data). 104 For fixed services, the Commission has been able to rely upon Form 477 reported maximum advertised speeds to track actual speeds. However, we note that the relationship between actual speeds and the advertised speed reported in the Form 477 for mobile services is more complex, because minimum advertised speed is reported by the mobile providers, and different mobile providers estimate their minimum advertised speed based on various points of their (continued….) Federal Communications Commission FCC 20-50 16 previous Reports, we employ the centroid methodology in evaluating the Form 477 deployment data for LTE.105 We apply the same methodology as we use for fixed services, and consider a census block to be covered by LTE services if there is at least one service provider serving that census block that reports 5/1 Mbps as the minimum advertised speed, based on their Form 477 submission.106 33. We recognize, however, that actual speeds tend to be much faster than the minimum advertised speed. Therefore, we also present estimates based on Ookla speed test data to evaluate the availability of LTE with a median actual speed of 10/3 Mbps or higher.107 We rely on the Ookla data108 to supplement our Form 477 analysis primarily because they allow us to evaluate the extent to which the typical consumer receives speeds of 10/3 Mbps or higher, and they provide us with the greatest number of observations of actual speeds that customers receive.109 As the Commission has done previously, our analysis of the availability of mobile LTE services with a median speed of 10/3 Mbps includes actual speed test data in counties110 with at least 300 test observations in each time frame.111 The more densely (Continued from previous page) actual speed distribution. 2019 Report, 34 FCC Rcd at 3870, para. 29 & n.100. By contrast, the Ookla data provide us with the actual speeds that consumers experience. 105 See, e.g., 2019 Report, 34 FCC Rcd at 3870, para. 29. 106 We note that questions have arisen in various contexts regarding the bases for certain filings. For example, in the context of the Mobility Fund Phase II (MF-II) proceeding, the Commission determined that a separate, one-time data collection was necessary to ensure that all mobile LTE providers were using the same standard when generating coverage maps of their 5 Mbps downstream 4G LTE deployment. Connect America Fund, Universal Service Reform—Mobility Fund, Order on Reconsideration and Second Report and Order, 32 FCC Rcd 6282, 6286, para. 7, 6287, para. 10, 6298, para. 34 (2017) (Mobility Fund Phase II Challenge Process Order). However, a 2019 staff report investigating potential violations of the MF-II mapping rules concluded, among other things, that the MF-II coverage maps submitted by several providers are not a sufficiently reliable or accurate basis upon which to complete the MF-II challenge process (used to determine areas eligible for funding) as it was designed. FCC, Mobility Fund Phase II Coverage Maps Investigation, GN Docket No. 19-367, Staff Report (Dec. 4, 2019), https://docs.fcc.gov/public/attachments/DOC-361165A1.pdf. We note the Commission has begun to implement improvements in our data collection process and has sought comment on other steps to obtain more accurate and reliable mobile deployment data. Digital Opportunity Data Collection Order, 34 FCC Rcd at 7549-7559, paras. 112-34; FCC, Changes to Form 477 in 2019 and 2020 at 2 (Jan. 8, 2020), https://us- fcc.app.box.com/v/ChangesFor2019and2020. 107 The data collected by the Ookla Speedtest mobile app include test results for download speed, upload speed, and latency, as well as other information, such as the location of the test and operating system of the handset. See 2019 Report, 34 FCC Rcd at 3871, para. 20 n.105; see also https://www.speedtest.net/about. 108 The Ookla results presented in this Report are based on tests that were executed in the second half of the year for 2014, 2015, 2016, 2017, and 2018 on the smartphone’s cellular connection, and using LTE technology. Test data were excluded if they had missing GPS location data or if the reported download or upload speed was less than zero or greater than 100 Mbps. Multiple tests by a single phone in the same locality and in the same day were averaged (using the median). All Ookla speed tests are user-initiated. 109 We note that, in general, crowd-sourced data can offer the advantage of generating a large volume of data at a very low cost and of measuring actual consumer experience on a network in a wide variety of locations, indoor and outdoor. Crowd-sourced data, however, often are not collected pursuant to statistical sampling techniques, and may require adjustments to construct a representative sample from the raw data. For instance, crowd-sourced mobile data come from a self-selected group of users, and there often is little control for most tests regarding such parameters as when people implement the test, whether the test is performed indoors or outdoors, the geographic location of the tester, and the vintage of the consumer’s device. 2019 Report, 34 FCC Rcd at 3871, para. 30 n.104. 110 Wireless mobile speeds vary over even small local areas. Therefore, ascribing the median county Ookla speed to an entire county will sometimes overestimate or underestimate realized local speeds. See Colville Confederated Tribes Comments at 4. Use of Ookla data alone would overestimate coverage as counties with only partial coverage would be represented as having 100% coverage. Use of Form 477 data alone would necessitate reliance on the 5/1 Mbps reporting standard. Federal Communications Commission FCC 20-50 17 populated counties have a higher likelihood of being included in this analysis because there generally are more observations in those geographical areas with a higher population density. Although we do not have reliable on-the-ground speed data for every county in the United States, the Ookla data cover approximately 93% of the population of the United States, excluding the U.S. Territories, for which we do not have data.112 Using the existing Form 477 data combined with on-the-ground speed testing data provides the most reliable and comprehensive available data that is currently available on the extent of mobile coverage,113 and its continued use allows for a consistent measure of progress over time. 34. Schools. For purposes of this Report, we assess deployment in elementary and secondary schools based upon the best publicly available data, specifically that analyzed in EducationSuperHighway’s 2019 State of the States Report.114 The 2019 State of the States Report tracks public schools’ progress toward the Commission’s goals for K-12 connectivity using the Commission’s Form 471 data and additional outreach efforts to E-Rate applicants for clarifications on their broadband purchases.115 The 2019 State of the States Report provides an analysis of schools meeting the connectivity goals using fiber and other scalable broadband connections, using a sample of public school districts in each state. (Continued from previous page) 111 2019 Report, 34 FCC Rcd at 3871, para. 30. This sample size threshold applies to each county for each time frame (2H2014, 2H2015, 2H2016, 2H2017, and 2H2018). If a county does not have at least 300 observations during any of these time frames, it is not included in the actual speed analysis. The 300 observations threshold is a conservative threshold and is based on a general mean and median sample size analysis. We consider a county to have a sufficient sample size if there are at least 300 total observations in each of the five years after the cleaning and trimming rules have been applied. County geography is assigned using the latitude and longitude coordinates that are collected during each Ookla speed test, via the device’s GPS. This allows us to evaluate actual median upload and download speeds at the county level, in each year of the five-year time period, for counties in which approximately 93% of the U.S. population live (not including the U.S. Territories). If a census block has LTE coverage of at least 5/1 Mbps based on the Form 477 minimum advertised speeds, it is assigned the median upload and download speeds that are calculated for the county in which it is located, which allows us to evaluate the mobile broadband speeds for each census block within the United States. 112 The percentage of the population in our analysis is based on the total U.S. population, not including the U.S. Territories, for which we separately report our results. The Ookla speed data population in Figure 2b is a subset of the total U.S. population evaluated in Figure 2a and refers to the population in the counties for which we believe there are a statistically significant number of on-the-ground speed test observations. We do not have Ookla speed data for the U.S. Territories. In 2018, for example, the U.S. population, not including the U.S. Territories, was 325.167 million, whereas in Figure 2b, we use 304.288 million as the basis for our 2018 calculations. The population evaluated figure, 304.288 million, is the population for the U.S., excluding the U.S. Territories and the population in the counties without a sufficient number of reliable on-the-ground speed test data observations. 113 2018 Report, 33 FCC Rcd at 1672-74, paras. 31-34 (discussing use of Form 477 combined with Ookla data to account for limitations in both data sets). We note that no commenter has proposed alternative data sets for the specific analysis in this report. 114 See EducationSuperHighway, 2019 State of the States Report (Oct. 2019) (2019 State of the States Report), https://s3-us-west-1.amazonaws.com/esh-sots-pdfs/2019%20State%20of%20the%20States.pdf. In the 2019 Report, we also evaluated information provided by the Consortium for School Networking (CoSN), specifically the CoSN’s 2018-2019 Annual Infrastructure Report, a report published in January 2019. See 2019 Report, 34 FCC Rcd at 3887-88, para. 51. Because the CoSN’s 2018-2019 Annual Infrastructure Report does not provide data for 2019 and no subsequent report has been issued, we do not rely on any COSN Annual Infrastructure Report in this Report. 115 See EducationSuperHighway, 2019 State of the States Report at 21-22; see also EducationSuperHighway: 2019 State of the States FAQ (Oct. 2019), https://stateofthestates.educationsuperhighway.org/faq.html (2019 State of the States Report FAQ). EducationSuperHighway uses a sample of public school districts receiving broadband services–including, but not limited to, fiber services–in funding year 2019 in its dataset. See id. Federal Communications Commission FCC 20-50 20 Fig. 2a Deployment (Millions) of Mobile LTE with a Minimum Advertised Speed of 5/1 Mbps Area 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 Pop. % Pop. % Pop. % Pop. % Pop. % United States 315.506 99.2% 318.923 99.6% 321.347 99.6% 325.117 99.8% 326.727 99.9% Rural Areas 59.463 96.5% 60.969 97.9% 61.802 98.2% 63.204 99.1% 64.097 99.4% Urban Areas 256.043 99.9% 257.954 100.0% 259.545 100.0% 261.912 100.0% 262.630 100.0% Tribal Lands 3.626 92.2% 3.722 93.9% 3.788 94.9% 3.896 97.0% 3.937 97.5% Pop. Evaluated 317.954 100.0% 320.289 100.0% 322.518 100.0% 325.716 100.0% 327.167 100.0% Fig. 2b Deployment (Millions) of Mobile LTE with a Median Speed of 10/3 Mbps128 Area 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 Pop. % Pop. % Pop. % Pop. % Pop. % United States 237.210 80.1% 245.843 82.5% 261.898 87.3% 269.494 89.0% 288.809 94.9% Rural Areas 32.638 70.3% 32.193 69.3% 32.962 70.1% 32.966 69.3% 40.103 83.3% Urban Areas 204.573 81.9% 213.650 85.0% 228.936 90.5% 236.528 92.6% 248.706 97.1% Pop. Evaluated 296.204 93.2% 297.899 93.0% 300.036 93.0% 302.940 93.0% 304.288 93.0% 3. Deployment of Fixed Services and Mobile LTE 38. Figure 3a shows deployment across all geographic areas for both fixed terrestrial 25/3 Mbps services and 5/1 Mbps mobile LTE.129 Overall, as of year-end 2018, approximately 309 million Americans, or 94.4% of the population, are covered by both 25/3 Mbps fixed terrestrial service and mobile LTE with a minimum advertised speed of 5/1 Mbps. In rural areas, 77.4% of Americans are covered by both services, as opposed to 98.5% of Americans in urban areas, up from 73.3% and 98.3%, respectively, in 2017. On Tribal lands, 72.1% of Americans have coverage from both services, up from 67.8% in 2017. Figure 3b shows deployment of fixed terrestrial speeds of 25/3 Mbps and mobile LTE with median speed of 10/3 Mbps. As of December 31, 2018, 91.7% of Americans live in geographic areas covered by both services, an increase of 5.9 percentage points since 2017. Further, these data 128 The analyses in Figures 2a, 3a, and 3c include all areas of the United States (besides the U.S. Territories) and are based on Form 477 data. In contrast, the analyses in Figures 2b, 3b, and 3d are based on Ookla data, and exclude any county (and its associated census blocks) for which there is insufficient Ookla data. In addition, we do not report results for Tribal lands in Figures 2b, 3b, and 3d because we have concerns with the reliability of the Ookla data for these areas. Tribal areas not only typically have fewer speed tests, but there are also fewer of these areas relative to urban and rural areas. Thus, deployment estimates for tribal areas are more sensitive to sample variance. The population figure reported in the bottom row of these figures is the population evaluated for the reported time period and the percentage is the percentage of the U.S. population evaluated. Accordingly, the 304.288 million population evaluated figure for 2018 in Figure 2b represents 93% of the overall population in the 50 U.S. states plus the District of Columbia (304.288/327.167 = 0.93). Regardless of our deployment estimates for mobile LTE with a median speed of 10/3 Mbps, Americans residing in the counties without sufficient Ookla data to create a statistically significant county sample to be included in Figures 2b, 3b, and 3d, receive minimum advertised speeds of 5/1 Mbps, and likely receive mobile services with speeds higher than 5/1 Mbps. 129 We present additional deployment data for fixed terrestrial 25/3 Mbps and/or mobile LTE services in the appendices. See infra Appxs. 1, 2 and 3 (reporting figures by state, District of Columbia, and U.S. Territory), Appx. 4 (reporting figures by county and county equivalent), Appx. 5 (reporting figures by urban and rural areas within each county or county equivalent), and Appx. 6 (reporting figures for Tribal lands). Federal Communications Commission FCC 20-50 21 indicate that, between 2017 and 2018, deployment increased from 56.3% to 69.8% for Americans living in rural areas, a larger increase that occurred between 2014 and 2017. Fig. 3a Deployment (Millions) of Fixed Terrestrial 25/3 Mbps and Mobile LTE with a Minimum Advertised Speed of 5/1 Mbps Area 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 Pop. % Pop. % Pop. % Pop. % Pop. % United States 283.386 89.1% 287.387 89.7% 295.853 91.7% 304.216 93.4% 308.722 94.4% Rural Areas 36.489 59.2% 37.840 60.8% 42.182 67.0% 46.731 73.3% 49.932 77.4% Urban Areas 246.897 96.3% 249.547 96.7% 253.671 97.7% 257.485 98.3% 258.790 98.5% Tribal Lands 2.206 56.1% 2.258 57.0% 2.491 62.4% 2.722 67.8% 2.914 72.1% Pop. Evaluated 317.954 100.0% 320.289 100.0% 322.518 100.0% 325.716 100.0% 327.167 100.0% Fig. 3b Deployment (Millions) of Fixed Terrestrial 25/3 Mbps and Mobile LTE with a Median Speed of 10/3 Mbps Area 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 Pop. % Pop. % Pop. % Pop. % Pop. % United States 221.249 74.7% 230.561 77.4% 249.802 83.3% 259.998 85.8% 279.162 91.7% Rural Areas 22.634 48.8% 22.554 48.5% 24.947 53.1% 26.754 56.3% 33.595 69.8% Urban Areas 198.615 79.5% 208.007 82.7% 224.855 88.9% 233.244 91.3% 245.568 95.9% Pop. Evaluated 296.204 93.2% 297.899 93.0% 300.036 93.0% 302.940 93.0% 304.288 93.0% 39. Figure 3c reports deployment of fixed terrestrial 25/3 Mbps service or mobile LTE with a minimum advertised speed of 5/1 Mbps, and shows that services have been deployed to over 99.5% of the American population since 2014. Figure 3d shows that approximately 99.1% of the population in the evaluated areas are covered by either 25/3 Mbps fixed terrestrial service or mobile LTE with a median speed of at least 10/3 Mbps. Fig. 3c Deployment (Millions) of Fixed Terrestrial 25/3 Mbps or Mobile LTE with a Minimum Advertised Speed of 5/1 Mbps Area 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 Pop. % Pop. % Pop. % Pop. % Pop. % United States 316.366 99.5% 319.389 99.7% 321.814 99.8% 325.373 99.9% 326.918 99.9% Rural Areas 60.148 97.6% 61.400 98.6% 62.248 98.9% 63.455 99.5% 64.264 99.6% Urban Areas 256.218 100.0% 257.989 100.0% 259.567 100.0% 261.919 100.0% 262.653 100.0% Tribal Lands 3.664 93.2% 3.753 94.7% 3.817 95.6% 3.907 97.3% 3.944 97.7% Pop. Evaluated 317.954 100.0% 320.289 100.0% 322.518 100.0% 325.716 100.0% 327.167 100.0% Federal Communications Commission FCC 20-50 22 Fig. 3d Deployment (Millions) of Fixed Terrestrial 25/3 Mbps or Mobile LTE with a Median Speed of 10/3 Mbps Area 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 Pop. % Pop. % Pop. % Pop. % Pop. % United States 288.119 97.3% 290.355 97.5% 293.855 97.9% 297.944 98.4% 301.608 99.1% Rural Areas 40.331 86.9% 40.660 87.5% 41.888 89.1% 43.181 90.8% 45.710 94.9% Urban Areas 247.787 99.2% 249.695 99.3% 251.967 99.6% 254.763 99.8% 255.897 99.9% Pop. Evaluated 296.204 93.2% 297.899 93.0% 300.036 93.0% 302.940 93.0% 304.288 93.0% 40. Figure 3e reports deployment over the entire United States, including all U.S. Territories, for both fixed terrestrial 25/3 Mbps services and 5/1 Mbps mobile LTE as of December 31, 2018.130 This data shows year end 2018 deployment rates comparable to those presented in Figure 1, in which the U.S. Territories are excluded.131 Fig. 3e Deployment (Millions) of Fixed Terrestrial 25/3 Mbps and Mobile LTE with a Minimum Advertised Speed of 5/1 Mbps for the United States, Including U.S. Territories (As of December 31, 2018) Fixed Terrestrial 25/3 Mbps Mobile LTE 5/1 Mbps Fixed Terrestrial 25/3 Mbps and Mobile LTE 5/1 Mbps Fixed Terrestrial 25/3 Mbps or Mobile LTE 5/1 Mbps Pop. % Pop. % Pop. % Pop. % United States 312.079 94.4% 330.245 99.9% 311.834 94.3% 330.489 99.9% Rural Areas 50.254 77.6% 64.326 99.4% 50.079 77.4% 64.502 99.6% Urban Areas 261.825 98.4% 265.918 100.0% 261.755 98.4% 265.988 100.0% Pop. Evaluated 330.740 100.0% 330.740 100.0% 330.740 100.0% 330.740 100.0% 4. Additional Deployment Estimates 41. Figure 4 shows deployment of fixed terrestrial services at various speed tiers from year- end 2014 through 2018.132 As of December 2018, fixed terrestrial service of 50/5 Mbps service is deployed to 92.7% of the population, up from 91.6% in 2017. Between 2017 and 2018, the deployment of 100/10 Mbps increased from 88.6% to 90.5% of the population, and the deployment of 250/25 Mbps dramatically increased from 58.3% to 85.6% of the population. While deployment in rural areas and on Tribal lands lags behind deployment in urban areas at all five speed tiers, but the data show year-over- year improvements for all speeds in these areas. For example, the deployment of 250/25 Mbps increased from 28.2% to 51.6% of the rural population. 130 Data presented in 3e includes Tribal Lands. 131 Appendices 1-5 include data for the U.S. Territories. 132 We present deployment estimates for all fixed services, including satellite broadband, in Appendix 8, and deployment estimates for all fixed wired services, excluding satellite and fixed wireless services, in Appendix 9. See infra Appx. 8 (Deployment (Millions) of Fixed Services (Including Satellite) at Different Speed Tiers), Appx. 9 (Deployment (Millions) of Fixed Wired Services at Different Speed Tiers). The data in Figure 4 and Appendices 8 and 9 exclude the U.S. Territories. Federal Communications Commission FCC 20-50 25 Fig. 5 Comparison of Demographic Data Between Areas Where Fixed Terrestrial 25/3 Mbps and Mobile LTE with a Minimum Advertised Speed of 5/1 Mbps Have Been Deployed and Where These Services Have Not Been Deployed (As of December 31, 2018) Average Population Average Population Density Average Per Capita Income ($2018) Average Median Household Income ($2018) Average Household Poverty Rate United States135 With Deployment 1,513.0*** 7,387.3*** $33,234.04*** $67,773.48*** 14.6%*** Without Deployment 1,421.7 1,075.2 $27,355.32 $54,201.49 15.6% Rural Areas With Deployment 1,444.3*** 198.2*** $32,005.61*** $64,942.67*** 11.2%*** Without Deployment 1,339.2 75.1 $27,289.10 $54,209.97 14.1% Urban Areas With Deployment 1,521.0*** 8,232.7*** $33,378.27*** $68,110.57*** 15.1%*** Without Deployment 1,612.2 3,383.3 $27,509.74 $54,181.11 19.2% Tribal Lands (Rural and Urban Areas) With Deployment 1,384.1 2,088.4*** $27,103.51*** $52,981.74*** 16.5%*** Without Deployment 1,344.4 219.0 $22,483.97 $46,094.31 21.1% Tribal Rural Areas With Deployment 1,409.4* 179.4*** $25,866.22*** $53,302.74*** 16.0%*** Without Deployment 1,337.9 72.3 $22,849.44 $46,721.15 20.5% Tribal Urban Areas With Deployment 1,377.2 2,605.3*** $27,437.28*** $52,894.91*** 16.7%*** Without Deployment 1,372.5 849.1 $20,925.28 $43,389.77 23.3% We test for a statistical difference in the reported means between areas with and without deployment of these services. The level of statistical significance is indicated by the number of stars. The absence of a star indicates no statistical difference between the reported figures. * signifies statistical significance at a 90% level of confidence, ** signifies statistical significance at a 95% level of confidence, and *** signifies statistical significance at a 99% level of confidence. 43. Figure 6 compares the available demographic data across urban and rural areas for Americans in the 50 states and District of Columbia with and without coverage by both fixed terrestrial 25/3 Mbps service and mobile LTE service with a median speed of 10/3 Mbps in 2018.136 Like Figure 5, Figure 6 shows that Americans living in areas where these services are deployed typically live in census block groups where there is a lower percentage of households living in poverty, and where there are higher average populations, population densities, per capita incomes, and median household incomes. 135 Data excludes U.S. Territories other than Puerto Rico. 136 As is the case with the presentation of results based upon 10/3 Mbps Ookla data, we exclude the U.S. Territories from this analysis due to a lack of Ookla data for these areas, and we do not report separately for Tribal lands because of concerns with the representativeness of the Ookla data for these areas. See supra Sections IV.B.2 and IV.B.3. Federal Communications Commission FCC 20-50 26 Fig. 6 Comparison of Demographic Data Between Areas Where Fixed Terrestrial 25/3 Mbps and Mobile LTE with a Median Speed of 10/3 Mbps Have Been Deployed and Where These Services Have Not Been Deployed (As of December 31, 2018) Average Population Average Population Density Average Per Capita Income ($2018) Average Median Household Income ($2018) Average Household Poverty Rate United States137 With Deployment 1,544.5*** 7,940.4*** $34,174.45*** $69,911.65*** 14.0%*** Without 1,502.4 1,497.4 $28,194.59 $56,344.62 15.0% Rural Areas With Deployment 1,533.0*** 196.4*** $33,855.27*** $69,510.34*** 10.0%*** Without 1,446.0 90.1 $28,489.00 $57,330.60 13.0% Urban Areas With Deployment 1,545.6*** 8,643.9*** $34,203.40*** $69,948.42*** 14.4%*** Without 1,577.0 3,357.1 $27,802.86 $54,998.17 17.6% We test for a statistical difference in the reported means between areas with and without deployment of these services. The level of statistical significance is indicated by the number of stars. The absence of a star indicates no statistical difference between the reported figures. * signifies statistical significance at a 90% level of confidence, ** signifies statistical significance at a 95% level of confidence, and *** signifies statistical significance at a 99% level of confidence. 44. Figure 7 shows, for 2018, how the average proportion of the population with coverage by fixed terrestrial 25/3 Mbps service and mobile LTE service with a minimum advertised speed of 5/1 Mbps varies with census block group-level median household income, census block group-level population density, and census block group-level poverty rate.138 On average, deployment is highest in census block groups with the highest median household income, the highest population density, and the lowest poverty rate. 137 Data excludes U.S. Territories other than Puerto Rico. 138 We present these results at the census block group, the smallest geographic areas for which income data is available, to accurately examine how the deployment rate varies with income measures in the geographic area. Federal Communications Commission FCC 20-50 27 Fig. 7 Average Percentage of Population with Fixed Terrestrial 25/3 Mbps and Mobile LTE with a Minimum Advertised Speed of 5/1 Mbps by Census Block Group Level Demographic Variable (As of December 31, 2018)139 Fixed Terrestrial 25/ 3 Mbps Mobile LTE 5/ 3 Mbps Both Fixed and Mobile LTE Median Household Income ($2018) First Quartile (Lowest Median Household Income) 92.2% 99.6% 92.0% Second Quartile 91.0% 99.8% 90.9% Third Quartile 93.8% 99.9% 93.7% Fourth Quartile (Highest Median Household Income) 98.1% 100.0% 98.0% Population Density First Quartile (Lowest Pop. Density) 78.6% 99.3% 78.3% Second Quartile 97.7% 100.0% 97.6% Third Quartile 99.0% 100.0% 99.0% Fourth Quartile (Highest Pop. Density) 99.2% 100.0% 99.2% Household Poverty Rate First Quartile (Lowest Household Poverty Rate) 96.4% 99.9% 96.4% Second Quartile 93.6% 99.9% 93.5% Third Quartile 91.8% 99.8% 91.7% Fourth Quartile (Highest Household Poverty Rate) 93.2% 99.7% 93.0% 45. Figure 8 depicts how the average proportion of the population with coverage by fixed terrestrial services by speed tier varies with census block-level median household income, census block- level population density, and census block-level household poverty rate. On average, deployment is highest in census block groups with the highest median household income, the highest population density and the lowest household poverty rate. 139 Data excludes U.S. Territories other than Puerto Rico. Federal Communications Commission FCC 20-50 30 Fig. 10 Deployment (Millions) of Fixed Terrestrial 25/3 Mbps and/or Mobile LTE with a Minimum Advertised Speed of 5/1 Mbps on Tribal Lands (As of December 31, 2018) Pop. Evaluated Fixed 25/3 Mbps Mobile LTE 5/1 Mbps Fixed 25/3 Mbps and Mobile LTE 5/1 Mbps Fixed 25/3 Mbps or Mobile LTE 5/1 Mbps Pop. % of Pop. Pop. % of Pop. Pop. % of Pop. Pop. % of Pop. All Tribal Lands 4.039 2.921 72.3% 3.937 97.5% 2.914 72.1% 3.944 97.7% Alaskan Villages 0.267 0.177 66.5% 0.205 77.0% 0.176 65.9% 0.207 77.6% Hawaiian Homelands 0.034 0.030 89.1% 0.034 99.9% 0.030 89.1% 0.034 99.9% Lower 48 States 1.129 0.643 56.9% 1.092 96.7% 0.638 56.5% 1.097 97.2% Tribal Statistical Areas 2.609 2.072 79.4% 2.605 99.9% 2.070 79.4% 2.606 99.9% E. Adoption Data 49. We also assess the adoption of fixed broadband service142 and report adoption rates based upon year-end data from 2014 to 2018. The reported adoption rates are the ratio of residential Form 477 data subscriptions to fixed terrestrial services of at least the designated speed divided by the total number of households in the area where our Form 477 deployment data indicate that fixed terrestrial services of at least the designated speed are deployed.143 50. Using Form 477 subscribership data, Figure 11 shows the overall adoption rates144 from 2014 through 2018 for fixed terrestrial services for the United States (excluding U.S. Territories) as a whole, urban and non-urban core areas, and Tribal lands.145 The data show year-to-year increases in the adoption of broadband services across the vast majority of areas, including Tribal lands. 142 We present adoption data for each state and the District of Columbia in an Appendix. See infra Appx. 7 (Adoption Rate for Fixed Terrestrial Services in the United States, Including the U.S. Territories (As of December 2018)). 143 The subscriber data is reported for the census tract rather than census block. Thus, we aggregate the deployment data up to the census tract. We calculate adoption rates for the following geographic areas: the U.S. as a whole, all urban core census tracts, all non-urban core census tracts, the county (or county equivalent), and for each state and the District of Columbia. A census tract is designated as “Urban Core” if it has a land area less than three square miles and a population density of at least 1,000 people per square mile. A census tract is designated as “Non-Urban Core” if we have not designated the census tract as Urban Core. A census tract is designated Tribal lands if more than 50% of the land area is Tribal land. 144 The reported adoption rates for 2014 to 2018 are based upon the Form 477 deployment data and subscriber data as of December 31, 2014, December 31, 2015, December 31, 2016, December 31, 2017, and December 31, 2018. 145 As noted above, figures that include deployment data from 2014-2018 do not include U.S. Territories data. Accordingly, we do not include the U.S. Territories in Figure 11. We report adoption rates, as of December 31, 2018, for each State and U.S. Territory in Appendix 7. Federal Communications Commission FCC 20-50 31 Fig. 11 Overall Adoption Rate for Fixed Terrestrial Services at Different Speed Tiers 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 10/1 Mbps United States146 56.0% 62.2% 66.3% 69.7% 73.3% Non-Urban Core Areas 49.7% 55.8% 60.3% 63.4% 67.4% Urban Core Areas 60.7% 67.0% 71.0% 74.7% 78.1% Tribal Lands 35.5% 42.4% 43.1% 46.3% 51.2% Non-Urban Core Areas 30.6% 36.1% 36.9% 40.4% 45.3% Urban Core Areas 46.0% 56.8% 59.1% 62.3% 68.1% 25/3 Mbps United States 38.5% 48.1% 53.5% 60.2% 65.1% Non-Urban Core Areas 34.4% 43.2% 48.9% 55.1% 59.9% Urban Core Areas 41.3% 51.5% 56.9% 64.0% 69.2% Tribal Lands 27.3% 31.7% 33.4% 37.9% 44.0% Non-Urban Core Areas 23.3% 28.5% 30.3% 34.5% 38.7% Urban Core Areas 33.9% 37.1% 39.4% 45.1% 56.1% 50/5 Mbps United States 24.8% 33.9% 44.4% 54.8% 60.6% Non-Urban Core Areas 19.9% 27.8% 41.2% 50.8% 56.4% Urban Core Areas 28.0% 38.0% 46.7% 57.7% 63.8% Tribal Lands 22.7% 25.0% 28.9% 34.2% 37.8% Non-Urban Core Areas 18.0% 20.4% 25.3% 30.9% 34.0% Urban Core Areas 28.9% 32.0% 34.9% 40.5% 45.6% 100/10 Mbps United States 11.2% 16.7% 19.2% 29.6% 45.7% Non-Urban Core Areas 11.7% 16.4% 17.9% 27.0% 44.3% Urban Core Areas 11.0% 16.9% 20.0% 31.4% 46.6% Tribal Lands 7.1% 7.4% 10.5% 18.3% 30.2% Non-Urban Core Areas 7.4% 6.4% 9.8% 17.0% 26.4% Urban Core Areas 6.8% 8.7% 11.6% 20.4% 37.3% 250/25 Mbps United States 2.5% 4.2% 1.8% 4.1% 5.5% Non-Urban Core Areas 3.0% 6.7% 2.3% 4.1% 5.0% Urban Core Areas 2.3% 3.1% 1.6% 4.1% 5.8% Tribal Lands 0.1% 1.4% 1.8% 4.4% 7.5% Non-Urban Core Areas 0.2% 1.7% 2.1% 4.5% 8.0% Urban Core Areas 0.0% 0.2% 1.5% 4.3% 6.7% 51. Figure 12 reports average county-level overall adoption rates for fixed terrestrial services by speed tier against the quartile ranking for median household income, population density, the poverty 146 All data presented for the United States in Figure 11 excludes U.S. Territories. Federal Communications Commission FCC 20-50 32 rate, and the proportion of the population that resides in a rural area. These data suggest that the average household adoption rate increases with median household income and population density, and the adoption rate decreases as the poverty rate and rural population rate increase. Fig. 12 Average County Overall Adoption Rate for Fixed Terrestrial Services by County Level Demographic Variable (As of December 31, 2018)147 10/ 1 Mbps 25/ 3 Mbps 50/ 5 Mbps 100/ 10 Mbps 250/ 25 Mbps Median Household Income ($2018) First Quartile (Lowest Median Household Income) 33.5% 23.4% 22.6% 18.1% 3.7% Second Quartile 46.7% 37.2% 32.9% 27.4% 3.7% Third Quartile 53.9% 43.3% 37.9% 30.4% 3.9% Fourth Quartile (Highest Median Household Income) 67.0% 57.2% 53.0% 39.2% 5.2% Population Density First Quartile (Lowest Median Population Density) 43.5% 30.2% 23.6% 19.3% 5.9% Second Quartile 39.5% 29.9% 26.4% 20.9% 2.9% Third Quartile 50.2% 41.8% 38.4% 30.8% 3.1% Fourth Quartile (Highest Median Population Density) 67.8% 58.9% 59.4% 45.1% 5.1% Household Poverty Rate First Quartile (Lowest Median Poverty Rate) 62.6% 51.6% 47.0% 35.5% 4.9% Second Quartile 54.1% 44.1% 39.2% 31.4% 4.2% Third Quartile 48.3% 39.1% 35.1% 28.7% 4.0% Fourth Quartile (Highest Median Poverty Rate) 36.1% 26.2% 25.2% 19.8% 3.3% Rural Population Rate First Quartile (Lowest Rural Population Rate) 66.8% 58.4% 57.8% 43.6% 5.6% Second Quartile 52.9% 43.2% 39.7% 31.9% 3.3% Third Quartile 41.7% 32.3% 28.8% 23.3% 3.2% Fourth Quartile (Highest Rural Population Rate) 39.5% 26.9% 21.3% 17.1% 4.6% F. Schools and Classrooms Data 52. We continue to measure availability of advanced telecommunications capability in “elementary and secondary schools and classrooms”148 using a short-term and long-term goal for broadband connectivity to schools of 100 Mbps per 1,000 students and staff, and 1 Gbps per 1,000 students and staff, respectively.149 According to the 2019 State of the States Report, 99% of school 147 All data presented for the United States in Figure 12 excludes U.S. Territories other than Puerto Rico. 148 47 U.S.C. § 1302(b). 149 See Modernizing the E-rate Program for Schools and Libraries, WC Docket No. 13-184, Report and Order and Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, 29 FCC Rcd 8870, 8885, para. 34 (2014) (2014 First E-rate Order). We use this as the current method of measuring school and classroom connectivity and will address any future needs at (continued….) Federal Communications Commission FCC 20-50 35 across the country.166 The BDAC continues to be a forum for interested stakeholders to exchange ideas and develop recommendations to the Commission on broadband deployment, which in turn enhances the Commission’s ability to carry out its statutory responsibility to encourage the deployment of broadband to all Americans.167 60. The re-chartered BDAC is organized into three working groups, each with a distinct purpose.168 The Disaster Response and Recovery Working Group is charged with recommending measures to improve resiliency of broadband infrastructure before a disaster occurs, and strategies that can be used during and after the response to a disaster to minimize broadband network downtime.169 The Broadband Infrastructure Deployment Job Skills and Training Opportunities Working Group is charged with making recommendations on ways to make job skills training more widely available and improve development opportunities for the broadband infrastructure deployment workforce.170 The Increasing Broadband Investment in Low-Income Communities Working Group is tasked with identifying new ways to encourage the deployment of high-speed broadband infrastructure and services to low-income communities.171 61. This term, the BDAC has worked diligently to fulfill the charges given to it by the Commission. Since the Commission released the 2019 Report, the BDAC has met three times, on June 13, 2019, September 19, 2019, and December 3, 2019, during which the BDAC members have discussed their charges and the progress being made by the working groups toward developing final reports for consideration and approval by the full BDAC.172 The BDAC has three meetings scheduled for 2020 where the working groups are expected to present their recommendations. 62. Precision Agriculture Connectivity Task Force. The Agriculture Improvement Act of 2018 directed the Commission to establish a task force to examine and promote broadband service on agricultural land.173 Chairman Pai chartered the Precision Agriculture Connectivity Task Force under the Federal Advisory Committee Act for a two-year term to make policy recommendations on how to 166 FCC Announces Re-Chartered BDAC Membership and First Meeting, GN Docket No. 17-83, Public Notice, 34 FCC Rcd 3251 (2019), at 1 (2019 Re-Chartered BDAC PN). 167 Id. 168 On July 1, 2019, Chairman Pai appointed members to serve on two new working groups of the BDAC: the Broadband Infrastructure Deployment Job Skills and Training Opportunities Working Group, and the Increasing Broadband Investment in Low-Income Communities Working Group. FCC Announces the Membership of Two Broadband Deployment Advisory Committee Working Groups, GN Docket No. 17-83, Public Notice, 34 FCC Rcd 5226 (2019). This followed the 2018 appointment of members to the Disaster Response and Recovery Working Group during the first BDAC. The Disaster Response and Recovery Working Group was re-chartered to continue its work during the current term. See FCC Seeks Applicants for BDAC Disaster Response and Recovery Group, Public Notice, DA 18-837 (WCB Aug. 9, 2018). 169 2019 Re-Chartered BDAC PN, 34 FCC Rcd 3251, at 1. 170 Id. at 2. 171 Id. at 1. 172 See 2019 Re-Chartered BDAC PN, 34 FCC Rcd 3251, at 1; FCC Announces the Next Meeting of the Broadband Deployment Advisory Committee, GN Docket No. 17-83, Public Notice, 34 FCC Rcd 7714 (2019); FCC Announces the Next Meeting of the Broadband Deployment Advisory Committee, GN Docket No. 17-83, Public Notice, 34 FCC Rcd 9557 (2019). Video from each of the 2019 BDAC meetings and links to related materials can be found on the Commission’s BDAC page: https://www.fcc.gov/broadband-deployment-advisory-committee. 173 Agriculture Improvement Act of 2018, Pub. L. No. 115-334, 132 Stat. 4490, § 12511(b)(2) (2018 Farm Bill). The Precision Agriculture Connectivity Task Force will perform duties and submit reports consistent with Section 12511 of the 2018 Farm Bill and in consultation with the Department of Agriculture in successive terms until the Task Force ends on January 1, 2025. Federal Communications Commission FCC 20-50 36 accelerate broadband deployment on agricultural lands.174 The Task Force will examine policy, regulatory, and technical solutions to encourage the adoption of broadband on farms and ranches and promote the advancement of precision agriculture in the United States.175 In November 2019, Chairman Pai, in consultation with Secretary of Agriculture Sonny Perdue, appointed fifteen members of the Task Force including agricultural producers representing diverse geographic regions and farm sizes, equipment manufacturers, and industry representatives, as well as Tribal, state and local government representatives.176 The Precision Agriculture Task Force held its first meeting in December 2019. Four working groups will assist the Task Force in carrying out its work: (1) mapping and analyzing connectivity on agricultural lands; (2) examining current and future connectivity demand for precision agriculture; (3) encouraging adoption of precision agriculture and availability of high-quality jobs on connected farms; and (4) accelerating broadband deployment on unserved agricultural lands.177 The Precision Agriculture Connectivity Task Force will begin to present recommendations later this year. B. Universal Service Fund 63. Universal service plays an essential role in deploying broadband networks and encouraging competition. The Commission’s Universal Service Fund (USF) provides funding to increase the availability of fixed and mobile broadband services in unserved rural areas.178 The Fund targets support to these areas and, as part of its oversight responsibilities, the Commission routinely considers ways to maximize the effect of available USF funding to support broadband deployment.179 64. High-Cost Reforms. The Commission has successfully conducted the Connect America Fund Phase II auction to award funding to service providers that commit to offer voice and broadband services to fixed locations in unserved high-cost areas. In 2018, the Phase II auction awarded more than $1.488 billion over ten years to 103 winning bidders to serve more than 713,000 rural homes and businesses.180 The Commission began authorizing Phase II Auction funding in May 2019,181 authorizing a 174 FCC Announces the Establishment of the Task Force for Reviewing Connectivity and Technology Needs of Precision Agriculture in the United States and Seeks Nominations for Membership, Public Notice, 34 FCC Rcd 5057 (2019) (Precision Agriculture Task Force Public Notice); Precision Agriculture Advisory Committee Charter (December 2019), https://www.fcc.gov/sites/default/files/precision-ag-task-force-charter-12042019.pdf. 175 Precision Agriculture Task Force Public Notice, 34 FCC Rcd at 5057. 176 FCC Announces the Membership of and First Meeting of the Task Force for Reviewing the Connectivity and Technology Needs of Precision Agriculture in the United States, GN Docket No. 19-329, Public Notice, 34 FCC Rcd 10493 (2019) (Precision Agriculture Task Force Membership Public Notice). 177 Precision Agriculture Task Force Membership Public Notice, 34 FCC Rcd at 10493; FCC Announces the Membership of the Working Groups of the Task Force for Reviewing the Connectivity and Technology Needs of Precision Agriculture in the United States, GN Docket No. 19-329, Public Notice, DA 20-260 (Mar. 13, 2020). 178 Connect America Fund et al., Report and Order and Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, 26 FCC Rcd 17663, 17668-69, paras. 1-5 (2011) (USF/ICC Transformation Order), aff’d sub nom. In re: FCC 11-161, 753 F.3d 1015 (10th Cir. 2014). 179 Connect America Fund; ETC Annual Reports and Certifications; Establishing Just and Reasonable Rates for Local Exchange Carriers; Developing a Unified Intercarrier Compensation Regime; WC Docket Nos. 10-90, 14-58, and 07-135, CC Docket No. 01-92; Report and Order, Third Order on Reconsideration, and Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, 33 FCC Rcd 2990, 2992, para. 4 (2018) (taking several steps to increase broadband deployment in rural areas through the High Cost program, including maximizing available funding for broadband networks); Promoting Telehealth in Rural America, WC Docket No. 17-310, Report and Order, 33 FCC Rcd 6574, para. 1 (2018) (Telehealth Report and Order) (increasing the funding cap for the Rural Healthcare program to $571 million to prevent pro-rata funding reductions that could have disproportionally affected rural health care providers, especially those in Alaska). 180 Connect America Fund Phase II Auction Scheduled for July 24, 2018 Notice and Filing Requirements and Other Procedures for Auction 903, AU Docket No. 17-182, WC Docket No. 10-90, Public Notice, 33 FCC Rcd 1428 (2018); 220 Applicants Qualified to Bid in the Connect America Fund Phase II Auction (Auction 903); Bidding to (continued….) Federal Communications Commission FCC 20-50 37 total of ten waves of support through March 2020.182 As of March 2020, the Commission has authorized a total of nearly $1.4 billion in Phase II auction funding, which is expanding connectivity to 627,000 homes and small businesses nationwide.183 Funding rounds will continue until the authorization process is complete. 65. Building on the success of the CAF Phase II auction, this past January the Commission established the Rural Digital Opportunity Fund, as it had proposed to do in an August 2019 Notice of Proposed Rulemaking.184 The Rural Digital Opportunity Fund will provide up to $20.4 billion to expand broadband in unserved rural areas, representing the Commission’s biggest single step to date toward closing the rural digital divide.185 Phase I of the Rural Digital Opportunity Fund will allocate up to $16 billion in funding over the next decade targeting areas that current data show are wholly unserved by 25/3 Mbps broadband and voice.186 The Phase I auction will use a multi-round, reverse auction that favors bids offering faster services with lower latency and encourages intermodal competition to ensure that the greatest possible number of Americans will be connected to the best possible networks, all at a competitive cost.187 Phase II of the Rural Digital Opportunity Fund will use granular, precise broadband availability maps being developed in the Commission’s Digital Opportunity Data Collection proceeding to allocate at least $4.4 billion to target unserved locations within partially served areas, as well as any areas not won in Phase I.188 66. In addition, the Commission continues to work to close the digital divide through other initiatives focused on small, rural carriers serving high-cost areas, known as rate-of-return carriers. Most recently, in August 2019, the Commission authorized over $4.9 billion in support for rate-of-return carriers for maintaining, improving, and expanding broadband in rural areas over the next decade.189 This support will ensure broadband access for approximately 455,000 homes and businesses served by 171 carriers in 40 states and territories, including more than 44,000 locations on Tribal lands.190 67. In May 2018, in an effort to make additional universal service support available to rebuild fixed and mobile voice and broadband networks damaged in the 2017 hurricane season, the (Continued from previous page) Begin on July 24, 2018, AU Docket No. 17-182, WC Docket No. 10-90, Public Notice, 33 FCC Rcd 6171 (2018) (announcing the qualified bidders for the auction and confirming timing); Connect America Fund Phase II Auction (Auction 903) Closes; Winning Bidders Announced, AU Docket No. 17-182, WC Docket No. 10-90, Public Notice, 33 FCC Rcd 8257 (2018). 181 News Release, FCC, FCC Authorizes $521,000 to Tribal Provider to Bring Broadband to Rural Idaho (Mar. 16, 2020), https://docs.fcc.gov/public/attachments/DOC-363069A1.pdf. 182 News Release, FCC, FCC Authorizes Nearly $89.2 Million in Funding for Rural Broadband (Dec. 16, 2019), https://docs.fcc.gov/public/attachments/DOC-361387A1.pdf. 183 Id. 184 Rural Digital Opportunity Fund Order, 35 FCC Rcd at 687, para. 2;; Rural Digital Opportunity Connect America Fund, WC Dockets No. 19-126, 10-90, Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, 34 FCC Rcd 6778 (2019) (Rural Digital Opportunity Fund NPRM). 185 Rural Digital Opportunity Fund Order, 35 FCC Rcd at 687, para. 2. 186 Id. at 689-90, para. 8. 187 Id. at 688, para. 5, 694-95, paras. 17-18. 188 Id. at 688, para. 5, 690, para. 9. 189 See Wireline Competition Bureau Authorizes 171 Rate-of-Return Companies to Receive $491 Million Annually in Alternative Connect America Cost Model II Support to Expand Rural Broadband, WC Docket No. 10-90, Public Notice, 34 FCC Rcd 7271 (WCB 2019). 190 News Release, FCC, FCC Authorizes Support for Broadband in Over 44,000 Tribal Homes and Businesses Nationwide (Aug. 22, 2019), https://docs.fcc.gov/public/attachments/DOC-359226A1.pdf. Federal Communications Commission FCC 20-50 40 internal connections.211 Following a five-year test period,212 the Commission concluded that the category two budget approach has provided broader, more equitable, and more predictable funding for schools and libraries than under the prior rules.213 The budget amount provided to schools and libraries during the test period also proved to be successful, and, the Commission intends to generally remain within those parameters of support going forward.214 74. To further promote the deployment of high-speed networks to unserved and underserved schools and libraries, in January 2020, the Commission voted to permanently eliminate the requirement that E-Rate applicants amortize over three years upfront, non-recurring category one charges of $500,000 or more, including charges for special construction projects.215 The Commission determined that suspension of the amortization requirement had created a more certain path for reimbursement, which made applicants and service providers more willing to invest in new broadband infrastructure, resulting in lower costs to both applicants and the USF.216 75. Improving Broadband Deployment Data. On August 1, 2019, the Commission adopted the Digital Opportunity Data Collection Order, in which we initiated a new data collection, the Digital Opportunity Data Collection, for collecting fixed broadband data to better pinpoint where broadband is available to consumers and where service is lacking.217 The Digital Opportunity Data Collection will collect geospatial broadband coverage maps from fixed and mobile broadband Internet service providers depicting the areas where they make fixed service available.218 This geospatial data will facilitate development of granular, high-quality fixed broadband deployment maps, which will improve the Commission’s ability to target support for broadband expansion through the agency’s Universal Service Fund programs.219 The Commission also adopted a process to collect public input on the accuracy of 211 Modernizing the E-Rate Program for Schools and Libraries, WC Docket No. 13-184, Report and Order, 34 FCC Rcd 11219, 11219-20, para. 1 (2019). 212 See Modernizing the E-Rate Program for Schools and Libraries, WC Docket No. 13-184, Report and Order and Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, 29 FCC Rcd 8870, 8898-922, Section IV.B. (2014); Modernizing the E- Rate Program for Schools and Libraries; Connect America Fund, WC Docket Nos. 13-184, 10-90, Second Report and Order and Order on Reconsideration, 29 FCC Rcd 15538, 15571-78, Section III.A. (2014). 213 Modernizing the E-Rate Program for Schools and Libraries, 34 FCC Rcd at 11220, para. 2. 214 Id. 215 E-Rate Program Amortization Requirement, Modernizing the E-Rate Program for Schools and Libraries, WC Docket Nos. 19-2, 13-184, Report and Order, 35 FCC Rcd 672, 672-73, para. 2 (2020) (E-Rate Amortization Elimination Order); see also E-Rate Program Amortization Requirement, Modernizing the E-Rate Program for Schools and Libraries, WC Docket Nos. 19-2, 13-184, Notice of Proposed Rulemaking and Order, 34 FCC Rcd 785 (2019). The components of special construction costs eligible for E-Rate discounts include costs for design and engineering, project management, digging trenches, and laying fiber. See Modernizing the E-rate Program for Schools and Libraries, WC Docket No. 13-184, Order, 31 FCC Rcd 9767, 9775 (2016); Schools and Libraries Universal Service Support Mechanism, A National Broadband Plan for our Future, CC Docket No. 02-6, GN Docket No. 09-51, Order, 25 FCC Rcd 18762, 18773 n.54 (2010). 216 E-Rate Amortization Elimination Order, 35 FCC Rcd at 674-75, paras. 8-9. 217 Digital Opportunity Data Collection Order, 34 FCC Rcd 7505. In a Second Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, the Commission also sought comment on how best to incorporate mobile wireless voice and broadband coverage into the Digital Opportunity Data Collection, and on how to implement a database of broadband- serviceable structures. Id. at 7549, para. 112. 218 Id. at 7506, para. 2. 219 Id. at 7509, paras. 10-11. Federal Communications Commission FCC 20-50 41 service providers’ broadband maps, facilitated by a crowd-sourcing portal that will gather input from consumers as well as from state, local, and Tribal governments.220 76. Promoting Broadband Access for Veterans. In May 2019, the Wireline Competition Bureau submitted a report to Congress examining the current state of broadband access and adoption by veterans, and providing recommendations on how to promote their access to broadband, so that they may fully participate in the digital economy.221 In the Veterans Broadband Access Report, the Bureau found that, while many veterans have access to both fixed and mobile broadband options, a significant number still lack access to fixed broadband, mobile broadband, or both.222 Additionally, the Bureau found that households with veterans subscribe to mobile broadband services at lower rates than households without veterans, and that barriers to broadband adoption for veterans may include lack of deployment where they live, price, and digital illiteracy or perceived irrelevance.223 77. Tribal Lands. In May 2019, the Consumer and Governmental Affairs Bureau, Wireless Telecommunications Bureau, and Wireline Competition Bureau submitted a report to Congress providing an analysis of broadband deployment on Tribal lands.224 The Tribal Lands Broadband Access Deployment Report shows that, while deployment to Tribal lands has increased in recent years, Tribal lands experience lower rates of both fixed and mobile broadband deployment as compared to non-Tribal areas of the United States, particularly in rural areas.225 The Tribal Lands Broadband Access Deployment Report also describes in detail the Commission’s efforts to leverage its available programs to increase the availability of broadband on Tribal lands, including universal service program reforms, expanded direct consultation with Tribes, and making available additional, valuable spectrum resources.226 The Commission took steps in the Rural Digital Opportunity Fund Order to specifically target broadband deployment in census blocks on rural Tribal lands. Specifically, we adopted a policy that has the effect of increasing the auction reserve price for serving such census blocks compared to the typical census blocks eligible for the auction, which we expect will encourage deployment on Tribal lands.227 C. Access to Spectrum 78. Since release of the 2019 Report, the Commission has continued efforts to expand access to spectrum to support 5G and other advanced wireless services. With respect to high-band spectrum, the Commission, in March of 2019, concluded the first of its Spectrum Frontiers auctions. Auction 101 made a total of 850 megahertz of 28 GHz band spectrum available and raised over $700 million dollars for the U.S. Treasury.228 Shortly thereafter Auction 102 made 700 megahertz of 24 GHz band spectrum 220 Id. at 7506, para. 3, 7521-37, paras. 35-75. 221 FCC, WCB, Report on Promoting Broadband Internet Access Service for Veterans, Pursuant to the Repack Airwaves Yielding Better Access for Users of Modern Services Act of 2018 (WCB 2019), https://docs.fcc.gov/public/attachments/DOC-357270A1.pdf (Veterans Broadband Access Report). 222 Id. at 5-11. 223 Id. at 10, 12-13. 224 FCC, CGB, WTB, and WCB, Report on Broadband Deployment in Indian Country, Pursuant to the Repack Airwaves Yielding Better Access for Users of Modern Services Act of 2018 (2019), https://docs.fcc.gov/public/attachments/DOC-357269A1.pdf (Tribal Lands Broadband Access Deployment Report). 225 Id. at 1. 226 Id. at 9-18. 227 Rural Digital Opportunity Fund Order, 35 FCC Rcd at 694, para. 16. 228 Auction of 28 GHz Upper Microwave Flexible Use Service Licenses for Next-Generation Wireless Services Closes; Gross Winning Bids Amounts Announced for Auction 101, AU Docket No. 18-85, Public Notice, 34 FCC Rcd 75, 75, para. 1 (2019). Federal Communications Commission FCC 20-50 42 available and raised over $2 billion dollars for the U.S. Treasury.229 On December 10, 2019, the Commission began auctioning spectrum in the Upper 37 GHz, 39 GHz, and 47 GHz bands that collectively will make 3,400 megahertz of spectrum available.230 This auction, Auction 103, concluded on March 5, 2020 and raised $7.6 billion in gross auction proceeds.231 79. The Commission also has improved access to mid-band spectrum. First, the Commission took several steps to open the 3.5 GHz band for commercial use. The 3.5 GHz band will allow access to up to 150 megahertz of spectrum for shared federal and non-federal use of the band among and between users, classified into one of three tiers of authorization: Incumbent Access (most protected), Priority Access, and General Authorized Access (least protected).232 This three-tiered, dynamic sharing framework is facilitated by an automated frequency coordinator, known as a Spectrum Access System (SAS).233 The Commission recently certified the first group of SAS Administrators for full commercial deployments,234 and it adopted procedures for an auction of up to seven, 10-megahertz Priority Access Licenses (PALs) in the 3550-3650 MHz band, which is scheduled to begin on July 23, 2020.235 80. Second, the Commission reformed the regulatory framework for a portion of the 2.5 GHz band (2496-2690 MHz), which is the largest band of contiguous spectrum below 3 gigahertz, to make this spectrum more available for advanced wireless services, including 5G.236 As part of this effort, the 229 Auctions of Upper Microwave Flexible Use Licenses for Next-Generation Wireless Services et al., AU Docket No. 18-85, Public Notice, 33 FCC Rcd 4103, 4105, paras. 2-3 (2018); Press Release, FCC, FCC Concludes First High-Band 5G Airwaves Auctions (rel. May 28, 2019), https://docs.fcc.gov/public/attachments/DOC- 357702A1.pdf. 230 Use of Spectrum Bands Above 24 GHz For Mobile Radio Services, GN Docket No. 14-177, Fourth Report and Order, 33 FCC Rcd 12168, 12169, para. 2 (2018); Press Release, FCC, FCC’s Next 5G Spectrum Auction Is Underway ( Dec. 10, 2019), https://docs.fcc.gov/public/attachments/DOC-361255A1.pdf. 231 Incentive Auction of Upper Microwave Flexible Use Service Licenses in the Upper 37 GHz, 39 GHz, and 47 GHz Bands for Next-Generation Wireless Services Closes; Winning Bidders Announced for Auction 103, AU Docket No. 19-59, Public Notice, DA 20-253, para. 2 (rel. Mar. 12, 2020). 232 See Amendment of the Commission’s Rules with Regard to Commercial Operations in the 3550-3650 MHz Band, GN Docket No. 12-354, Report and Order and Second Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, 30 FCC Rcd 3959, 3961, para. 4 (2015) (3.5 GHz Order and Second FNPRM); Auction of Priority Access Licenses for the 3550-3650 MHz Band; Comment Sought on Competitive Bidding Procedures for Auction 105, AU Docket No. 19-244, Public Notice, 34 FCC Rcd 9215, 9217, para. 5 (2019) (Auction 105 Comment Notice); Auction 105: 3.5 GHz, https://www.fcc.gov/auction/105 (last visited Mar. 2, 2020). 233 See 3.5 GHz Order and Second FNPRM, 30 FCC Rcd at 3985-87, paras. 80-86; Auction 105 Comment Notice, 34 FCC Rcd at 9216-17, para. 3. 234 Wireless Telecommunications Bureau and Office of Engineering and Technology Approve Four Spectrum Access System Administrators for Full Scale Commercial Deployment in the 3.5 GHz Band and Emphasize Licensee Compliance Obligations in the 3650-3700 MHz Band Under Part 96, GN Docket No. 15-319, Public Notice, DA 20-110 (WTB Jan. 27, 2020); 3.5 GHz Band Overview, FCC.gov, https://www.fcc.gov/wireless/bureau- divisions/mobility-division/35-ghz-band/35-ghz-band-overview (last visited Mar. 2, 2020). 235 See Auction of Priority Access Licenses for the 3550-3650 MHz Band Rescheduled to Begin July 23, 2020; Auction 105 Short-Form Application Deadline Postponed to May 7, 2020, AU Docket No. 19-244, Public Notice, DA 20-330 (OEA-WTB Mar. 25, 2020); see also Auction of Priority Access Licenses for the 3550-3650 MHz Band; Notice and Filing Requirements, Minimum Opening Bids, Upfront Payments, and Other Procedures for Auction 105; Bidding in Auction 105 Scheduled to Begin June 25, 2020, AU Docket No. 19-244, Public Notice, FCC 20-18 (Mar. 2, 2020). 236 Transforming the 2.5 GHz Band, WT Docket No. 18-120, Report and Order, 34 FCC Rcd 5446, 5447, 5450, paras. 3, 13 (2019) (2.5 GHz Order). (In this Report and Order, the Commission replaced the regulatory framework for the Educational Broadband Service, which is comprised of twenty channels (for a total of 112.5 megahertz), with one of flexible use). See id. at 5447, 5450, paras. 4, 13. Federal Communications Commission FCC 20-50 45 accelerate its construction deadlines for its 600 MHz licenses and ensure that this spectrum is used to deploy 5G broadband service.258 85. The Commission also proposed rules to reconfigure the 900 MHz band to facilitate the development of broadband technologies and services.259 The proposal seeks to realign the 900 MHz band to create a broadband segment and reserve the remainder for incumbent narrowband operations.260 86. The Commission has similarly proposed to reallocate spectrum in the 1675-1680 MHz band for shared use between incumbent federal operations and new, non-federal flexible-use wireless operations, including for advanced telecommunications capability.261 87. Further, the Commission continues to seek ways to enhance broadband and other innovative uses through use of unlicensed operations. For example, the Commission has proposed targeted changes to its rules to provide additional opportunities for unlicensed white space devices operating in the broadcast television bands to deliver wireless broadband services in rural areas and applications associated with the Internet of Things.262 This region of the spectrum has excellent propagation characteristics that make it particularly attractive for delivering communications services over long distances, coping with variations in terrain, as well as providing coverage into and within buildings.263 The Commission’s proposals are intended to spur continued growth of the white space device ecosystem, especially for providing affordable broadband service to rural and underserved communities.264 88. With respect to satellite services, there is significant industry interest in developing and deploying large constellations of non-geostationary (NGSO) satellites with robust capabilities to be used for global broadband connectivity. Over the last several years, the Commission has granted applications for a number of established operators and new entrants to provide broadband services using a new generation of low-Earth orbit (LEO) satellite technologies in the Ku-, Ka-, and V-band frequencies.265 89. In 2019, the Commission took action on several applications that promise to speed the deployment of high-speed satellite broadband to unserved and underserved portions of the United 258 Id. at 10742, 10745, paras. 369, 375, 382. 259 See Review of the Commission’s Rules Governing the 896-901/935-940 MHz Band, WT Docket No. 17-200, Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, 34 FCC Rcd 1550 (2019). 260 Id. at 1553, para. 9. 261 Allocation and Service Rules for the 1675-1680 MHz Band, WT Docket No. 19-116, Notice of Proposed Rulemaking and Order, 34 FCC Rcd 3552 (2019). 262 Unlicensed White Space Device Operations in the Television Bands, ET Docket No. 20-36, Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, FCC 20-17, at para. 1 (Mar. 2, 2020). 263 Id. 264 Id. 265 Space Exploration Holdings, LLC; Application For Approval for Orbital Deployment and Operating Authority for the SpaceX NGSO Satellite System; Application For Approval For Orbital Deployment And Operating Authority for the SpaceX NGSO Satellite System Supplement, Memorandum Opinion, Order and Authorization, 33 FCC Rcd 3391 (2018); see also Space Norway AS; Petition for a Declaratory Ruling Granting Access to the U.S. Market for the Arctic Satellite Broadband Mission, Order and Declaratory Ruling, 32 FCC Rcd 9649 (2017); Telesat Canada; Petition for Declaratory Ruling to Grant Access to the U.S. Market for Telesat’s NGSO Constellation, Order and Declaratory Ruling, 32 FCC Rcd 9663 (2017); O3b Limited; Request for Modification of U.S. Market Access for O3b Limited’s Non-Geostationary Satellite Orbit System in the Fixed-Satellite Service and in the Mobile-Satellite Service, Order and Declaratory Ruling, 33 FCC Rcd 5508 (2018); Space Exploration Holdings, LLC; Application for Approval for Orbital Deployment and Operating Authority for the SpaceX V-band NGSO Satellite System, Memorandum Opinion, Order and Authorization, FCC 18-161 (Nov. 19, 2018). Federal Communications Commission FCC 20-50 46 States.266 For instance, the Commission approved two applications allowing SpaceX to modify its Ku- and Ka-band NGSO Starlink constellation to accelerate its deployment of broadband services to areas underserved or unserved by terrestrial systems.267 In addition, it granted a modification application that will enable Hughes Network Systems, LLC, to use additional frequencies in the Ka-band for the planned high-throughput Jupiter 3 satellite to provide broadband service to consumers.268 VI. SECTION 706 FINDING 90. Based on the extensive evidence above, we conclude that advanced telecommunications capability is being deployed to all Americans in a reasonable and timely fashion. The available data clearly demonstrate progress in the deployment of “advanced telecommunications capability” from 2017 to 2018. For example, the number of Americans without access to fixed terrestrial broadband deployment decreased by 14% in 2018, with decreases in urban, rural, and Tribal areas.269 More Americans— 94.9%—have access to mobile LTE with median speeds of 10/3 Mbps, up from 89.0% in 2017.270 Indeed, there were deployment increases in both fixed and mobile services, both apart and when combined.271 We also are encouraged by the significant year-over-year increases in fixed terrestrial services at every speed examined in this Report—10/1 Mbps mobile broadband, and 25/3 Mbps, 50/5 Mbps, 100/10 Mbps, and 250/25 Mbps fixed broadband.272 Moreover, some of the Commission’s more recent actions undertaken to speed broadband deployment likely are not yet fully reflected by the data used in our analysis here, as those data only provide the extent of U.S. broadband deployment through December 2018. 91. Indeed, recent broadband investment throughout the country demonstrates that the Commission’s actions to date to encourage and stimulate broadband deployment and innovation are working as intended. U.S. broadband providers invested approximately $80 billion in network infrastructure in 2018, up more than $3.1 billion from 2017.273 Broadband providers, both small and large, built and upgraded networks across the country, with fiber deployment in the United States now passing 46.5 million unique homes, a 16% increase in homes passed by fiber since 2018.274 In 2019 266 Space Exploration Holdings, LLC; Request for Modification of the Authorization for the SpaceX NGSO Satellite System, Order and Authorization, 34 FCC Rcd 2526 (IB 2019); Space Exploration Holdings, LLC, Request for Modification of the Authorization for the SpaceX NGSO Satellite System, Order and Authorization, 34 FCC Rcd 12307, 12307, para. 1 (IB 2019) (SpaceX NGSO Authorization). (SpaceX has been conducting launches of Starlink satellites since May 2019). Space Exploration Holdings, Starlink Mission (May 24, 2019), https://www.spacex.com/news/2019/05/24/starlink-mission; see also Space Exploration Holdings, LLC, Starlink Mission (Feb. 17, 2020), https://www.spacex.com/news/2020/02/17/starlink-mission. 267 SpaceX NGSO Authorization, 34 FCC Rcd 12307. 268 See Satellite Policy Branch Information, Actions Taken, Public Notice, Report No. SAT-01396 (IB Sat. Div. June 14, 2019); see also Hughes Network Systems, LLC, Request for Modification of the Authorization to Launch and Operate EchoStar XXIV, IBFS File No. SAT-MOD-20190212-00011 (granted June 13, 2019). Similarly, the Commission authorized a number of gateway earth stations necessary to operate satellite constellations that offer or will offer broadband services consumers. See Satellite Communications Services Information, Actions Taken, Public Notice, SES-02217 (IB Sat. Div., Nov. 13, 2019); Satellite Communications Services Information, Actions Taken, Public Notice, Report No. SES-02134 (IB Sat. Div., Feb. 6, 2019). 269 See supra Fig. 1. 270 See supra Fig. 2b. 271 See supra Figs. 1, 2b, 3a, and 3b. 272 See supra Fig. 4. 273 See generally Patrick Brogan, Vice President for Industry Analysis, USTelecom, U.S. Broadband Investment Continued upswing in 2018 (2019), https://www.ustelecom.org/wp-content/uploads/2019/07/USTelecom-Research- Brief-Capex-2018-7-31-19.pdf. 274 See Fiber Broadband Association Dec. 16, 2019 Ex Parte Letter, at 1 n.1. Federal Communications Commission FCC 20-50 47 alone, fiber broadband networks became available to roughly 6.5 million additional unique homes, the largest one-year increase ever, with smaller providers accounting for 25% of these new fiber connections.275 AT&T, T-Mobile, Sprint, and Verizon are also rapidly expanding their 5G deployment, with 5G networks in aggregate now covering more than 200 million consumers across the country, especially in urban areas, with more live launches planned for 2020.276 92. Both commenters and industry reports indicate that our policy efforts are making a difference. For example, recent Fiber Broadband Association research shows that the industry is currently on pace to deploy all-fiber networks to about 50% of U.S. households by 2025, in part due to our efforts to spur deployment.277 Commenters also predict that the positive trends in deployment of advanced telecommunications capability reported in recent years will continue, due in part to Commission policies that promote investment.278 93. We disagree with commenters that contend that the section 706 requirements have not been met.279 In particular, we reject the arguments of commenters that urge us to conduct our section 706 275 Id. 276 See AT&T, AT&T 5G Now Live for Consumers in 10 Markets (Dec. 13, 2019), https://about.att.com/story/2019/5g_launch.html (announcing live launch of AT&T 5G to consumers and businesses in the Birmingham, AL; Indianapolis; Los Angeles; Milwaukee; Pittsburgh; Providence, RI; Rochester, NY; San Diego, San Francisco, and San Jose, CA market areas, and plans to expand service availability to other markets soon as it works toward offering nationwide coverage in the first half of 2020); T-Mobile, T-Mobile 5G: It's On! (Dec. 2, 2019), https://investor.t-mobile.com/news-and-events/t-mobile-us-press-releases/press-release-details/2019/T- Mobile-5G-Its-On/default.aspx; Sprint, Sprint 5g Overview (Nov. 1, 2019), https://newsroom.sprint.com/sprint-5g- overview-1-2.htm (touting Sprint 5G availability in parts of 9 cities – Atlanta, Chicago, Dallas-Ft. Worth, Houston, Kansas City, Los Angeles, New York City, Phoenix, and Washington, DC – as well as Sprint partnerships with multiple U.S. cities on Smart City applications leveraging Sprint’s 5G and IoT offerings); Verizon, When Will Verizon Have 5G? (Dec. 5, 2019), https://www.verizon.com/about/our-company/5g/when-will-verizon-have-5g (discussing current availability of Verizon’s 5G ultra-wideband service in parts of select cities, and plans for further rollouts in 2020). 277 Press Release, Fiber Broadband Association, New Study Finds All-Fiber Deployments to 90% of Households Achievable in Next Decade (Sept. 10, 2019), https://www.fiberbroadband.org/blog/new-study-finds-all-fiber- deployments-to-90-of-households-achievable-in-next-decade (“These accelerated all-fiber builds are driven by increasing consumer demand for higher performance broadband, . . . and government efforts to lower barriers to deployment costs and provide targeted subsidies.”). 278 See, e.g., Internet Innovation Alliance Comments at 6-7 (“In 2019, as they have for years, broadband providers are constantly increasing speeds in response to competitive pressures and as a result of new deployments thanks to policies that promote investment . . . We expect this positive trend to continue and indeed accelerate as the Nation transitions to 5G wireless broadband . . . .”); id. at 7-8 (“Thanks to policies that reward investment and promote innovation and the pressures of a competitive broadband marketplace, we expect that the 2020 Broadband Deployment Report and those in future years will continue to show a story of progress in the important task of ensuring that all Americans have access to fast, reliable broadband, no matter how they access the broadband internet.”); ITTA Comments at 10 (“[T]he Commission has ample grounds to once again find that its ‘policymaking efforts . . . are promoting broadband deployment, and that [Internet Service Providers] are making strong progress in deploying advanced telecommunications capability to more and more Americans.’”). 279 See, e.g., Benton Foundation Comments at 2 (coupled with continued reliance on Form 477, Commission’s “progress-based approach” misrepresents the true reach of broadband in the U.S.); INCOMPAS Comments at 7 n.11 (“[T]he Commission cannot retain a baseline benchmark for fixed service that is adequate for purposes of finding that broadband is being deployed in a timely and reasonable manner, but is by no means ‘advanced’ given our current understanding of broadband services available to the typical consumer.”); CWA Reply Comments at 13 (“The Commission should find that advanced telecommunications services are not being deployed in a reasonable and timely fashion, . . . and condition the 2020 Broadband Deployment Report with the understanding that the underlying Form 477 data is flawed.”); Public Knowledge et al. Reply Comments at 9-10 (“The Commission’s two prior Broadband Deployment Reports departed significantly from nearly a decade of precedent since the Broadband (continued….) Federal Communications Commission FCC 20-50 50 STATEMENT OF COMMISSIONER MICHAEL O’RIELLY Re: Inquiry Concerning Deployment of Advanced Telecommunications Capability to All Americans in a Reasonable and Timely Fashion, GN Docket 19-285, 2020 Broadband Deployment Report. The finding in this year’s report—that advanced telecommunications capability is being deployed to all Americans in a reasonable and timely fashion—is undoubtedly accurate. Nonetheless, it bears repeating (for the third year in a row) that this finding does not suggest that we have succeeded in our mission to bring broadband access to all Americans, and I personally will not rest until that work is done. Nor does it suggest that the dataset we rely on is perfect or even satisfactory. Form 477 data is obviously extremely flawed and problematically applied as a basis for distributing USF funding, as recognized by Congress in the Broadband DATA Act, and this point is especially clear in light of the huge discrepancies between this item’s charts and the entire premise underlying the Rural 5G Fund Notice concurrently under the Commission’s consideration. However, we should be crystal clear that Form 477 data is being used here for the limited purpose of tracking progress from year-to-year, per our statutory obligation. Otherwise, we risk unfairly conflating two very separate issues. While I am pleased that we continue to rely on a realistic and text-based reading of section 706, I wish we would have extended that pragmatism to our evaluation framework. It’s obvious that mobile and fixed broadband are increasingly converging into a single market, and I am dismayed that for yet another year, we have opted to rehash our tired, siloed approach rather than pursue a technology neutral analysis. Especially given recent calls for the FCC to support wireless hotspots to improve access for distance- learning during the COVID-19 pandemic, including to provide two-way video-based applications, it does seem that there’s broad recognition of the services’ substitutability, even among the most die-hard proponents of universal fiber-to-the-home. And, that’s not to mention the characteristics of 5G service, which obliterate any basis for maintaining our outdated approach. Nonetheless, I do appreciate that the item makes a sincere effort to discuss the substitutability issue more comprehensively than previous iterations of this report, and more evenhandedly compares mobile to fixed, rather than exclusively focusing on the shortcomings of the former compared to the latter. While I think we are still unnecessarily preoccupied with whether the two technologies are interchangeable for every potential use and function, this language at least moves the needle in the right direction. Finally, I would have preferred to include data from the satellite industry in our main report, rather than relegate it to the appendices. While I appreciate that satellite providers face capacity constraints, limited capacity is by no means unique to satellite technology. Here, again, I would have preferred to take a technology neutral approach rather than engage in a somewhat arbitrary line-drawing process. Despite the concerns I have identified, I support our overall effort and vote to approve. Federal Communications Commission FCC 20-50 51 STATEMENT OF COMMISSIONER BRENDAN CARR Re: Inquiry Concerning Deployment of Advanced Telecommunications Capability to All Americans in a Reasonable and Timely Fashion, GN Docket 19-285, 2020 Broadband Deployment Report. The momentum behind America’s 5G leadership is now unmistakable. As this report shows, we have turned the page on the failed broadband policies of the previous administration, and the private sector has responded. America’s broadband builders are now trenching conduit, pulling fiber, and installing new high-speed cell sites at an unprecedented clip. While we are far from the finish line, the significant progress we’re making in closing the digital divide is welcome news. Regulations matter. And for years, the FCC pursued partisan policies that only made it harder for the private sector to bring more broadband to more Americans. From 2014 to 2107, for instance, the deployment of high-speed mobile wireless services in rural communities stagnated.289 Our pro- deployment policies have enabled the private sector to turn that around, and new builds are once again on the rise. Internet speeds are also increasing. Since the end of 2016, the percentage of Americans with access to 250/25 Mbps has nearly doubled, from 43.6% to 85.6% at the end of 2018.290 Data from third- party monitors show that Internet speeds are up roughly 85% since year-end 2016. Internet providers have also built out more miles of high-speed fiber in 2019 than ever before—smashing prior records. The digital divide has narrowed substantially—closing by about 30% between year-end 2016 and 2018. Competition has also increased, with the percentage of Americans having more than two options for 25/3 Mbps high-speed services increasing 52% over that same time period. Results like these should put the partisan effort to seize greater government control of the Internet in the rear view window. Indeed, it is more clear than ever before that the prior FCC’s years-long effort to apply heavy-handed utility-style regulation to the Internet elevated politics over policy. It slowed down the important work needed to close the digital divide and held back competition. As the current pandemic highlights, we should all come together around policies that will encourage the accelerated buildout of high-speed networks in every community in this country. 289 Figure 2b. 290 Figure 4. Federal Communications Commission FCC 20-50 52 STATEMENT OF COMMISSIONER JESSICA ROSENWORCEL, DISSENTING Re: Inquiry Concerning Deployment of Advanced Telecommunications Capability to All Americans in a Reasonable and Timely Fashion, GN Docket 19-285, 2020 Broadband Deployment Report. This report is baffling. We are in the middle of a pandemic. So much of modern life has migrated online. As a result, it has become painfully clear there are too many people in the United States who lack access to broadband. In fact, if this crisis has revealed anything, it is the hard truth that the digital divide is very real and very big. But you’ll find no evidence acknowledging that in today’s Broadband Progress Report from the Federal Communications Commission. Instead, you’ll find a glowing assessment that all is well. According to this rosy report the nation’s broadband efforts are all good. They are proceeding in a reasonable and timely fashion and they are reaching all Americans. This is just not right. Check the headlines decrying the lack of broadband in this country. Look at Congress constantly pressing for new programs to extend the reach of internet access in the United States. See governors establishing committees and support systems to expand broadband to those who are not connected. Take note of mayors everywhere clamoring for better broadband so their communities have a fair shot at digital age success. Then look all around us. Because this crisis is exposing what has long been obvious: too many Americans across the country do not have access to broadband. In this disaster, Parking-Lot Wi-Fi has become a thing. So many people in so many cars sitting in front of shuttered libraries and coffee shops, just to pick up a free wi-fi signal. It is the only way they have to connect. Schools have shuttered and more than 50 million students have been told to head online for class. But millions of them can’t get there because they fall into the Homework Gap and lack internet access at home. It’s not just a problem in rural America, it’s a challenge in urban America too, where in cities like Detroit more than half of the students live in homes without broadband. The use of telemedicine has exploded as doctors and patients seek safe ways to deliver and secure care without the risk of viral transmission. But in rural communities this is often not possible. Changes to laws in Iowa, for instance, recently expanded telehealth in the state but also demonstrated that one in five Iowans lack the bandwidth required for video consultations. Businesses everywhere are trying to hold on in this economy. But if connectivity is limited so are revenue opportunities. With more than seven million small businesses at risk of closing during this crisis, we need to ensure they have every tool at their disposal to reach consumers safely and effectively. All of this adds up. It means this report ignores the lived experiences of so many people struggling to get access to the broadband in they need right now for work, education, healthcare, and more. On top of this, the agency’s methods for concluding that broadband deployment is reasonable are seriously flawed. For starters, the FCC concludes that there are only 18 million people in the United States without access to broadband. This number wildly understates the extent of the digital divide in this country. That’s because if a broadband provider tells the FCC that it can offer service to a single customer in a census block, the agency assumes that service is available throughout. The result is data that