[Federal Register Volume 69, Number 68 (Thursday, April 8, 2004)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 18508-18515]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 04-7531]


=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION

47 CFR Part 54

[GN Docket No. 04-54; FCC 04-55]


Deployment of Advanced Telecommunications Capability to All 
Americans in a Reasonable and Timely Fashion, and Possible Steps To 
Accelerate Such Deployment

AGENCY: Federal Communications Commission.

ACTION: Notice of Inquiry; solicitation of comments.

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

SUMMARY: In this document, the Commission seeks comment on various 
market, investment, and technological trends in order for the 
Commission to analyze and assess whether infrastructure capable of 
supporting advanced services is being made available to all Americans 
in a reasonable and timely fashion.

DATES: Comments are due on or before May 10, 2004. Reply comments are 
due on or before May 24, 2004.

ADDRESSES: Federal Communications Commission, 445 12th Street, SW., 
Washington, DC 20554. See SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION for further filing 
instructions.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Regina M. Brown, Attorney, Wireline 
Competition Bureau, Telecommunications Access Policy Division, (202) 
418-7400, TTY (202) 418-0484.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: This is a summary of the Commission's Notice 
of Inquiry, GN Docket No. 04-54, released March 17, 2004. The full text 
of this document is available for public inspection during regular 
business hours in the FCC Reference Center, Room CY-A257, 445 12th 
Street, SW., Washington, DC 20554.

I. Introduction

    1. In this Notice of Inquiry (Notice), the Commission begins its 
fourth inquiry under section 706 of the Telecommunications Act of 1996 
(the 1996 Act) into ``whether advanced telecommunications capability is 
being deployed to all Americans in a reasonable and timely fashion.'' 
We seek comment on various market, investment, and technological trends 
in order for the Commission to analyze and assess whether 
infrastructure capable of supporting advanced services is being made 
available to all Americans in a reasonable and timely fashion.
    2. In section 706, Congress directed the Commission and the states 
to encourage the deployment of advanced telecommunications capability 
to all Americans. In conjunction with this objective, Congress 
instructed this Commission to conduct regular inquiries concerning the 
availability of advanced telecommunications capability. In so doing, 
Congress recognized that the availability of infrastructure capable of 
transmitting broadband or advanced services was critical to the future 
of our nation. Advanced services already play a vital role, and will 
continue to do so throughout the 21st century, in the

[[Page 18509]]

nation's economy and the life of its people. Many U.S. companies, both 
large and small, now depend on advanced services to run various facets 
of their businesses, including tracking inventory, monitoring consumer 
relations, and forecasting product sales. Moreover, advanced services 
have created new jobs, while enabling skilled employees to work more 
effectively in their current jobs. Advanced services have also created 
greater flexibility and opportunity in the workplace, particularly in 
the increased use of telecommuting by employees who remain connected to 
their jobs despite distance and other factors.
    3. In addition to their benefits to the economy, advanced services 
have a dramatic impact on everyday citizens. Advanced services improve 
the educational opportunities of children and adults everywhere. High-
speed connections to the Internet allow children in rural areas from 
Alaska to Florida to access the same information as schoolchildren in 
urban areas. Moreover, distance learning provides more choices for 
children and adults to access educational materials of distant learning 
institutions.
    4. Telemedicine networks made possible by advanced services save 
lives and improve the standard of healthcare in sparsely-populated, 
rural areas. These services bring the skills and knowledge of 
specialized doctors and other medical professionals to people that 
would otherwise have to travel long distances to reach them. Advanced 
services also permit rural healthcare providers to utilize the latest 
medical information, which, in turn, improves the general provision of 
healthcare in areas of the country that have traditionally been 
underserved.
    5. Applications that require advanced telecommunications capability 
will continue to grow exponentially. Only a few years ago, applications 
and services that we take for granted today were unheard of by a vast 
segment of the population. These developments are expected to reduce 
the cost of communication and to spur innovation and individualization 
on a previously unthinkable scale. For example, companies are 
developing services and applications making use of Internet Protocol 
(IP), including Voice over IP (VoIP), which are delivered over 
broadband connections. This new communications environment could 
provide each consumer with a highly customized, low-cost choice of 
services delivered in the manner of his or her choosing. Therefore, 
monitoring the progress of deployment of advanced telecommunications 
platforms and determining if steps can or should be taken to further 
encourage this growth is one of the Commission's most important duties. 
We strongly encourage commenters to provide data and new ideas on how 
to conduct this and future section 706 inquiries. We also invite the 
Federal-State Joint Conference on Advanced Telecommunications Services 
(Joint Conference) to submit any information that it deems appropriate 
into this docket.

II. Issues for Inquiry

    6. At the outset, we solicit information consistent with the 
framework utilized in past reports: (i) How should we define advanced 
telecommunications capability? (ii) is advanced telecommunications 
capability being deployed to all Americans? (iii) is the current level 
of deployment reasonable and timely? and (iv) what actions, if any, can 
be taken to accelerate deployment? We intend, however, to extend our 
analysis beyond the framework of our previous 706 reports to examine 
additional questions of potential interest to policymakers. In 
particular, we seek to develop a more rigorous analysis of the 
availability of advanced telecommunications capability in different 
market segments and areas of varying densities. Moreover, we seek to 
develop a better understanding of the economic considerations that 
support the deployment of advanced telecommunications capability. We 
hope to analyze available information relating to consumer adoption and 
usage of services requiring advanced telecommunications capability. We 
also intend to examine trends in other nations and how our deployment 
of advanced telecommunications capability affects our role in a global 
economy. We welcome any additional information that commenters believe 
would further public understanding and dialogue on these critical 
issues.

A. What Is ``Advanced Telecommunications Capability''?

    7. We seek comment on how we should define ``advanced 
telecommunications capability'' for purposes of this inquiry. Since 
1999, the Commission has used the terms ``advanced telecommunications 
capability'' as ``high-speed, switched, broadband telecommunications 
capability,'' but did not specify what speed should be encompassed 
within these terms. In the past, the Commission used the terms 
``advanced telecommunications capability'' and ``advanced services'' to 
describe services and facilities with an upstream (customer-to-
provider) and downstream (provider-to-customer) transmission speed of 
more than 200 kilobits per second (kbps). The Commission also used the 
term ``high-speed'' to describe services and facilities with over 200 
kbps capability in at least one direction. Given the rapid 
technological changes in the marketplace, we seek comment on the need 
to alter the definitional framework utilized in prior inquiries. Has 
technology or the marketplace evolved such that we should redefine the 
term ``advanced services'' to be speeds higher than 200 kbps in one or 
both directions? Have consumer expectations with respect to bandwidth 
needs changed since prior reports? What sources of information 
currently exist regarding the deployment of advanced telecommunications 
capability under alternative definitions? We note that we intend to 
seek comment in a separate proceeding on whether to amend our existing 
FCC Form 477 reporting program to gather more detailed information 
about the provision of services at speeds higher than 200 kbps. Are 
there reasons other than the status of technological development that 
support modifying the definition? Are any other attributes, besides 
speed in which a particular quantity of information can be transmitted, 
relevant to the definition of advanced telecommunications capability?
    8. In a report to Congress released after our last 706 inquiry, the 
General Accounting Office (GAO) recommended that the Commission 
``should develop a strategy for periodically evaluating whether 
existing informal and experimental methods of data collection are 
providing the information needed to monitor the essential 
characteristics and trends of the Internet backbone market and the 
potential effects of the convergence of communications services.'' The 
GAO also recommended that ``if a more formal data collection program is 
deemed appropriate, [the Commission] should exercise its authority to 
establish such a program.'' We seek comment on the GAO's 
recommendations, and whether our existing methods of data collection 
relating to the Internet backbone are sufficient.

B. Is Advanced Telecommunications Capability Being Deployed to All 
Americans?

    9. We seek comment on whether advanced telecommunications 
capability is being deployed to all Americans. In particular, we seek 
comment on three general areas in order to facilitate our analysis: (1) 
The availability of advanced

[[Page 18510]]

telecommunications capability and whether it has changed since the 
Third Report, 66 FR 44636, August 24, 2001; (2) the economics 
underlying investment in advanced infrastructure and service 
deployment; and (3) various advances in advanced services technology.
    10. Availability. As previously noted, the Commission began 
gathering data about the provision of high-speed and advanced services 
to end users in 2000. Our current data collection program requires any 
facilities-based provider that has at least 250 high-speed service 
lines or wireless channels in service in a state to report basic 
information about its service offerings and customers twice yearly. 
Each filer provides data on the total number of lines or wireless 
channels by technology (i.e., service provided on coaxial cables, 
wireline telephone lines, fixed wireless, or satellite). For each 
``technology subtotal,'' providers report additional detail concerning 
the percentage of lines that are connected to residential and small 
business users, the percentage of lines that provide service at more 
than 200 kbps in both directions, and the number of lines that provide 
speeds exceeding 2 Mbps.
    11. From this data, we obtain a verifiable count of how much 
service within specified parameters is being delivered by those service 
providers that responded. Given the association between subscription 
and deployment, such data collection provides a means to assess the 
pace at which advanced telecommunications capabilities are being made 
available in different parts of the country and across different 
demographic groups. Moreover, we will shortly propose to revise our 
current FCC Form 477 to obtain more detailed understanding of the 
provision of services with greater bandwidth than 200 kbps and the 
availability of the broadband technologies that have achieved the 
greatest mass market acceptance to date, cable modems and DSL 
connections, which should facilitate future 706 inquiries.
    12. We recognize that altering our current Form 477 reporting 
framework could provide additional information that would be useful in 
analyzing the state of deployment of advanced telecommunications 
capabilities. Obtaining more detailed information about services at 
speeds higher than 200 kbps could become a valuable tool to assist us 
in future section 706 inquiries. At the same time, we encourage 
commenters in this proceeding to provide us with more detailed 
information about the provision of services today at speeds higher than 
200 kbps.
    13. We recognize that providers are not currently required to 
report the number or type of high-speed service subscribers in each zip 
code, but only to report the zip codes in which they had at least one 
high-speed service subscriber. As a result, we cannot determine from 
our data the extent to which high-speed services in a given zip code 
indicates that high-speed services are widely available, or whether 
they are restricted to certain types of customers located in limited 
areas. The zip code data depicts areas where at least one customer 
receives high-speed services in the last mile to the customer premises. 
This data provides the Commission with one tool for our analysis of 
whether advanced telecommunications capability is being made available 
to all Americans. We also note that we will shortly propose to require 
providers to indicate which technologies are being used to provide 
connections in a given zip code, which should enable more accurate 
mapping in the future of where specific technologies are in use, and we 
will seek comment on whether to require providers to indicate the 
number of subscribers in a given zip code.
    14. We now have semi-annual data about subscribership to high-speed 
and advanced services dating from December 1999 through June 2003. 
These data represent a significant time series for analysis and 
discussion. Now that the Commission has several years of data, we are 
particularly interested in analyzing the trends that have developed 
over time. These data show a continued, steady increase in both 
residential and small business high-speed lines since our last 706 
report. Cable modem and ADSL continue to be the market leading 
technologies, at present. We request comment on what conclusions we 
should draw from these data.
    15. We welcome additional data from external sources that will 
enable us to make informed judgments about whether advanced 
telecommunications capability is being made available to consumers in a 
reasonable and timely manner. We request objective, empirical data from 
companies, think tanks, governments, analysts, consumer groups, and 
others. We especially welcome data organized in ways that will enable 
us to measure investment, availability, and subscription for different 
technologies, companies, areas, and types of consumers. Additionally, 
we seek information relating to the price points and actual speeds at 
which high-speed and advanced services are being made available to 
consumers, and information relating to product tiering. We also seek 
data that would shed additional light on the extent to which consumers 
have a choice of competing providers of advanced or high-speed 
services. In addition, we seek comment on whether there are other ways 
of analyzing our existing FCC Form 477 data.
    16. Economics of Network Investment and Service Deployment. In the 
Third Report, the Commission observed that carriers continued to invest 
in the high-speed and advanced services sector in a substantial way, 
resulting in increased availability of high-speed and advanced services 
for consumers across the nation. The Commission took note, however, 
that investment trends had generally slowed and gone through a period 
of transition since the Second Report, 65 FR 11059, March 1, 2000. 
Despite these trends, the Commission concluded that investment in 
infrastructure for most high-speed and advanced services markets 
remained strong, and that the market would continue to expand and 
availability to increase.
    17. We seek comment on current investment trends and the extent to 
which they may reflect the availability of high-speed and advanced 
services. We seek comment on the relationship between the pace of 
investment, consumer demand, and general market expectations. We also 
seek comment on whether providers of high-speed and advanced services 
have access to sufficient levels of capital to fund infrastructure 
build-out and whether additional steps should be taken to accelerate 
deployment.
    18. We seek to develop a greater understanding of the economics 
underlying deployment of advanced telecommunications capability and 
services that utilize that capability. How do the economics change over 
time as certain levels of deployment and/or penetration are achieved? 
Do the economics of deploying advanced telecommunications capability 
reduce availability in some communities? What role could universal 
service play in ensuring that deployment is reasonable and timely for 
all Americans? How do providers differentiate their product among 
different consumer groups? What strategies, tactics, plans, 
organization, and operational structures do firms utilize to deliver 
technology and related services to consumers?
    19. We note that some companies offer tiered service schemes, which 
permit both entry level and more sophisticated, higher bandwidth 
services to be delivered over the same

[[Page 18511]]

infrastructure. To what extent could the availability of different 
product tiers affect penetration in today's marketplace? To what extent 
should the existence of product tiering affect our assessment of 
whether advanced telecommunications capability is being deployed on a 
reasonable and timely basis?
    20. Trends in Developing Technologies. In prior reports, the 
Commission looked closely at the various technologies currently capable 
of providing high-speed and advanced services as well as those 
technologies that are likely to emerge in the near future. In 
particular, the Third Report described in detail several ``last mile'' 
technologies of high-speed systems: (1) Cable modem service; (2) 
digital subscriber line (DSL, especially asymmetric DSL or ADSL); (3) 
other Local Exchange Carrier (LEC)-provided wireline services; (4) 
terrestrial fixed wireless service; and (5) satellite service. The 
Commission determined that competition among providers within certain 
technologies is emerging and that there is potential for several 
different technological options for providing high-speed and advanced 
services.
    21. We seek comment as to any new developments in this area. Are 
there new technologies that are now being used to provide high-speed or 
advanced services, or likely to be used in the near future, such as Wi-
Fi or Wi-Max, or broadband over power lines? If so, how widely have 
these new technologies been deployed and what percentage of customers 
utilize such services? What is the role of mobile wireless 
technologies? To what extent may some of these developments improve the 
speed and range of services offered to consumers? Are these 
technological developments likely to be particularly beneficial to 
specific groups of customers, such as rural customers or customers with 
disabilities? Have there been any other changes in the industry that 
affect the Commission's conclusions in the Third Report?
    22. We note that the Commission's Form 477 data collection program 
captures the marketplace presence of broadband services that utilize 
new and innovative technologies once consumer up-take of the services 
reaches a certain level. Our data collection does not, however, 
directly monitor the development of new technologies with likely, or 
possible, application to advanced services. Nor does our data 
collection program directly monitor the development of innovative 
applications that utilize advanced telecommunications capability. We 
therefore invite parties to bring to our attention technologies that 
might be used by current or potential providers to deliver new advanced 
services to consumers. In addition, we are interested in technologies 
that might be used directly by consumers, e.g., within the consumer's 
premises, to lower the cost or difficulty of installing or using 
advanced services. We also are interested in technologies that might 
enable new broadband applications of interest to consumers.

C. Is Deployment Reasonable and Timely?

    23. Once we have gathered information on the deployment of advanced 
telecommunications capability, section 706 requires that we determine 
whether such capability is being deployed to all Americans ``in a 
reasonable and timely fashion.'' We generally seek comment on whether 
advanced telecommunications capability is being deployed to all 
Americans in a reasonable and timely fashion and ask commenters to 
describe the empirical basis for their conclusions.
    24. In determining whether deployment is reasonable and timely, the 
Commission examined in the Second and Third Reports various aspects of 
the deployment of, and market for, advanced services. In particular, it 
examined the availability of high-speed and advanced services, focusing 
both on how it has changed since prior reports and how it was projected 
to change in the future. Second, it examined investment in the 
infrastructure to support advanced services. Third, it reviewed trends 
in the alternatives available to consumers of advanced services, 
assessing both the number of providers offering service through a 
particular technology and the different technological options available 
to consumers. We request comment on whether to modify our analytical 
framework in this inquiry, and welcome suggestions of additional or 
alternative criteria. Are there other areas of inquiry that would be 
informative for the Commission to explore?
    25. In the Third Report, the Commission specifically considered the 
availability of advanced services for several groups of consumers, 
including businesses, residential consumers, rural communities, 
elementary and secondary schools, individuals living on tribal lands, 
and persons with disabilities. Should we separately examine these 
specific categories in this inquiry? Are there other types of consumers 
or geographic areas, such as insular areas, that are likely to 
experience broadband deployment at a different pace such that we should 
also monitor the rate of deployment to those customers and areas?
    26. We specifically seek comment on the status of deployment of 
high-speed and advanced services to consumers living in rural areas. 
Our data collection shows that subscription to advanced services in 
sparsely populated zip codes has grown, and the gap in reported lines 
in service between densely and sparsely populated zip codes has shrunk. 
For example, in June 2003, 68.5% of the most sparsely populated zip 
codes had high-speed subscribers, compared to 36.8% two years earlier. 
Moreover, over the last two years, the gap between the most densely 
populated zip codes and most sparsely populated zip codes had shrunk 
from 61.3 percentage points to 30.4 percentage points, largely due to 
increases in the number of most sparsely populated zip codes with 
subscribers. What are some of the reasons for this reduction in the gap 
between the most densely populated and the most sparsely populated zip 
codes? To what extent is the gap in subscribership among more densely 
and more sparsely populated areas due to the fact that many smaller 
providers operating in rural areas may fall below the current reporting 
threshold for our Form 477 data collection program? Do consumers in 
rural areas enjoy choices among technologies and tiers of high-speed 
services comparable to those available to consumers in urban areas? Are 
high-speed services available to consumers in rural areas at rates 
comparable to those rates charged in urban areas?
    27. We note that the National Exchange Carrier Association (NECA) 
recently published a study that concluded that technological advances 
among small, mostly rural local telephone companies between 2001 and 
2003 were greater than expected. In fact, the number of NECA companies 
currently deploying DSL services increased from 557 in 2001 to 814 in 
2003. According to the NECA report, 78.95% of member companies' access 
lines now are equipped for DSL. NECA concluded that rural telephone 
companies are meeting the growing consumer demand for advanced services 
in spite of the hurdles they must overcome, including the lack of 
economies of scale that large, non-rural companies are afforded. What 
lessons can be learned from the steps taken by some NECA members to 
encourage deployment in less-developed areas? Are there steps that the 
Commission should take that would encourage further deployment in rural 
areas?

[[Page 18512]]

    28. We also seek focused comment on the deployment of advanced 
telecommunications capability to low income individuals. We note that, 
as of June 2003, 98.5% of the highest income zip codes reported high-
speed lines, and 78.3% of the lowest income zip codes reported high-
speed lines. By comparison, as of June 2001, 96.4% of the highest 
income zip codes reported high-speed lines, and 59.1% of the lowest 
income zip codes reported high-speed lines. As a result, over the last 
two years, the gap between the highest income zip codes and the lowest 
income ones shrunk from 37.3 to 20.2 percentage points, primarily due 
to increases in the number of low-income zip codes with subscribers. 
Why has the gap between the highest income zip codes and the lowest 
income zip codes decreased over the past two years? Have any specific 
developments occurred that account for these changes? To what extent 
are firms marketing lower priced tiers of services to lower income 
individuals?
    29. In addition, we seek comment on the availability of advanced 
telecommunications capability to individuals living on tribal lands and 
in the U.S. territories. In June 2003, high-speed services were 
available in 86.9% of zip codes that contain tribal territories, up 
from 71.3% in June 2001. At this time, service providers report high-
speed lines in Puerto Rico and the Virgin Islands, but no service 
providers report high-speed lines in the Pacific Insular Islands. Does 
the information from our data collection program adequately capture the 
availability of high-speed or advanced services in these areas? In 
areas where services are being made available, are they being deployed 
to all consumers, or just a limited number of consumers? What types of 
unique challenges are there to the deployment of advanced services in 
tribal areas or U.S. territories? Are these challenges similar or 
distinguishable from those encountered by consumers living in rural 
areas of the nation? What types of technology are being used to provide 
advanced services on tribal lands? What types of technology are most 
widely deployed on tribal lands and why? Are there certain types of 
technological developments that may be especially promising for future 
deployment in tribal areas or the U.S. territories?
    30. We also seek specific comment on the deployment of advanced 
telecommunications capability to elementary and secondary schools and 
classrooms. The U.S. Department of Education publishes on an annual 
basis various statistics relating to Internet access in U.S. public 
schools and classrooms. Among other things, the most recent study 
documents the steady increase in number of schools with Internet 
access, and the number of instructional classrooms with Internet 
access. For instance, in 2002, 99% of public schools had access to the 
Internet, compared to 14% in 1996. Moreover, in 2002, 92% of public 
school classrooms had access to the Internet, compared to 14% in 1996. 
In 2002, 94% of public schools reported using broadband connections for 
Internet access, compared to 80% in 2000 and 85% in 2001. Do these 
figures support a conclusion that advanced telecommunications 
capability is being deployed to elementary and secondary schools and 
classrooms on a reasonable and timely basis? Are there any other 
sources of information that would provide insight into whether the 
deployment of advanced telecommunications services to elementary and 
secondary schools and classrooms is occurring on a reasonable and 
timely basis?
    31. To what extent do persons with disabilities have access to 
advanced telecommunications? Have there been recent developments in 
adaptive technologies that improve the capacity of persons with 
disabilities to access advanced telecommunications? Does the 
availability of video relay services through the Telecommunications 
Relay Service Fund play a role in promoting demand for and access to 
high-speed services among persons with disabilities? To what extent 
does income, employment, or other factors among persons with 
disabilities influence their ability to access advanced or high-speed 
services? How should the Commission evaluate the ``availability'' of 
advanced telecommunications services for persons with disabilities, 
given the unique challenges that persons with disabilities may 
encounter in accessing advanced services? Are advanced services being 
made available to medically underserved rural communities?

D. What Actions Can Accelerate Deployment?

    32. Pursuant to the 1996 Act, ``the Commission and each State 
commission * * * shall encourage the deployment on a reasonable and 
timely basis of advanced telecommunications capability to all Americans 
* * * by utilizing * * * price cap regulation, regulatory forbearance, 
measures that promote competition in the local telecommunications 
market, or other regulating methods that remove barriers to 
infrastructure investment.'' The Third Report described several 
examples of these and other activities that the Commission, other 
governmental entities, private groups and individuals have undertaken 
to promote competition and speed the deployment of advanced services. 
These included Commission proceedings to establish a regulatory 
framework for broadband services, promote investment through increased 
opportunities for broadband competition, reform our universal service 
system, and encourage the efficient use of spectrum. We note that the 
Congressional Budget Office recently published a report that analyzed 
the development of the residential broadband market to assess whether 
structural features or regulatory obstacles impede its further rapid 
growth, and concluded that federal intervention was not warranted at 
this time. To the extent commenters advocate that we should undertake 
additional actions to encourage the deployment of advanced 
telecommunications capability, they should set forth those proposals 
with specificity.
    33. We also note that if we find that advanced telecommunications 
capability is not being deployed in a reasonable and timely manner, we 
are to ``take immediate action to accelerate deployment of such 
capability by removing barriers to infrastructure investment and 
promoting competition in the telecommunications market.'' Are there 
groups of Americans for whom the pace of deployment justifies action 
under section 706 to remove barriers to infrastructure investment or to 
promote competition? If so, what would those specific actions entail, 
and what would the costs and benefits of those actions be?
    34. In the Third Report, the Commission expressed concern about the 
difficulty some companies have faced in securing access to the rights-
of-way necessary to deploy advanced telecommunications infrastructure 
in a timely manner. Based on its commitment to ensuring that rights-of-
way issues are resolved in a fair and expeditious manner, the 
Commission announced that it intended to explore solutions through a 
dialogue with industry and state and local colleagues, in order to 
remove barriers that may hinder investment in infrastructure for 
advanced or high-speed services. On October 16, 2002, the Commission 
hosted a public Rights-of-Way Forum. The Rights-of-Way Forum focused on 
exploring the Commission's role in facilitating discussion, identifying 
model principles and practices, and developing consensus positions 
among

[[Page 18513]]

local authorities, state regulators, and the industry. We invite 
comment regarding the record developed at the Commission's Rights-of-
Way Forum.
    35. We note that several other organizations, such as the National 
Association of Regulatory Utility Commissioners (NARUC) and the 
National Telecommunications and Information Administration (NTIA) have 
also initiated discussions regarding rights-of-way issues. For example, 
during the July 2002 NARUC conference, a study committee released a 
white paper that urged the Commission to include a section in the 706 
report that discusses barriers to ``deployment of broadband networks 
associated with abusive rights-of-way practices of federal, state and 
local units of government and steps that need to be taken to abate 
those practices.'' The NARUC study committee on rights-of-way issues 
also recommended the development of a set of national broadband 
principles and put forth model rights-of-way access rules. In addition, 
the NTIA launched a States and Local Rights-of-Way Resources Website, 
which is designed to foster an exchange of ideas to improve the 
management and use of rights-of-way. Further, the Commission's 
Intergovernmental Advisory Committee, formerly known as the Local State 
Government Advisory Committee (LSGAC), provides guidance to the 
Commission on issues of importance to state, local and tribal 
governments, including public rights-of-way matters.
    36. We seek comment on the types of best practices that could help 
create reliable and reasonable expectations regarding management of the 
public rights-of-way that may help remove barriers to investment in 
advanced telecommunications services. We also seek comment on methods 
of facilitating resolution of rights-of-way disputes. Are the 
Commission's current rules effective in resolving rights-of-way 
disputes and promoting competition? We also ask commenters to discuss 
the distinction between federal and state responsibilities regarding 
the use of the public rights-of-way. We note that several states have 
adopted specific rules and regulations concerning the administration of 
the public rights-of-way. We request commenters to discuss their 
experiences in states where rights-of-way rules have been enacted. In 
addition, we seek comment on the types of practices used by 
municipalities or communities to encourage the deployment of advanced 
telecommunications capabilities. For example, we ask commenters to 
discuss efforts by municipalities or communities to provide advanced 
telecommunications capabilities to end-user customers or to aggregate 
demand to encourage private sector deployment.

E. What are Patterns of Consumer Adoption and Usage of Services 
Utilizing Advanced Telecommunications Capability?

    37. We seek information about how and why consumers, both 
individuals and businesses, adopt and use services utilizing advanced 
telecommunications capability. We seek to develop a better 
understanding of the specific applications and services that utilize 
advanced platforms. If the application or service existed prior to the 
advent of advanced infrastructure capable of transmitting information 
at higher speeds, how has it benefited by the deployment of such 
infrastructure? To what degree, if any, could these applications and 
services be improved if advanced infrastructure was more ubiquitous? 
Are there certain economies of scale that could be achieved if 
broadband was used by more individuals or businesses? Would the same be 
true if advanced telecommunications capability was deployed in more 
places?
    38. We also seek information about consumers of advanced services. 
What types of entities, e.g., businesses or individuals, purchase 
advanced services? How integral have advanced services become to these 
consumers? To what degree do businesses and individuals rely on 
advanced services to conduct business, sell products, or accomplish 
specific tasks? We also hope to examine how other individuals or 
businesses that interact with the consumers of advanced services are 
indirectly affected by the use of advanced services. For example, do 
customers of businesses that utilize advanced services enjoy lower 
prices, greater choices, or faster service? Moreover, what applications 
and services used by such individuals require access to advanced 
services themselves? We request that commenters not only discuss 
specific, current services and applications, but possible future ones 
as well.

F. Does Deployment of Advanced Telecommunications Capability in the 
United States Impact Our Role in the International Arena?

    39. The United States was recently ranked 11th worldwide in 
broadband use in a recent report by the International 
Telecommunications Union. According to another study, the number of 
broadband subscribers per inhabitant is said to be higher in South 
Korea, Canada, Japan, Iceland, Sweden, Denmark, Belgium, and the 
Netherlands than in the U.S. We ask parties to comment on the potential 
reasons for relatively high broadband penetration rates in some foreign 
nations. To the extent that these factors are different for different 
countries, we ask that parties identify specific actions (or inactions) 
taken to promote broadband deployment. It has been reported that 
several foreign governments provide direct investment in the deployment 
of advanced services. We note that the European Union is seeking 
widespread broadband access in all of its fifteen member nations by 
next year. What other factors have contributed to the higher 
utilization of advanced services in other countries? Are there lessons 
that we could learn from the experiences of other countries? Based on 
these experiences, are there actions that the Commission should take to 
accelerate the deployment of advanced telecommunications capability? 
Are higher levels of penetration in other nations indicative of broader 
availability of advanced telecommunications capability? Given that 
usage of advanced services may be more ubiquitous throughout the 
populations in a number of countries than in the United States, we wish 
to understand the factors that have contributed to this apparent 
discrepancy, including methodological or design flaws in existing 
studies that may have over- or under-estimated the extent of broadband 
use in particular countries.
    40. How does our deployment of advanced infrastructure vis-
[agrave]-vis other nations affect the ability of our citizens to 
participate in a global economy? Are domestic jobs and industries more 
likely to move to other countries where the advanced services 
deployment and/or penetration is higher? What effect, if any, do any 
trends in this area have on international trade and the U.S. economic 
position in the global economy? Commenters should not only focus on the 
present impact but also on what the effect will be for the foreseeable 
future.

III. Procedural Matters

    41. We invite comment on the issues and questions set forth in the 
Notice contained herein. Pursuant to applicable procedures set forth in 
sections 1.415 and 1.419 of the Commission's rules, interested parties 
may file comments as follows: comments are due on or before May 10, 
2004, and reply comments are due on or before May 24, 2004. All filings 
should refer to GN Docket No. 04-54. Comments may be filed using the 
Commission's Electronic Comment

[[Page 18514]]

Filing System (ECFS) or by filing paper copies. See Electronic Filing 
of Documents in Rulemaking Proceedings, 63 FR 24121, May 1, 1998.
    42. Comments filed through ECFS can be sent as an electronic file 
via the Internet to http://www.fcc.gov/e-file/ecfs.html. Generally, 
only one copy of an electronic submission must be filed. In completing 
the transmittal screen, commenters should include their full name, 
Postal Service mailing address, and the applicable docket number, which 
in this instance is GN Docket No. 04-54. Parties may also submit an 
electronic comment by Internet e-mail. To receive filing instructions 
for e-mail comments, commenters should send an e-mail to [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.
    43. Parties that choose to file by paper must file an original and 
four copies of each filing. Filings can be sent by hand or messenger 
delivery, by commercial overnight courier, or by first-class or 
overnight U.S. Postal Service mail (although we continue to experience 
delays in receiving U.S. Postal Service mail). The Commission's 
contractor, Natek, Inc., will receive hand-delivered or messenger-
delivered paper filings for the Commission's Secretary at a new 
location in downtown Washington, DC. The address is 236 Massachusetts 
Avenue, NE., Suite 110, Washington, DC 20002. The filing hours at this 
location will be 8 a.m. to 7 p.m. All hand deliveries must be held 
together with rubber bands or fasteners. Any envelopes must be disposed 
of before entering the building.
    44. Commercial overnight mail (other than U.S. Postal Service 
Express Mail and Priority Mail) must be sent to 9300 East Hampton 
Drive, Capitol Heights, MD 20743. U.S. Postal Service first-class mail, 
Express Mail, and Priority Mail should be addressed to 445 12th Street, 
SW., Washington, DC 20554. All filings must be addressed to the 
Commission's Secretary, Office of the Secretary, Federal Communications 
Commission.

------------------------------------------------------------------------
 If you are sending this type of document    It should be addressed for
    or using this delivery method * * *           delivery to * * *
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Hand-delivered or messenger-delivered       236 Massachusetts Avenue,
 paper filings for the Commission's          NE., Suite 110, Washington,
 Secretary.                                  DC 20002 (8 to 7 p.m.)
Other messenger-delivered documents,        9300 East Hampton Drive,
 including documents sent by overnight       Capitol Heights, MD 20743
 mail (other than United States Postal       (8 a.m. to 5:30 p.m.)
 Service Express Mail and Priority Mail).
United States Postal Service first-class    445 12th Street, SW.,
 mail, Express Mail, and Priority Mail.      Washington, DC 20554
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    45. Parties who choose to file by paper should also submit their 
comments on diskette. These diskettes, plus one paper copy, should be 
submitted to: Sheryl Todd, Telecommunications Access Policy Division, 
Wireline Competition Bureau, Federal Communications, at the filing 
window at 236 Massachusetts Avenue, NE., Suite 110, Washington, DC 
20002. Such a submission should be on a 3.5-inch diskette formatted in 
an IBM compatible format using Word or compatible software. The 
diskette should be accompanied by a cover letter and should be 
submitted in ``read only'' mode. The diskette should be clearly labeled 
with the commenter's name, proceeding (including the docket number, in 
this case GN Docket No. 04-54, type of pleading (comment or reply 
comment), date of submission, and the name of the electronic file on 
the diskette. The label should also include the following phrase ``Disk 
Copy--Not an Original.'' Each diskette should contain only one party's 
pleadings, preferably in a single electronic file. In addition, 
commenters must send diskette copies to the Commission's copy 
contractor, Qualex International, Portals II, 445 12th Street, SW., 
Room CYB402, Washington, DC 20554 (see alternative addresses above for 
delivery by hand or messenger).
    46. Regardless of whether parties choose to file electronically or 
by paper, parties should also file one copy of any documents filed in 
this docket with the Commission's copy contractor, Qualex 
International, Portals II, 445 12th Street SW., CY-B402, Washington, DC 
20554 (see alternative addresses above for delivery by hand or 
messenger) (telephone 202-863-2893; facsimile 202-863-2898) or via e-
mail at [email protected].
    47. The full text of this document is available for public 
inspection and copying during regular business hours at the FCC 
Reference Information Center, Portals II, 445 12th Street, SW., Room 
CY-A257, Washington, DC 20554. This document may also be purchased from 
the Commission's duplicating contractor, Qualex International, Portals 
II, 445 12th Street, SW., Room CY-B402, Washington, DC 20554, telephone 
(202) 863-2893, facsimile (202) 863-2898, or via e-mail 
[email protected].
    48. Comments and reply comments must include a short and concise 
summary of the substantive arguments raised in the pleading. Comments 
and reply comments must also comply with Sec.  1.49 and all other 
applicable sections of the Commission's rules. We direct all interested 
parties to include the name of the filing party and the date of the 
filing on each page of their comments and reply comments. All parties 
are encouraged to utilize a table of contents, regardless of the length 
of their submission. We also strongly encourage parties to track the 
organization set forth in the Notice in order to facilitate our 
internal review process.
    49. We note that there are many other proceedings now underway at 
the Commission that include issues that could affect a company's, or 
class of companies' incentive and ability to deploy advanced 
telecommunications capability. If commenters wish to refer to their 
filing in another proceeding, they must provide in their comments in 
this proceeding a complete recitation of the pertinent information and 
also attach a copy of the filing to which they refer.
    50. Subject to the provisions of 47 CFR 1.1203 concerning 
``Sunshine Period'' prohibitions, this proceeding is exempt from ex 
parte restraints and disclosure requirements, pursuant to 47 CFR 
1.1204(b)(1). Because many of the matters on which we request comment 
in this Notice may call on parties to disclose proprietary information 
such as market research and business plans, we suggest that parties 
consult 47 CFR 0.459 about the submission of confidential information.

IV. Further Information

    51. Alternative formats (computer diskette, large print, audio 
recording, and Braille) are available to persons with disabilities by 
contacting Brian Millin at (202) 418-7426 voice, (202) 418-7365 TTY, or 
[email protected]. This Notice can also be downloaded in Microsoft Word 
and ASCII formats at http://www.fcc.gov/ccb/universal_service/highcost.

V. Ordering Clause

    52. Pursuant to the authority contained in section 706 of the

[[Page 18515]]

Telecommunications Act of 1996, this Notice of Inquiry is adopted.

Federal Communications Commission.
Marlene H. Dortch,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 04-7531 Filed 4-7-04; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6712-01-P