[Federal Register Volume 68, Number 4 (Tuesday, January 7, 2003)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 730-740]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 03-218]


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

FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION

47 CFR Chapter 1

[WT Docket No. 02-379; FCC 02-327]


Annual Report and Analysis of Competitive Market Conditions With 
Respect to Commercial Mobile Services

AGENCY: Federal Communications Commission.

ACTION: Proposed rule; notice of inquiry.

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

SUMMARY: This document solicits data and information on the status of 
competition in the CMRS industry for our Eighth Annual Report and 
Analysis of Competitive Market Conditions with Respect to Commercial 
Mobile Services (``Eighth Report''). The Eighth Report will provide an 
assessment of the current state of competition and changes in the CMRS 
competitive environment.

DATES: Comments are due on or before January 27, 2003 and reply 
comments are due on or before February 11, 2003.

ADDRESSES: All filings must be addressed to the Commission's Secretary, 
Office of the Secretary, Federal Communications Commission. Parties 
also should send four (4) paper copies of their filings to Chelsea 
Fallon, Federal Communications Commission, Room 4-A335, 445 12th 
Street, SW., Washington, DC 20554. See ``Supplementary Information'' 
for comment and reply comment filing instructions.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Chelsea Fallon at (202) 418-7991.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: This is a summary of the Notice of Inquiry 
released on December 13, 2002. The complete text of the Notice of 
Inquiry is

[[Page 731]]

available for public inspection and copying during regular business 
hours at the FCC Reference Information Center, Portals II, 445 12th 
Street, SW., Room CY-A257, Washington, DC, 20554. The Notice of Inquiry 
may also be purchased from the Commission's duplicating contractor, 
Qualex International, Portals II, 445 12th Street, SW., Room CY-B402, 
Washington, DC, 20554, telephone 202-863-2893, facsimile 202-863-2898, 
or via e-mail [email protected].

Introduction

    1. In 1993, Congress created the statutory classification of 
Commercial Mobile Services to promote the consistent regulation of 
similar mobile radio services. At the same time, Congress established 
the promotion of competition as a fundamental goal for CMRS policy 
formation and regulation. To measure progress toward this goal, 
Congress required the Federal Communications Commission (``Commission'' 
or ``FCC'') to submit annual reports that analyze competitive 
conditions in the industry. The Notice of Inquiry solicits data and 
information on the status of competition in the CMRS industry for our 
Eighth Annual Report and Analysis of Competitive Market Conditions with 
Respect to Commercial Mobile Services (``Eighth Report''). The Eighth 
Report will provide an assessment of the current state of competition 
and changes in the competitive environment since the release of the 
Seventh Report, 17 FCC Rcd 12985 (2002).
    2. The Notice of Inquiry is part of the Commission's ongoing effort 
to improve its CMRS Reports. In February 2002, the Commission held a 
Public Forum to examine ways in which to better gather and analyze data 
for the Seventh Report, in particular data regarding the development of 
CMRS services in rural and underserved areas. As a result of the forum, 
the Commission was able to integrate new data into the Seventh Report 
and adopted a number of suggestions made by forum participants on how 
to obtain and analyze data more effectively.
    3. Commercial mobile telephone and mobile data services are 
provided by a large number of terrestrial CMRS operators as well as 
mobile satellite operators. In an effort to provide the most complete 
picture of competition to Congress, the CMRS Reports analyze CMRS 
services from a consumer point of view. Therefore, some portions of our 
analysis include offerings outside the umbrella of ``services'' 
specifically designated as CMRS by the Commission. Because providers of 
these services may, on some level, compete with CMRS providers, the 
Commission believes it is important to consider them in its analysis 
and collects information on specific product categories regardless of 
their regulatory classification.
    4. In the Notice of Inquiry, we seek information that can be used 
to examine the status of competition in the CMRS industry. We note in 
our ongoing process of improving our data gathering process that we 
have taken the step of issuing the Notice of Inquiry in an effort to 
gather more detailed, comprehensive, and independent data for this 
year's report. We request data that will allow us to evaluate the 
extent to which consumers can choose among CMRS operators, services, 
and technologies. In particular, we seek the following data and ask 
commenters to address the following general questions:
    [sbull] What is the current structure of the CMRS industry?
    [sbull] Which entities compete to provide CMRS services?
    [sbull] What have been the most significant changes or developments 
in the industry over the past year?
    [sbull] What is the extent of deployment of CMRS services?
    [sbull] What is the state of competition in the provision of CMRS 
services?
    [sbull] How does competition in the CMRS marketplace vary across 
the United States, in particular between rural and urban areas?
    [sbull] What metrics are available that will give us insight into 
the level of competition in the provision of CMRS services? We are 
interested in, but not limiting commenters to, information on service 
availability, the number of subscribers, penetration rates, usage, 
average revenue per subscriber, churn, quality of service, pricing data 
and trends, and profits.
    [sbull] To what extent do key metrics, such subscribership and 
usage levels, vary among different demographic groups?
    [sbull] How does CMRS providers' cost of capital affect service 
availability, including entry into new geographic markets, the quality 
of service, and the introduction of new services? How is the cost of 
capital related to the level of competition in the provision of CMRS 
services? Is it possible to track the cost of capital that different 
CMRS providers have faced and will continue to face over time?
    [sbull] How does competition in the CMRS industry in the United 
States compare to that in other countries? How do key CMRS industry 
performance metrics, such as subscribership, usage, pricing, quality of 
service, and service availability, vary between the United States and 
other countries?
    5. Industry members, interested parties, and members of the public 
should submit information, comments, and analyses regarding competition 
in the provision of CMRS services. Commenters that wish confidential 
treatment of their submissions should request that their submission, or 
a specific part thereof, be withheld from public inspection. In order 
to facilitate our analysis of competitive trends over time, we request 
that parties submit current data as well as data that are comparable 
over time. In addition to the comments submitted in this proceeding, 
the Eighth Report will also include information from publicly-available 
and FCC sources.

II. Matters on Which Comment Is Requested

A. Competition in the Mobile Telephone Sector

i. Introduction
    6. For purposes of the CMRS Reports, the mobile telephone sector is 
defined to include all operators that offer commercially available, 
interconnected mobile voice services. These operators provide access to 
the public switched telephone network (``PSTN'') via mobile 
communication devices employing radiowave technology to transmit calls. 
The mobile telephone sector is dominated by providers using cellular 
radiotelephone, broadband Personal Communications Service (``broadband 
PCS''), and Specialized Mobile Radio (``SMR'') licenses. Because these 
licensees offer mobile telephone services that are essentially 
interchangeable from the perspective of most consumers, they have been 
discussed in the CMRS Reports and are discussed in the Notice of 
Inquiry as a cohesive industry sector.
    7. For purposes of the Eighth Report, we seek information on 
significant trends and developments that have occurred in the mobile 
telephone sector since the publication of the Seventh Report. 
Historically, the CMRS Reports have looked at the extent of service 
availability as well as the number of consumers using mobile telephone 
services. In addition, the CMRS Reports have looked at minutes of use, 
average revenue per unit, churn levels, and pricing trends as 
indicators of competition.
ii. Service Availability
    8. The CMRS Reports include an analysis of the availability of 
commercial mobile telephone service that the Commission uses to 
evaluate competition in the U.S. mobile telephone industry. This 
analysis has

[[Page 732]]

heretofore been based on publicly available information released by 
operators, such as news releases, Securities and Exchange Commission 
(``SEC'') filings, coverage maps available on operators' web sites, and 
network buildout notifications filed with the Commission. The 
statistics presented in the CMRS Reports based on this information 
include the number of providers operating in a given geographic area, 
the percent of the population living in areas with a certain number of 
competitors, and the extent of coverage of the various network 
technologies (e.g., analog, CDMA, TDMA, GSM, and iDEN). In the Third 
and Fourth Reports, the geographic area used as the basis for these 
analyses was Basic Trading Areas (``BTAs''); however, the subsequent 
CMRS Reports have been improved and present this information on a more 
disaggregated, county-by-county basis.
    9. Previous CMRS Reports have included several notable caveats 
about our analysis of the service availability. First, to be considered 
as ``covering'' a county, an operator need only be offering any service 
in a portion of that county. Second, multiple operators shown as 
covering the same county are not necessarily providing service to the 
same portion of that county. Consequently, some of the counties 
included in this analysis may have limited coverage from a particular 
provider. Third, the figures for POPs and land area in this analysis 
include all of the POPs and every square mile in a county considered to 
have coverage. Therefore, this analysis overstates to some degree both 
the level of competition and total coverage in terms of both geographic 
area and population covered. On the other hand, while newer broadband 
PCS and SMR licensees have less complete networks that may be 
overstated in our analysis, the original cellular licensees have 
extensive networks that provide almost complete coverage of the entire 
land mass of their license areas, and hence the entire land area of the 
continental United States.
    10. We ask for comment on how to improve the methodology we use to 
determine service availability and evaluate competition. As described, 
the methodology inherently includes some undetermined degree of 
overcounting. Do commenters believe that this degree of overcounting is 
significant and materially affects the determination of mobile 
telephone service availability and competition? Is there an alternate 
methodology that could be used to determine service availability and 
competition?
    11. In order to improve the accuracy of our analysis and to reduce 
overcounting in the Eighth Report, we ask service providers to submit 
as part of their comments to the Commission, in electronic format, the 
coverage maps that they already make available to the public. 
Specifically, we request carriers submit as part of their comments the 
maps they employ to advertise their coverage areas in brochures and on 
their web sites in a geo-referenced, mapable format, such as MapInfo 
table (.tab) or Tagged Image Format (.TIF) files, on a CD sent to the 
Commission. The Commission has used the contours filed by 800 MHz 
cellular licensees to determine the availability of analog mobile 
telephone service, and therefore does not require additional maps 
showing analog coverage from cellular licensees. However, the 
Commission requests that cellular licensees submit as part of their 
comments their publicly-available maps in the aforementioned format 
showing where they offer reliable digital service. In addition to the 
coverage maps that carriers make available to the public, do carriers 
have maps with more detailed coverage information that are not 
available to the public? In the alternative, we ask carriers to please 
indicate in their comments if they do not have such maps. Would 
carriers or other parties be willing to submit such maps as part of 
their comments?
    12. Moreover, carrier provision of their publicly-available 
coverage maps in electronic, geo-referenced format with clearly-defined 
boundary lines, would enable the Commission to examine more precisely 
the smaller geographic areas underlying the coverage boundaries, such 
as zip code areas or census block groups. These small geographic areas 
could therefore allow the Commission to make more accurate estimates of 
the population and land area covered by a certain number of carriers or 
served by a digital network.
    13. In conducting our analysis of service availability and 
competition, we seek information about the extent to which consumers 
are able to, and do, purchase service plans from carriers whose 
networks do not cover their residential location or billing address. 
Carriers frequently query potential subscribers about the zip code of 
their billing address. Should this be taken as an indication that 
carriers do not provide service to consumers whose billing address zip 
codes are outside the range of the carriers' network coverage areas, 
even if such consumers wish to purchase service plans in order use 
their phones inside the coverage areas? To what extent are mobile 
telephone subscribers' residential locations or billing addresses 
located outside of their carrier's network coverage area? To what 
degree would an analysis of the population of smaller geographic areas 
that underlie carriers' network coverage boundaries undercount those 
subscribers? Furthermore, would the use of other, smaller geographic 
areas in addition to or in place of counties be appropriate in 
analyzing service availability? If so, which areas would be 
appropriate? Do data currently exist on this basis?
    14. In order to continue to improve the accuracy of our analysis, 
we seek information on whether carriers market service to new customers 
in all of the geographic areas in which they have coverage. Do carriers 
provide coverage in certain areas, such as near major roads, where they 
do not also market service to residents? If the latter is true, our 
analysis could be further improved if carriers indicated the parts of 
their coverage areas in which they compete to offer new service and the 
parts that are used only to provide coverage to traveling subscribers 
based in other locations. In addition to employing more accurate 
coverage maps, in what other ways could our analysis of service 
availability be improved?
    15. We also seek data on the relationship between competition and 
the availability of roaming for wireless customers. To what extent do 
carriers have agreements that enable their customers to use automatic 
roaming throughout the United States? Are there geographic areas in 
which some carriers do not have automatic roaming agreements? If so, 
where are those areas and is there any correlation to the number of 
wireless providers operating in those areas? Are rural customers more 
affected than non-rural customers? How many customers use manual 
roaming? Where are those customers located when they use manual 
roaming, and how frequent is their usage?
    16. Finally, we seek comment on the fact that our service 
availability analysis relies on information reported by service 
providers, including their news releases, filings with the SEC, Web 
site coverage maps, and network buildout notifications filed with the 
Commission. In addition, there are independent web sites and public 
reports that include some information about service coverage and dead 
zones. There are risks to relying exclusively on data supplied by 
parties with a financial stake in the use of such data as part of 
Commission decisions. Since we, in some cases, report on information 
supplied only by one or two sources, we

[[Page 733]]

also seek comment on ways of obtaining independent verification of 
competition information provided for the report. Which independent 
sources can be reliably used to verify carrier-supplied coverage 
information? Do commenters believe such verification is necessary in 
analyzing service availability and competition?
    17. In addition to analyzing service availability by all 
facilities-based mobile telephone carriers, previous CMRS Reports have 
discussed ``nationwide'' mobile telephone operators. Companies that 
analysts typically describe as being nationwide offer service in at 
least some part of the western, midwestern, and eastern United States. 
This label does not necessarily mean that the operator's license areas, 
service areas, or pricing plans cover the entire land area of the 
United States. The Seventh Report listed six carriers that analysts 
typically describe as nationwide mobile telephone operators, all of 
which, with their affiliates and partnerships, have licenses covering 
between 230 and 285 million people. We seek comment on whether it is 
appropriate to call these similarly situated operators ``nationwide'' 
mobile telephone operators. Is there other terminology that would 
better describe the carriers that have a relatively large number of 
licensed POPs and provide coverage in multiple large regions of the 
United States?
iii. Market Performance and Key Metrics
    18. The CMRS Reports have looked at a series of key metrics as 
indicators of the demand for and reliance on mobile telephone service. 
Examples of key metrics employed in the past include the number of 
subscribers and penetration rates, average minutes of use per 
subscriber per month (``MOUs''), average revenue per unit, and churn. 
In addition, the CMRS Reports look at the prices for mobile telephone 
services, including new developments in pricing plans; the extent of 
digital service; and wireless-wireline competition. The sources of data 
and analysis of these metrics are discussed. Are there other metrics or 
techniques that should be used to analyze competition in the mobile 
telephone sector? Are metrics available on a national and/or sub-
national level? What types of conclusions can and cannot be drawn from 
the current and recommended metrics? For example, is service quality 
related to competition? How would the Commission measure service 
quality?
(a) Subscribership
    19. One of the key metrics that provides an indication of the 
demand for mobile telephone service is the total number of subscribers. 
Prior to the Seventh Report, the Commission relied on estimated 
national subscribership data from a semi-annual survey, started in 
1985, conducted by the Cellular Telecommunications and Internet 
Association (``CTIA''). Beginning with the Seventh Report, however, the 
Commission was able to estimate the number of U.S. subscribers using 
information filed directly with the FCC. This information, the 
Numbering Report Utilization / Forecast (``NRUF'') data, tracks phone 
number usage in the United States. All mobile telephone carriers must 
report to the FCC which of their phone numbers they have assigned to 
end users, thereby permitting the Commission to make an accurate 
estimate of the total number of mobile telephone subscribers. As stated 
in the Seventh Report, the Commission used NRUF data to estimate that 
there were 128.5 million subscribers in the United States as of 
December 31, 2001. The CTIA estimate for the same time was 128.4 
million subscribers.
    20. We seek comment on the use of NRUF data to estimate the total 
number of U.S. mobile telephone subscribers. We also seek comment on 
the continued use of CTIA's estimate from its semi-annual survey. 
Furthermore, we request information from commenters on other data 
sources that are available to determine the number of U.S. mobile 
telephone subscribers and whether parties are willing to provide the 
data. In addition, we request subscribership data that would assist in 
a greater understanding of the competitive landscape, such as 
penetration rates by age cohorts or household penetration rates.
    21. The Commission also collects subscribership data as part of the 
local competition and broadband data gathering program. Mobile 
telephone carriers with more than 10,000 facility-based subscribers in 
a state are required to report their number of subscribers in those 
states twice a year to the Commission. Using this data, the Commission 
reported that mobile telephone carriers had 122.4 million U.S. 
subscribers as of December 31, 2001. For purposes of the Eighth Report, 
we seek comment on whether this data should be used to draw any 
conclusions about the mobile telephone sector, or whether it 
undercounts subscribership to such a degree that it should not be 
employed for such purposes.
    22. NRUF data is submitted to the Commission on a rate center 
basis. Rate center boundaries have in large part been determined by 
incumbent local exchange carriers for their own network management 
purposes. Because rate center boundaries are relatively small, the NRUF 
data allows the Commission to make sub-national or regional estimates 
of mobile telephone subscribership and penetration. However, there are 
a number of disadvantages associated with using NRUF data for this 
purpose. First, because CMRS carriers have wide latitude in choosing to 
which rate center to assign a phone number across a large geographic 
area, rate center boundaries are not necessarily indicative of where a 
phone number assignee, and hence a mobile telephone subscriber, lives, 
works, or uses her phone. In addition, rate center boundaries are not 
coterminous with other boundaries frequently used in mobile telephone 
analyses, such as counties, Cellular Market Areas (``CMAs''), or BTAs. 
Furthermore, in order to protect the confidentiality of the companies 
submitting NRUF data, the Commission does not report the number of 
subscribers for geographic areas in which there are three or fewer 
carriers.
    23. For purposes of the Seventh Report, the Commission chose to use 
Economic Areas (``EAs'') as the geographic unit for its sub-national 
subscribership analysis using NRUF data, in part because it minimized 
many of NRUF's drawbacks, discussed. EAs, which are defined by the 
Department of Commerce, consist of one or more economic nodes and the 
surrounding areas that are economically related to the node. One of the 
main factors in determining the economic relationship between the 
economic node(s) and the surrounding areas is commuting patterns, so 
that each EA includes, as far as possible, the place of work and the 
place of residence of its labor force. Because EAs are large enough to 
include many rate centers and because they attempt to capture both the 
rate centers in which subscribers have their numbers assigned and the 
larger area in which they use their phones, an EA-based analysis 
minimizes the pitfalls of the NRUF data while still providing useful 
sub-national penetration information.
    24. We ask for comment on how to determine which geographic area or 
areas should be used, for purposes of the Eighth Report, to calculate 
mobile telephone subscribership and penetration rates. We request 
opinions on the appropriateness of using EAs for such calculations. 
Would other geographic areas be appropriate to use in place of or in 
addition to EAs, such as states, Major Trading Areas (``MTAs''), BTAs, 
CMAs, or counties, noting the caveats of the NRUF data

[[Page 734]]

discussed? In addition, are there other ways to interpret existing 
national and sub-national subscribership data for purposes of the 
Eighth Report?
(b) Minutes of Use
    25. To analyze mobile telephone usage, the Commission has used MOUs 
as a key metric in the previous CMRS Reports. The Seventh Report 
includes MOU estimates from CTIA, Paul Kagan and Associates, and J.D. 
Power & Associates. All of these sources showed MOUs increasing 
substantially during 2001. We seek comment on the use of MOUs as an 
indicator of the demand for mobile telephone services as well as of the 
level of competition in the mobile telephone sector. For purposes of 
the Eighth Report, we ask for comment on the sources of the MOU data 
presented in the Seventh Report and request additional MOU data. In 
addition, should the Commission perform other analyses or draw 
additional conclusions from new or existing data?
    26. All of the MOU sources presented in the Seventh Report estimate 
MOUs on a national basis. In order to increase the granularity of our 
analysis for the Eighth Report, we request data on MOUs on a sub-
national basis and/or broken down by various demographic groups.
(c) Average Revenue Per Unit
    27. Average monthly revenue per subscriber, often referred to as 
average revenue per unit or ``ARPU'', is another key metric presented 
in the CMRS Reports. One source of this metric is the industry-wide 
ARPU figure reported by CTIA in its semi-annual mobile telephone 
survey. In addition, many carriers report their individual ARPU figures 
periodically in their SEC filings. We seek comment on the use of ARPU 
as a metric in our analysis of the mobile telephone industry. Is ARPU a 
useful metric when analyzing competition? Is there a link between 
changes in ARPU and changes in competition? Is additional ARPU data 
available that should be considered, in particular data depicting 
whether and how ARPU varies by region and/or demographic group? Are 
there additional analyses that can be performed or conclusions that can 
be drawn in the Eighth Report from new or existing data?
    28. CTIA reported that ARPU declined almost continuously from 1987 
to 1999, going from a peak of $98.02 in December 1988 to a low of 
$39.43 in December 1998. However, since 1999, ARPU has been increasing, 
rising to $47.37 in December 2001. The Seventh Report concluded that 
the growth in ARPU might be the result of a variety of factors, 
including increased usage offsetting per-minute price declines, as well 
as the adoption of higher-priced monthly calling plans by consumers. We 
request from commenters additional input on the possible causes for the 
recent rise in ARPU, as well as additional data that may support 
various hypotheses. What role, if any, do changes in ARPU have on 
competition?
(d) Churn
    29. Churn, a fourth key metric used in the CMRS Reports, refers to 
the number of customers an operator loses over a given period of time. 
The Seventh Report discussed churn estimates from Merrill Lynch, 
Salomon Smith Barney, and Telephia. Some of data included in these 
sources is reported by carriers, many of whom reveal their churn rates 
periodically in their SEC filings. Are there other sources of churn 
data available that should be included in the Eighth Report?
    30. We seek comment on the use of churn rates as a tool in our 
analysis of the mobile telephone industry, including to what extent 
churn rates are a reflection of competition in this industry. We ask if 
there are additional analyses that can be performed or conclusions that 
can be drawn from churn data in the Eighth Report. Do commenters 
believe the churn data we have included in previous reports is 
reliable?
    31. The Telephia data presented in the Seventh Report included 
estimates of churn for selected metropolitan areas including Chicago, 
Los Angeles, New York, San Francisco, and Washington D.C. To improve 
our analysis of the mobile telephone industry in the Eighth Report, we 
request additional sub-national or regional churn data, as well as 
churn data by demographic groups.
iv. Pricing Data and Trends
    32. The Seventh Report contained pricing data from a series of 
sources, all of which indicated that the average price of mobile 
telephone service has been decreasing over time. The Seventh Report 
cited information from the U.S. Department of Labor's Bureau of Labor 
Statistics (``BLS''), Econ One, and trends based on CTIA data. Using 
CTIA data, we calculated a national average of revenue per minute 
(``RPM'') by dividing ARPU by MOUs. We used this RPM figure as an 
estimate of the average price per minute of mobile telephone service. 
RPM has been declining every year since 1995. BLS began reporting a 
cellular telephone component of the Consumer Price Index (``CPI'') in 
December 1997 (``cellular CPI''). The cellular CPI decreased 5.5 
percent during 2001, and 32.8 percent between 1997 and 2001. The CPI, 
which includes the cellular CPI, represents approximately 87 percent of 
the U.S. population, and includes expenditure patterns of some of the 
rural populations. Do commenters believe the cellular CPI should be 
considered representative of national pricing trends? In contrast to 
our estimate of RPM and BLS's cellular CPI, which attempt to capture 
national pricing trends, Econ One analyzes pricing plans for the top 25 
U.S. cities. The firm also calculates the average price of service 
across four different monthly usage levels and derives, from that data, 
an average for all users. Econ One found that the average price of 
service (across all usage levels and 25 cities) declined 7.3 percent 
during 2001, following a 6.9 percent decline in 2000.
    33. We seek comment on the use of these various pricing estimates 
as a tool in our analysis of the mobile telephone industry, including 
to what extent price decreases are evidence of competition in the 
mobile telephone sector. We ask for feedback on the sources of the 
pricing data used in the Seventh Report and request additional national 
and sub-national pricing data for the Eighth Report. Are there 
additional analyses that can be performed or conclusions that can be 
drawn from new or existing pricing data?
    34. The CMRS Reports have also examined new types of pricing plans 
introduced during the past year in order to report on major 
developments in the industry and to assess the new plans' impact on 
competition. To what extent do new types of pricing plans both reflect 
a competitive industry and stimulate competition among providers? What 
are the major innovations that have occurred with pricing plans since 
the Seventh Report?
    35. We seek information on which carriers offer nationwide pricing 
plans, particularly those that are not typically described as being 
nationwide operators, and request descriptions of the terms of such 
plans. We ask carriers that offer nationwide pricing plans whether they 
offer the same rates and terms to consumers throughout all parts of the 
country where they offer such plans, including Alaska, Hawaii, and 
Puerto Rico. Furthermore, do carriers charge different prices--both 
monthly and per minute--or offer different terms for their local and 
regional plans across the various areas that they serve? If so, are 
these geographic variations substantial, and what are the major reasons 
for such variations?

[[Page 735]]

    36. Is pricing data available on whether certain types of pricing 
plans are associated with specific demographic cohorts or types of 
users? For example, do subscribers with lower personal or household 
incomes tend to purchase pricing plans with lower monthly fees? Are 
particular plans associated with teenagers or college students? Are 
prepaid services used by a group of consumers with similar 
characteristics? Have the introduction of new types of pricing plans 
increased mobile telephone penetration among specific demographic 
groups or in certain geographic areas?
v. Geographic Comparisons: Urban versus Rural
    37. Since the release of the Sixth Report, the Commission has 
attempted to obtain a better understanding of the state of competition 
below the national level, in particular in rural areas. To begin with, 
we ask commenters to address whether an urban/rural distinction is 
meaningful in the context of mobile telephone service, given the 
varying types of geographic areas in which consumers use their mobile 
phones and carriers offer plans.
    38. To the extent that it is meaningful to analyze mobile telephone 
service availability in rural areas, we seek comment on how best to 
determine whether competition has developed successfully in rural 
areas. We invite parties to comment on what data is available to 
address this issue and whether they believe there is meaningful 
competition among mobile telephone providers in rural areas.
    39. The primary difficulty for the Commission in examining the 
state of competition in rural areas has been the lack of sub-national 
data. Prior to the release of the Seventh Report, the Commission held a 
Public Forum to gather more insights into and data about CMRS service 
availability in rural areas. Much of the information gathered was 
anecdotal. Therefore, additional data is needed, and we seek comment 
and information on three topics related to mobile telephone service 
availability in rural areas: (i) the definition of rural, (ii) service 
availability and network deployment, and (iii) market performance and 
key metrics.
    40. Do services, pricing plans, and technologies differ between 
rural areas and urban areas? Do the providers who serve both areas 
offer the same products and prices in each type of area?
(a) Definition of Rural
    41. In order to analyze mobile telephone service availability and 
competition in rural areas, it is necessary to first define what 
geographic area(s) constitutes ``rural.'' The federal government has 
multiple ways of defining rural, reflecting the multiple purposes for 
which the definitions are used. The Commission has used Rural Service 
Areas (``RSAs'') to define ``rural'' in certain instances. In the CMRS 
spectrum cap proceeding, the Commission designated RSAs as rural areas 
and stated, ``Other market designations used by the Commission for 
CMRS, such as [EAs], combine urbanized and rural areas, while MSAs and 
RSAs are defined expressly to distinguish between rural and urban 
areas.'' Since passage of the Telecommunications Act of 1996, the 
Commission generally has used the statutory definition to determine 
which local exchange carriers can be classified as rural telephone 
companies. That definition uses a range of standards including the 
population of a jurisdiction and the number of access lines serving 
communities of various sizes.
    42. In the Seventh Report, we used three different proxy 
definitions of rural for purposes of analyzing the average number of 
competitors in rural versus non-rural counties. We compared the number 
competitors in (i) RSA counties versus MSA counties, (ii) non-nodal EA 
counties versus nodal EA counties, and (iii) counties with population 
densities below 100 persons per square mile versus those with 
population densities above 100 persons per square mile.
    43. We request comment on whether and how the Commission should 
define rural for purposes of the Eighth Report. What elements should 
the Commission consider when defining ``rural''? Should there be a 
single delineation between rural and non-rural areas, or should rural 
be defined on a continuum? For example, should the Eighth Report define 
different degrees of ``ruralness'' based on population density?
(b) Rural Service Availability
    44. As mentioned, the Commission analyzed service availability in 
rural areas in the Seventh Report using three different proxy 
definitions for rural. The analysis resulted in similar results for 
each definition. Non-rural counties had an average of 5.5 to 5.7 
service providers, while rural counties had an average of 3.1 to 3.3 
competitors. We ask whether the existence of fewer facilities-based 
providers in rural areas necessarily indicates the existence of less 
meaningful competition in these areas.
    45. When examining service availability in rural areas, should the 
Commission continue to use multiple definitions of rural for purposes 
of the Eighth Report? Were the three definitions employed in the 
Seventh Report appropriate proxies to use in assessing competition in 
rural areas? Are there other geographic definitions that should be 
employed in the Eighth Report? Is data available that would allow an 
analysis using other definitions?
    46. In addition to addressing rural issues generally, we also take 
this opportunity to focus on access to telecommunications services by 
individuals living on tribal lands. In our Report and Order 
implementing auction bidding credits for those who commit to serving 
federally-recognized tribal lands, we noted that communities on tribal 
lands have had less access to telecommunications services than any 
other segment of the U.S. population. According to the 1990 Census, 
only 53 percent of those living on tribal lands had basic telephone 
service, as opposed to 94 percent for the United States as a whole. 
Further, a 1999 study commissioned by the U.S. Department of Commerce's 
Economic Development Administration found that the average penetration 
rate for basic telephone service on reservation and trust lands in 
rural areas was just 39 percent. Therefore, it may be appropriate to 
examine closely the state of telecommunications access not only in 
rural areas, but more specifically on tribal lands.
    47. We seek comment on whether the Eighth Report should 
specifically address the state of mobile telephone competition on 
tribal lands. If so, what issues are present on tribal lands that 
warrant separate consideration from other rural areas with similar 
population levels? In examining services available on tribal lands, 
should we limit our consideration to services available to individuals 
who live within federally-recognized tribal lands, or should we also 
include other nearby areas where Native Americans may live? If so, we 
ask that commenters provide details regarding which areas should be 
included in our discussion, and provide information or information 
sources for obtaining sufficiently granular data about services in such 
areas.
(c) Rural Metrics
    48. As discussed, the CMRS Reports have looked at key metrics as 
indicators of the demand for mobile telephone service and competition 
among mobile telephone providers. These metrics include the number of 
subscribers, MOUs, ARPU, churn, and pricing data. Historically, all of 
these metrics have

[[Page 736]]

been presented on a national basis, although sub-national 
subscribership and pricing data were included in the Seventh Report. 
Furthermore, we have requested sub-national or regional data for all of 
these metrics in sections II.A.iii. and II.A.iv., supra.
    49. At this point, we request data for all of these metrics on a 
sub-national level and ask what the data show about differences between 
urban and rural areas in terms of demand and competition. Does 
information currently exist demonstrating differences in 
subscribership, MOUs, ARPU, churn, and prices in urban versus rural 
areas? If so, would commenters be willing to provide such information?
    50. Beginning with the Seventh Report, we presented subscribership 
figures on an EA basis using NRUF data. Should the Commission use NRUF 
data to determine subscribership and penetration rates in rural areas, 
however they may be defined? Would the NRUF data be able to provide 
accurate and meaningful statistics on rural subscribership given the 
limitations of the data discussed? Are there other sources of 
information that could be used to determine the number of subscribers 
and penetration rates in rural areas?
    51. The Commission knows of few studies that have been done 
comparing mobile telephone pricing in urban versus rural areas. 
However, Econ One has completed one study, which it presented at the 
Public Forum and which we included in the Seventh Report, that compared 
pricing in the 25 largest U.S. cities (with an average population of 
4.4 million) with 25 randomly-selected towns or cities (with an average 
population of 95,611) located in RSAs. For purposes of its analysis, 
Econ One considered the towns or cities located in an RSA to be rural 
areas. The company reported very similar pricing in these two groups of 
cities. However, while the mean prices for monthly service in urban and 
rural areas were similar, there was a wider range of prices in rural 
areas than in urban areas. We ask for additional information on whether 
there are meaningful pricing differences between urban and rural areas. 
To the extent that such differences exist, what are the reasons for 
such differences? Should additional analyses on the differences between 
urban and rural mobile telephone pricing be performed? What additional 
conclusions can be drawn, and what are the limitations of those 
conclusions?
    52. Finally, to what extent do nationwide carriers affect prices 
and competition in rural areas, even if such carriers do not offer 
service in those areas? Do these carriers create the same competitive 
pressures in rural areas that they do in urban areas?
vi. Wireless-Wireline Competition
    53. Mobile telephone service has been considered both a complement 
to and a substitute for wireline services. Historically, most consumers 
used their mobile phones as a mobile complement to their wireline 
phones by using their mobile handsets only when away from their homes 
or places of work. However, as noted in the Seventh Report, an 
estimated 3 to 5 percent of consumers have ``cut the cord,'' meaning 
they do not subscribe to wireline phone service. The Seventh Report 
included information about consumers who consider their mobile phones 
their primary phone but may still continue to have a wireline phone. 
Moreover, the Seventh Report noted that, due to the fact that several 
mobile telephone packages have extensive local service areas and/or 
include free long distance, many consumers now use their mobile phones 
instead of their wireline phones to make ``long distance'' calls.
    54. In order to track and analyze competition between mobile 
telephone and wireline services more effectively, we request data on 
(i) The number of mobile telephone subscribers who do not subscribe to 
residential wireline service, (ii) the percentage of consumers' total 
monthly voice communication minutes that are made from mobile phones, 
(iii) the percentage of consumers' total monthly long distance minutes 
that are made from mobile phones, (iv) the percentage of mobile 
telephone subscribers' calls and minutes that occur in their homes 
using their mobile phones, (v) the percentage of both mobile telephone 
and wireline calls and minutes that terminate on mobile phones, and 
(vi) demographic data on which groups of consumers have allocated a 
substantial portion of their voice communications to mobile telephone 
service. Should the Commission gather additional data, perform 
additional analyses, or draw new conclusions on wireless-wireline 
competition?
    55. The CMRS Reports have also discussed the effects of mobile 
telephone service on the operational and financial results of companies 
that offer wireline services. Such effects include a decrease in the 
number of residential access lines, a drop in long distance revenues, 
and a decline in payphone profits. To what extent is the increase in 
mobile telephone usage a major cause of these developments, and why? 
Given these developments, we ask for comment on the extent to which 
mobile telephone service competes with wireline service. What other 
effects has mobile telephone service had on the provision of other 
telecommunications services by other service providers? What new 
developments in wireless-wireline competition have occurred since the 
Seventh Report? What are the major reasons for these developments?
vii. Satellite Operators
    56. Satellite operators offer mobile telephone services which, from 
a consumer's point of view, have many of the same characteristics as 
terrestrial-based mobile telephone services. At least four carriers 
currently provide mobile satellite services (``MSS'') in the United 
States: Globalstar Telecommunications LTD, Iridium Satellite LLC, 
Inmarsat Limited, and Mobile Satellite Ventures. We request that these 
carriers submit as part of their comments information detailing the 
geographic areas of the United States in which they provide coverage as 
well as those areas in which they offer service to new customers. 
Taking into account such information on MSS service availability, we 
seek comment on the extent of competition among MSS providers. To what 
extent do MSS providers compete with terrestrial-based mobile telephone 
providers? Are MSS services substitutes for terrestrial-based mobile 
telephone and data services? Should MSS providers be considered an 
additional service provider in the analysis of service availability in 
the Eighth Report, or do they offer services that generally are not 
substitutes for services provided by terrestrial CMRS carriers, even 
though they fall under the legal umbrella of CMRS?
viii. Resellers
    57. Resellers offer service to consumers by purchasing airtime at 
wholesale rates from facilities-based providers and reselling it at 
retail prices. According to information provided to the Commission in 
its ongoing local competition and broadband data gathering program, the 
resale sector accounted for approximately 5 percent of all mobile 
telephone subscribers as of December 2001. To what extent are resellers 
creating competitive pressures in the mobile telephone sector? In 2002, 
WorldCom, which claimed to be the largest reseller of post-paid 
wireless service the United States, announced that was abandoning the 
resale business. Who are the remaining major resellers? How many 
subscribers do they have? From a consumer perspective, what are the 
benefits of buying from a reseller versus a facilities-based provider? 
Are resellers selling to specific demographic

[[Page 737]]

segments? The Seventh Report discusses ``mobile virtual network 
operators'' (``MVNOs'') that are a type of reseller that focuses on 
brand development, with the intent to offer a niche product and to have 
better customer retention. An example of an MVNO is Virgin Group LLC 
(``Virgin''). Virgin has an arrangement with Sprint PCS whereby Virgin 
markets prepaid mobile telephone service using Sprint PCS's network. We 
ask for comment on how this resale model has affected the provision of 
resale services. We also ask for information about companies that have 
employed the MVNO resale model since the Seventh Report.
ix. International Developments
    58. The Seventh Report compared the mobile telephone sectors in the 
United States, Western Europe, and parts of the Asia-Pacific by 
examining a number of performance measures, including penetration 
levels, subscriber growth, MOUs, and pricing. The scope of 
international comparisons in the Seventh Report and previous CMRS 
Reports has been constrained by the availability of comparable 
international data. For the purposes of the Eighth Report, we seek data 
to update and possibly expand upon these international comparisons.
    59. The international comparisons in the Seventh Report were based 
on various sources of data that were generally current as of the second 
half of 2001. We request suggestions on sources of data for updating 
international comparisons of penetration levels, subscriber growth, and 
usage for the year 2002.
    60. The Seventh Report used Organization for Economic Co-Operation 
and Development (``OECD'')/Teligen mobile service baskets and revenue 
per minute (``RPM'') estimates to compare mobile telephone pricing in 
the United States, Canada, and parts of Western Europe and the Asia-
Pacific. We request recommendations on alternative methods of comparing 
mobile telephone pricing in different countries and associated sources 
of data. We also seek suggestions on sources of data for updating the 
international comparison of RPM.
    61. We also invite suggestions on additional performance measures 
and associated data sources for comparing the U.S. mobile telephone 
sector with those in other countries.

B. Competition in the Mobile Data Sector

i. Introduction
    62. For purposes of its CMRS Reports, the Commission considers 
mobile data to be the delivery of non-voice information to a mobile 
device. Two-way mobile data services include not only the ability to 
receive non-voice information on an end-user device but the ability to 
send it from an end-user device to another mobile or landline device 
using wireless technology. The Seventh Report concluded that 
competition within the mobile data sector is developing successfully, 
as evidenced by the multitude of dynamic services, service packages, 
and pricing plans available to consumers from a variety of providers.
    63. For purposes of the Eighth Report, we seek information on the 
significant changes and developments that have occurred in the mobile 
data industry since the publication of the Seventh Report. Do 
commenters believe that competition is continuing to develop 
successfully within the mobile data sector?
    64. In analyzing competition within the mobile data industry, it is 
necessary to consider the relationship between mobile data and mobile 
telephone service. Both services are offered by many of the same 
providers using the same networks and end user devices, yet differences 
in the nature of the two services exist. Hence, to what extent are the 
mobile data and mobile telephone sectors separate, and to what extent 
are they converging?
    65. Related to this issue of convergence, the Seventh Report 
discussed the emergence of smartphone devices during 2001 and 2002 that 
combine the organization and data-centric features of personal digital 
assistants (``PDAs'') with the voice capabilities of mobile telephones. 
We seek comment on the extent to which the emergence of smartphones has 
signified a convergence between mobile data and mobile telephone 
service, and we seek data on the growth in the number of users of these 
devices. How many smartphones have been sold in the United States? What 
types of consumers purchase smartphones? What are the features and 
capabilities of the various devices? Finally, have there been any new 
developments related to smartphones since the Seventh Report?
ii. Services & Content
    66. The Seventh Report described three general categories of mobile 
data providers and their corresponding devices: (i) mobile telephone 
operators offering services primarily on mobile telephone handsets, 
(ii) providers of mobile data access to handheld PDA devices and laptop 
computers, and (iii) paging carriers offering services on pagers and 
two-way messaging devices. However, in analyzing subsectors within the 
mobile data industry, for several reasons we have found it most 
effective to segregate the industry not along the lines of devices, 
spectrum bands, or network technologies, but instead along the lines of 
the types of services available to consumers. First, the types of 
mobile data services available to consumers have become increasingly 
similar across devices. Many of the same mobile data services are 
available on mobile telephone handsets, PDAs, smartphones, and laptop 
computers. With the exception of traditional one-way pagers, most 
mobile data devices have the ability to offer some form of text 
messaging, web browsing, and e-mail access. Second, carriers use a 
variety of different spectrum bands--including broadband PCS, cellular, 
and SMR--and a variety of different network technologies--including 
CDMA, GSM, cdma2000 1xRTT (``1xRTT''), and General Packet Radio Service 
(``GPRS'')--to provide many of the same mobile data services.
    67. The types of services discussed in the Seventh Report include: 
Paging, Short Messaging Service (``SMS'') and instant messaging 
(``IM''), web browsing, e-mail and corporate server access, location-
based services, and short range data transmissions. Are there 
additional categories that should be analyzed in the Eighth Report? 
What new and innovative services are mobile data providers offering? In 
addition, we seek comment on the extent to which mobile data services 
are substitutes for or complements of one another? For example, do 
messaging services compete with e-mail services? Are web browsing 
services a complement to e-mail access? Which services are most often 
bundled together, and why?
    68. In addition to seeking data on the level of competition among 
different mobile data services, we request information on the extent to 
which mobile data services compete with data services offered through 
wireline devices. For example, have mobile e-mail services been a 
substitute for e-mail access on a personal computer offered through a 
dial-up, Digital Subscriber Line (``DSL''), or cable modem connection?
    69. Furthermore, we request data on the growth and success of the 
various mobile data services. Which services are most popular with 
consumers and have the highest adoption rates? In what

[[Page 738]]

ways do services offered over 1xRTT and GPRS networks differ from those 
offered over 2G networks?
    70. In addition to requesting comment on mobile data services 
generally and the economic relationship between these services, we also 
seek information related to specific mobile data services.
(a) Paging
    71. Traditional paging service consists of a one-way data 
communication sent to a mobile device that alerts the user when it 
arrives. The communication usually consists of a phone number for the 
user to call, but could also contain a short text message or 
information update. As discussed in the various CMRS Reports, the 
number of subscribers to traditional one-way paging services has been 
declining over the past few years. In addition, all of the major paging 
carriers have filed for bankruptcy reorganization over the past two 
years. Do commenters foresee continued demand for one-way paging 
services? If so, who are the major purchasers of one-way paging 
services? What specific advantages do one-way paging services offer for 
these consumers versus other services? How many paging subscribers also 
own a mobile telephone?
(b) Web Content
    72. As explained in the Sixth and Seventh Reports, mobile web 
browsing services allow users to access content from the World Wide Web 
on a mobile device. The web browsing services offered can vary by 
provider and by device in both the type and amount of content that 
users can receive. For example, mobile web subscribers using laptops 
may be able to connect to any web page and view graphical content, 
while users accessing the web from a mobile telephone handset may be 
able to view only a limited number of text-based web pages that have 
been redesigned for mobile devices. Furthermore, some carriers limit 
the web sites that users can access to those with which they have a 
content agreement.
    73. We invite commenters to address the extent to which users have 
a choice of which content they receive. Can users of mobile web 
services access any web site, only those have been re-designed for 
access on mobile device, or only those with whom the carrier has a 
content agreement? Approximately how many web sites have been specially 
designed for use on a mobile device?
    74. Have there been any notable technological developments in the 
past year that have facilitated a greater availability of mobile web 
browsing services?
(c) Text Messaging
    75. As mentioned in the Seventh Report, SMS provides the ability 
for users to send and receive text messages to and from mobile devices 
with maximum message length ranging from 120 to 500 characters. We seek 
data on the growth rate of SMS in the United States over the past 
several months. How many SMS messages have been sent in the United 
States over time?
    76. Furthermore, as of mid-2002, most of the major mobile telephone 
carriers had introduced the ability to exchange text messages with 
subscribers on other carriers' networks. We seek information on how 
this intercarrier interoperability has affected SMS adoption rates and 
the volume of SMS traffic.
    77. In addition to offering SMS, some carriers offer IM services. 
Instant messaging services, such as AOL Instant Messenger (``AIM'') and 
MSN Messenger, enable users to send and receive messages within a 
community of users, creating a chat-style atmosphere, whereas SMS is a 
communication between two individuals. From their mobile devices, AIM 
users are able to tell whether or not someone from their ``buddy 
list''--a list of other AIM users with whom the initial user 
communicates--is online. In addition, AIM users can communicate with 
their buddies regardless of whether they are on a desktop computer or a 
mobile telephone. AT&T Wireless, Sprint PCS, T-Mobile, and Palm have 
offered AIM to their users, while Verizon Wireless and Cingular 
Wireless have offered MSN Messenger. Unlike with SMS, open access or 
interprovider interoperability is not available with IM services; AIM 
users cannot exchange messages with users of MSN Messenger. To what 
extent have these access and interoperability issues affected demand 
for instant messaging services in the mobile data sector?
    78. As mentioned, the Commission invites comment of the extent to 
which the various mobile data services compete with each other. In 
particular, we ask to what extent text messaging and e-mail are 
substitutes for each other. In what ways do the features and 
capabilities of the two services vary?
(d) E-mail and Corporate Server Access
    79. As discussed in the Seventh Report, a variety of services are 
available to consumers that allow them to receive e-mail messages while 
mobile from an existing home- or work-based e-mail account. We seek 
information from commenters on the specific capabilities of these 
various mobile e-mail services. To what extent are features such as 
forwarding and deleting integrated with consumers' other e-mail 
accounts? Are users able to view attachments? In addition, we seek 
information on the specific capabilities of services that allow users 
to access corporate intranets or files stored on corporate servers from 
a mobile device.
    80. With regard to both types of services, we seek information on 
how much data or content a user can download, and how quickly and 
reliably. Furthermore, are these services secure? What level of 
security and/or encryption is offered by these various services?
iii. Devices
    81. Mobile data services, and in particular mobile Internet 
services, are offered on a variety of end-user devices. Which devices 
are used most for mobile Internet access? Furthermore, do any of the 
features of mobile data devices--such as battery life, data storage 
capacity, and screen size--constrain the ability of users to access 
mobile Internet services, and therefore limit the demand for such 
services? Which features on which devices might limit mobile Internet 
access the most?
iv. Subscribership
    82. In addition to seeking information on the capabilities of the 
various mobile data services discussed, we also request data on the 
number of subscribers to and users of mobile Internet services. How 
many people in the United States subscribe to or use any type mobile 
Internet service? Do most mobile Internet users also subscribe to 
mobile telephone service? How many people use the different types of 
mobile data services, including paging, SMS, IM, web browsing, e-mail, 
and corporate server access? In the Seventh Report, we used NRUF data 
to estimate the number of paging subscribers at the end of 2001. Do 
commenters agree that this is a reliable method for calculating the 
number of subscribers to that particular service?
    83. How many people subscribe to or use higher-speed mobile 
Internet services provided over 1xRTT and GPRS networks? How does 
subscribership to the various mobile data services vary by geographic 
region and among various demographic groups?
v. Service Availability
    84. In preparation for the Eighth Report, we request information on 
the availability of mobile data services offered over 2G mobile 
networks, as well as higher-speed mobile data

[[Page 739]]

services offered over 1xRTT and GPRS networks.
    85. Do carriers offer any type of mobile Internet service in any 
portion of their service areas? In what percentage of their license and 
network footprints do carriers offer mobile Internet services? Are the 
same types of services available in all areas? What percent of 
carriers' licensed and network POPs are located in the areas where 
mobile Internet services are available? Does mobile data service 
availability vary between urban and rural areas?
    86. The Seventh Report summarized the deployment of next-generation 
network technologies 1xRTT and GPRS on a county-by-county basis as of 
March 2002. For purposes of the Eighth Report, we seek information on 
the extent to which carriers have continued to upgrade their networks 
with these next-generation technologies since March 2002. In what 
portion of their license and network footprints have carriers deployed 
1xRTT or GPRS, and in what portion do they offer advanced wireless 
services using these technologies? Are the same types of advanced 
wireless services available in all areas? Does the availability of 
advanced wireless services vary between urban and rural areas? What 
percent of carriers' licensed and network POPs are located in the areas 
where 1xRTT or GPRS-based mobile data services are available? 
Furthermore, what percent of the U.S. population has access to advanced 
wireless services provided by 1xRTT and/or GPRS?
    87. Furthermore, we request comment on the actual data transfer 
speeds that most users experience with GPRS and with 1xRTT. Do the two 
technologies differ in this respect? To what degree are individual 
users' data transfer speeds depleted as more users log on to the 
network in a given area?
    88. Finally, we request information on the extent to which mobile 
data providers are upgrading or plan to upgrade their networks with 
additional next generation technologies beyond GPRS and 1xRTT, such as 
EDGE, WCDMA, and 1X-EV.
vi. Pricing
    89. In analyzing competition in the mobile data industry and the 
general evolution of this sector, we have examined the prices charged 
by providers for various mobile data services. While the analysis of 
pricing in the mobile telephone sector includes an estimate of per-
minute pricing, such an estimate is not feasible in the mobile data 
sector given the variety of services and the variety of pricing 
techniques used by carriers. Therefore, the previous CMRS Reports have 
summarized and compared, in some cases over time, the different prices 
carriers charge as well as various pricing methods they use.
    90. For the Eighth Report, we request data from providers on the 
prices they charge for the various mobile data services they offer. How 
have these prices changed over time?
    91. In addition to asking for actual pricing data, we also seek 
comment on the general trends related to mobile data pricing. To what 
extent do providers bundle mobile data services with each other and 
with voice service? Do providers offer mobile data services as add-ons 
service to voice service or as standalone services? Are mobile data 
services offered on a per-use basis or on a monthly subscription basis? 
Finally, do providers charge for mobile data services by the megabyte 
of data, by the minutes of usage, by the incremental service, and/or do 
they offer a flat rate for unlimited usage?
    92. In addition, we seek information on the degree to which mobile 
data providers, in their pricing plans and marketing efforts, 
distinguish between mobile Internet services offered over 2G networks 
and those offered over next-generation 1xRTT and GPRS networks.
    93. Are the prices of mobile data services generally the same 
across all the geographic areas in which carriers offer them? Do the 
prices vary by region, in particular between urban and rural areas? To 
the extent that they do vary by region, what are the reasons for this?
vii. WiFi
    94. Over the past year, the WLAN technology, Wireless Fidelity or 
WiFi, has begun to play an increasingly important role in the mobile 
data industry. WiFi operates in the unlicensed spectrum bands using 
primarily the 802.11 wireless technology standards and allows data 
transfer speeds of up to 11 Mbps. While WiFi is not a CMRS service per 
se, we included a discussion of it in previous CMRS Reports because of 
its potential to affect the provision of CMRS services.
    95. Users of mobile devices with WiFi capabilities or attachments 
can establish a high-speed, wireless connection to the Internet within 
a variety of settings, including restaurants, coffee shops, hotels, 
airports, convention centers, office buildings, and college campuses. 
These buildings or campuses generally connect to the Internet via a 
high-speed wireline technology such as a T-1 line, and WiFi users lose 
their high-speed wireless connections once they exit these settings. 
Given both the advantages and limitations of WiFi, do commenters 
believe that it competes with commercial, interconnected mobile data 
services? Does WiFi have the potential to compete with these services 
to a greater extent in the future?
    96. For purposes of the Eighth Report, we request data on the 
current extent of WiFi deployment and usage. How many people or what 
percent of the U.S. population subscribes to or uses WiFi services? In 
how many locations is WiFi currently available, and in which types of 
locations do most users establish WiFi connections? What data transfer 
speeds do most users experience with the various WiFi technology 
standards, including 802.11a, 802.11b, and 802.11g? In addition, what 
are the major drawbacks of WiFi access? To what degree are WiFi 
connections secure for end users? What, if any, interference problems 
are associated with WiFi access? Are voice services possible and 
available using WiFi connections?
    97. Finally, we seek information on the other uses of unlicensed 
spectrum besides WiFi. Are both voice and data services available 
through these other types of connections? What is the extent of 
deployment of these other services?

III. Fixed Voice and Data Services

    98. In addition to providing an analysis of competition in the 
commercial mobile services industry, the CMRS Reports have also 
included an appendix providing an overview of the current state of the 
fixed wireless industry. Some licensees of spectrum bands traditionally 
used for CMRS are using that spectrum to provide fixed wireless 
services. Furthermore, because most fixed wireless carriers have 
typically offered two-way, high-speed data services, the fixed wireless 
sector is discussed in greater detail in the Commission's annual report 
on the deployment of broadband services, pursuant to section 706 of the 
Telecommunications Act of 1996.
    99. With the Notice of Inquiry, the Commission seeks the data from 
commenters on the state of the fixed wireless industry to incorporate 
into the Fixed Wireless Appendix of the Eighth Report. Who are the 
major providers of fixed wireless services? Have the carriers that 
experienced financial difficulties over the past two years made 
progress towards recovery and formed new business strategies? Which 
spectrum bands are currently being used by operators to deploy fixed 
services, including the unlicensed spectrum bands? In what portion of 
the United States, measured by both population and land area, are fixed 
wireless services available? To what extent have fixed wireless 
networks been deployed in rural areas? How many fixed wireless

[[Page 740]]

systems employ unlicensed spectrum? How many businesses and households 
currently subscribe to fixed wireless services? What are the typical 
data transfer rates offered by the various fixed wireless systems? Have 
there been in any major technological innovations that have affected 
the fixed wireless industry over the past year?

IV. Procedural Matters

A. Ex Parte Presentations

    100. This is an exempt proceeding in which ex parte presentations 
are permitted (except during the Sunshine Agenda period) and need not 
be disclosed.

B. Filing of Comments and Reply Comments

    101. We invite comment on the issues and questions set forth. 
Pursuant to Sec. Sec.  1.415 and 1.419 of the Commission's rules, 47 
CFR 1.415, 1.419, interested parties may file comments on or before 
January 27, 2003, and reply comments on or before February 11, 2003. 
Comments may be filed using the Commission's Electronic Comment Filing 
System (ECFS) or by filing paper copies. See Electronic Filing of 
Documents in Rulemaking Proceedings, 63 FR 24121 (May 1, 1998).
    102. Comments filed through the ECFS can be sent as an electronic 
file via the Internet to <http://www.fcc.gov/e-file/ecfs.html. Generally, only one copy of an electronic 
submission must be filed. If multiple docket or rulemaking numbers 
appear in the caption of this proceeding, however, commenters must 
transmit one electronic copy of the comments to each docket or 
rulemaking number referenced in the caption. In completing the 
transmittal screen, commenters should include their full name, U.S. 
Postal Service mailing address, and the applicable docket or rulemaking 
number. Parties may also submit an electronic comment by Internet e-
mail. To get filing instructions for e-mail comments, commenters should 
send an email to [email protected], and should include the following words 
in the body of the message: ``get form.'' A sample form and directions 
will be sent in reply. Parties who choose to file by paper must file an 
original and four (4) copies of each filing. Parties choosing to 
submit, as part of their comments, map files in response to requests in 
paragraphs 11 through 14, paragraph 56, or paragraph 86, supra, should 
submit a CD (compact disc) containing one copy of the maps of their 
service areas, with the various distinctions described, in a format, 
either MapInfo table (.tab) or Tagged Image Format (.TIF), that will 
allow Commission staff to open and use these files in MapInfo 
Professional software, version 6.0. If you have questions about 
submitting map files, please contact Chelsea Fallon at (202) 418-7991. 
Paper filings and CDs containing map files can be sent by hand or 
messenger delivery, by commercial overnight courier, or by first-class 
or overnight U.S. Postal Service mail (although we continue to 
experience delays in receiving U.S. Postal Service mail). The 
Commission's contractor, Vistronix, Inc., will receive hand-delivered 
or messenger-delivered paper filings for the Commission's Secretary at 
236 Massachusetts Avenue, NE., Suite 110, Washington, DC 20002. The 
filing hours at this location are 8 a.m. to 7 p.m. All hand deliveries 
must be held together with rubber bands or fasteners. Any envelopes 
must be disposed of before entering the building. Commercial overnight 
mail (other than U.S. Postal Service Express Mail and Priority Mail) 
must be sent to 9300 East Hampton Drive, Capitol Heights, MD 20743. 
U.S. Postal Service first-class mail, Express Mail, and Priority Mail 
should be addressed to 445 12th Street, SW., Washington, DC 20554. All 
filings must be addressed to the Commission's Secretary, Office of the 
Secretary, Federal Communications Commission. Parties also should send 
four (4) paper copies of their filings to Chelsea Fallon, Federal 
Communications Commission, Room 4-A335, 445 12th Street, SW., 
Washington, DC 20554.

V. Ordering Clauses

    103 Accordingly, it is ordered that, pursuant to the authority 
contained in sections 4(i), 4(j), and 403 of the Communications Act of 
1934, as amended, the Notice of Inquiry is adopted.

Federal Communications Commission.
Marlene H. Dortch,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 03-218 Filed 1-6-03; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6712-01-P