Federal Communications Commission

FCC 10-129

Before the
Federal Communications Commission
Washington, D.C. 20554
In the Matter of
Inquiry Concerning the Deployment of Advanced
Telecommunications Capability to All Americans
in a Reasonable and Timely Fashion, and Possible
Steps to Accelerate Such Deployment Pursuant to
Section 706 of the Telecommunications Act of
1996, as Amended by the Broadband Data
Improvement Act
A National Broadband Plan for Our Future

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

GN Docket No. 09-137

GN Docket No. 09-51

SIXTH BROADBAND DEPLOYMENT REPORT
Adopted: July 16, 2010

Released: July 20, 2010

By the Commission: Chairman Genachowski and Commissioners Copps and Clyburn issuing separate
statements; Commissioners McDowell and Baker dissenting and issuing separate statements.
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Para.
I. INTRODUCTION .................................................................................................................................. 1
II. BACKGROUND .................................................................................................................................... 8
III. STATUS OF BROADBAND DEPLOYMENT..................................................................................... 9
A. Benchmarking Broadband................................................................................................................ 9
B. Evidence of Broadband Availability.............................................................................................. 16
1. Model....................................................................................................................................... 18
2. Subscribership Data................................................................................................................. 19
a. Unserved Areas................................................................................................................. 20
b. Subscription Rates Are Lower in Native Homeland Areas............................................... 25
3. Consumer Survey .................................................................................................................... 26
4. International Report................................................................................................................. 27
IV. BROADBAND IS NOT BEING DEPLOYED TO ALL AMERICANS IN A
REASONABLE AND TIMELY FASHION........................................................................................ 28
V. IMMEDIATE ACTION TO ACCELERATE DEPLOYMENT .......................................................... 29
VI. ORDERING CLAUSES....................................................................................................................... 30
APPENDIX A – Commenters
APPENDIX B – Unserved Areas by State or U.S. Territory
APPENDIX C – Unserved Areas by County or County Equivalent
APPENDIX D – Commission’s Report on High-Speed Services for Internet Access: Status as of
December 31, 2008

Federal Communications Commission
I.

FCC 10-129

INTRODUCTION

1. This is the Commission’s Sixth Report issued under section 706 of the Telecommunications
Act of 1996, as amended,1 which requires the Commission to determine annually whether broadband2 is
being deployed to all Americans in a reasonable and timely fashion.3 Our analysis of broadband
subscribership data and the broadband availability model constructed for the National Broadband Plan4
indicates that while a substantial majority of Americans have access to broadband connections capable of
“originat[ing] and receiv[ing] high-quality voice, data, graphics, and video telecommunications,”5 roughly
80 million American adults do not subscribe to broadband at home,6 and approximately 14 to 24 million
Americans remain without broadband access capable of meeting the requirements set forth in section 706.

1

47 U.S.C. § 1302(b) (2010). Section 706 of the Telecommunications Act of 1996, Pub. L. No. 104-104, § 706, 110
Stat. 56, 153 (the Act), as amended in relevant part by the Broadband Data Improvement Act, Pub. L. No. 110-385,
122 Stat. 4096 (2008) (BDIA), is now codified in Title 47, Chapter 12 of the United States Code. See 47 U.S.C.
§ 1301 et seq. We now refer to the reports required under section 706 of the Act as “broadband deployment reports”
and have updated our references to prior reports accordingly.
2

As explained below, in this report we use the term “broadband” synonymously with “advanced
telecommunications capability.” See infra para. 10.
3

47 U.S.C. § 1302(b). As a one-time event, to take advantage of the Commission’s parallel effort to understand the
state of broadband deployment when developing the National Broadband Plan, this year’s inquiry was conducted in
conjunction with the National Broadband Plan proceeding. See FCC, OMNIBUS BROADBAND INITIATIVE (OBI),
CONNECTING AMERICA: THE NATIONAL BROADBAND PLAN, GN Docket No. 09-51 (2010) (NATIONAL BROADBAND
PLAN); Inquiry Concerning the Deployment of Advanced Telecommunications Capability to All Americans in a
Reasonable and Timely Fashion, and Possible Steps to Accelerate Such Deployment Pursuant to Section 706 of the
Telecommunications Act of 1996, as Amended by the Broadband Data Improvement Act; A National Broadband
Plan for Our Future, GN Docket Nos. 09-51, 09-137, Notice of Inquiry, 24 FCC Rcd 10505, 10513, para. 14 (2009)
(Sixth Broadband Deployment NOI); A National Broadband Plan for Our Future, GN Docket No. 09-51, Notice of
Inquiry, 24 FCC Rcd 4342 (2009) (National Broadband Plan NOI), subsequent Public Notices omitted; see also 47
U.S.C. § 1305(k)(2) (“The national broadband plan required by this section shall seek to ensure that all people of the
United States have access to broadband capability . . . .”). As a consequence, much of the analysis we rely on in this
report is summarized in the National Broadband Plan and documents released in support thereof. To avoid
unnecessary duplication, some of our findings and analyses from the Plan are adopted by reference.
4

As explained below, we estimate broadband availability using two sources of data: the FCC Form 477 Part 1A
broadband data collection for December 2008 (Dec. 2008 Form 477 Broadband Data) and the National Broadband
Plan model (Model). See infra Part III.B; Apps. B & C.
5

47 U.S.C. § 1302(d)(1) (defining “advanced telecommunications capability”); see supra note 2.

6

See NATIONAL BROADBAND PLAN at 167 (relying on the 2010 Broadband Consumer Survey and stating that
“[w]hile 65% of Americans use broadband at home, the other 35% (roughly 80 million adults) do not”); JOHN
HORRIGAN, OBI, BROADBAND ADOPTION AND USE IN AMERICA 3 (OBI Working Paper Series No. 1, Feb. 2010)
(2010 BROADBAND CONSUMER SURVEY), available at http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC296442A1.pdf. We note that the 2010 Broadband Consumer Survey counted home broadband users as “those who
said they used any one of the following technologies to access the internet from home: cable modem, a DSL-enabled
phone line, fixed wireless, satellite, a mobile broadband wireless connection for your computer or cell phone, fiber
optic, [or] T-1” without reference to the download or upload speed of their connection. Id. at 3. If the broadband
speed benchmark used in this report had been used in the survey, it is likely that a larger number of Americans
would have been reported as not having broadband.

2

Federal Communications Commission

FCC 10-129

Notwithstanding tremendous efforts by industry and government, those Americans will not gain such
access in the near future absent changes in policy.7
2. Accordingly, we conclude that broadband deployment to all Americans is not reasonable and
timely. This conclusion departs from previous broadband deployment reports, which held that even
though certain groups of Americans were not receiving timely access to broadband, broadband
deployment “overall” was reasonable and timely.8
3. As a consequence of that conclusion, section 706 mandates that the Commission “take
immediate action to accelerate deployment of [advanced telecommunications] capability by removing
barriers to infrastructure investment and by promoting competition in the telecommunications market.”9
The Commission will fulfill that requirement in part by addressing the proposals for Commission action
set forth in the National Broadband Plan.10
4. In determining whether broadband is being deployed to all Americans in a reasonable and
timely fashion, this Sixth Report takes the overdue step of raising the minimum speed threshold for
broadband from services in “excess of 200 kilobits per second (kbps) in both directions”—a standard
adopted over a decade ago in the 1999 First Broadband Deployment Report.11 As anticipated in previous
broadband deployment reports, “technologies, retail offerings, and demand among consumers”—or in
other words, network capabilities, consumer applications and expectations—have evolved in ways that
demand increasing amounts of bandwidth and require us to “[raise] the minimum speed for broadband

7

See infra Part IV; see also NATIONAL BROADBAND PLAN at 136; infra note 121 (explaining that broadband revenue
potential in certain areas of the United States is likely insufficient to cover the costs of deploying and operating
broadband networks, thus depriving industry of a business case to offer broadband services in these areas).
8

See Inquiry Concerning the Deployment of Advanced Telecommunications Capability to All Americans in a
Reasonable and Timely Fashion, and Possible Steps to Accelerate Such Deployment Pursuant to Section 706 of the
Telecommunications Act of 1996, CC Docket No. 98-146, Report, 15 FCC Rcd 20913, 20918, 20995–21003, paras.
8, 217–43 (2000) (2000 Second Broadband Deployment Report) (concluding that “[o]verall, deployment of
[broadband] to residential customers is reasonable and timely” although certain categories of Americans—including
low-income consumers, those living in sparsely populated or rural areas, minority consumers, Indians, persons with
disabilities and those living in the U.S. territories—are vulnerable to not having timely access to broadband); see
also Inquiry Concerning the Deployment of Advanced Telecommunications Capability to All Americans in a
Reasonable and Timely Fashion, and Possible Steps to Accelerate Such Deployment Pursuant to Section 706 of the
Telecommunications Act of 1996, CC Docket No. 98-146, Report, 14 FCC Rcd 2398, 2405, para. 16 (1999) (1999
First Broadband Deployment Report); Inquiry Concerning the Deployment of Advanced Telecommunications
Capability to All Americans in a Reasonable and Timely Fashion, and Possible Steps to Accelerate Such
Deployment Pursuant to Section 706 of the Telecommunications Act of 1996, CC Docket No. 98-146, Report, 17
FCC Rcd 2844, 2845, para. 1 (2002) (2002 Third Broadband Deployment Report); Availability of Advanced
Telecommunications Capability in the United States, GN Docket No. 04-54, Report, 19 FCC Rcd 20540, 20547
(2004) (2004 Fourth Broadband Deployment Report); Inquiry Concerning the Deployment of Advanced
Telecommunications Capability to All Americans in a Reasonable and Timely Fashion, and Possible Steps to
Accelerate Such Deployment Pursuant to Section 706 of the Telecommunications Act of 1996, GN Docket No. 0745, Report, 23 FCC Rcd 9615, 9616, para. 1 (2008) (2008 Fifth Broadband Deployment Report).
9

47 U.S.C. § 1302(b).

10

See, e.g., NATIONAL BROADBAND PLAN at xi–xv.

11

See 1999 First Broadband Deployment Report, 14 FCC Rcd at 2406, para. 20 (stating, in relevant part, that
“broadband” and “advanced telecommunications capability” “hav[e] the capability of supporting, in both the
provider-to-consumer (downstream) and the consumer-to-provider (upstream) directions, a speed . . . in excess of
200 [kbps] in the last mile”).

3

and demand among consumers has raised the minimum speed for broadband from 200 kbps to.14 As a result. we find that the 200 kbps threshold is no longer the appropriate benchmark for measuring broadband deployment for the purpose of this broadband deployment report. graphics. with little embedded graphics or video.C. See also NATIONAL BROADBAND PLAN at 16–17 & Exh.Federal Communications Commission FCC 10-129 from 200 kbps to. 14 See NATIONAL BROADBAND PLAN at 16. 135–36.e. a common mode of broadband usage today that comports directly with section 706’s definition of advanced telecommunications capability.A (benchmarking broadband for purposes of this report). NATIONAL BROADBAND PLAN at 135 (recommending that the national broadband availability target also include “acceptable quality of service for the most common interactive applications”). BROADBAND PERFORMANCE (Technical Paper. and recent experience in network evolution. see also infra Part III.. 5. forthcoming). a certain number of megabits per second (Mbps).50.e. for example. 15 47 U. 18 47 U. from the customer) speeds of at least 1 Mbps. 16 See infra Part III. Exh.16 This target was derived from analysis of user behavior.13 most web sites feature rich graphics and many embed video. and given that this year’s inquiry was conducted in conjunction with the National Broadband Plan proceeding. voice-over-broadband or interconnected voice over Internet protocol (VoIP) was just beginning to emerge as a consumer application.S. and web pages were almost entirely text-based. see also 2000 Second Broadband Deployment Report. Today. respectively. § 1302(d)(1). for example. 25 n. this speed threshold provides an appropriate benchmark for measuring whether broadband 12 Id.” as those capabilities are delivered by today’s technology and experienced and expected by today’s broadband users. 13 Service providers reported more than 21 million U.C.”). 17 See NATIONAL BROADBAND PLAN at 21. and numerous web sites now exist primarily for the purpose of serving video content to broadband users. para. see also OBI.A. interconnected VoIP is subscribed to by over 21 million Americans. retail offerings. at 2407–08. subscriptions for interconnected VoIP service in the FCC’s Form 477 data collection for December 2008. As an alternative benchmark for this year’s report.. data. demands this usage places on the network. 2004 Fourth Broadband Deployment Report. 17 FCC Rcd at 2851.S. in 1999. and as predicted by previous broadband deployment reports.17 It is the minimum speed required to stream a high-quality —even if not high-definition—video while leaving sufficient bandwidth for basic web browsing and e-mail. 2008 Form 477 Broadband Data. 25 (“[W]e may find in future reports that evolution in technologies. para.18 As the target for the broadband capability that the National Broadband Plan recommends should be available to all Americans. See Dec. para. through 2013”). § 1302(d)(1) (defining “advanced telecommunications capability”). 3-C. making 200 kbps an arguably sufficient benchmark for broadband capability at the time. 3-B (reporting that 42% of home broadband users have downloaded or streamed video). The National Broadband Plan recommends as a national broadband availability target that every household in America have access to affordable broadband service offering actual download (i.S. services at 200 kbps are not now capable of “originat[ing] and receiv[ing] highquality voice. and video telecommunications. 4 . to the customer) speeds of at least 4 Mbps and actual upload (i. we find it appropriate and reasonable to adopt instead the minimum speed threshold of the national broadband availability target proposed in the National Broadband Plan. 10 (“recogniz[ing] that products are beginning to emerge that require high-bandwidth capability. see also NATIONAL BROADBAND PLAN at 17 (stating that “Cisco forecasts that video consumption on fixed and mobile networks will grow at over 40% and 120% per year. 15 FCC Rcd at 20921. 14 (similar).15 As a result.”12 To put 200 kbps in context. such as high-definition video” and that it may be “appropriate to adjust the points at which we gauge advanced telecommunications capability in the future”). 19 FCC Rcd at 20549. a certain number of megabits per second (Mbps). 2002 Third Broadband Deployment Report.

Letter from Jay Bennett. As a consequence of our conclusion that broadband is not being deployed to all Americans in a reasonable and timely fashion. e.24 In compliance with section 706. See id. however. 09-137 (filed July 2.22 7. We recognize that ensuring universal broadband is the great infrastructure challenge of our time and deploying broadband nationwide—particularly in the United States—is a massive undertaking. Secretary. Reynolds. to Marlene H. there are 14 million people living in seven million housing units that do not have access to terrestrial broadband infrastructure capable of meeting the National Broadband Availability Target”). FCC. Dortch. nor the Commission’s past efforts to foster broadband deployment. 8. 21 See.19 6. 09-137. e. that to ensure the realization of section 706’s goal that all Americans may benefit from the full range of services described in the statute.21 The fact remains. at 3. 2010) (USTelecom July 2 Ex Parte Letter) (similar). (filed June 14.html (last visited June 30. B & C. the Commission’s own data show that such lack of availability is due to the extremely high cost of serving those areas”). 23 47 U.C. Section 254 of the Act gives the Commission both the responsibility and the authority to ensure ‘access to advanced telecommunications and information services . to Marlene H. we emphasize that our conclusion in no way diminishes the achievements industry has made deploying better and faster forms of broadband to most Americans. AT&T June 14 Ex Parte Letter at 2 (emphasizing that “to the extent advanced telecommunications capability is not available over terrestrial networks in some limited areas. at 157 n. id.g. NATIONAL BROADBAND PLAN at xi–xv.25 The Commission explained the purpose and timing of more than sixty rulemakings and other notice-and-comment proceedings that when completed 19 See infra Part III. we will consider the proposals for Commission action set forth in the National Broadband Plan for ways to remove barriers to infrastructure investment and promote competition in telecommunications markets. The Commission issued a proposed agenda for considering key recommendations of the National Broadband Plan. GN Docket No.Federal Communications Commission FCC 10-129 deployment to all Americans is proceeding in a reasonable and timely fashion.. the evidence shows that 12 million Americans today lack access to terrestrial broadband services capable of delivering actual download speeds in excess of 768 kbps.7. FCC News Release (rel. GN Docket No. see also... . AT&T Services Inc. Attach.”23 The National Broadband Plan outlines a number of ways the Commission and others may accelerate broadband deployment. Apr. Letter from Glenn T. 22 See USTelecom July 2 Ex Parte Letter at 5 (“It is absolutely appropriate for the Commission to be concerned about the remaining small percentage of Americans who may not have access to broadband in the foreseeable future because such deployment is not currently economically viable—indeed. at xv (stating that half of the recommendations in the National Broadband Plan are offered to the Commission). 2010). FCC.20 Therefore. Secretary. § 1302(b). in all regions of the Nation. section 706 mandates that the Commission “take immediate action to accelerate deployment of [advanced telecommunications] capability by removing barriers to infrastructure investment and by promoting competition in the telecommunications market. NATIONAL BROADBAND PLAN at 136 (stating that. Apps.broadband. Even if the Commission were to use a significantly slower speed threshold to measure broadband. Dortch.’”). It is by this benchmark that we find that broadband remains unavailable to approximately 14 to 24 million Americans.B.. 24 See. see also Proposed 2010 Broadband Action Agenda Items. Vice President – Policy. USTelecom. 5 . much more remains to be done to foster broadband deployment. http://www. “[a]t present.S. 25 See FCC Announces Broadband Action Agenda. Assistant Vice President – Federal Regulatory. . e. 2010) (FCC Broadband Action Agenda).g. 2010) (AT&T June 14 Ex Parte Letter) (summarizing industry achievements in broadband deployment). 20 See id.g.gov/plan/broadbandaction-agenda.

GN Docket No. § 1302(b). Amendment of the Commission’s Rules and Policies Governing Pole Attachments. to “compile a list of geographical areas not served by any provider of advanced telecommunications capability”). § 1303(b). To optimize infrastructure. and simplify and expedite the process for service providers to attach facilities to poles” and “[i]mprove rights-of-way management for cost and time savings. A National Broadband Plan for Our Future. Section 706 requires the Commission to annually “initiate a notice of inquiry concerning the availability of advanced telecommunications capability to all Americans (including. 32 47 U. 1 (2010). rooftops and rights-of-way play an important role in the economics of broadband networks. The Commission has active proceedings to address pole attachments and rights-of-way issues.C. conduits. affordable broadband for all Americans. 31 47 U.C.” NATIONAL BROADBAND PLAN at xii.” Id.S.S.S.27 II. the statute does not require that this be done in the broadband deployment report. 2010). Implementation of Section 224 of the Act. 09-153.S. GN Docket No.S. Wireline Competition Bureau Seeks Comment on Level 3 Communications’ Petition for Declaratory Ruling that Certain Right-of-Way Rents Imposed by the New York State Thruway Authority are Preempted Under Section 253. 07-245.C. we will work to ensure that “every American has a meaningful opportunity to benefit from the broadband communications era” as envisioned by section 706. Order and Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking. WC Docket No. § 1303(c). para. in particular. For example. 07-245.Federal Communications Commission FCC 10-129 “will accelerate deployment and adoption of robust. May 20. Public Notice. RM11293.”28 In conducting this inquiry.”29 Section 706 also requires the Commission to provide “demographic information for unserved areas”30 and include an international comparison in its annual broadband deployment report. See FCC Broadband Action Agenda at 6. the Commission unveiled the results of its first consumer survey on February 23.C. § 1303(c)(2). BACKGROUND 8. See infra Part III. As discussed below. 30 47 U. 24 FCC Rcd 10998 (2009). 6 . 27 See Joint Statement on Broadband. Although the Commission must make publicly available the results of the consumer surveys it conducts at least once per year.32 If the Commission finds that broadband is not being deployed to all Americans in a reasonable and timely fashion. elementary and secondary schools and classrooms). in part. 09-51. RM-11303. Ensuring service providers can access these resources efficiently and at fair prices can drive upgrades and facilitate competitive entry.B. “[i]nfrastructure such as poles. § 1302(c) (requiring the Commission. WC Docket No. 47 U. then the Commission “shall take immediate action to accelerate deployment of such capability by removing barriers to infrastructure investment and by promoting competition in the telecommunications 26 FCC Broadband Action Agenda at 1. 22 FCC Rcd 20195 (2007). the National Broadband Plan recommends that the Commission “[e]stablish low and more uniform rental rates for access to poles. 28 47 U.”26 Through proceedings already underway and those that are still to be announced. WC Docket No. 10-66.31 The Commission must also conduct a consumer survey to evaluate “the national characteristics of the use of broadband” and make the results of the survey public at least once per year. the Commission must “determine whether advanced telecommunications capability is being deployed to all Americans in a reasonable and timely fashion. FCC 10-84 (rel. Notice of Proposed Rulemaking. 2010 BROADBAND CONSUMER SURVEY. the National Broadband Plan explains that.C.3. 2010. 29 Id. Implementation of Section 224 of the Act. 25 FCC Rcd 3420.

Report and Order and Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking. 24 FCC Rcd at 4346–48. 2009 Comments in GN Docket 09-51 at 12–13. 14 FCC Rcd at 2406. The Commission previously has recognized that 200 kbps is insufficient bandwidth to enable the transmission of live video. Time Warner Cable Comments at 4 (same). all of the Commission’s subsequent broadband deployment reports have been based on the broadband speed threshold the Commission adopted in the 1999 First Broadband Deployment Report.. 3-C. § 1302(b). National Broadband Plan NOI. 17 FCC Rcd at 2850–51. and the actions the Commission. see. in fact. 15–22. “to originate and receive high-quality voice. 9. GN Docket Nos. 09-137. See. switched. graphics. 34 See Sixth Broadband Deployment NOI.Federal Communications Commission FCC 10-129 market. 11. data. and other governmental entities have taken concerning broadband that are relevant to the present report).34 III. 24 FCC Rcd at 10505–21. paras. Improvement of Wireless Broadband Subscribership Data.C. graphics.40 Today. 1–32 (discussing the nation’s evolving broadband goals. 19 FCC Rcd at 20551.g. in effect. 09-51. 20. Section 706 defines “advanced telecommunications capability” as “high-speed. 2002 Third Broadband Deployment Report.” as section 706 requires of such services. we asked for comment on how the Commission should define broadband.S. 15 FCC Rcd at 20920.. data. Congress. § 1302(d)(1). 24 FCC Rcd at 10523–25. 39 See. para. NASUCA June 8. 2004 Fourth Broadband Deployment Report. 38 In the Sixth Broadband Deployment NOI and throughout this proceeding. After considering the evidence in the record.. para.C. Exh. 40 47 U. broadband telecommunications capability that enables users to originate and receive high-quality voice. using current technology. Comment Sought on Defining “Broadband” NBP Public Notice # 1. paras.36 At that time. 36 1999 First Broadband Deployment Report. and video telecommunications. para. Development of Nationwide Broadband Data to Evaluate Reasonable and Timely Deployment of Advanced Services to All Americans. and Development of Data on Interconnected Voice over Internet Protocol (VoIP) Subscribership. improvements in broadband data collection.S. 24 FCC Rcd 10897 (2009).S. para. 07-38. See 2000 Second Broadband Deployment Report. 10.38 we conclude that the Commission’s broadband speed threshold has not kept pace with the evolution of technology and consumer expectations. e. mean the same thing).”37 Nevertheless. Western Telecommunications Alliance Comments at 4–5. WC Docket No. 36– 41. STATUS OF BROADBAND DEPLOYMENT A. e. 9700. The Commission has used the term “high-speed” to describe services with over 200 kbps capability in at least one direction. 23 FCC Rcd 9691. “broadband”—are services and facilities with an upstream (customer-to-provider) and downstream (provider-to-customer) transmission speed of more than 200 kbps. Although we continue to treat advanced telecommunications capability and broadband as synonymous terms in this report.”33 The Sixth Broadband Deployment NOI contains a more detailed discussion of background information relevant to the present inquiry. 09-47.C. NATIONAL BROADBAND PLAN at 17.g. § 1302(d)(1). Benchmarking Broadband 9. the Commission determined that “advanced telecommunications capability” and “advanced services”—and. Public Notice. 19 (2008) (2008 Broadband Data Gathering Order) (continued…) 7 . Americans increasingly are using their broadband connections to 33 47 U.”35 Over a decade ago in the 1999 First Broadband Deployment Report. paras.g. and video telecommunications using any technology. CTIA Comments at 28 (stating that Congress apparently used “broadband” and “advanced telecommunications capability” interchangeably and that the two terms. e. the concept of broadband will evolve with it: we may consider today’s ‘broadband’ to be narrowband when tomorrow’s technologies are deployed and consumer demand for higher bandwidth appears on a large scale. See Sixth Broadband Deployment NOI. 37 See supra note 12. 35 47 U. the Commission rightly predicted “that as technologies evolve.39 we find that 200 kbps simply is not enough bandwidth to enable a user.

consumer expectations. in previous broadband deployment reports. at 3 (rel. 23 FCC Rcd 9800 (2008). 45 Id. § 9. respectively. 47 C.g. Connect America Fund. ANALYSIS & TECH. and we anticipate that this demand will only continue to grow in the future. This report also does not prejudge the outcome of possible changes to the Universal Service Fund (USF) or other Commission proceedings. Feb. FCC. 2008.. § 51. The benchmarks we (continued…) 8 . 05-337. the Commission declined to modify its understanding of broadband to account for this limitation in part because consumer demand for such services was only starting to emerge. GN Docket No.319(a)(2) (setting forth UNE obligations for hybrid loops).3 (defining interconnected VoIP service in relevant part as a service that “[r]equires a broadband connection from the user’s location”).Federal Communications Commission FCC 10-129 access high-quality video. Thus. it may be appropriate to adopt a higher threshold for advanced telecommunications capability and revisit our analysis of deployment”).47 Of the many possible service characteristics that could be used for this purpose.R. para.F. A National Broadband Plan for Our Future.5 (defining “advanced services”). HIGH-SPEED SERVICES FOR INTERNET ACCESS: STATUS AS OF DECEMBER 31. For example. 46 We emphasize that we are benchmarking broadband in this report solely for purposes of complying with our obligations under section 706.F. NATIONAL BROADBAND PLAN at 140–51.7000–1.46 we update the Commission’s broadband speed threshold. Apr.44 The growth and demand for high-quality videos by Americans is substantial. our decision to benchmark broadband by means of a 4 Mbps download and 1 Mbps upload speed threshold does not mean that the Commission will stop collecting and analyzing data on services provided at slower and faster speeds. Notice of Inquiry and Notice of Proposed Rulemaking. we (…continued from previous page) (explaining that “the range of information transfer capacities included in the current lowest tier of 200 kbps to 2. and this demand is expected to grow at over 40 percent and 120 percent per year. (stating that “Cisco forecasts that video consumption on fixed and mobile networks will grow at over 40% and 120% per year. Nevertheless. 09-51..42 Many users also now post their own videos and view others’ on such sites as YouTube and Hulu. INDUST. 2010) (Connect America Fund NOI and NPRM). respectively. D. ranging from services capable of transmitting real time video to simple always-on connections not suitable for more than basic email or web browsing activities”). 47 C. such as some video products. 10-90. we benchmark broadband as a transmission service that actually enables an end user to download content from the Internet at 4 Mbps and to upload such content at 1 Mbps over the broadband provider’s network. § 51. we find a decreased level of broadband availability. e. today’s report has no impact on which entities are classified as interconnected VoIP providers or what facilities must be provided on an unbundled basis. WC Docket No. WC Docket No.F.F. § 1. See App.g. Similarly. 47 By increasing the broadband transmission speed threshold. many Americans now communicate with their families and friends through desktop videoconference calls. 17 FCC Rcd at 2852. See. We recognize that broadband providers continue to increase the availability of services that provide lower transmission speeds.45 11.. Americans often watch videos of today’s top stories. require transmission speeds in excess of 200 kbps” and that “[a]s technology continues to evolve. See 47 C. 2002 Third Broadband Deployment Report. through 2013”).R. DIV. Order on Reconsideration. 41 NATIONAL BROADBAND PLAN at 17. through 2013. e. This is a natural consequence of consumer expectations and the bandwidth demands of technology rising faster than broadband is being deployed to all Americans. including those in excess of 200 kbps in each direction. See. 21. 12 (stating that “certain applications.R.43 Instead of reading articles online. FCC 10-58 (rel. 2010) (February 2010 High Speed Report).7002 (requiring entities to provide advanced telecommunications capability data to the Commission in accord with the FCC Form 477 instructions). and with it. 43 Id. 44 Id. See generally 47 C. Specifically.5 mbps captures a wide variety of services. We specifically do not intend this speed threshold to have any other regulatory significance under the Commission’s rules absent subsequent Commission action. High-Cost Universal Service Support.R.41 For example. 42 Id. for purposes of this report.

. NCTA Reply at 3–4. e.6 Mbps. Free Press Comments at 15 (same). fast upload rates do not appear to be as necessary as fast download rates. 52 Thus. (explaining that the broadband speed consumers experience. but see Letter from Neil M. See NATIONAL BROADBAND PLAN at 18–22. id. See. Secretary. id. 29. 50 See NATIONAL BROADBAND PLAN at 16–17.g. see also id. We may adopt a different understanding of “actual” speed in future proceedings.52 In addition.50 Indeed. we do not adopt a symmetrical broadband speed threshold.51 The availability of broadband connections that actually enable an end user to download content from the Internet at 4 Mbps and to upload such content at 1 Mbps over the broadband provider’s network is therefore a reasonable estimate of the availability of “advanced telecommunications services” as defined by the statute.pdf. Unlike prior broadband deployment reports. depending on a variety of factors. 2009 Comments in GN Docket 09-51 at 18–19 (same). The evidence shows that streaming standard definition video in near real-time consumes anywhere from 1-5 Mbps. the subscriber’s modem or other customer premise equipment (CPE)—and the service provider’s Internet gateway that is the shortest administrative distance from that NIU. at 135. 12. ADTRAN Comments at 13–14. The Commission previously has recognized. but rather by the actual speeds consumers can reasonably expect under ordinary operating conditions). Dortch. 2010). graphics. 2009). are not necessarily a requirement for fully interactive broadband service today.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-293742A1.48 First.” 2004 Fourth Broadband Deployment Report. as discussed above.. available at http://hraunfoss. truly interactive medium. Verizon Reply at 16–17. section 706 requires that broadband services enable users “to originate and receive high-quality voice.3 (stating that the median actual download speed in the United States in the first half of 2009 was approximately 3 Mbps and is expected to exceed 4 Mbps by the end of 2010). GN Docket No.S. not by the speed advertised by providers. § 1302(d)(1). Vice President and Counsel for National Cable & Telecommunications Association.Federal Communications Commission FCC 10-129 find this benchmark appropriate for several reasons. Goldberg.”).2. We continue to “believe that Congress intended [broadband] to bring to all Americans a two-way. NASUCA June 8. 51 See FCC Broadband Task Force Status Update at the FCC September Commission Meeting 23 (Sept. e. 49 47 U. We also believe the benchmark is a reasonable point at which to measure broadband availability because it has been updated to reflect current demand patterns.C.”49 Our examination of overall Internet traffic patterns reveals that consumers increasingly are using their broadband connections to view high-quality video. “given the asymmetric use of most residential subscribers. Symmetrical broadband speeds. 15 FCC Rcd at 20921. At present. FCC. 26. on average. The record shows that approximately half of all broadband consumers today purchase service that is advertised to deliver download speeds of “up to” 7 Mbps (though evidence suggests that the actual speeds of these connections may be roughly half of advertised speeds). See NATIONAL BROADBAND PLAN at 21 (“Estimates of the average advertised ‘up to’ download speed that Americans currently purchase range from 6. see also February 2010 (continued…) 9 . symmetrical capacity is rarely offered to residential customers. we expect that it is not uncommon for more than one person to make use of a single Internet connection simultaneously. however. with the most detailed data showing an average of approximately 8 Mbps and a median of approximately 7 Mbps.7 Mbps to 9. approximately half of all broadband subscribers in the United States purchase broadband service meeting our benchmark today. 09-51 (filed Mar.” we generally mean the data throughput delivered between the network interface unit (NIU)—i.fcc. particularly in multi-member households that subscribe to a single Internet access service. ADTRAN Comments at 10 (urging the Commission to assess broadband deployment and availability.e. 19 FCC Rcd at 20552. is about half of the speed to which they subscribe). 12.g.” 2000 Second Broadband Deployment Report. current trends indicate that consumers are likely (…continued from previous page) adopt in this report refer to “actual” speeds rather than advertised or “up to” speeds for essentially the same reasons as set forth in the National Broadband Plan. para.. See NATIONAL BROADBAND PLAN at 156 n. to Marlene H. and video telecommunications. When referring to the speed of a transmission “over the broadband provider’s network. at 156 n. rather than one that is passive and entertainmentoriented. 48 See. and want to be able to do so while still using basic functions such as email and web browsing. data.

at 157 n. 3-E & 3-F (presenting timelines for network upgrades by provider and technology). para. 5 (same). chart 13 (reporting distribution of residential fixed high-speed connections by download speed tier as of December 31.7. 2004 Fourth Broadband Deployment Report. See NATIONAL BROADBAND PLAN at 25 n. 10.000 feet from the nearest digital subscriber line access multiplexer (DSLAM). 2008).50 (reporting annual growth rates in subscribed speed of approximately 20–25% per year). but see DCPSC Comments at 4 (recommending we adopt the same speeds as the National Telecommunications and Information Administration (NTIA) and the Department of Agriculture’s Rural Utilities Service (RUS) of at least 768 kbps downstream and at least 200 kbps upstream to end users).S. 2009 Reply. 09-51.”56 The broadband benchmark takes estimated future demand into account. nor so minimal that consumers are consigned to rudimentary Internet access that does not support the high-quality services (including video) referenced in the statute. see also infra note 58 (illustrating that commenters recommended a very wide range of speed thresholds for measuring broadband availability). 14 FCC Rcd at 2446. 53 See NATIONAL BROADBAND PLAN at 21. at 2430–31. In particular. which suggest that demand for advertised download speeds is growing at a compound annual growth rate of approximately 20%. 54 See 1999 First Broadband Deployment Report. consumers do not have the option to subscribe to terrestrial broadband services capable of delivering even 768 kbps actual download speeds because their residence is more than 16. 09-137 at 7 (stating that the Commission should adopt a definition of 100 Mbps in both directions for individual consumers). it will become important to monitor the migration to next-generation networks and services”). see also id.g. 61 (chart showing the availability.57 We find that the speed threshold we adopt today satisfies the historic purpose of this report by establishing a practical goal: one that is neither so lofty as to be merely aspirational.4 percent of residential customers subscribed to a level of service meeting the adopted speed threshold. households. 17 FCC Rcd at 2851. in part to minimize the risk of the Commission being forced to update its broadband benchmarks on an overly frequent basis. Verizon Comments at 9 (recommending a “downstream target of 50 Mbps for fixed services and 5 Mbps for mobile services”). id. in other areas. 91. when the Commission initially adopted a broadband speed threshold for purposes of complying with section 706. 57 We base our predictions of future demand partially on trend data. 58 See. we would still find that a significant number of Americans are unserved by broadband. GN Docket Nos. while broadband providers in many urban areas currently offer Internet access service at speeds well in excess of 4 Mbps download/1 Mbps upload today.”53 In contrast. the evidence shows that (…continued from previous page) High Speed Report at 18. Covad Comments at i (suggesting 100 Mbps by 2015). Internet2 Sept. 55 For example.54 13.. para. Naturally. which translates to a doubling in speed approximately every 2 to 4 years. For example. 10 . 56 2002 Third Broadband Deployment Report. 09-47. it estimated that only 0. Exhs. the record shows that “the average advertised speed purchased by broadband users has grown approximately 20% each year for the last decade.55 Our present goal in selecting a benchmark to measure broadband availability is one shared with prior Commissions: to “giv[e] us a relatively static point at which to gauge the progress and growth in the advanced services market from one Report to the next. download speed and partial cost of various Internet access technologies at the time the Commission’s initial broadband speed threshold was adopted). 19 FCC Rcd at 20552 (stating that “[n]ow that first-generation broadband is available to the vast majority of U. e. any benchmark the Commission might adopt to measure broadband availability could be criticized as being too low in some contexts and too high in others.Federal Communications Commission FCC 10-129 to continue purchasing increasingly fast broadband connections in the future. NCTA Comments at 3. See NATIONAL BROADBAND PLAN at 20–21. TCA Comments at 3 (same). even if the Commission were to use a significantly slower speed threshold to measure broadband.58 In any event. 8. para.

graphics and video capabilities. we find it appropriate for the purposes of this report to benchmark broadband as a transmission service that actually enables an end user to download content from the Internet at 4 Mbps and to upload such content at 1 Mbps over the broadband provider’s network. As explained above. the broadband subscribership data the Commission collects on FCC Form 477. see also id.C § 1302(d)(1). 129.61 Furthermore. Finally.59 14. 1. THE BROADBAND AVAILABILITY GAP (Technical Paper No. at 135. 14 FCC Rcd at 2407–08. See supra note 46. 2008 Form 477 Broadband Data. 60 Id. but as we expect them to evolve in the next several years. NATIONAL BROADBAND PLAN at 16–17. The Commission’s broadband speed threshold benchmarks are not static. See id.S. 2010) (2010 BROADBAND AVAILABILITY GAP). the selection of a speed threshold focused on end user demand for high-quality voice. perhaps including higher upload and download speeds. C. a symmetrical broadband connection.60 The analysis that underlies the selection of the national broadband availability target is equally applicable to our obligation to select an appropriate benchmark for determining whether broadband is being deployed in a reasonable and timely fashion.64 For the reasons described above. or the ability to stream high-definition video. service that meets specific functional criteria such as particular latency or jitter thresholds. NATIONAL BROADBAND PLAN at 20. Our specific estimates of broadband availability are based primarily on two sources of data: the Model that Commission staff created in conjunction with the development of the National Broadband Plan and. 334. In both cases. B & C.Federal Communications Commission FCC 10-129 12 million Americans today lack access to terrestrial broadband services capable of delivering actual download speeds in excess of 768 kbps. Naturally.7. 62 See NATIONAL BROADBAND PLAN at xv. attached to Connect America Fund NOI and NPRM at App.65 For the first 59 See NATIONAL BROADBAND PLAN at 157 n. not just as those services are used or experienced by current subscribers. 15. data. Evidence of Broadband Availability 16. 25. which recommends that the Commission publish an evaluation of plan progress and effectiveness as part of the annual broadband inquiry. the benchmark we have selected will allow the Commission to more easily measure progress towards accomplishment of the goals set forth in the National Broadband Plan. This year’s broadband deployment report is based on more comprehensive broadband data than any of the Commission’s prior reports. See NATIONAL BROADBAND PLAN at 135. 64 For example. 63 1999 First Broadband Deployment Report. and we expect that in the future consumers will demand other service features. the concept of broadband will evolve with it. Apps.”63 Thus. 136. Dec. We recognize that “as technologies evolve. 61 See 47 U. B. this report adopts benchmarks for broadband solely for the purposes of complying with the Commission’s obligations under section 706 and does not prejudge any issues related to possible changes to USF funding mechanisms or other support. the benchmark we have selected mirrors the speed threshold the National Broadband Plan recommends as an initial national broadband availability target.62 Maintaining consistency with the National Broadband Plan will avoid the confusion that likely would result from the introduction of an additional speed threshold into the nationwide discussion of the National Broadband Plan. at 157 n. consistent with previous broadband deployment reports. The National Broadband Plan also recommends that the actual 4 Mbps download and 1 Mbps upload benchmark be used as a guide to public funding for broadband. however. the National Broadband Plan recommends revisiting the National Broadband Availability Target every four years. OBI.6. para. our (continued…) 11 . we will continue to monitor available technology and consumer expectations and modify our broadband benchmarks accordingly. 65 See supra note 4.

S.”70 In addition. Meanwhile. para. In 2008. 24 FCC Rcd at 4364– 65. Congress. 23 FCC Rcd at 9708– 12. 66 The Commission was unable to conduct this type of analysis in prior broadband deployment reports because the data it previously collected were not sufficiently granular to allow a meaningful analysis of Census Bureau categories. See infra note 105. see also 47 U. which will be released shortly. we have conducted an international comparison of the extent of broadband service capability. 61. see also 47 U. Comprehensive broadband data are essential to determining whether broadband is being deployed to all Americans in a reasonable and timely fashion. February 2011 is the deadline for the NTIA to post on its web site “a comprehensive nationwide inventory map of existing broadband service capability and availability. or infrastructure data.S. 67 47 U. In addition. 2010 BROADBAND CONSUMER SURVEY. § 1305(l). 69 See Sixth Broadband Deployment NOI. For example. 7 (relying on subscribership data as a proxy for deployment and availability. 1999 First Broadband Deployment Report.68 17. the National Broadband Plan recommends that the Commission collect and analyze detailed market-by-market information on broadband pricing and competition. paras. and other federal agencies all have taken steps to improve broadband data collection efforts. see also 47 U.C.Federal Communications Commission FCC 10-129 time.C. 68 See International Comparison Requirements Pursuant to the Broadband Data Improvement Act. International Broadband Data Report. paras.S.S. (forthcoming) (International Broadband Data Report). 47 U. see also February 2010 High Speed Report at 4–5.and under-inclusive. 33–40. § 1302(c) (directing the Commission to determine “the population. shows where broadband is available. 09-47. but see CPUC Reply at 4 (recommending against the use of subscribership data because “[a]vailability data. We will continue striving to improve the quality of the data we collect and our analysis. For example. See 2008 Broadband Data Gathering Order. We therefore caution that. 24 FCC Rcd at 10513–21.C. AT&T Comments at 34–35 (supporting the use of Form 477 data because it is “the Commission’s primary and most reliable source of subscribership statistics”). 71 NATIONAL BROADBAND PLAN at 43–44.71 We therefore expect that future broadband deployment reports will benefit from the (…continued from previous page) methods are limited by the available data and are therefore imperfect. § 1303(c)(1).S. See. 15–32. the full range of new broadband data are not yet available. 24 FCC Rcd at 10526–27.69 Because these efforts are on-going. such as income level and population density. § 1303(b). the lists of unserved areas compiled in this report necessarily are approximations and may be both over. we also used Census Bureau data to help us understand how broadband availability varies by particular demographics. (g). Sixth Broadband Deployment NOI. due to the limitations of the data. § 1304(e)(10).C. See February 2010 High Speed Report at 2–3 (describing significant changes the Commission made in 2008 in the broadband subscribership data it collects and the implications of this change).. the Commission. the Commission improved the quality of the data it collects on Form 477 and issued a Further Notice to consider additional improvements in its broadband data collection.”). National Broadband Plan NOI.S. nn.66 To gain further insight into the “national characteristics of the use of broadband service capability. 70 47 U. para.g. NTIA must make this inventory map accessible to the public on an NTIA website in a form that is both interactive and searchable. GN Docket No. and noting that such data “may not be a precise estimate of actual deployment and availability”). 12 . subscriber data are an imperfect proxy for broadband availability or deployment.” the Commission conducted a consumer survey. § 1305(l). para.C.C. subscribership data denotes where consumers are choosing to purchase broadband service. 45. the only demographic information we collect in our subscription data is the Census Tract in which the subscriber receives service. See infra Part III.67 Finally. and the average per capita income” for unserved areas to the extent that Census Bureau data are available). the population density.16 & 17 (explaining that mobile wireless connections are only reported at the state level and some business connections could be miscategorized as residential connections). e.3. 14 FCC Rcd at 2402.B.

e. Subscribership Data 19.66. CC Docket No. we also estimate broadband availability by analyzing the residential broadband subscribership data the Commission collects on Form 477. See NATIONAL BROADBAND PLAN.Federal Communications Commission FCC 10-129 continued progress being made to better understand broadband availability. at 5 n. although the Commission’s subscribership data are collected by Census Tract. which in turn should help the nation reach its goal of universal broadband deployment.17 (explaining that the data as filed disclose 10% of Census Tracts have a share of households with high-speed connections over fixed-location technologies at or above 100% and that the number of such “outliers” is substantially reduced. 20 n. cannot get residential broadband service that meets the benchmark adopted in this report. 47 U.g. Local Competition and Broadband Reporting. Commission staff developed a nationwide model for broadband availability for both wired and wireless technologies. the proportion of these subscribers that are residential subscribers. and the number of subscribers broken down by speed tier (i. at 157 n. 19 FCC Rcd at 20567. Subscribership data from Form 477 also were analyzed for purposes of better understanding competition among broadband providers in conjunction with the development of the National Broadband Plan. 9. 17 FCC Rcd at 2850.75 Every six months. we highlight several key features of our analysis.76 Our analysis of the Commission’s subscribership data confirms the overall levels of broadband availability indicated by the Model. para. 7743–46. Form 477 required covered providers to report the number of broadband connections they provide in each state as well as the 5-digit ZIP codes for which they had at least one customer. The analysis above was based on the data collected under the modified Form 477 requirements. the bandwidth of the Internet access connection provided to that customer) and technology. paras. by Census Tract. living in 7 million housing units. see also. we have aggregated providers’ residential subscribership totals for the whole county (or county equivalent) due to questions about the accuracy of the most recent data collected at the Census Tract level on Form 477. 74 Id. Form 477 requires a provider to report. para. 2002 Third Broadband Deployment Report.77 a. Model 18. when estimates are made for individual counties and that “[s]ome misinterpretation of reporting instructions can be expected whenever a substantially modified data collection is implemented for the first time. Because that competition analysis did not focus on broadband availability. the total number of subscribers. 23 FCC Rcd at 9618. CHAPTER 4: BROADBAND COMPETITION AND INNOVATION POLICY at 33–61.. First. NATIONAL BROADBAND PLAN at 20. 2008 Form 477 Broadband Data. we do not rely on it in this report. see also id. 2004 Fourth Broadband Deployment Report. 23 FCC Rcd at 9700–01. As part of the development of the National Broadband Plan.g. 6.72 1. to 1%. We are investigating the reasons for these (continued…) 13 . 2010 BROADBAND AVAILABILITY GAP at 17. Formerly. 75 See Dec.6. e. § 1301(3) (stating that “[i]mproving Federal data on the deployment and adoption of broadband service will assist in the development of broadband technology across all regions of the Nation”). 2008 Fifth Broadband Deployment Report. Report and Order.S. 49–52 (2000).e. 136. 76 See 2008 Broadband Data Gathering Order. 78 See February 2010 High Speed Report at 4–5 (stating that “for reasons of accuracy and confidentiality” certain results are presented at the level of the whole county). 73 See supra note 4. 15 FCC Rcd 7717..74 2. the Commission collects on Form 477 basic service information from broadband providers. Before presenting our estimates.78 We 72 See. Consistent with previous broadband deployment reports.73 The output of that model shows that approximately 14 million Americans. 99-301. see also id. Unserved Areas 20. 77 Compare supra note 73 (Model) with infra note 89 (Form 477 subscribership data). 129.C.. para.

See also February 2010 High Speed Report at 5 n. because the speed tiers used to collect broadband information on Form 477 do not match exactly the broadband benchmark adopted for purposes of this report.Federal Communications Commission FCC 10-129 emphasize this decision is driven by the data and does not represent a Commission conclusion that counties necessarily always are the best way to determine the “geographical areas that are not served” by broadband under section 706. 09-137. the tiers closest to the benchmark adopted in this report are those beginning at 3 Mbps or 6 Mbps download speed and 768 kbps or 1. 84 For each area we examine. See App. we recognize that not (…continued from previous page) anomalous census tract results and are working with the Form 477 filers to improve the accuracy of the data currently collected and for future collections.B. we define the subscription rate as the number of residential connections that are at least 3 Mbps down and 768 kbps up divided by the number of households in the area. Qwest Corporation.” under which we find broadband to be available in a county only if at least 1 percent of the households in that county subscribe to broadband. 17. NCTA Comments at 8–9 (suggesting the Commission should define geographic area in terms of Census Tracts.81 and because the Form 477 data reflects subscriber purchasing choices rather than availability. note 52. fixed broadband infrastructure capable of supporting actual download speeds of at least 4 Mbps. using Census Block data. WC Docket Nos. 2009) (providing Qwest’s proposal for broadband deployment to unserved areas and recognizing that the Commission’s former “use (continued…) 14 . e. 79 See 47 U.. such as a Census Block. Third.5 Mbps upload speed. we have applied a “de minimis threshold. 85 See. to Marlene H.S.pdf. NATIONAL BROADBAND PLAN at 20. FCC. 09-51. NJ Rate Counsel Comments at 12–13. Part III. para. Secretary..79 Second. 2008 Form 477 Broadband Data. Because Form 477 currently does not collect data for geographic areas smaller than the Census Tract. INSTRUCTIONS FOR MARCH 1.g.g. at 15 (filed Sept. 82 See FCC. 83 Were the Commission to conduct its Form 477 analysis with cutoffs of 6 Mbps download speed and 1. a larger number of Americans would be reported as lacking broadband access capable of meeting the requirements set forth in section 706. see also. FCC FORM 477. Newman.g.fcc. as it currently does for Form 477 but consider going forward. available at http://www.17 (noting that the household subscription rate for an area is the total number of residential connections in that area at a particular speed threshold divided by the estimated number of households in that area). 23 FCC Rcd at 9700–01.85 At the same time. B. However. Of the 72 combinations of upload and download advertised transmission speeds for which the Commission collects data. Dortch. Attach. See. only 39% of cable modem subscribers choose to purchase at that speed or higher. 81 OBI analysis indicates that 95% of the U.82 we take a conservative approach and select 3 Mbps download speed and 768 kbps upload speed as the cutoffs for the subscriber choice likely to indicate that service offering actual speeds of 4 Mbps download and 1 Mbps upload is available to the subscriber.. we reject suggestions to analyze the Commission’s broadband subscribership data on the basis of geographic areas smaller than a Census Tract.84 We do not believe it is appropriate to assume that broadband is available to everyone in a county merely because a single person in that county subscribes to broadband. e. 12. Letter from Melissa E. 20. See Dec.C. 2010 FILING (OF DATA AS OF 12/31/2009) at 6. Vice President – Federal Relations. Technical Notes 2 & 3. See supra para. § 1302(c). Our analysis of Form 477 data likewise shows that in counties where cable modem service with advertised download speeds of 3 Mbps and upload speeds of 768 kbps are available.gov/Forms/Form477/477inst. DCPSC Comments at 8. 09-47.”).5 Mbps upload speed. no more than half of those that purchase high-speed Internet access service actually purchase services capable of delivering 4 Mbps download speeds.83 21. in coordination with NTIA). population lives in housing units with access to terrestrial. we must select a reasonable proxy to conduct our analysis. Free Press Comments at 77–78.S. e.80 Because both OBI analysis and Form 477 data indicate that higher speeds are available to more subscribers than elect to purchase them. 80 See 2008 Broadband Data Gathering Order.

we estimate that 1.024 unserved areas have. 91 47 U. as commentators have pointed out . B. NCTA Comments at 8 (stating that “[t]he degree to which the size of the [unserved] list shrinks over time will be a simple. For example. and (3) a per capita income of $17.3 people per square mile. on average: (1) a population of 23.232 measured in 1999 dollars. CENSUS 2000 SUMMARY FILE 3. 92 App. because the 1 percent threshold is low. 24. See NATIONAL BROADBAND PLAN at 167 (relying on the 2010 Broadband Consumer Survey and stating that “[w]hile 65% of Americans use broadband at home. B (reporting the number of unserved areas in each state and U. census area has. (2) a population density of 283.91 In contrast. a typical U. we minimize the risk that we classify an area as unserved when broadband service in fact is available to a majority of households. yet effective. B.92 (…continued from previous page) of zip codes [was] problematic.S.88 At the same time. territory).S. B. a 1 percent threshold will treat every county that literally is “not served by any provider” of broadband as unserved. (2) a population density of 138. subscribe to a service meeting our speed benchmark.S. which are based upon more recent data. (i) 1. 56% of all households subscribe to an Internet access service faster than dial-up.481. as well as those counties in which only a small fraction of the households subscribe to broadband service. many consumers today obtain Internet access via transmission services slower than the 4 Mbps upload and 1 Mbps download speed threshold adopted in this report. These figures are somewhat lower than the figures reported in the National Broadband Plan and in the 2010 Broadband Consumer Survey. As of the time of this report. and 45% of all households that subscribe to such a service. § 1302(c) (directing the Commission to determine the population. CENSUS BUREAU. on average: (1) a population of 95. 88 47 U. Technical Note 4. Apps. App.S. Per Capita Income was available from the Census Bureau only in 1999 dollars.5 people per square mile.S.90 As set forth in more detail in Appendix B.89 These unserved areas are home to 24 million Americans living in 8. B & C. We find our interpretation of the statutory language described above to be reasonable and faithful to Congress’s intent.565 measured in 1999 dollars. the population density. even if a transmission service meeting this threshold is available. we find applying a 1 percent de minimis threshold in our availability analysis appropriately balances these concerns. 87 Based on the Commission’s subscribership data collected on Form 477.87 In particular. See App.C. the other 35% (roughly 80 million adults) do not”). 89 47 U. § 1302(c). http://www.479. measure of the success of the Commission’s National Broadband Plan”). 2010). the 1. . 90 47 U.86 Given current subscription rates for Internet access transmission services of various speeds. Based on the analysis described above.024 out of 3.html (last visited Mar.Federal Communications Commission FCC 10-129 everyone for whom broadband is available elects to purchase it. § 1302(c) (emphasis added). 2010 BROADBAND CONSUMER SURVEY at 13 (reporting that 65% of Americans use broadband at home where broadband is understood to be any Internet access technology faster than dial-up). Nevertheless.230 counties in the United States and its territories are unserved by broadband.gov/PressRelease/www/2002/sumfile3. it is questionable to conclude that an area is served by a broadband provider if any part of the relevant zip code enjoys broadband service”).024 Counties are Unserved Areas 22.C.9 million households. and (3) a per capita income of $14. . we may find it appropriate to modify the de minimis threshold for identifying unserved areas in the future.C.C.S. 86 See supra note 81. even if household adoption rates in that area happen to be relatively low.census. and preferable to the alternative interpretations of the statute we considered. and the average per capita income for unserved areas to the extent that Census Bureau data are available). § 1302(c). App. 15 .

or otherwise hard-to-serve areas still lack . 97 Id. overall. such as Weirwood. at the 95% confidence level.785 compared to $44. . B & Technical Notes 6 & 7. as a whole.024 unserved areas have a household density of 46. these 1. 95 Id. the typical county 93 Id. 99 See App. available at http://www.97 (iii) Unserved Areas Appear to Be More Rural 24.172 for the U. on average. when measured in 1999 dollars. Technical Note 4.ntia. of $37. We find that.024 unserved areas. in the mean income level between served and unserved areas for the income measures included in our analysis. The unserved areas appear to have lower income levels than the U. sparsely populated. The unserved areas also appear to be more rural than the U.024 counties.Federal Communications Commission (ii) FCC 10-129 Unserved Areas Appear to Have Lower Income Levels 23. B & Technical Notes 6 & 7. In contrast.4 percent of the population live in poverty in the 934 unserved areas for which we have data. on average. broadband service other than satellite”). 94 Id. we find.gov/reports/2010/NTIA_internet_use_report_Feb2010. and for all of the U.024 unserved areas have a Median Household Income of $28. B. compared to 15. DIGITAL NATION: 21ST CENTURY AMERICA’S PROGRESS TOWARD UNIVERSAL BROADBAND INTERNET ACCESS at 15 (2010). See February 2010 High Speed Report at 52.94 We find that. 16 . for the U.S. based on the percent of the population estimated by the Census Bureau to live in poverty in 2008. 96 See App. we examined both household density and housing units categorized as rural by the Census Bureau. Verizon Comments at 6 (stating that “some Americans living in remote. when measured in 2008 dollars.S.95 the unserved areas have a Median Household Income. the 1.96 Moreover. The Commission’s recent High-Speed Report also suggests that subscription rates tend to increase with income.809 for the U. ADMIN.. that are not situated along major highways”). . While we have Median Household Income in 1999 dollars for all 1. 18. as a whole.S.93 To measure economic well-being. 98 See App. see also Broadband Opportunity Coalition Comments at 7 (stating that “deployment is severely lacking in isolated rural communities. for 934 of the 1.S as a whole.S.”). one county in Hawaii. Qwest Comments at 5 (stating that “[c]learly the status quo is not working in regard to rural deployment and change is needed”). See also infra note 121.024 unserved areas for which we have this information.626 compared to $34. or simply unable to. See id.pdf (“Affordability . & Technical Note 5.doc.2 percent of the population for the U.. Hypothesis testing reveals a statistically significant difference. on average.8 households per square mile and have 73 percent of the housing units categorized as rural by the Census Bureau. territories. NAT’L TELECOMM. spend precious funds on broadband service”). we only have Median Household Income in 2008 dollars for 934 of the 1. Id.S. we examined Median Household Income and the percent of the population living in poverty. USTA Comments at 10 (stating that “more needs to be done to ensure the timely and reasonable deployment of broadband to Americans in rural and other uneconomic areas”).S. Virginia. overall. rates highest among the major reasons for eschewing broadband at home among those with either no Internet at home or only dial-up service. 57. .99 On average. as a whole. AT&T Comments at 47 (stating that “low-income households struggling to make ends meet may be reluctant to. see also 2010 BROADBAND CONSUMER SURVEY at 5 (reporting that “36% of non-adopter [respondents] cite cost as the main reason they do not have highspeed Internet at home”).98 To determine whether the unserved areas we identified were in urban or rural areas. We do not have Median Household Income in 2008 for one county in Alaska. Charts 20 & 25. . AND INFO.

At the time of this report. The Commission collects broadband providers’ subscription data by geographic area (Census Tract) and does not collect customers’ demographic identity. which are based on the Commission’s Form 477 data. 2008 Form 477 Broadband Data.103 In 2008. rural residents and people with disabilities—are being left behind. we would find similar levels of unserved Americans in such areas as compared to what is reported below. See infra Part III.. 105 We are. see also supra note 8. 17 . persons with disabilities.106 100 Id. see also id. Specifically. discussed below. such as minorities.B. the Commission required Form 477 filers to report broadband connections by Census Tract permitting the Commission to conduct a demographic analysis of subscription patterns.gov/population/www/pop-profile/geomob. under this alternative definition. CENSUS BUREAU. POPULATION PROFILE OF THE UNITED STATES: GEOGRAPHIC MOBILITY. 24. at the 95% confidence level. e. the Commission has recognized that certain categories of these Americans are particularly vulnerable to not having access to broadband. 102 See.102 In particular. See KRISTIN A. 106 See Dec. since 2000. in the mean income level between served and unserved areas for the rural indicator measures included in our analysis.104 This change enables us to examine the subscription rates in Native Homeland areas for the first time.g. however. 15 FCC Rcd at 20918.5 percent of all households on Native Homeland areas subscribe to a broadband service faster than dialup compared to 56 percent of all households nationwide. para. differ somewhat from data reported in the National Broadband Plan and the 2010 Broadband Consumer Survey). 103 See supra note 8.S.2 households per square mile and has 59 percent of housing units categorized as rural by the Census Bureau. We assume that the geographic areas designated as Native Homelands did not significantly change since 2000. The Census Bureau estimates that 1 in 6 Americans move each year. Given the overall migration patterns that may have occurred in the U. http://www.105 We find that counties where at least half the population lives in a Native Homeland area or where at least half the land mass is a Native Homeland area also tend to have lower broadband subscription rates than the U. 9-A (reporting current adoption rates for different demographic groups). 2000 Second Broadband Deployment Report. See supra note 101.S. see also supra note 87 (explaining a basis for why these figures.html (last visited Mar. 104 See February 2010 High Speed Report at 2. Subscription Rates Are Lower in Native Homeland Areas101 25. such as minorities or persons with disabilities who likely changed their residence.” NATIONAL BROADBAND PLAN at 167. If we instead would designate a county as a Native Homeland area solely by whether at least 50% of the land mass is designated by the Census Bureau as American Indian Area/Alaska Native Area/Hawaiian Homeland.Federal Communications Commission FCC 10-129 has a household density of 108.100 b. at 167. The Commission has in past broadband deployment reports examined broadband availability for various demographic groups. we were concerned it could be misleading to draw any inferences about demographic populations. seniors. and Americans living in Tribal areas. also reported demographic statistics for survey respondents. We note that the Commission’s Consumer Survey. We find that only 12. Thus. as a whole. and that roughly a third of these individuals change their county residence. Exh. unable to draw definitive conclusions from the broadband subscription data for other demographic groups.census. we were able to confidently report on the subscription rates in Native Homeland areas. Finally. HANSEN. racial and ethnic minorities.3. we note that other sources of information report that “[s]ome segments of the population—particularly low-income households. 8. Hypothesis testing reveals a statistically significant difference. 2010). almost all of the countylevel demographic information that is readily available is from the 2000 Census. 101 We designate a county as a Native Homeland area if at least 50% of the land mass is designated by the Census Bureau as American Indian Area/Alaska Native Area/Hawaiian Homeland or at least 50% of the 2000 population resided in the land area designated by the Census Bureau as American Indian Area/Alaska Native Area/Hawaiian Homeland. we find there would be 106 unserved counties in Native Homeland areas. representing approximately 5 million Americans.

including dial-up.C.000 Volunteers (June 1.C. 109 See 2010 BROADBAND CONSUMER SURVEY at 11. available at http://hraunfoss. § 1303(c)(1) (directing the Commission to conduct “surveys of consumers in urban. 110 See id. AMERICANS’ PERSPECTIVES ON ONLINE CONNECTION SPEEDS FOR HOME AND MOBILE DEVICES (2010). which is based on information submitted to the 107 47 U. § 1303(b). each with distinct demographic characteristics: (1) 22 percent of all American adults do not use the Internet at all. and rural areas.112 Specifically.pdf.. Because we are unable to discern from the survey results what portion of the respondents use a broadband service.pdf.fcc.g.S. which was “an effort to understand the state of broadband adoption and use. 111 See.C.C. the Commission released the results of its second consumer survey. FCC Survey Finds 4 Out of 5 Americans Don’t Know Their Broadband Speeds.S. § 1303(c)(2).”113 We are incorporating by reference a report from our International Bureau that will be released shortly. in the large business. OBI. 2010. section 1303 requires the Commission to “include information comparing the extent of broadband service capability (including data transmission speeds and price for broadband service capability) in a total of 75 communities in at least 25 countries abroad for each of the data rate benchmarks for broadband service utilized by the Commission to reflect different speed tiers. In October and November 2009. § 1303. e. 112 47 U. Section 1303 requires the Commission to include an international comparison in its annual broadband deployment report.Federal Communications Commission 3. See. 18 . International Report 27. 2010. (2) 6 percent of all American adults use the Internet but do not have access at home. On June 1. Starts Recruitment for 10. even if one is available. in compliance with our new annual obligation. which focused on American’s perspectives on online connection speeds.C. some of which may focus on other aspects of the “national characteristics of the use of broadband service capability.110 The Commission will periodically conduct other consumer surveys.114 This inaugural International Broadband Data Report will present data and information on international broadband service capability. see also NATIONAL BROADBAND PLAN at 167. 108 See 2010 BROADBAND CONSUMER SURVEY at 3. at 24. FCC. the Commission conducted its first periodic survey of endusers of the Internet “[f]or the purpose of evaluating.”108 The survey is novel in that it focused on the non-adoption of broadband at home so that its results will help provide insight into factors associated with Americans who do not subscribe to an Internet access service. we released the results of our first survey. at 14. and residential consumer markets”). we do not rely on survey responses regarding the availability of Internet access service to draw inferences regarding the availability of broadband in this report. 114 International Broadband Data Report. 2010). on a statistically significant basis.”107 On February 23. the consumer survey found that 35 percent or 80 million American adults do not use broadband at home and these Americans fall into three categories.g.S.”111 4. 47 U.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-298525A1.S. id. suburban. Survey respondents were asked what type of Internet access transmission service they used at home. JOHN HORRIGAN & ELLEN SATTERWHITE.. see also Press Release. e. 113 47 U. § 1303(c)(1).fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-298516A1. available at http://hraunfoss. As the International Broadband Data Report will explain. and (3) 6 percent of all American adults use dial-up Internet connections to go online from home. Agency Announces Plans for National Speed Testing.S. that report satisfies the Commission’s obligations under the BDIA. FCC 10-129 Consumer Survey 26. the national characteristics of the use of broadband service capability.109 With respect to non-adopters. 47 U. small business. as well as barriers facing those who do not have broadband at home.

C. § 1302(b). More than 50% of teachers say slow or unreliable Internet access presents obstacles to their use of technology in classrooms. See Gross v. we conclude that broadband is not being deployed to all Americans in a reasonable and timely fashion. (2) community-level data and information from the Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD).”). e. including expected returns on capital. 2343 (2009). at 21 (stating that “it is unlikely there will be a significant change in the number of unserved Americans based on planned upgrades over the next few years. BROADBAND IS NOT BEING DEPLOYED TO ALL AMERICANS IN A REASONABLE AND TIMELY FASHION 28. 116 47 U. The goal of the statute. As Congress found in 2008 when it amended section 706. we find that the ordinary meaning of the statutory language accurately expresses the legislative purpose. and the standard against which we measure our progress. broadband “has resulted in enhanced economic development and public safety for communities across the Nation.S.115 IV. see also.Federal Communications Commission FCC 10-129 Commission and data gathered by Commission staff. The forthcoming International Broadband Data Report also will provide information on. and information about the broadband market and broadband regulations in various countries around the world. it is unlikely that private investment alone will fill the broadband availability gap. is universal broadband availability. and other data from individual government agencies. Based on our analysis. and a better quality of life for all Americans. We also adopt a straightforward interpretation of “reasonable and timely” as calling for broadband to be made available as soon as possible assuming all reasonable steps are taken. id. actual prices advertised to consumers for broadband services. and thus as establishing the goal of universal broadband availability for every American.g.119 We have not achieved this goal today. Id. 118 See supra Part III.122 115 The International Bureau has gathered: (1) information for actual prices advertised to consumers for broadband services in different parts of the world from the websites of competitive and new entrant broadband providers.1 & 2. a large number of Americans likely will remain excluded from the significant benefits of broadband that most other Americans can access today. for example.116 Our analysis shows that roughly 80 million American adults do not subscribe to broadband at home. and (3) information about the broadband market and broadband regulations in various countries around the world. 119 We interpret “all Americans” in this context as having its ordinary meaning. at 167 (relying on the 2010 Broadband Consumer Survey and stating that “[w]hile 65% of Americans use broadband at home. community-level data. 117 See id.S. improved health care and educational opportunities. As a result. The evidence further indicates that market forces alone are unlikely to ensure that the unserved minority of Americans will be able to obtain the benefits of broadband anytime in the near future. if we remain on our current course.. although some small companies may upgrade their networks to support broadband in currently unserved areas”).C. In the absence of indications to the contrary. the other 35% (roughly 80 million adults) do not”).117 and approximately 14 to 24 million Americans do not have access to broadband today.Ct. § 1301(1). 47 U.” 47 U. nor does it appear that we will achieve success without changes to present policies. 120 See NATIONAL BROADBAND PLAN at 136 (“Because service providers in [areas with low population density] cannot earn enough revenue to cover the costs of deploying and operating broadband networks. FBL Financial Services. We find that although 97% of schools have access to the Internet. 121 Recent Congressional legislation further underscores the importance of ensuring broadband availability to all Americans as soon as reasonably possible. there is no business case to offer broadband services in these areas.118 The latter group appears to be disproportionately lower-income Americans and Americans who live in rural areas.C. broadband adoption data from the European Commission’s regional data. Inc.121 we are unable to conclude that broadband is being reasonably and timely deployed to all Americans in this situation. either through the national statistical agency or the communications ministry and/or regulator. Given the ever-growing importance of broadband to our society. 129 S. § 1301(2) (stating that “[c]ontinued progress in (continued…) 19 ..S. and its position as a top priority for the Commission.B.120 Therefore. See NATIONAL BROADBAND PLAN at 20. crucial gaps exist.

broadband is playing an increasingly central role in most aspects of American society. 6.C. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Marlene H. and others still to be commenced. education. 122 As stated above. 125 See supra note 26.” See NATIONAL BROADBAND PLAN at 5. redirecting assets that government controls or influences in order to spur investment and inclusion. For instance. pursuant to section 706 of the Telecommunications Act of 1996. private sector investment. job creation and economic growth. Dortch Secretary (…continued from previous page) the deployment and adoption of broadband technology is vital to ensuring that our Nation remains competitive and continues to create business and job growth”). the plan describes actions the Commission and others should take in “fostering innovation and competition in networks. and optimizing the use of broadband to help achieve national priorities. see also supra para. If the Commission finds that broadband is not being deployed in a reasonable and timely manner.S. entrepreneurial activity. Indeed. proposes a number of ways to accelerate broadband deployment by removing barriers to infrastructure investment and by promoting competition. IT IS ORDERED that. public safety and homeland security. devices and applications. § 1305(k)(2)(D).S. energy independence and efficiency.C.C. health care delivery.124 Several proceedings currently before the Commission provide a means to address some of these recommendations.S. Accordingly. Instead of choosing a specific path for broadband in America. The National Broadband Plan. 123 See 47 U. 47 U.Federal Communications Commission V.. § 1305(k)(2) (directing the Commission to develop a National Broadband Plan that would “seek to ensure that all people of the United States have access to broadband capability”).”123 We have already begun.” 47 U. we will work to ensure that broadband is being deployed to all Americans in a reasonable and timely fashion. See supra at para. § 1302(b). and other national purposes. 20 . § 1301 et seq. civic participation. FCC 10-129 IMMEDIATE ACTION TO ACCELERATE DEPLOYMENT 29. 47 U. Nor should our conclusion be taken as evidence that we are questioning the adequacy of the Commission’s prior efforts to increase broadband deployment. it must “take immediate action to accelerate deployment of such capability by removing barriers to infrastructure investment and by promoting competition in the telecommunications market. which also seeks to ensure that all people of the United States have access to broadband. 124 See NATIONAL BROADBAND PLAN at xi–xv.S. broadband helps advance “consumer welfare. as amended by the Broadband Data Improvement Act. community development. ORDERING CLAUSES 30.C. 7.125 Through these proceedings. this Report IS ADOPTED. VI. we emphasize that our conclusion in this report in no way diminishes the progress broadband providers have made to expand broadband deployment throughout America. worker training.

Time Warner Cable Inc. Health and Libraries Broadband Coalition Section 706 Joint Conference Committee Sprint Nextel SUNESYS.The Wireless Association District of Columbia Public Service Commission Free Press National Association of State Utility Consumer Advocates National Cable & Telecommunications Association National Telecommunications Cooperative Association New Jersey Division of Rate Counsel One Economy OPASTCO PCIA and The DAS Forum Pennsylvania Public Utility Commission Qwest Corporation Schools.Federal Communications Commission FCC 10-129 APPENDIX A Comments in GN Docket No. 21 Abbreviation ADTRAN AT&T Broadband Opportunity Coalition Comcast Covad CTIA DCPSC Free Press NASUCA NCTA NTCA NJ Rate Counsel One Economy OPASTCO PCIA PPUC Qwest SHLB Joint Conference Sprint SUNESYS TCA Time Warner Cable USTA Verizon Wayne Longman Western Telecommunications Alliance WISPA YourTel . United States Telecom Association Verizon and Verizon Wireless Wayne Longman Western Telecommunications Alliance Wireless Internet Service Providers Association YourTel America Inc. AT&T Inc. LLC TCA Inc. Broadband Opportunity Coalition et al. Comcast Corporation Covad Communications Company CTIA . Inc. 09-137 Commenter ADTRAN.

National Association of State Utility Consumer Advocates National Cable & Telecommunications Association Verizon and Verizon Wireless 22 Abbreviation AT&T CPUC Free Press Georgia Power Company GVNW NASUCA NCTA Verizon FCC 10-129 .Federal Communications Commission Replies in GN Docket No. California Public Utilities Commission Free Press Georgia Power Company GVNW Consulting. 09-137 Replies AT&T Inc. Inc.

7 192.3 83.943 $18.Federal Communications Commission FCC 10-129 APPENDIX B Unserved Areas By State or U.042.345 $42.701 $26.23 12.5 67.2 562.413 28.9 368.540 $42.0 487.784 $13.450.374 $29.3 85.8 15.8 123.56 129.47 59.4 18.645 7.9 22.6 23.72 66.0 142 23 2.437 $32.530 24.172 15.72 31.217 5.5 562.3 84.287 $28.S.72 45.8 23.049 $14.8 1.281 $28.7 0.895.42 44.099 $26.8 17.71 12.7 657.5 78.89 0.120 2.1 59.1 19.6 78 19 3.627 $37.481 35.404.2 770.3 50.338.844 24.896 $38.9 18.527.176 18.9 Alaska Michigan Minnesota 22 8 9 179.1 Unserved Areas 1.1 112.693 181.73 5.566 21.51 1.1 62.5 58.163 $32.454.94 17.721 $37.663 1.602 $32.0 8.9 17.58 34.0 81.219 $19.3 Puerto Rico North Carolina Texas South Carolina NA NA .2 108.6 273.785 18.80 24.751.294 $14.193 $13.1 21.0 69.16 23.76 32.10 44.307.31 82.60 16.79 138.624 4.8 1.879 $15.7 84.04 15.425 $36.522.468 $45.9 69.954.7 70.9 12.147 $53.67 9.9 95.016 $26.565 $28.8 79.263 25.9 11.09 1.913 24.891 18.729 6.2 997.433 $16.732 $36.93 1.1 115.251 $31.86 4.239.424.4 910.840 $38.6 56.48 14.109 $34.702 7.61 75.974 17.539 15. Territory Areas1 Population (1000s)2 Households (1000s)3 Average Population Average Households Average Per Capita Income (1999)4 Average Median Household Income (1999)4 Average Median Household Income (2008)4 Average % Living in Poverty (2008)5 Average Household Density6 Average Population Density6 Average % Rural Housing 7 All Areas 3.329 9.532 $32.1 16.9 219.6 280.912 $40.841 2.0 389.85 332.467 14.004 18.1 548.125 $29.3 91.019 $18.576 14.028 $14.369 9.70 4.882 $15.799 76.189 $37.625 $34.819 $32.4 1.0 8.4 46.28 9.766 70.636 $14.837 $36.230 308.45 11.602 $15.687 $14.219 $26.221.2 16.0 432.31 3.031 17.9 25.11 22.5 1.29 42.540 9.448 8.589 $13.05 12.982 $14.479 8.438 $6.4 1.6 22.4 70.232 $34.216 $35.545 $38.3 198.158 16.7 288.35 57.344 9.5 53.816 $40.672 $17.883 $27.586 $32.9 145.7 21.78 35.20 283.377 6.803 23.551 $33.4 125.07 117.2 317.7 95.4 Mississippi Arkansas Oklahoma Kentucky Missouri Georgia Louisiana Alabama California Tennessee Kansas Montana South Dakota 59 61 58 59 54 54 29 23 8 18 38 30 44 1.623 16.135 $30.230 $32.3 86.024 24.472 46.167 $16.9 569.445 9.731 $16.371 $14.254 7.348 $16.8 1.892 $14.64 33.4 20.148 6.323 6.699 $27.7 8.809 $44.888 $29.7 89.2 16.3 145.95 13.79 2.2 751.315.59 13.969 2.0 3.30 72.

486 2.354 2.329 $33.106 2.477 $44.37 831.417 $33.31 88.435 13.492 $15.55 3.140 $16.55 2.4 100.544 22.934 8.13 10.8 41.98 79.2 28.03 7.844 $26.29 26.4 5 4 61.4 71.527 $54.0 13.1 9.3 NA 2.430 1.259 $31.75 92.7 13.84 19.146 16.680 $26.0 13.248 $16.337 $13.7 27.2 14.7 Utah Wisconsin North Dakota 13 8 27 131.84 5.4 88.1 3.18 3.3 20.5 15.147 6.822 14.3 59.7 17.5 106.07 1.3 75.4 50.0 94.79 528.3 17.9 9.351 $42.4 51.04 107.4 69.007 3.203 $28.930 $39.9 51.158 $24.2 43.1 44.2 94.7 74.897 $29.02 85.549 $14.894 45.92 2.30 4.65 3.277 5.244 $42.448 $4.2 33 6 5 19 10 2 11 3 108.125 $45.26 96.3 17.204 13.567 11.446 19.225 14.4 41.637 5.6 21.083 $43.04 14.38 28.17 1.1 13.8 NA 8.4 11.323 4.7 Virginia Ohio Iowa 7 2 4 52.104 $13.0 U.50 25.6 42.3 12.15 72.1 57.8 45.9 1.5 1.406 $17.92 90.492 $11.08 538.3 87.592 $32.3 60.379 6.5 98.648 $13.54 5.598 $43.2 10.S.839 4.014 $9.760 $16.216 NA .761 $35.916 21.32 1.77 1.289 17.8 7.15 48.5 54.726 $50.6 17.111 $30.S.25 150.289 9.951 $15.925 315.647 $26.316 6.072 1.14 38.6 40.36 5.6 36.861 $14.697 $35.650 $36.094 $17.772 20.295 22.779 $32.61 5.4 20.1 8.543 $39.935 13.1 38.Federal Communications Commission FCC 10-129 APPENDIX B Unserved Areas By State or U.102 $32. Territory Areas1 Population (1000s)2 Households (1000s)3 Average Population Average Households Average Per Capita Income (1999)4 Average Median Household Income (1999)4 Average Median Household Income (2008)4 Average % Living in Poverty (2008)5 Average Household Density6 Average Population Density6 Average % Rural Housing 7 New Mexico 10 136. Virgin Islands 3 108.767 $17.7 29.749 3.58 18.7 86.5 107.013 $31.853 23.2 43.438 4.543 $43.610 $39.017 2.3 88.947 8.460 $24.7 12.5 128.595 12.104 3.9 90.471 4.830 $18.4 38.9 131.8 West Virginia 6 54.458 $17.85 2.685 $15.8 Nebraska Illinois Wyoming Colorado Nevada Arizona Idaho Northern Mariana Islands Florida American Samoa 24 NA NA $37.920 $15.164 $35.024 $30.58 17.1 72.7 12.417 NA $36.

Id. Per Capita Income and Median Household Income.50 7. 78 Municipal areas in Puerto Rico and 11 Municipal areas in American Samoa.g.2 83.S.675 14. Northern Mariana Islands and the U. 2010). CENSUS 2000 SUMMARY FILE 1 (SF 1) 100-PERCENT DATA.8 0. Per Capita Income and Median Household Income in 1999 dollars are reported for all county or county equivalent areas in the Census 2000 Summary File 3.census.S.632 6.093 $31.333 $47.g. 25 . http://www. including 3.2. 3) We estimate households for 2008 by assuming that the relationship between household size and population size in each area has not changed between 2000 and 2008.B. http://factfinder. See CENSUS BUREAU. and all of the U. 2) We base our analysis on the most recent Census Bureau data available. http://www.1 Households (1000s)3 13.205 $38.16 18.378 $16.112 13. We rely on Census Bureau 2008 population estimates for 3.140 counties in the 50 States and the District of Columbia. Virginia Islands. we use Households based upon the 2000 Census. 4) We report two Income measures.4 28.3 33. Guam.96 44..139 county or county equivalent areas.6 0.921 2.gov/servlet/DownloadDatasetServlet?_lang=en (last visited Mar. Guam. We do not have Median Household Income in 2008 for one county in Alaska and Hawaii. and 78 Municipalities in Puerto Rico. e..0 53. CENSUS BUREAU. SMALL AREA INCOME AND POVERTY ESTIMATES: STATE AND COUNTY ESTIMATES FOR 2008. 5) Proportion of Population Living in Poverty in 2008 is reported by the Census Bureau for 3.86 90.6 18.a.html (last visited Mar.census.0 15. 24. Northern Mariana Islands and the U. 2010). As we work to improve our data.82 7.088 $32.230 counties or county equivalent areas.8 13. & note 69. 24. See CENSUS BUREAU. We exclude two county equivalent areas in the Northern Mariana Islands (Rose Island Municipality and Northern Mariana Islands Municipality) due to data irregularities.387 117 Average Households 6. http://www. we anticipate that we will have a more precise identification of unserved areas.gov/popest/datasets.844 $39.53 0.141 counties in the States and District of Columbia.gov/did/www/saipe/data/statecounty/data/2008.0 NA NA 7 Technical Notes: 1) We examine a total of 3. 2010).493 $16. territories. where Household Size2000= Population2000/Households2000. See. We rely on Census Bureau 2000 population estimates for a single county in Alaska and the 11 Municipal areas in American Samoa. e.50 2.html (last visited Mar.618 5.139 of the 3. CENSUS 2000 SUMMARY FILE 3. Median Household Income in 2008 dollars is available for 3. For the 12 counties in which we do not have 2008 population estimates.384 $13.1 11. Territory Areas1 Indiana Oregon Washington Hawaii 2 5 2 1 Population (1000s)2 37.756 $39. See supra Part III.census.4 100.778 105 Average Per Capita Income (1999)4 Average Median Household Income (1999)4 Average Median Household Income (2008)4 Average % Living in Poverty (2008)5 Average Household Density6 Average Population Density6 Average % Rural Housing $17. 2010) (2000 Census Data).Federal Communications Commission FCC 10-129 APPENDIX B Unserved Areas By State or U. Households2008 = Population2008 /Household Size 2000.gov/Press-Release/www/2002/sumfile3. See. CENSUS BUREAU. 24. Specifically. 24.S.230 county or county equivalent areas. POPULATION ESTIMATES DATA SETS.census.1 Average Population 18.S.956 $9.53 8.html (last visited Mar. Virgin Islands.7 16.

See 2000 Census Data. 26 . These estimates are based upon the most recent Census Bureau data available. Population Density is defined as the ratio of population to the total land area in the area. 7) Rural Housing Proportion is defined as the number of housing units categorized as rural by the Census Bureau divided by the total number of housing units in the county. supra Technical Note 3. See supra Technical Notes 2 and 3.Federal Communications Commission FCC 10-129 6) Household density is defined as the ratio of households to the total land area in the county.

3 24.533 546 1.00 72.09 0.00 100.436 3.21 0.037 $12.99 0.06 0.720 $38.8 13.768 2.603 $22.361 $15.434 $46.26 0.514 935 19.00 100.2 9.22 100.406 $35.251 $16.776 $48.889 3.401 $33.3 8 17.502 5.81 24.00 69.19 73.15 27.40 0.4 16.Federal Communications Commission FCC 10-129 APPENDIX C Unserved Areas By County or County Equivalent County or County Equivalent Areas1 Population2 Households3 Average Per Capita Income (1999)4 Median Household Income (1999)4 Median Household Income (2008)4 Alaska Aleutians East Borough Aleutians West Census Area Bethel Census Area Bristol Bay Borough Denali Borough Dillingham Census Area Haines Borough Kenai Peninsula Borough Kodiak Island Borough Lake and Peninsula Borough Nome Census Area North Slope Borough Northwest Arctic Borough Prince of Wales-Outer Ketchikan Census Area 2.00 100.34 20.654 $43.3 8.03 8.13 5.848 4.58 63.5 15.397 $54.753 9.827 $48.04 9.184 $46.849 $41.250 $63.00 NA $59.049 1.721 $44.37 100.546 373 769 1.488 9.636 $52.93 100.810 4.5 7.090 $20.173 $45.274 $54.8 5.14 0.75 100.755 $67.4 19.156 479 2.83 1.529 17.421 $24.90 123.362 7.879 Southeast Fairbanks Census Area Valdez-Cordova Census Area Wade Hampton Census Area Wrangell-Petersburg Census Area Yakutat City and Borough Yukon-Koyukuk Census Area 6.044 $18.265 3.35 2.5 29.8 3.786 $28.720 $50.11 40.97 3.525 $43.079 $40.00 100.734 $30.01 0.687 $46.892 $72.6 10.494 $22.900 Household Density6 .046 $8.27 0.299 $54.2 20.44 114.47 2.01 11.00 7.75 100.206 $61.717 $23.82 6.033 $54.56 68.006 $16.86 17.949 $22.00 86.636 $36.622 $19.567 1.790 4.40 1.13 10.28 39.50 60.895 1.195 $15.476 $20.45 1.579 $13.236 953 1.261 6.167 $53.974 $51.910 657 5.301 1.01 11.124 $58.701 $52.286 $18.395 $47.851 2.3 9 21.27 0.786 $62.11 39.615 7.717 5.4 10.409 13.39 10.9 11.946 $33.705 1.303 216 2.00 64.9 0.00 100.76 2.09 0.499 $57.679 $23.701 2.271 53.00 100.00 13.021 $22.89 0.666 27 Percent Living in Poverty (2008)5 $61.52 100.03 0.42 1.901 $40.933 2.976 $40.369 $23.58 100.491 Sitka City and Borough Skagway-Hoonah-Angoon Census Area 8.34 27.75 7.2 0.540 $15.442 $41.07 0.056 4.34 1.436 NA Population Density6 Percent Rural Housing7 15.772 $46.875 $61.210 $26.214 $70.

00 79.204 12.66 15.545 42.629 57.16 15.55 39.9 19.401 $30.055 29.00 100.419 24.646 $28.605 $31.38 61.89 1797.948 $13.20 23.40 44.241 $20.303 $14.254 $28.308 $15.69 100.80 613.367 $15.6 17.61 21.444 14.997 $38.491 $14.26 19.21 85.068 $34.742 $27.6 31.316 $37.31 72.885 5.7 25.23 1613.686 $14.635 $14.746 $14.89 100.001 $32.728 5.74 2358.820 $22.172 14.03 810.05 30.304 14.00 71.00 100.19 14.36 28.439 $13.381 $31.803 23.49 1139.603 8.6 17.966 3.1 33.4 22.221 $37.5 13.424 $30.018 18.154 3.799 13.163 $17.1 22.96 28 Percent Living in Poverty (2008)5 Household Density6 Population Density6 Percent Rural Housing7 .60 91.441 10.88 588.51 100.80 7535.059 $23.475 $20.225 $32.675 $18.111 $28.798 4.581 $14.91 540.2 25.36 100.524 22.370 5.41 39.090 $32.768 $30.105 $16.066 17.93 14.57 1590.39 21.27 186.77 856.815 $16.85 587.543 $15.17 840.77 563.964 $14.292 $30.27 100.435 $41.26 958.562 3.46 629.200 $26.05 566.00 75.653 9.903 $15.72 3339.911 $30.266 17.855 $16.974 7.465 10.025 $27.66 39.2 30.79 22.65 641.02 1230.643 19.356 7.46 794.874 $32.638 5.00 100.00 87.891 7.588 $24.9 20.420 $35.691 9.668 21.1 19.29 523.185 $24.041 5.602 $26.00 100.944 16.728 $34.74 14.513 $31.98 17.8 24.6 19.388 $30.028 $40.8 30.321 $10.086 $26.749 $27.295 12.147 $11.00 100.00 100.84 99.055 26.3 18.980 $39.796 113.435 $12.00 78.3 32.552 8.539 $19.076 $46.053 $34.236 7.644 21.92 14.819 $28.42 15.771 $14.600 10.00 84.209 11.Federal Communications Commission FCC 10-129 APPENDIX C Unserved Areas By County or County Equivalent County or County Equivalent Areas1 Alabama Bibb Blount Bullock Calhoun Cherokee Chilton Choctaw Clarke Cleburne Conecuh Fayette Greene Lamar Lowndes Marengo Marion Perry Pickens Randolph Sumter Washington Wilcox Winston Arkansas Arkansas Population2 Households3 Average Per Capita Income (1999)4 Median Household Income (1999)4 Median Household Income (2008)4 21.076 $23.63 17.72 88.101 $37.457 $15.738 $31.853 9.347 4.3 34.24 26.092 $26.620 13.78 1502.130 6.680 45.6 14.2 18.050 $27.325 $10.081 $10.7 17.6 17.762 $12.295 20.15 38.9 18.46 100.85 1050.

081 $36.345 $31.7 24.631 $17.3 16.670 11.845 25.68 3384.50 1037.182 $30.92 14.529 $31.364 $38.32 30.684 22.908 $24.6 20.829 6.3 15.145 36.435 11.712 $18.115 11.1 19.102 5.808 8.586 $16.56 67.490 29 Percent Living in Poverty (2008)5 18.446 $16.465 17.322 $16.52 37.397 $14.09 54.03 100.427 7.46 36.828 $28.512 $17.165 $37.666 $30.753 3.00 60.219 $36.676 16.216 $15.607 5.42 51.Federal Communications Commission FCC 10-129 APPENDIX C Unserved Areas By County or County Equivalent County or County Equivalent Areas1 Ashley Baxter Bradley Calhoun Chicot Clark Clay Cleburne Cleveland Columbia Conway Craighead Cross Dallas Desha Drew Fulton Garland Grant Greene Hempstead Hot Spring Howard Independence Izard Jackson Population2 Households3 Average Per Capita Income (1999)4 Median Household Income (1999)4 Median Household Income (2008)4 22.43 1160.302 9.81 911.432 8.627 $25.630 10.18 100.026 $39.92 28.619 $33.9 Household Density6 24.888 15.699 $31.640 $31.017 $34.8 18.724 $37.45 685.144 13.85 66.09 71.608 $27.264 $15.941 $30.568 2.78 60.71 59.65 2771.91 143.07 60.00 70.05 350.665 24.419 $15.425 $29.555 $12.26 46.14 32.845 $25.407 13.900 31.08 45.96 .1 17.6 15.36 68.65 18.45 31.726 $14.23 55.250 $15.5 18.4 18.22 1013.75 77.438 $22.221 $37.397 8.910 $36.1 11.57 100.362 $15.103 $15.622 $31.30 8.362 $26.54 18.567 $35.78 45.209 $32.09 702.008 8.533 $14.62 27.96 1194.838 41.00 58.821 $28.564 $31.77 685.690 40.8 24.73 Population Density6 933.19 80.825 $14.54 12.32 130.405 $27.019 $30.53 1056.27 61.35 22.7 17.993 23.60 24.46 1785.640 18.70 22.531 $32.00 36.2 19.936 8.00 57.121 $28.143 34.88 33.641 12.543 $28.906 5.38 1231.5 30.81 1042.555 $34.056 $17.4 21.608 $24.7 21 29 20.909 14.61 5124.702 $16.091 $15.244 7.403 $14.146 20.489 $31.27 Percent Rural Housing7 51.895 $15.7 21.670 $25.417 9.233 42.31 552.291 6.020 $45.37 26.05 2050.621 $34.148 3.312 4.14 75.601 18.079 $34.538 18.13 1464.702 12.20 17.022 6.809 $34.992 16.163 $14.76 91.50 31.760 4.5 20.989 $34.327 $31.06 1944.202 4.859 $13.5 16.10 920.640 5.707 $39.688 97.547 $16.106 $24.97 18.7 16.93 782.755 92.45 882.919 $30.610 $13.162 $36.758 $29.56 68.1 16.1 15.920 $25.024 $28.66 6176.89 24.70 464.

028 16.479 $15.510 $29.18 18.996 $33.5 26 17.8 38.373 24.37 599.82 12.52 1144.00 71.770 10.00 56.756 $29.19 1270.609 $12.479 $22.77 10.442 5.603 10.788 $15.02 100.8 23.096 $14.01 939.27 1108.226 46.63 28.623 8.518 9.29 Population Density6 3211.14 56.721 20.22 33.785 $10.668 $14.00 63.53 54.00 40.09 699.157 8.58 37.75 17.226 4.048 16.62 23.432 $29.4 19.069 $27.06 69.595 $26.78 562.951 $27.04 11.67 968.82 100.705 16.983 $12.851 7.216 $12.044 $34.7 22 23.385 $13.38 100.861 10.495 3.91 1061.23 733.807 15.063 $15.65 2805.11 14.895 $26.13 100.5 15.231 $27.684 3.381 4.43 712.211 $27.341 $31.436 $37.996 7.77 515.Federal Communications Commission FCC 10-129 APPENDIX C Unserved Areas By County or County Equivalent County or County Equivalent Areas1 Jefferson Johnson Lafayette Lawrence Lee Lincoln Little River Madison Marion Miller Mississippi Monroe Montgomery Nevada Newton Ouachita Perry Phillips Pike Poinsett Polk Pope Randolph Scott Searcy Sevier Population2 Households3 Average Per Capita Income (1999)4 Median Household Income (1999)4 Median Household Income (2008)4 78.31 1433.61 32.160 $25.4 17 17.30 Percent Rural Housing7 30.041 7.075 22.53 14.96 1417.417 $27.6 29 18.298 25.414 9.4 20.994 $40.925 4.062 30 Percent Living in Poverty (2008)5 20.547 $32.118 $16.00 63.09 18.35 73.771 17.397 $30.918 $14.7 20.57 73.00 100.178 $34.808 8.962 $24.018 $34.9 24.73 31.221 $32.58 12.00 74.440 3.651 16.91 582.43 100.777 3.25 471.77 2687.99 68.899 $14.307 $28.831 $27.3 Household Density6 88.087 $14.648 $38.421 $26.774 43.19 17.39 411.4 25.95 77.122 $31.38 100.583 $26.144 $38.388 3.6 17.192 $34.58 14.444 $13.79 579.273 $34.128 $13.558 $25.216 9.97 100.37 1155.588 $16.511 $30.5 23.92 24.999 5.502 $13.417 $15.134 11.00 46.84 27.7 19.86 716.607 3.776 7.265 $31.08 35.952 18.592 3.58 68.097 $14.06 29.18 72.139 $20.327 $27.180 $32.978 $13.2 22.390 10.58 1175.8 19.70 28.910 $24.737 $30.288 $15.411 3.248 8.458 $25.9 17.782 13.257 59.545 $31.09 100.152 5.632 $28.71 1935.728 $30.607 $29.047 9.27 52.609 12.53 496.343 $31.820 $34.985 $15.083 $22.736 $14.536 $14.2 34.370 $37.508 $33.3 22 16.519 28.184 $13.616 24.25 24.317 21.81 .00 67.412 $21.695 $26.066 6.

37 1247.143 $12.50 24.203 $22.00 70.89 58.035 3.164 6.441 1.00 82.60 54.061 163.916 $31.5 1.46 179.575 74.185 $36.972 17.59 23.8 18.419 $35.724 $38.6 Household Density6 Population Density6 Percent Rural Housing7 29.674 23.32 63.973 1.336 12.157 8.09 20.88 2711.00 56.603 $15.81 100.5 19.00 51.7 31.38 12.30 72.419 6.2 26.190 $17.338 $18.1 6.31 976.728 $32.137 21.21 516.00 9.59 905.004 $32.28 12.793 $16.916 $23.550 $8.839 $31.509 $3.70 1420.28 15.004 5.007 17.4 16.207 20.041 6.224 $4.146 $22.52 825.626 $27.206 $27.099 $28.445 70.344 $25.9 12.209 $29.378 37 32.151 31 NA NA NA NA Percent Living in Poverty (2008)5 19.73 67.027 8.96 193.82 33.976 9.976 7.51 1087.429 $24.726 $49.4 19.271 $14.845 273 7 5.84 100.269 $15.56 1.08 958.285 $17.4 19.90 100.890 $13.22 79.5 17.894 $44.49 100.96 63.213 16.015 $41.866 26.550 14.125 $18.04 784.39 1640.123.616 $35.868 $21.81 297.5 13.459 23.68 23.317 55.00 100.95 9.350 $4.00 81.951 28.95 476.644 432 45.711 $38.21 100.823 $38.7 21.660 18.Federal Communications Commission FCC 10-129 APPENDIX C Unserved Areas By County or County Equivalent County or County Equivalent Areas1 Sharp St.319 $36.62 49.152 $26.155 $39.809 $27.1 17.33 7.918 3.78 62.184 44.597 $4.431 $13.00 22.68 1248.00 54.522 $29.383 $25.29 100.09 885.320 $36.439 21.90 190.875 $31.39 NA NA NA NA .547 9.725 $49.7 27.160 $34.442 $28.55 19.356 $18.3 16.090 43.845 7.435 3.39 2.54 18092.483 $14.86 4.4 16.542 61.063 $16.56 41.086 20.870 $34.93 41.530 $31.214 $14.801 $28.36 14857.986 $14.570 $15.283 $26. Francis Stone Union Van Buren White Woodruff Yell American Samoa Eastern District Manu'a District Swains Island Western District Arizona Apache La Paz California Alpine Imperial Mariposa Modoc Siskiyou Tehama Trinity Tuolumne Colorado Population2 Households3 Average Per Capita Income (1999)4 Median Household Income (1999)4 Median Household Income (2008)4 17.134 $16.70 92.44 39.28 1202.27 4.239 $18.62 100.

785 4.153 840 1.346 1.017 $30.850 $12.788 $28.8 29.279 $31.29 30.320 1.731 $32.2 7.3 25.27 2.749 8.90 0.196 $51.41 1.98 6.35 100.748 $12.5 10.803 $34.95 75.495 $32.148 $22.4 1.603 $50.152 $34.942 $37.00 100.03 5.00 100.00 45.321 7.41 100.187 $46.00 13.809 $15.863 1.3 15.50 3.76 9.678 5.33 130.619 1.00 32 Percent Living in Poverty (2008)5 Household Density6 Population Density6 Percent Rural Housing7 .98 87.57 198.00 100.7 29.63 100.17 301.87 6.00 100.293 $38.83 868.228 380 569 533 2.475 $15.985 $10.099 $28.177 $29.00 37.00 49.00 58.840 $33.567 $17.332 3.04 1486.2 24.27 27.00 100.963 $33.51 8.531 $26.21 79.106 $26.613 $37.63 1.817 $17.9 16.56 293.087 $17.83 0.413 $38.8 6.843 962 18.87 14.6 21.00 77.00 38.125 $37.4 22.013 7.826 $16.00 100.63 8.86 34.208 $31.96 35.9 19.62 1706.06 38.2 11.497 1.608 20.116 7.730 $33.2 14.52 824.00 71.651 $28.757 1.191 14.937 441 7.617 17.524 $12.997 $46.38 0.473 2.822 2.999 1.121 $17.64 222.225 $26.087 $35.054 $24.1 29.198 $38.455 2.935 $25.6 12.90 100.058 4.Federal Communications Commission FCC 10-129 APPENDIX C Unserved Areas By County or County Equivalent County or County Equivalent Areas1 Baca Bent Cheyenne Conejos Costilla Crowley Custer Dolores Gilpin Hinsdale Jackson Kiowa Kit Carson Mineral Otero Phillips Prowers Saguache Washington Florida Calhoun Gilchrist Hamilton Lafayette Liberty Georgia Population2 Households3 Average Per Capita Income (1999)4 Median Household Income (1999)4 Median Household Income (2008)4 3.304 1.150 $13.477 13.982 17.844 $29.23 1.494 $33.638 $30.986 5.00 100.00 100.744 $19.701 843 2.821 $30.332 $50.902 1.77 100.562 $13.234 $42.37 578.444 $39.379 $13.382 $16.747 $25.360 $17.969 688 2.964 $24.78 63.79 33.12 135.75 3.431 $31.067 3.09 230.00 100.050 $10.563 1.394 $14.394 $33.8 11.581 $39.113 $16.00 100.957 4.10 14.8 46.692 $40.836 $19.348 8.92 50.4 12 21.738 $32.774 4.2 11.575 $30.40 107.5 24.37 259.84 452.068 $13.660 $43.00 2.24 100.9 12.232 6.328 $25.760 $62.834 5.01 100.955 4.120 $32.00 100.75 0.

16 24.08 100.92 1487.38 42.618 21.447 $30.36 1298.16 695.022 $21.402 2.27 100.00 90.443 8.510 4.55 38.00 70.969 $13.98 58.145 $31.134 $37.00 99.201 3.442 3.4 22.224 $29.8 13.825 11.78 5740.925 $30.271 10.8 17.440 13.814 $29.191 $28.490 11.704 $36.338 $30.834 $37.038 10.289 $16.94 1142.041 5.28 100.361 $24.511 6.491 $13.37 31.42 914.969 3.870 $27.651 $26.9 26.28 62.00 100.7 25.8 26.839 $12.890 $26.30 3224.40 154.706 $10.5 31.039 $42.110 $40.185 $17.481 $31.140 4.697 $41.384 $15.768 $15.400 $12.88 19.429 $35.269 $15.64 82.848 $25.82 1396.47 713.231 12.408 5.358 $29.78 100.00 59.828 3.758 $16.805 15.537 2.45 100.435 $31.09 410.25 33.2 24.377 $28.007 1.2 18.1 16.00 100.69 100.40 64.321 $22.140 $29.60 100.025 $23.630 $45.4 15.074 13.044 $15.646 22.6 33.952 $24.435 $30.359 33 Percent Living in Poverty (2008)5 20.54 1515.39 38.09 34.7 26.00 81.42 2270.90 22.266 $26.52 18.2 18.74 88.47 36.85 Population Density6 1342.588 $25.820 $14.00 80.665 $36.09 2481.00 68.063 22.769 1.477 3.89 66.108 15.848 $31.580 3.84 100.335 $34.4 23.3 26 17.8 28.1 17.056 9.88 642.404 $15.65 11.34 Percent Rural Housing7 71.743 $36.77 336.3 19.978 1.351 $11.547 9.78 19.00 69.910 $30.236 $33.819 $15.612 $32.003 $39.74 1137.741 1.86 16.49 10.727 $13.1 18.383 $25.044 $14.767 $17.059 6.824 28.958 $16.91 1225.571 8.713 $11.851 $24.98 45.00 .56 1365.550 8.796 43.134 $35.404 4.7 Household Density6 35.617 8.21 71.35 849.654 $33.7 31.520 6.982 $35.58 768.40 2579.964 22.87 71.147 $14.849 $31.18 1669.842 16.198 9.5 24.916 $19.97 64.82 100.120 $24.949 3.269 $36.002 3.69 1146.08 1375.304 4.448 $37.708 $15.405 $28.471 1.185 6.374 $34.43 31.840 6.95 37.249 $13.05 33.38 21.362 8.4 26.566 $32.8 15.18 668.627 $12.00 100.Federal Communications Commission FCC 10-129 APPENDIX C Unserved Areas By County or County Equivalent County or County Equivalent Areas1 Appling Bacon Baker Brantley Calhoun Candler Clay Crawford Echols Emanuel Evans Fannin Franklin Gilmer Glascock Habersham Hancock Jasper Jefferson Jenkins Johnson Lincoln Macon Marion Meriwether Miller Population2 Households3 Average Per Capita Income (1999)4 Median Household Income (1999)4 Median Household Income (2008)4 18.624 2.

565 $14.875 $33.34 142.119 $33.721 $57.682 8.65 66.72 23.992 $24.36 1022.00 61.85 80.10 104.569 2.757 $31.879 5.1 22.16 100.454 12.00 100.1 18.195 $30.089 $19.84 44.014 $44.973 $32.3 30.469 8.823 $40.250 9.128 34 Percent Living in Poverty (2008)5 13.580 $14.863 23.00 100.930 14.257 21.42 784.529 $16.832 $52.27 100.022 $15.00 51.841 $34.00 81.97 387.81 80.881 $28.6 10.133 25.811 $31.56 100.728 $42.2 12.745 3.9 17.578 $41.106 31.514 15.608 $37.774 $14.384 $14.828 $19.10 2847.57 99.67 5573.2 14 21.206 $27.139 $41.00 100.664 $25.628 2.40 31.964 3.910 $27.877 25.099 6.47 30.76 20.983 $32.30 52.193 $14.83 36.127 17.104 1.8 20.511 $31.414 1.666 6.182 5.806 2.370 $25.394 $33.12 755.13 2902.084 $27.240 $35.84 397.21 10.89 4058.893 $28.351 35.483 $52.00 66.8 27.042 10.772 $13.222 $36.38 60.1 13.52 23.387 $29.492 776 7.299 8.608 $31.76 100.00 81.94 743.164 6.888 $43.5 25.766 28.312 $29.779 2.8 24.704 9.00 100.240 7.13 879.6 23.1 17.7 25.366 $29.17 16.6 24.88 2795.102 11.894 $15.641 4.08 2747.750 8.661 $14.143 $31.00 100.439 $13.608 $13.10 1510.75 633.61 98.2 14.611 $23.22 76.845 $14.114 $35.25 28.466 $24.053 $36.647 $30.42 724.895 $44.00 100.25 76.258 10.4 19.5 35.360 $27.301 $20.703 16.33 23.502 $33.77 2007.892 6.8 Household Density6 63.184 6.Federal Communications Commission FCC 10-129 APPENDIX C Unserved Areas By County or County Equivalent County or County Equivalent Areas1 Monroe Montgomery Oglethorpe Pickens Pierce Pike Quitman Rabun Screven Stephens Stewart Talbot Taliaferro Tattnall Taylor Toombs Towns Twiggs Union Ware Warren Washington Webster Wheeler White Wilcox Population2 Households3 Average Per Capita Income (1999)4 Median Household Income (1999)4 Median Household Income (2008)4 25.182 $17.992 1.899 $29.750 $28.176 18.72 100.432 $14.230 $17.7 23 14.61 Percent Rural Housing7 75.379 832 2.699 $34.47 66.19 39.7 23.65 397.259 $18.498 $13.127 $34.950 $31.427 3.00 .09 1535.00 100.4 26.148 $26.13 1236.51 23.2 21.252 8.539 $15.071 $14.493 4.53 48.31 9.00 27.99 1865.01 Population Density6 2265.98 134.006 2.88 10.36 5248.66 1084.74 100.221 $14.66 1297.56 863.45 17.439 $35.19 100.005 $17.861 13.844 21.033 $35.921 5.252 $18.789 $26.

5 14.479 $39.81 22.253 13.908 $14.56 16.254 12.02 63.658 $27.6 34.55 3.566 9.999 6.309 $28.4 12.680 $35.7 17.676 3.28 49.167 $31.23 1673.942 3.126 910 4.037 $13.9 9.00 13.2 14.177 $56.138 3.9 2.930 $40.11 35.935 $16.133 3.561 $45.185 $32.948 $19.439 1.799 $46.45 881.94 121.13 68.00 $37.00 2192.576 $32.774 $15.11 55.61 105.72 1.813 $13.00 8.644 $32.3 12.405 $17.74 644.068 $33.009 29.499 2.464 1.751 1.551 7.947 $16.207 3.253 6.78 67.72 684.126 $17.5 7.3 17.71 24.152 18.83 58.86 795.68 55.01 36.450 $41.327 18.094 $43.822 $49.07 17.723 $32.61 100.293 7.97 100.Federal Communications Commission FCC 10-129 APPENDIX C Unserved Areas By County or County Equivalent County or County Equivalent Areas1 Wilkes Wilkinson Hawaii Kalawao Iowa Calhoun Clayton Greene Van Buren Idaho Adams Butte Camas Clark Custer Fremont Lemhi Minidoka Oneida Owyhee Teton Illinois Alexander Bond Cass Macoupin Population2 Households3 Average Per Capita Income (1999)4 Median Household Income (1999)4 Median Household Income (2008)4 10.877 8.74 1376.13 221.3 Household Density6 NA .05 0.026 4.423 $42.818 3.49 48.979 $44.286 $34.767 3.130 10.866 $15.8 10.83 701.62 850.298 $26.020 $14.424 $30.00 100.00 100.154 3.833 1.45 56.00 100.52 0.778 $28.756 $9.4 11.7 14.31 662.532 $17.74 100.887 17.748 $33.021 $40.783 $13.574 48.725 $45.608 $41.339 $41.456 3.243 $36.295 $36.23 1.56 1.473 $34.808 18.363 5.269 6.730 4.021 $34.5 13.968 8.042 $37.00 77.00 82.86 6.2 10.63 53.174 $33.44 1.15 42.190 35 Percent Living in Poverty (2008)5 Population Density6 Percent Rural Housing7 21.645 4.59 100.2 16.34 22.00 $28.01 NA 21.846 $36.40 71.141 $15.4 13.965 $16.282 $40.44 891.3 13.6 15.53 56.333 9.8 19.228 13.083 $14.883 $31.32 100.031 452 302 1.498 $16.084 $17.423 $30.00 94.45 100.00 100.462 $45.42 19.093 117 105 $13.829 $13.282 10.49 46.550 $11.911 $38.33 845.930 $16.62 1417.82 100.35 15.

169 $29.02 7.4 9.76 13.704 $37.89 932.31 2.864 $36.36 100.050 $18.907 $53.Federal Communications Commission FCC 10-129 APPENDIX C Unserved Areas By County or County Equivalent County or County Equivalent Areas1 Menard Schuyler Indiana Parke Spencer Kansas Atchison Bourbon Chase Chautauqua Cheyenne Clark Clay Cloud Decatur Dickinson Elk Ellis Ellsworth Gove Graham Gray Greenwood Harper Hodgeman Jewell Population2 Households3 Average Per Capita Income (1999)4 Median Household Income (1999)4 Median Household Income (2008)4 12.453 $16.286 $40.00 63.916 4.937 13.829 $37.5 9.25 140.768 2.4 11.6 15.92 930.852 1.862 $17.00 100.205 $39.464 6.4 12.393 $15.00 64.482 $43.257 $35.74 47.55 6.644 $34.6 38.00 100.348 $17.12 100.00 100.45 80.77 53.742 2.2 10.58 72.393 $17.00 16.478 735 1.592 5.66 15.538 $42.896 $42.339 $35.859 9.965 $31.66 67.413 $41.73 2.160 5.190 864 3.453 2.781 16.599 $16.99 100.884 $43.106 2.31 3.289 $32.596 $35.16 13.233 $57.804 3.89 6.857 1.6 12.7 9.21 3.599 $33.788 $35.772 $33.46 1424.259 7.355 $31.38 2.857 $33.939 $17.11 100.047 27.6 12.788 $37.094 $49.142 6.858 $21.451 $41.925 1.07 149.324 2.909 1.126 $36.91 538.041 1.44 1436.74 309.422 $16.669 3.4 39.16 85.390 1.8 15.575 $39.852 $18.39 17.00 100.68 569.912 19.892 2.280 $17.851 2.913 $46.994 $30.80 204.21 123.82 97.108 8.79 4.462 $44.6 12.81 1548.00 24.986 $18.000 2.59 653.550 1.656 $28.975 $27.325 11.1 13.69 2.948 3.69 1258.3 16 11.066 $18.60 100.000 $35.776 $35.00 47.199 $32.569 $17.9 11.460 $37.158 $46.4 10.69 241.3 38.045 $39.18 253.758 $30.207 $16.161 1.152 20.632 $15.12 23.584 $17.795 $17.24 36.000 $30.06 45.717 $30.724 $42.43 1869.053 9.00 100.56 50.846 $42.26 22.1 12.328 3.5 13.12 230.54 116.00 100.72 88.5 9.368 $15.111 6.861 5.267 $32.575 $44.536 $16.00 100.51 153.481 14.389 7.27 3.688 6.801 6.780 $16.89 8.548 2.976 $16.00 36 Percent Living in Poverty (2008)5 Household Density6 Population Density6 Percent Rural Housing7 .3 14.24 333.71 30.250 2.2 8.510 $31.866 2.61 5.87 2.26 100.259 $16.

575 1.4 9.70 37 Percent Living in Poverty (2008)5 Household Density6 Population Density6 Percent Rural Housing7 .292 6.901 2.307 $44.03 264.98 194.Federal Communications Commission FCC 10-129 APPENDIX C Unserved Areas By County or County Equivalent County or County Equivalent Areas1 Labette Lincoln Lyon Meade Mitchell Morris Nemaha Ness Norton Osborne Ottawa Rawlins Republic Rush Sheridan Smith Trego Washington Kentucky Adair Allen Barren Bath Bell Bourbon Breathitt Population2 Households3 Average Per Capita Income (1999)4 Median Household Income (1999)4 Median Household Income (2008)4 21.36 3.296 $32.562 4.73 76.98 1691.018 $19.381 $15.45 1358.486 $29.7 12.7 31.54 68.8 10.506 $16.62 62.00 100.813 6.77 1225.80 4.7 11.602 2.10 1595.819 $36.76 42.095 2.74 6.46 8.66 42.89 187.49 523.501 $40.7 10.680 1.893 $32.04 31.01 371.828 15.297 $34.238 $31.321 $41.791 8.96 49.931 $14.667 2.162 23.69 55.503 4.71 4.761 $33.08 2.050 $29.728 11.2 17.73 2134.634 2.00 100.36 2.112 2.867 $46.199 $39.326 $11.938 $44.494 $31.528 3.00 17.816 $15.41 293.80 330.12 4.858 $41.155 $30.044 $24.95 74.226 2.653 $18.163 $34.026 2.090 41.00 100.00 25.445 15.85 362.105 $30.525 $15.724 $16.102 1.00 100.9 11.34 2707.824 $17.00 100.50 2.50 100.925 $38.9 10.491 $17.161 $17.395 13.00 100.781 4.34 6.387 1.96 186.26 78.891 6.145 $38.335 $11.155 $30.871 3.240 $26.3 9.121 $17.43 120.071 $14.2 11.568 $45.4 19.960 $24.239 $15.980 $38.00 100.268 $33.00 100.882 5.6 10.220 $24.197 $43.54 41.7 9.51 100.24 6.72 4.38 167.66 14.232 2.340 $31.037 10.433 $18.750 29.385 $32.57 138.00 100.00 49.14 100.793 $39.00 60.8 26.812 3.79 4.677 $29.3 12.547 $28.28 100.93 1705.00 43.097 $36.00 100.629 7.58 100.510 3.388 16.4 33.012 1.566 11.5 43.169 $36.58 3417.3 14.99 8.804 6.758 1.292 2.788 $15.875 $30.69 3223.3 12.05 80.92 112.19 232.940 7.057 $35.945 5.389 $38.5 10.3 9.4 8.407 1.261 35.787 $16.98 102.299 $14.526 $18.835 $16.359 6.26 8.009 $32.038 $19.773 19.817 1.3 31.033 $16.7 15.055 19.15 84.942 $48.370 3.983 $16.547 $39.236 $17.363 $37.663 $17.045 1.43 195.069 $40.515 $30.252 $37.055 $31.

157 10.7 18.26 35.81 73.325 $10.495 $17.660 $12.914 $18.00 85.214 $12.786 $23.623 $11.55 43.627 $27.090 $29.00 88.09 85.584 $27.99 86.68 1204.3 21.Federal Communications Commission FCC 10-129 APPENDIX C Unserved Areas By County or County Equivalent County or County Equivalent Areas1 Breckinridge Butler Carter Casey Clay Edmonson Fleming Floyd Franklin Fulton Garrard Green Hancock Harlan Harrison Hart Hopkins Jackson Johnson Knott Knox Lawrence Lee Leslie Letcher Lewis Population2 Households3 Average Per Capita Income (1999)4 Median Household Income (1999)4 Median Household Income (2008)4 19.271 $25.466 38 Percent Living in Poverty (2008)5 18.210 $25.338 13.027 $25.30 9680.648 $42.7 13.382 $34.509 $46.580 $16.917 $33.51 3298.786 6.617 $13.110 $22.610 9.00 100.735 42.369 9.76 1729.639 4.27 77.9 15.810 16.413 $27.731 20.276 27.63 84.1 13.990 $21.2 33.00 .01 66.480 $14.9 30 29.015 $23.374 $28.116 $26.787 3.354 4.4 26.297 $10.05 2802.815 $40.083 $33.405 $26.435 $26.81 39.8 26.96 1637.1 26 30.291 $27.610 $18.267 7.525 5.00 99.094 48.574 6.911 $20.177 $24.166 $40.85 2635.50 3409.24 44.442 $12.309 $15.00 106.373 2.785 $33.62 40.716 $14.208 $39.98 49.63 1773.546 $21.09 100.645 24.639 23.03 1369.214 23.711 $14.284 $25.17 39.445 $31.021 11.613 8.88 Percent Rural Housing7 100.984 $12.462 $48.811 4.07 2871.855 17.44 100.414 11.744 16.88 65.42 31.168 $40.00 78.86 36.94 71.402 $14.008 $13.948 $25.2 38.890 13.5 27.619 12.561 46.2 20.313 7.60 2346.584 8.518 $23.502 5.326 6.783 18.70 1879.454 16.378 $30.2 33.39 1550.373 $18.442 $21.544 $18.056 17.57 1339.23 45.1 16.76 2575.33 28.93 42.194 18.32 1141.085 14.294 $21.429 $11.031 $30.051 $11.443 7.68 1095.24 100.427 $21.011 $24.26 3565.73 1601.40 1757.60 60.4 27.36 84.00 83.1 30.867 $9.319 12.807 7.5 28.09 1500.81 70.7 18.585 $17.463 $36.861 6.00 100.16 1477.76 232.554 $29.60 100.365 $33.50 Population Density6 1314.00 73.4 Household Density6 33.128 $35.6 20.665 $36.64 39.1 33.46 28.107 $16.084 $31.771 5.663 30.892 $22.654 18.382 $10.3 20.39 50.50 50.915 $16.00 68.08 32.930 12.868 $20.66 1658.89 60.848 5.08 4243.309 $16.15 61.284 2.844 6.70 100.09 100.40 91.132 13.76 100.229 $14.95 23.9 19.478 $13.385 32.

00 82.124 $31.83 87.805 $22.401 $39.05 1786.93 100.56 1554.22 43.696 13.720 9.005 $13.47 1995.35 61.2 Household Density6 74.1 25.581 $23.627 7.669 38.117 8.00 100.109 16.859 60.176 $40.03 1592.866 $13.00 100.94 91.24 3337.37 102.515 $27.06 23.4 22.942 $48.880 $15.8 24.54 38.56 48.21 100.422 26.875 8.953 $19.315 9.474 $31.296 15.331 13.4 17.317 $10.394 39 Percent Living in Poverty (2008)5 21 17.87 1523.681 21.80 1383.87 3542.912 4.540 $39.00 73.57 1928.7 35.00 100.2 25.6 15.29 40.060 $15.90 921.97 22.920 10.075 $34.555 $23.890 $37.1 37.22 42.399 6.78 1550.261 $40.754 $27.39 85.3 35.290 5.241 65.6 28.932 $25.4 34.1 17.120 $15.50 55.8 16.32 1412.557 $15.36 Percent Rural Housing7 80.886 $29.05 1603.00 57.80 1453.497 4.29 1906.685 $14.972 4.532 832 6.36 100.866 $42.841 $22.57 45.343 $39.496 $35.00 70.3 23 26.337 $13.595 20.9 19.912 $31.16 3707.01 34.94 76.00 65.046 $17.348 $29.063 11.236 $18.151 19.224 $14.03 50.016 $10.23 100.829 $28.089 $23.25 72.789 4.888 4.9 23.722 $12.737 $32.33 100.81 100.05 40.352 $13.00 75.99 831.475 $22.46 82.742 $12.6 27.766 $22.542 $32.113 6.00 71.633 3.602 $15.387 $18.245 13.465 $15.202 16.36 35.851 2.972 $13.16 76.85 100.825 11.Federal Communications Commission FCC 10-129 APPENDIX C Unserved Areas By County or County Equivalent County or County Equivalent Areas1 Lincoln Logan Lyon Magoffin Marion Martin McCreary McLean Mercer Metcalfe Nelson Nicholas Ohio Owsley Perry Pike Powell Pulaski Robertson Rockcastle Russell Union Washington Wayne Webster Whitley Population2 Households3 Average Per Capita Income (1999)4 Median Household Income (1999)4 Median Household Income (2008)4 25.472 $10.353 $42.601 $15.067 2.85 Population Density6 2939.650 $27.375 $27.00 61.370 $30.404 $12.87 68.80 38.4 16.421 $30.99 90.87 100.777 $26.253 $37.07 87.62 3801.621 $24.657 $12.675 $35.25 2087.863 $31.279 $19.98 1378.010 $29.368 8.136 $20.901 $35.018 $33.811 23.668 9.300 24.602 17.7 17.17 .634 29.375 5.64 40.00 52.41 75.205 5.390 14.4 19.48 38.042 $35.79 61.19 3338.125 $35.233 1.885 10.930 $25.4 12.17 2909.7 27.719 2.024 11.529 $22.5 18.19 3377.962 6.694 $19.288 43.012 $30.650 $9.59 2942.896 $16.962 $16.788 17.072 27.14 1610.183 $17.

720 $25.38 53.819 $14.635 42.191 42.15 18.7 21.825 $11.38 9.582 $23.33 1108.723 $20.39 66.694 22.608 $13.95 84.45 25.96 26.11 1195.528 $25.96 100.08 30.2 18 23.197 $16.27 726.29 18.520 49.744 $43.89 30.48 29.44 1077.709 3.974 15.166 35.51 14.830 10.692 45.4 18.Federal Communications Commission FCC 10-129 APPENDIX C Unserved Areas By County or County Equivalent County or County Equivalent Areas1 Louisiana Allen Parish Avoyelles Parish Beauregard Parish Bienville Parish Caldwell Parish Cameron Parish Catahoula Parish Claiborne Parish Concordia Parish East Carroll Parish Evangeline Parish Franklin Parish Grant Parish Jackson Parish Lincoln Parish Madison Parish Morehouse Parish Rapides Parish Red River Parish Richland Parish Sabine Parish Tensas Parish Union Parish Vernon Parish Washington Parish Population2 Households3 Average Per Capita Income (1999)4 Median Household Income (1999)4 Median Household Income (2008)4 25.71 27.42 57.17 1019.89 36.114 $13.66 23.32 90.9 32.268 3.509 $25.6 34.44 1932.40 1058.504 $34.3 15.28 2541.522 16.85 Population Density6 1071.788 $32.851 $32.915 $27.04 100.168 $41.837 7.032 15.90 610.622 $14.668 $26.298 $49.63 32.01 100.675 $14.430 8.386 $29.064 8.017 $13.655 $19.119 $12.00 78.495 $30.62 1324.354 $14.7 22.4 23.972 $34.098 2.81 44.964 $29.7 26.76 75.238 10.2 20.353 7.410 $15.821 15.95 21.061 $31.153 $23.35 72.00 88.53 34.728 10.398 $31.790 28.00 100.329 7.56 3757.189 15.602 3.17 19.863 5.42 36.20 64.966 $9.073 $36.36 67.088 $12.7 21.18 38.725 40 Percent Living in Poverty (2008)5 20.70 829.471 $13.799 $29.904 $38.39 19.124 $29.101 $12.146 $15.80 798.230 7.848 2.978 14.284 $30.00 68.777 $23.131 $32.264 $40.514 $12.216 $24.96 347.501 23.2 43.4 24.023 7.348 $12.939 6.733 $29.688 5.663 $26.131 9.313 $10.66 90.93 36.352 $26.878 17.118 20.884 $15.360 34.327 2.896 $36.624 20.94 613.74 3238.602 133.18 1168.479 $15.54 Percent Rural Housing7 72.53 50.697 3.42 68.232 $22.5 12.85 198.56 1175.07 100.00 100.32 .39 27.199 $12.236 $31.329 9.6 25.4 24.135 $35.26 60.9 14 21 21.006 19.1 Household Density6 33.786 $26.856 $23.440 $34.742 $20.977 $20.21 52.561 11.83 1312.97 48.3 18.532 $22.20 1809.807 $25.1 17.20 559.100 $29.062 12.73 1005.86 34.56 5.142 19.75 704.200 $31.984 $31.629 $11.573 12.432 $12.344 $22.036 $12.622 $28.095 8.7 25.624 $41.9 28.639 45.538 6.

99 20.024 10.7 17.873 $34.50 885.484 $19.920 12.171 3.68 28.312 $34.128 9.089 $32.810 5.12 25.64 20.8 10.64 2076.560 $26.47 34.462 $35.691 5.3 10.632 6.794 $28.099 $38.14 10.909 $15.7 14.93 217.093 $41.00 84.13 100.06 327.3 15.031 $32.73 79.31 100.47 31.836 13.502 6.656 $36.496 $51.87 76.249 6.732 55.228 $31.73 92.922 $50.408 $24.00 49.22 5.68 1160.988 $38.754 11.081 4.495 15.889 $30.870 $37.67 1693.Federal Communications Commission FCC 10-129 APPENDIX C Unserved Areas By County or County Equivalent County or County Equivalent Areas1 Webster Parish West Carroll Parish West Feliciana Parish Winn Parish Michigan Gladwin Iron Lake Luce Menominee Oscoda Presque Isle Sanilac Minnesota Cass Clay Clearwater Grant Hubbard Mahnomen Marshall Norman Wilkin Missouri Adair Andrew Population2 Households3 Average Per Capita Income (1999)4 Median Household Income (1999)4 Median Household Income (2008)4 40.019 $28.614 24.332 $37.493 $45.614 $16.00 30.517 $33.32 23.491 27.412 $15.324 $16.00 100.697 $17.408 16.767 8.603 1.286 11.89 259.21 2701.438 $16.108 17.427 7.521 17.30 67.115 $13.21 824.58 100.363 $17.239 $37.97 321.677 $40.846 16.79 100.19 15.775 $35.00 73.36 444.740 $48.9 68.637 $39.981 $30.605 6.38 449.256 2.00 87.00 100.073 3.36 7.84 1943.4 43.302 $16.29 19.847 2.73 568.20 59.828 $16.650 43.622 $32.54 8.26 348.014 6.667 $25.25 885.36 100.804 $32.557 $15.29 10.888 $28.8 15.68 44.238 4.780 $41.28 41 Percent Living in Poverty (2008)5 Household Density6 Population Density6 Percent Rural Housing7 .9 23.743 14.317 $15.5 51.658 $36.00 100.506 $14.00 100.532 $42.895 $16.471 $54.550 2.95 16.457 $16.07 801.416 $17.731 $38.310 3.694 $17.924 $36.47 24.497 20.053 $34.131 $18.005 18.35 8.63 53.21 965.31 653.923 9.98 36.3 9.072 $34.8 21.4 20.00 64.189 $17.672 2.41 7.89 1698.05 304.24 53.003 15.8 14.37 569.7 13.202 8.523 5.596 5.201 $11.7 21.941 3.99 38.943 16.8 9.341 10.203 $12.688 $33.39 9.851 $39.1 20.095 $31.321 $30.5 13 14.535 $38.001 11.325 $31.405 $15.73 1473.375 $26.8 12 7.9 23.95 100.

35 7233.731 3.695 $32.640 $30.5 13.00 100.988 $40.948 3.2 17 15.269 $32.48 330.275 1.355 6.88 8523.82 51.106 $15.266 3.30 182.7 20 14.00 62.50 29.592 $29.855 $31.9 17 17.13 7.68 31.11 800.96 100.01 744.882 $15.990 89.31 23.5 18.94 16.77 507.536 $15.301 11.051 $38.527 $38.60 7.227 $13.9 18 15 20.468 $35.785 $17.23 100.349 $14.155 4.906 $30.568 $16.00 84.432 $14.00 12.574 34.381 $34.890 13.54 11.14 64.76 14.654 $25.2 16.925 $31.00 .06 1106.333 $28.Federal Communications Commission FCC 10-129 APPENDIX C Unserved Areas By County or County Equivalent County or County Equivalent Areas1 Audrain Barry Bollinger Buchanan Butler Caldwell Carter Cedar Cooper Dallas Daviess DeKalb Douglas Gasconade Grundy Harrison Hickory Howard Jasper Knox Lewis Maries Marion McDonald Mercer Monroe Population2 Households3 Average Per Capita Income (1999)4 Median Household Income (1999)4 Median Household Income (2008)4 26.600 $38.761 5.648 $15.95 28.45 81.956 $32.228 $31.995 3.6 Household Density6 37.92 76.721 $15.075 $14.632 2.57 1002.44 1182.924 16.652 17.313 $27.00 72.90 100.462 $34.55 552.4 20.43 42.014 $42.363 $39.32 218.28 1183.13 Population Density6 1435.9 16.010 $29.760 3.918 $35.929 $34.662 $16.86 23.13 1831.00 100.501 3.606 42 Percent Living in Poverty (2008)5 17.408 41.918 116.23 886.23 12.142 3.91 736.60 28.20 978.049 36.944 $38.80 2519.441 $14.193 $39.694 $35.866 $41.6 25.21 100.813 4.00 100.046 28.343 $13.00 24.654 3.51 680.614 $31.192 $13.357 5.127 9.00 100.124 $30.681 3.65 2429.46 100.527 1.417 $26.95 19.84 464.746 $15.275 13.085 $31.057 $28.50 327.323 $27.383 9.57 54.871 $38.33 21.774 $27.535 16.03 31.844 7.8 13.00 100.15 554.039 8.298 $36.8 14.248 5.911 12.844 9.863 $26.951 9.346 $30.736 $39.60 19.964 $13.38 1204.319 $15.946 $42.69 69.272 4.515 $40.9 17.06 77.240 $22.261 10.70 21.641 $17.73 845.1 21.8 21 14.88 1580.251 6.707 $25.12 68.3 16.356 $15.346 $31.20 22.1 16.687 $13.523 9.651 $31.35 Percent Rural Housing7 40.047 $27.01 100.980 $13.692 $35.58 46.020 9.728 46.593 11.631 6.295 $38.125 8.12 40.10 13.947 14.55 657.521 3.175 $15.70 17.6 15.704 $27.953 $12.438 15.294 $28.21 59.225 22.9 13.198 $16.183 $35.140 $14.048 9.

492 $15.95 960.25 Percent Rural Housing7 100.007 $27.474 $11.825 3.369 2.981 $28.367 $13.94 8.46 9.6 20.554 $14.00 78.25 842.565 $25.40 1305.968 $16.464 $25.14 1448.49 27.188 $42.632 $17.359 $39.41 100.832 25.62 7.388 13.55 39.428 1.1 25.548 12.249 $44.392 $13.43 37.822 $26.009 24.924 $35.652 2.557 11.456 $15.4 15.476 4.00 98.86 1508.93 57.629 24.887 $47.26 .00 100.6 23.00 99.812 $17.200 $26.7 31.00 100.80 35.10 82.49 1480.723 6.461 2.120 10.524 $32.010 $13.443 4.125 $39.00 34.021 $27.96 89.35 10.80 1993.11 321.99 32.799 $15.403 $50.612 5.537 6.66 55.844 8.112 $24.855 7.286 862 7.385 $27. Genevieve Stoddard Sullivan Texas Vernon Washington Wayne Worth Wright Population2 Households3 Average Per Capita Income (1999)4 Median Household Income (1999)4 Median Household Income (2008)4 11.04 Population Density6 865.047 $12.632 $32.43 1068.33 7.029 7.110 4.078 $28.264 13.628 $29.37 100.862 9.162 6.2 17 22.39 20.6 17.39 12.861 $21.00 73.40 3431.71 10.865 $37.502 $12.3 26 15.584 $47.62 807.4 10 21.6 19.14 335.97 22.00 63.00 100.00 100.22 12.87 23.8 21 25.700 1.26 57.651 21.761 $27.6 23.471 $24.515 18.934 $13.465 9.720 29.12 79.00 100.236 5.84 535.647 $16.245 $14.423 6.3 17.283 $14.743 18.598 20.135 $32.7 12.850 $14.31 100.805 9.06 851.109 3.302 7.87 53.420 $30.53 1159.95 100.227 18.597 6.039 18.448 $39.411 17.18 20.808 5.287 $15.11 68.24 416.542 $35.5 24.889 $15.32 16.107 $24.656 $13.00 100.14 100.14 46.867 $22.57 518.772 $35.065 $12.27 35.987 $26.427 $27.804 56.1 10.3 14.98 862.373 $26.63 323.613 2.59 12.90 519.085 3.559 $36.37 552.041 $22.65 27.282 $37.00 100.678 $32.24 402.485 4.7 14.094 $31.365 $41.00 940.684 $30.299 $34.878 $29.87 21.979 2.911 $36.482 $27.546 $27.798 8.Federal Communications Commission FCC 10-129 APPENDIX C Unserved Areas By County or County Equivalent County or County Equivalent Areas1 Montgomery Newton Oregon Osage Ozark Pemiscot Perry Pike Putnam Ralls Randolph Reynolds Ripley Schuyler Scotland Shannon Shelby Ste.545 $30.737 $29.691 $39.498 4.42 13.434 $14.133 $12.57 694.561 43 Percent Living in Poverty (2008)5 14.462 $14.2 10.8 18.3 17.919 $32.092 $17.409 $20.26 412.2 Household Density6 21.682 10.

463 $23.00 64.507 790 $10.76 100.00 71.848 17.264 $28.508 10.Federal Communications Commission FCC 10-129 APPENDIX C Unserved Areas By County or County Equivalent County or County Equivalent Areas1 Northern Mariana Islands Rota Municipality Saipan Municipality Tinian Municipality Mississippi Adams Amite Attala Benton Bolivar Calhoun Carroll Choctaw Claiborne Clarke Coahoma Copiah Covington George Greene Grenada Hancock Harrison Holmes Humphreys Issaquena Population2 Households3 Average Per Capita Income (1999)4 Median Household Income (1999)4 3.58 1.6 24.52 1339.326 $9.1 17.786 $17.380 6.235 $20.540 757 12.491 $44.79 1892.106 $31.916 3.683 $10.9 35.02 18.782 $12.2 24.028 3.54 100.336 $27.93 22.506 $14.048 $13.781 67.24 28071.051 12.423 10.8 24.428 $27.610 $22.408 $14.16 11602.778 $14.60 749.995 40.181 $35.615 $26.526 22.926 $10.624 $17.7 24.730 $28.344 $28.7 23.45 24.090 10.00 .69 72.542 31.305 8.1 21.41 694.47 1652.2 25.60 46.60 3309.723 $28.51 21.41 19.73 929.37 68.794 $24.744 $13.29 706.558 $12.410 7.767 $29.202 $35.85 818.033 $24.4 16.904 4.367 9.106 $15.868 $13.786 $28.85 19.16 26.020 $22.17 27.244 $14.088 $15.699 $31.696 15.00 45.33 984.91 100.876 $33.936 44 Median Household Income (2008)4 Percent Living in Poverty (2008)5 NA NA NA NA NA NA $29.024 $10.1 32.288 $12.358 $26.331 20.522 26.1 Household Density6 Population Density6 Percent Rural Housing7 99.63 815.566 $19.77 49.460 20.337 $11.3 35.32 976.24 24.34 1029.621 5.74 100.400 7.11 1823.98 1440.545 7.63 100.68 100.52 84.669 $34.385 $35.639 $43.4 16.234 $26.666 $36.484 5.091 $26.00 1.02 58.708 $22.835 $43.76 19.149 $23.747 9.13 4.581 $25.658 12.369 $24.46 36.378 27.140 178.338 $26.00 100.212 $12.41 50.2 48.17 307.772 3.307 13.272 29.00 100.73 16.671 8.089 1.3 17.779 $31.03 1700.113 $28.7 35.00 43.3 22.29 25.430 3.021 $10.569 3.116 37.595 10.248 19.2 34.95 42.21 37.748 $18.14 49.392 3.830 $31.547 $32.38 30.00 100.39 54.320 $33.195 14.406 13.30 83.400.411 534 $15.81 2296.48 603.283 62.00 32.46 100.90 2061.474 $11.93 129.153 7.818 22.05 623.01 2712.2 21.771 $27.69 22.2 20.878 $27.555 $23.38 84.

034 $30.96 21.457 14.08 30.14 1449.069 $31.508 $35.25 1187.985 $14.956 $17.270 $28.997 9.89 Percent Rural Housing7 89.00 51.964 $14.301 $14.872 12.699 3.98 13.998 $28.961 $16.735 $22.040 $14.37 12.10 998.330 $27.370 22.834 $23.235 39.008 $12.00 76.308 4.76 1704.707 8.469 $13.653 9.697 $38.00 78.525 $34.889 $9.05 39.768 $12.2 20.549 $33.636 $26.111 $25.123 $31.21 84.99 47.65 69.118 $24.71 75.207 10.00 84.247 5.961 29.1 Household Density6 43.974 $11.748 2.37 100.34 1996.967 $34.396 $13.489 6.040 $15.74 1872.39 6533.351 11.131 $10.251 $31.9 24 15.992 9.80 27.317 13.956 47.055 $27.063 $51.87 64.11 30.658 $14.668 $36.189 $24.8 26.495 $27.530 22.90 100.072 $14.02 18.88 762.20 59.00 17.9 21.013 $11.693 $31.300 $28.284 25.088 10.6 19 34.996 4.3 20.463 15.883 3.123 $24.54 486.632 $26.752 $14.004 25.57 1253.6 17.950 $24.380 1.253 8.55 47.725 5.32 61.53 1427.837 $14.67 17.34 2250.14 429.018 $12.9 19.98 71.29 39.562 $32.768 $25.250 11.28 576.72 689.8 18.830 37.114 8.709 $11.380 4.71 606.735 45 Percent Living in Poverty (2008)5 15 13.266 30.447 $21.1 21.343 $30.456 $35.6 22.686 $22.318 $39.175 130.050 $36.156 $39.58 63.3 16.05 100.6 25.8 38.307 $25.59 75.556 28.724 28.446 $20.62 24.99 2210.555 $30.285 $28.943 5.809 16.69 53.14 82.64 118.91 97.590 $28.931 59.68 76.279 $32.73 58.2 23.025 8.81 4379.844 34.352 $26.75 27.56 38.215 4.355 11.59 934.034 15.183 21.2 32.01 31.29 1069.410 $34.5 27.694 18.69 63.6 20.86 35.98 1740.73 100.514 $12.518 $34.344 $14.16 .7 19.28 100.584 $14.Federal Communications Commission FCC 10-129 APPENDIX C Unserved Areas By County or County Equivalent County or County Equivalent Areas1 Itawamba Jackson Jasper Jefferson Jefferson Davis Kemper Lawrence Leake Lincoln Lowndes Marion Monroe Montgomery Neshoba Newton Noxubee Perry Pike Pontotoc Prentiss Quitman Scott Sharkey Simpson Smith Stone Population2 Households3 Average Per Capita Income (1999)4 Median Household Income (1999)4 Median Household Income (2008)4 23.495 $38.00 100.98 Population Density6 1682.840 $30.055 $28.817 $14.54 179.00 85.839 10.967 13.365 $13.00 100.67 3718.3 21 37.027 $30.51 63.441 $18.217 $34.407 $31.18 2381.850 5.63 48.03 47.3 24.828 12.26 1743.378 8.81 1150.

62 52.24 66.88 950.280 $17.98 46.225 1.757 $14.57 31.21 5.46 528.6 21.306 $29.00 75.874 496 33.344 1.605 $40.00 75.014 $13.882 $13.851 $16.53 2675.00 100.08 25.97 76.971 2.308 $27.563 $17.2 9.753 $38.585 $33.00 20.754 $32.094 $30.923 $25.055 $16.945 $35.825 $27.54 3.57 75.947 27.109 $10.383 24 11.46 157.674 $37.5 11.953 $12.315 $32.00 35.25 0.145 $33.5 20.21 30.197 822 663 7.184 1.283 19.247 $32.014 1.237 $13.590 7.430 $12.18 81.573 $16.033 $35.700 $12.241 $30.00 78.027 18.843 $12.960 731 1.09 17.759 $33.700 3.528 $40.239 $47.80 78.229 $28.395 $15.918 $28.930 $13.20 32.511 5.03 100.00 100.101 $16.8 22.04 1403.2 12.14 1211.35 217.291 $14.25 29.645 28.15 1.313 $32.11 100.373 7.256 $26.757 $25.643 2.821 2.087 28.Federal Communications Commission FCC 10-129 APPENDIX C Unserved Areas By County or County Equivalent County or County Equivalent Areas1 Tallahatchie Tishomingo Union Walthall Warren Washington Wayne Webster Wilkinson Winston Yalobusha Yazoo Montana Blaine Broadwater Carter Cascade Chouteau Daniels Fallon Garfield Golden Valley Granite Judith Basin Liberty Lincoln Population2 Households3 Average Per Capita Income (1999)4 Median Household Income (1999)4 Median Household Income (2008)4 13.78 69.53 10.002 $31.6 16.86 1234.8 34.23 890.026 5.566 $14.00 100.95 0.00 100.72 80.588 $34.12 100.30 43.49 3101.725 18.00 100.499 $30.50 38.31 14.929 $28.69 49.212 15.8 13.663 $33.752 $39.971 $29.636 $14.17 6.575 13.062 $22.755 9.5 25.464 4.00 100.493 $33.2 20.682 $22.944 $25.6 15.079 20.63 1.548 $14.574 7.917 $27.869 10.323 $37.42 2530.194 19.354 5.6 20.37 30.315 $24.834 $18.2 21 35.267 $10.68 0.234 82.078 493 373 1.150 $27.55 100.4 15 17.9 15.48 46 Percent Living in Poverty (2008)5 Household Density6 Population Density6 Percent Rural Housing7 .08 1.40 15.6 21 31.96 712.813 $29.452 $33.00 100.522 9.82 1855.887 10.056 $25.081 2.92 1.61 23.795 $27.070 $42.1 1.689 $26.104 $34.749 $15.716 1.762 3.00 100.25 55.58 100.00 100.9 18.22 1007.311 1.491 4.087 55.63 1182.40 1.32 1.704 1.668 18.099 $35.34 51.4 20 13.284 $26.416 48.527 $13.23 44.014 $26.00 100.67 65.868 $14.

43 1472.136 $52.422 $29.097 62.451 $32.35 52.00 100.877 $35.576 $30.5 19.551 269 2.849 $26.979 $24.049 $44.225 $27.09 46.75 100.734 3.375 $27.865 185 1.703 $21.11 286.44 179.486 $37.492 $28.1 13.265 $57.04 0.51 167.162 32.015 158.91 100.44 57.482 $50.99 1.00 100.064 9.43 27.7 19.613 1.243 $35.141 139.95 32.8 14.089 11.862 4.830 $30.019 $15.389 $15.5 10.318 $46.166 $15.00 25.02 83.318 $31.50 837.023 $19.347 $14.590 $49.00 100.172 12.143 $25.15 71.37 100.838 $32.127 $44.00 100.32 66560.217 11.Federal Communications Commission FCC 10-129 APPENDIX C Unserved Areas By County or County Equivalent County or County Equivalent Areas1 McCone Meagher Mineral Musselshell Petroleum Phillips Powder River Prairie Richland Roosevelt Sanders Sheridan Sweet Grass Treasure Valley Wheatland Wibaux North Carolina Anson Bladen Cleveland Davidson Davie Forsyth Gaston Mecklenburg Population2 Households3 Average Per Capita Income (1999)4 Median Household Income (1999)4 Median Household Income (2008)4 1.676 1.17 145.91 11.61 27.162 $15.283 $38.9 15.518 $32.671 $30.283 3.038 $17.679 890.904 1.735 $17.38 83.058 $15.00 100.174 $42.65 1.398 1.86 33935.1 10.5 14.110 $24.344 $30.985 $34.296 $39.043 $39.006 $11.00 100.121 $29.26 0.352 $29.00 54.164 350.41 0.229 $36.00 100.21 38.034 3.73 56.359 $23.20 89.36 11309.76 77.408 $47.00 44.892 2.880 $14.18 30.72 8.565 674 477 3.527 $24.790 637 6.1 13 12.78 3.933 $33.45 4.954 $16.00 100.593 $16.46 154.40 1.224 $37.99 22504.640 $40.250 $40.428 4.00 100.515 9.166 40.5 0.834 $26.77 99.702 $28.93 213.21 1.62 129.63 0.28 3.61 4.246 $11.012 $29.7 17.718 $29.312 99.00 100.48 580.293 23.579 $34.11 1725.424 $38.971 343.00 100.41 0.583 1.5 10.11 6086.351 $14.1 17 16.4 24 17.443 16.694 1.395 $18.868 3.00 66.986 $15.4 14.34 36.76 0.6 12.142 $34.000 80.097 $39.498 436 3.2 11.97 25.2 25.822 743 345 $15.9 47.51 0.96 2.422 $16.398 $25.852 $29.86 8199.107 $28.94 3.66 47 Percent Living in Poverty (2008)5 Household Density6 Population Density6 Percent Rural Housing7 .887 38.853 $14.289 $14.270 10.010 866 686 780 1.83 21.17 2.44 20.692.7 17.028 206.8 11.1 18.392 $16.

2 18.57 61.120 $16.119 $44.4 12.342 $33.171 30.005 129.004 $17.941 $17.64 74.8 97.83 11.508 46.2 16.953 811 6.95 100.191 25.693 $18.79 5.66 40164.674 2.127 $14.64 1.424 36.165 $29.84 223.6 14.123 92.00 100.769 334.509 $16.958 $42.225 $15.2 17.00 100.704 27.986 5.359 3.71 157.587 $50.80 1.187 193.27 64.43 114.151 12.137 $11.76 2.Federal Communications Commission FCC 10-129 APPENDIX C Unserved Areas By County or County Equivalent County or County Equivalent Areas1 Richmond Robeson Rockingham Rutherford Scotland Stokes Transylvania Union Wake Wayne Yadkin North Dakota Benson Billings Bottineau Burke Dickey Divide Eddy Foster Golden Valley Grant Griggs LaMoure McHenry McKenzie Population2 Households3 Average Per Capita Income (1999)4 Median Household Income (1999)4 Median Household Income (2008)4 46.224 $17.671 37.422 647 1.00 48 Percent Living in Poverty (2008)5 Household Density6 Population Density6 Percent Rural Housing7 .168 5.06 136.43 1.010 $18.4 11.928 $14.853 $25.6 13.8 27.743 $31.6 9.616 $16.4 5.820 5.80 4260.62 50.30 143.09 162.173 $14.089 $28.67 6565.447 1.388 3.07 169.46 3.19 69.50 68.638 $54.237 1.988 $33.45 51.267 $36.6 10.330 $29.954 17.715 $45.784 $31.08 28.282 63.33 3.693 $41.967 $23.767 $21.710 $44.00 100.00 100.274 $29.194 $44.130 $20.04 56.137 42.019 $29.083 879 988 1.00 100.597 18.674 37.4 8.630 826 2.010 $38.732 $26.978 $27.338 1.478 $65.669 15.47 2.008 1.808 $38.91 64.270 $15.9 11.9 11.730 67.00 100.227 $14.131 $17.7 14.334 331 2.00 4508.231 $30.576 $28.026 $15.179 2.65 4.774 23.059 $15.3 13.942 $36.557 $43.707 $27.255 866.35 7722.39 102.1 9 13.70 3.9 12.1 10.090 $39.271 $43.140 $14.364 $42.83 64.00 100.608 $62.202 $33.48 86.78 303.642 $32.00 100.667 $29.122 $31.4 16.019 1.91 4813.17 116.109 $35.830 $28.6 11.89 184.410 113.485 $13.44 4017.83 156.18 79.21 1.688 $32.517 $46.415 2.71 113.3 13.17 10632.00 100.63 1.00 100.7 30.384 13.74 4499.642 2.866 $33.42 142.11 3733.843 $37.487 $39.062 $40.09 43.572 $29.92 112.986 2.04 0.660 $30.62 80.14 3364.640 2.26 77.711 $38.186 $16.499 $38.846 $16.76 6.58 3.00 100.45 205.42 44.00 100.041.698 45.934 $42.00 100.

490 $15.70 100.524 $37.323 $15.00 100.840 $16.393 $51.15 3.52 2.114 $27.541 $32.78 4.97 143.1 17.257 1.213 $24.375 $25.4 19.629 2.764 $31.17 19.689 $13.526 641 1.00 29.52 88.551 $50.69 25.9 37.147 874 3.740 $31.2 9.873 $18.648 $14.64 129.483 $33.232 $37.048 1.264 $32.521 $32.93 3.672 $30.00 0.932 $42.374 922 1.71 1.831 $13.023 $40.50 55.137 $45.075 $36.584 1.307 $35.2 12.266 4.256 $13.00 100.657 4.368 $14.87 9.30 291.942 $44.278 $31.73 100.98 89.191 3.576 13.605 $17.4 10 13.570 $41.394 2.19 68.47 0.090 8.628 2.848 $32.72 161.Federal Communications Commission FCC 10-129 APPENDIX C Unserved Areas By County or County Equivalent County or County Equivalent Areas1 Mercer Mountrail Oliver Pierce Ransom Renville Rolette Sargent Sheridan Sioux Stutsman Towner Wells Nebraska Antelope Arthur Blaine Boone Boyd Butler Chase Dundy Frontier Garfield Grant Greeley Population2 Households3 Average Per Capita Income (1999)4 Median Household Income (1999)4 Median Household Income (2008)4 7.444 $26.00 100.038 $27.02 310.58 100.407 $34.551 1.446 2.353 $36.422 $16.853 $42.269 $27.815 $13.6 10 12.650 $26.245 13.047 2.098 $36.00 38.18 2.8 11.706 $17.935 $35.57 15.3 7.695 4.00 6.00 100.60 7.484 830 991 735 241 904 $14.093 $47.00 100.326 3.37 100.854 6.04 158.00 69.2 14 10.35 376.010 $33.3 9.49 106.731 $30.00 100.731 $17.5 10.208 $31.87 14.39 104.8 27.6 8.091 5.6 14.13 4.658 141 178 2.02 31.772 $37.18 165.33 192.00 100.283 $7.00 100.142 8.055 $18.351 $27.06 2.34 4.00 100.5 9.00 49 Percent Living in Poverty (2008)5 Household Density6 Population Density6 Percent Rural Housing7 .821 $28.653 538 1.002 2.00 312.232 20.478 $10.354 $42.00 100.8 10.894 $63.9 7.820 $18.21 101.810 $12.51 3.00 100.746 $26.065 $49.00 100.49 138.60 168.821 $34.00 100.85 90.239 935 4.18 2.00 100.00 100.786 $16.9 13.02 6.27 4.86 259.331 $32.290 2.511 1.7 13.3 12.631 7.88 504.375 $37.307 $48.79 0.57 2.394 $17.601 $15.219 $16.00 100.090 $46.202 4.450 $22.549 $29.679 338 428 5.5 7.710 604 2.271 $14.719 2.61 100.30 3.65 3.75 558.

819 $29.2 0.7 15.441 $24.8 10.405 1.13 375.605 $37.53 100.5 17.50 2.133 1.484 $30.350 $14.6 9.40 638.67 1.155 259 2.667 $28.64 56.951 $14.76 6.551 7.525 787 1.41 3.225 $32.026 $26.49 130.296 $40.804 $15.962 1.3 22.241 $16.125 $26.750 $28.68 64.065 $11.00 54.697 20.207 $37.868 $24.178 317 351 3.740 $27.836 736 836 8.951 $16.602 2.934 $16.802 $14.9 17.00 3.6 15.250 $25.91 341.300 1.337 5.687 $17.043 $15.00 100.00 100.29 90.7 12.54 100.99 1.200 2.992 $39.69 53.2 12.087 $30.9 13.102 3.884 5.00 100.844 $17.27 11.60 7.622 $31.00 100.607 $47.4 15.508 5.445 299 245 205 1.00 100.29 1.32 22.00 100.860 $13.00 100.111 $29.220 1.03 6.00 50 Percent Living in Poverty (2008)5 Household Density6 Population Density6 Percent Rural Housing7 .96 100.53 165.892 $25.00 100.02 262.83 256.104 583 7.000 $34.127 $29.937 $12.35 57.84 50.240 $23.722 $37.4 10.88 43.467 2.958 $29.498 735 619 514 4.7 13.09 0.170 $30.638 $36.884 $25.6 10.478 648 2.099 $14.00 100.055 $15.335 $10.783 $26.475 326 $17.449 $34.046 3.355 $40.00 36.294 1.277 $26.9 10.42 43.00 100.49 0.11 1.911 $27.2 28.287 $27.4 15.938 $37.937 $33.7 17.508 807 3.03 23.5 18.833 $35.7 18 23.927 $33.907 4.82 18.9 13.205 $37.771 $54.00 100.42 310.590 $14.381 $35.427 $13.90 14.19 8.005 2.00 100.00 100.346 684 1.00 100.7 7.88 52.2 11.08 7.13 628.795 $29.43 100.Federal Communications Commission FCC 10-129 APPENDIX C Unserved Areas By County or County Equivalent County or County Equivalent Areas1 Hamilton Hayes Hitchcock Hooker Keya Paha Knox Logan Loup McPherson Nuckolls Pawnee Perkins Polk Richardson Rock Sheridan Thayer Thomas Thurston Webster Wheeler New Mexico Catron De Baca Guadalupe Harding Population2 Households3 Average Per Capita Income (1999)4 Median Household Income (1999)4 Median Household Income (2008)4 9.88 0.830 $17.122 $34.43 0.564 $33.02 33.03 3.355 $34.10 1.158 $44.31 466.00 100.340 $27.542 309 $13.92 45.00 100.971 $14.00 100.00 56.608 $16.35 563.460 $14.292 $28.471 410 1.67 14.151 2.931 $37.513 $11.99 1.00 100.82 1.122 8.913 $28.02 1.

844 1.11 100.21 30.564 $12.9 16 1.024 $40.81 17.763 5.136 12.06 100.45 51 Percent Living in Poverty (2008)5 Household Density6 Population Density6 Percent Rural Housing7 .42 13.637 5.83 56.83 40.651 $63.6 37.00 677 1.688 $40.Federal Communications Commission FCC 10-129 APPENDIX C Unserved Areas By County or County Equivalent County or County Equivalent Areas1 Hidalgo Lea Mora Rio Arriba Sierra Union Nevada Esmeralda Eureka Humboldt Lander Lincoln Mineral Nye Pershing Storey White Pine Ohio Gallia Monroe Oklahoma Adair Alfalfa Beaver Beckham Blaine Population2 Households3 Average Per Capita Income (1999)4 Median Household Income (1999)4 Median Household Income (2008)4 4.209 14.089 20.700 $24.50 2.61 30.670 $45.417 $47.9 15.184 1.11 57.090 $58.19 100.490 $36.578 $27.147 $46.857 1.44 13.95 2.23 1240.52 868.9 13.799 $24.64 37.259 $36.05 46.005 7.236 $45.096 $30.535 $37.033 18.005 $61.191 $30.429 $24.04 8.04 16.263 $15.971 $18.291 $18.221 12.95 100.052 40.12 100.19 0.916 $48.997 $40.967 $49.98 0.25 2.218 21.952 $17.833 5.938 $44.99 51.819 $29.979 $32.629 $19.199 316 654 6.291 4.431 $14.3 15.65 110.467 $38.183 $15.628 17.630 $43.910 59.875 3.025 2.185 $14.08 100.00 100.3 10 10.781 21.830 4.89 6.07 74.9 17 10.830 2.659 7.704 $17.375 6.051 $45.66 33.02 100.962 $38.00 60.983 22.881 $30.80 15.335 1.580 $34.155 5.22 2566.55 711.720 1.27 474.84 0.12 233.81 21.39 1.89 23.998 $17.649 $15.809 $36.905 $14.9 15.813 $28.488 $13.70 478.030 5.546 $24.62 6.811 5.539 $16.8 22.47 2.2 23.23 136.1 5.9 15.340 $14.66 65.891 $36.898 4.14 22.00 100.3 15 65.809 $38.743 2.21 54.248 21.30 32.30 83.45 1.00 33.356 $29.518 $29.015 1.06 71.692 12.63 1345.777 1.37 101.341 9.912 14.8 18.402 $28.83 97.184 $12.684 44.00 95.5 0.00 32.962 $16.086 4.404 $11.463 $53.715 $27.48 1.965 14.067 $31.080 $34.2 13.023 $14.203 $41.642 $18.46 1.78 37.5 23 17.326 $16.152 $28.309 $33.437 3.2 9.589 $23.94 31.93 0.77 253.00 40.299 $55.

284 $32.7 15.539 $15.3 17.744 $15.00 21.451 6.626 $16.070 $32.94 596.92 66.298 $15.290 12.511 $13.44 332.167 27.822 1.951 $33.37 384.625 25.846 $15.856 $15.65 2207.447 5.77 54.39 104.6 16.466 5.54 Percent Rural Housing7 81.00 47.436 $12.3 24.52 85.774 $35.932 $39.954 $40.596 $52.29 3.052 1.79 1174.00 26.899 $18.013 $36.910 17.231 $12.33 381.262 16.98 180.412 4.513 $40.890 2.24 60.71 100.518 $40.962 $33.405 $26.70 58.00 100.011 $13.191 15.145 9.024 47.060 $41.674 $36.2 18 19.923 $38.3 16.360 $32.867 $27.806 $16.4 25.71 3629.472 $17.8 19.73 543.3 16.743 $30.066 4.236 6.327 $30.2 17.598 52 Percent Living in Poverty (2008)5 21.9 12.454 $12.006 $28.99 63.07 2295.5 Household Density6 22.33 745.111 $39.053 $13.450 5.768 5.249 $29.67 64.9 12.457 $14.072 $34.893 $38.873 3.53 782.431 $43.02 55.10 31.00 69.00 100.72 19.126 1.28 324.45 202.3 11.456 $45.92 826.775 $12.167 $14.25 100.00 78.52 9.705 $24.3 13.07 1763.88 26.421 1.925 $13.997 $28.556 111.210 $30.84 9.347 $29.38 4.625 $28.728 $14.33 1352.44 8.057 $39.26 14.561 10.247 51.729 23.660 $29.18 62.93 73.022 38.31 100.811 2.971 58.Federal Communications Commission FCC 10-129 APPENDIX C Unserved Areas By County or County Equivalent County or County Equivalent Areas1 Caddo Carter Cherokee Choctaw Cimarron Comanche Cotton Craig Custer Delaware Dewey Ellis Garfield Garvin Grady Grant Greer Harmon Harper Haskell Hughes Jackson Jefferson Kingfisher Kiowa Latimer Population2 Households3 Average Per Capita Income (1999)4 Median Household Income (1999)4 Median Household Income (2008)4 29.412 40.06 59.24 1.977 $25.674 10.172 $27.793 $22.053 $23.584 $32.362 10.534 18.96 33.74 64.584 $15.7 16.39 3.3 18.399 10.71 .152 13.426 2.424 $15.22 2189.425 4.8 19.089 1.94 5.20 15.621 $30.996 $28.34 637.04 62.132 26.772 6.365 $33.6 23.20 100.06 16.842 $27.17 21.589 $44.3 24.00 19.625 $33.204 $42.300 9.219 14.553 $22.713 2.843 3.2 22.4 16.676 $26.524 $27.296 $27.296 $15.42 59.89 19.87 182.979 45.53 2323.2 27.385 3.86 100.805 2.389 3.5 10.464 $18.687 $15.45 8.733 14.62 Population Density6 824.18 140.23 54.709 $14.536 $22.74 46.60 1040.89 31.67 53.219 1.918 19.56 135.58 4.3 20.075 $34.737 $23.

153 9.23 353.00 100.2 14.044 $52.013 $27.748 26.77 100.01 73.149 4.565 2.255 30.250 $15.283 7.261 $15.2 14.581 $44.498 20.912 32.00 78.28 35.75 301.460 $34.81 31.709 8.78 3335.022 $12.9 16.98 38.821 $13.112 39.75 2116.22 41.2 19.463 $45.00 62.452 11.08 2347.31 351.34 3314.67 6.187 $32.196 5.357 $15.057 8.88 605.085 27.307 78.96 9.8 19.573 $22.487 $31.87 1215.40 39.158 $16.12 90.8 17.417 9.775 $31.507 $31.568 $30.968 $24.899 50.528 $17.661 $28.45 4471.849 16.710 3.324 $27.27 67.76 7.43 60.26 49.964 $30.692 $14.48 2170.70 Percent Rural Housing7 91.06 121.01 1350.676 53 Percent Living in Poverty (2008)5 14.49 1321.503 $30.55 4992.872 $24.404 24.890 $16.37 2015.77 9.46 124.616 11.023 $41.983 $15.828 $35.399 $43.609 3.489 $39.816 $29.631 14.01 459.084 $14.807 4.41 88.13 50.26 17.2 21.422 12.38 2.125 $37.7 13.111 4.57 28.98 81.56 2651.115 36.864 $16.679 $26.527 $37.547 $43.771 $45.57 87.91 49.709 $35.49 80.6 Household Density6 33.478 $15.955 $31.828 $17.686 17.410 $16.55 51.81 71.3 19.614 7.05 34.61 31.350 $18.02 51.07 2049.41 46.039 15.38 8.746 $14.155 7.41 51.5 22 13 12.364 $39.172 39.219 31.55 Population Density6 1276.8 11.873 $39.83 .83 56.431 $14.698 12.4 16.73 100.652 $27.128 12.956 $16.881 15.499 6.465 $42.7 23.3 10 20.494 $14.558 $30.8 18.278 11.365 19.57 17.38 266.75 48.41 68.971 $38.224 3.065 $14.77 30.92 1098.41 646.32 691.972 $12.169 11.784 71.733 $28.563 $28.727 $42.127 $30.58 15.275 $25.83 55.84 338.272 $15.8 16.9 13.895 $37.313 17.270 $20.7 20.159 $31.197 3.648 $17.280 45.2 9.999 69.200 43.00 100.405 12.06 20.7 17.078 $25.431 4.5 25.73 51.Federal Communications Commission FCC 10-129 APPENDIX C Unserved Areas By County or County Equivalent County or County Equivalent Areas1 Lincoln Love Major Mayes McClain McIntosh Murray Muskogee Noble Okfuskee Okmulgee Ottawa Pawnee Payne Pittsburg Pontotoc Pottawatomie Pushmataha Roger Mills Seminole Stephens Texas Tillman Washington Washita Woods Population2 Households3 Average Per Capita Income (1999)4 Median Household Income (1999)4 Median Household Income (2008)4 32.076 $40.053 $41.294 $28.065 20.07 1472.88 56.822 $30.04 11.729 1.268 $34.664 $15.949 $31.722 $34.927 $41.6 15.438 $33.64 114.

9 14.29 54 NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA Percent Living in Poverty (2008)5 NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA Household Density6 Population Density6 Percent Rural Housing7 .143 72.438 26.00 100.8 15.14 4.794 $16.06 0.838 7.849 553 $16.02 53.15 771.601 27.193 5.27 100.77 62.140 6.666 14.734 $33.521 $32.276 $15.384 $11.98 26720.868 12.00 21.73 12.691 47.93 27847.236 $12.951.484 $12.036 67.64 90.44 0.033.451.580 $16.319 2.632 $6.846 $36.369 $7.476 $12.844.75 37.89 5.522 $13.2 13.706 $11.04 814.849 143.560 $29.03 29991.957 $12.833 3.93 45126.300 23.625 $16.851 47.772 9.176 39.19 0.996 $7.888 $11.73 62969.00 18.89 867.65 3.08 909.802 $17.041 10.07 765.61 4.087 12.88 81581.884 $32.8 1.217 19.511 $8.51 1.62 141361.260.13 0.00 0.544 219.613 $6.55 4.Federal Communications Commission FCC 10-129 APPENDIX C Unserved Areas By County or County Equivalent County or County Equivalent Areas1 Woodward Oregon Grant Lake Morrow Wallowa Wheeler Puerto Rico Adjuntas Aguada Aguadilla Aguas Buenas Aibonito Arecibo Arroyo Añasco Barceloneta Barranquitas Bayamón Cabo Rojo Caguas Camuy Canóvanas Carolina Cataño Cayey Population2 Households3 Average Per Capita Income (1999)4 Median Household Income (1999)4 Median Household Income (2008)4 19.238.975 $6.106 30.740 53.070 $8.750 $34.034 $6.954 30.022 3.16 858.52 41656.938 $4.620 $11.53 0.215 $50.17 47900.059 8.69 4.760 1.322 $19.24 1.034 $21.579 $7.129 102.06 0.55 37.14 188.173 $42.834 2.50 892.565 $4.20 25585.100 $6.496 $11.72 27988.136 $15.506 $37.9 16.135.861 $13.027 $9.00 8.48 2.107 10.645 18.491 31.92 173295.978 $9.38 8496.917 $10.00 61.86 100.852 $13.41 6.955 14.97 613.53 162716.129 $28.57 32.14 32908.97 27539.72 1.54 1.99 42.797 $6.074 47.084 6.048 7.15 0.814 23.290 $5.916 7.16 40605.234 $8.488.452 274.077 8.559 $32.617 35.823 64.48 1.380 $5.2 17.00 5.41 2.361 15.14 5.97 1.338 46.239 11.440.231 15.581 $49.404.02 10.68 12.97 27903.666 187.38 1.40 8.168 $13.725 $12.

26 26115.11 34013.17 .648 60.69 16016.072 $11.81 29303.585 14.571.97 0.064 $10.326 $5.69 50328.000 2.17 9482.378 $16.88 1.45 3.211 $16.630 42.95 309.816 $5.067 45.852 $5.809 48.224 5.76 50790.764 22.745 13.816 19.713 14.343 53.874 16.48 14.358.377 15.276 39.03 27.87 24.83 100.369 $7.64 0.981 $15.179 19.156 $5.74 184.168 14.24 129316.99 34.287 $8.361 $26.06 1.Federal Communications Commission FCC 10-129 APPENDIX C Unserved Areas By County or County Equivalent County or County Equivalent Areas1 Ceiba Ciales Cidra Coamo Comerío Corozal Culebra Dorado Fajardo Florida Guayama Guayanilla Guaynabo Gurabo Guánica Hatillo Hormigueros Humacao Isabela Jayuya Juana Díaz Juncos Lajas Lares Las Marías Las Piedras Population2 Households3 Average Per Capita Income (1999)4 Median Household Income (1999)4 17.685 $9.50 54563.63 1.164 $7.133 3.901 $8.549 7.53 9.112 $11.60 9.773 $9.345.92 615.02 1.892 $11.77 5.041 12.954 $16.102 $4.88 22359.320 15.270 16.25 6.97 19741.134 18.622 55 Median Household Income (2008)4 Percent Living in Poverty (2008)5 NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA Household Density6 612.216 39.634 $5.548 39.819 $5.972 $5.51 44390.177.378 35.691 $4.96 915.570.557 $12.63 263.49 7.65 15959.427 $16.223 41.44 696.044.721 $12.33 17417.440 $10.38 882.41 411.138 36.627 12.658 17.887 806 11.099 11.29 1.685 $11.66 0.18 678.503 9.70 4.19 50206.19 65.024 $7.298 23.19 21483.30 1.802 20.394 $8.204 $6.558.67 6935.893 5.956 43.07 510.824 43.080 14.32 617.384 $9.18 1.786 $17.74 12060.97 24.877 $6.961 12.634 $7.96 1.679 5.892 $13.686 102.765 $7.03 8501.48 466.415.922 $9.14 3.745 $14.057.40 19.00 8.027 37.345 $11.472 $14.460 $15.632 $6.16 Percent Rural Housing7 5.88 41673.123 $12.221 28.77 1.658 48.58 27911.256 $5.14 559.62 38135.14 3.220 $12.012 7.455 6.56 20.21 34072.00 1.07 1.451 $9.066 $6.939 12.677 $6.008 $16.04 20440.410 $11.25 869.795.667 6.34 Population Density6 19511.39 1.66 6.550.79 4.76 49141.236 6.

05 33062.71 427.437 $6.664 $5.00 12.839.86 1.11 40574.98 20.283 $7.870 19.243 $11.484 $9.096 $7.666 $11.163.86 42265.560 13.56 0.68 12.695 27.995 24.941 29.14 24906.681 $5.59 29357.737.17 1.21 7.575 179.00 27.129 16.11 1.353 28.563.179 5.502 $5.561 49.03 23858.485 $11.53 2.665 44.410 9.526 8.79 4.845 6.895 $20.226 $10.978 7.023 14.950 $5.775 $11.19 391.200 $13.79 470.415 6.00 26449.996 44.962 $11.021 $12.67 332574.638 422.46 18956.75 13975.00 0.748 $6.48 843.310 12.959 94.87 Population Density6 51326.610 $7.52 5.092.89 23056.783 1.47 19292.96 15258.944 $12.005 159.04 666.557 57.49 8.460 $15.812 14.43 933.65 50062.794 17.276 $6.492 10.891 32.65 132563.568 $8.23 800.241.27 602.799 9.529 $7.51 0.89 892.58 40525.61 772.095 22.638 $11.24 21005.78 11678.101.960 $5.271 $12.704 $5.78 0.972 3.998 $12.103.090 $11.134 $18.194 $12.70 682.77 1.994.164 $6.11 53.94 90950.08 6.84 1.461 $12.92 28656.22 5382.796 $9.99 4.78 9.18 9.75 27.171 24.76 2.073 8.224 $5.00 .241 37.347 $6.57 37159.48 7.824 16.637 $5.089 $17.133 $7.07 Percent Rural Housing7 0.363 16.210 $11.391 $13.988 32.27 11.367 $12.331 56 Median Household Income (2008)4 Percent Living in Poverty (2008)5 NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA Household Density6 1.891 30.99 15616.Federal Communications Commission FCC 10-129 APPENDIX C Unserved Areas By County or County Equivalent County or County Equivalent Areas1 Loíza Luquillo Manatí Maricao Maunabo Mayagüez Moca Morovis Naguabo Naranjito Orocovis Patillas Peñuelas Ponce Quebradillas Rincón Río Grande Sabana Grande Salinas San Germán San Juan San Lorenzo San Sebastián Santa Isabel Toa Alta Toa Baja Population2 Households3 Average Per Capita Income (1999)4 Median Household Income (1999)4 33.728 32.842 48.70 848.67 465.249 7.980 6.76 3.197.432 9.38 1.83 690.52 8.61 0.003 $5.901 24.925 81.634 $4.778 20.945 $12.00 14.682 8.29 5.342 29.38 7.65 172.615 56.631 $12.827 9.668 92.903 $8.400 $8.209 $6.45 671.25 26554.006 $12.856 $5.79 27022.

38 47.31 1611.606 28.93 1982.725 3.434 $21.339 39.924 15.704 10.840 $14.518 33.481 27.46 1.367 40.61 2590.360 $16.577 57 Median Household Income (2008)4 Percent Living in Poverty (2008)5 NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA $30.68 1.750 22.898 $30.749 $37.72 5235.48 355.42 133859.007 $28.71 100.896 $21.80 5.00 67.292 $11.872 14.698 127.815 95.832 $30.880 $44.48 23693.19 53.02 9589.6 25 21.907 12.20 59.96 13715.398 12.804 $34.20 2766.84 3.562 $5.741 8.252 30.74 182.47 44929.948 $13.772 10.460 $38.709 $14.10 138.870 $17.1 27.13 81.35 56.7 13.54 84.57 6656.57 78.305 $35.417 3.07 1426.1 21.609 8.840 5.468 20.93 64.383 8.740 6.886 $34.913 19.88 86.73 74.88 1501.526 $26.6 10.31 27.5 Household Density6 Population Density6 Percent Rural Housing7 4.06 711.676 28 22 17.276 $13.131 $31.133 23.21 34.843 28.9 23.492 $32.76 58.584 $15.83 221.876 $52.279 $6.879 12.40 3112.980 $9.583 32.00 32.998 $16.7 20.385 $14.879 9.00 .376 $38.43 0.618 42.82 7958.38 62.083 34.736 $32.01 4582.272 $18.47 16.723 64.5 19.71 38.728 $12.710 12.42 72.911 $18.98 45161.707 $10.515 $30.176 $6.65 23049.77 734.28 48.02 856.086 $7.630 $43.936 $5.413.46 998.9 16.2 19.45 75.713 11.659 $26.431.201 45.283 $13.64 1274.331 $11.55 2171.01 22835.882 33.891 248.803 $35.435 58.95 2083.617 15.650 $30.49 11.78 38.25 59.425 $29.9 27.77 53.48 3.935 $60.82 2123.907 $44.316 $30.725 $37.446 $39.933 $9.72 55.598 $31.Federal Communications Commission FCC 10-129 APPENDIX C Unserved Areas By County or County Equivalent County or County Equivalent Areas1 Trujillo Alto Utuado Vega Alta Vega Baja Vieques Villalba Yabucoa Yauco South Carolina Bamberg Barnwell Calhoun Chester Chesterfield Clarendon Darlington Dillon Dorchester Fairfield Kershaw Lancaster Lee Lexington Marion Marlboro McCormick Population2 Households3 Average Per Capita Income (1999)4 Median Household Income (1999)4 87.093 5.307 22.495 $13.483 $27.6 24.031 30.59 119.688 $26.24 100.149 67.642 12.087 $26.84 28.356 $7.878 $13.92 41.197.669 10.12 1660.07 33.29 302.591 $32.901 75.70 54.254 $35.770 $24.446 $14.063 $13.125 $6.035 25.559 48.9 10.38 14.591 $12.41 69.233 $13.330 16.

573 548 545 3.707 136.780 $16.01 5.136 7.9 10.251 $13.251 6.977 $9.58 6.00 100.00 84.3 13.851 $40.22 41.567 $39.86 12.336 364.874 $30.01 258.819 5.227 $31.25 4.502 $15.2 11.Federal Communications Commission FCC 10-129 APPENDIX C Unserved Areas By County or County Equivalent County or County Equivalent Areas1 Oconee Orangeburg Richland Saluda Sumter York South Dakota Aurora Bennett Bon Homme Buffalo Campbell Charles Mix Clark Corson Custer Day Deuel Dewey Douglas Edmunds Fall River Faulk Gregory Haakon Hamlin Population2 Households3 Average Per Capita Income (1999)4 Median Household Income (1999)4 Median Household Income (2008)4 71.101 1.31 86.5 12 113.788 $23.77 171.781 $47.1 10.328 $15.319 1.084 1.7 11.106 $13.961 $35.208 $20.7 19.23 456.66 51.079 2.48 74.405 33.657 $20.9 34.67 481.11 80.00 100.00 100.945 4.536 $36.656 $16.213 $14.765 1.00 100.436 4.8 12.55 1.02 1.981 869 1.906 3.892 $5.00 100.641 $31.11 2.17 155.894 $33.597 $8.636 16.20 39.2 37.78 116.6 22.703 $18.05 2.631 $30.00 100.4 27.653 $40.076 $13.52 318.39 12.189 $44.668 $32.811 5.298 1.276 5.20 205.887 $10.61 67.536 $27.952 $38.666 $29.90 2.057 $20.57 4.615 $17.060 $30.06 223.548 $40.692 $28.295 $38.00 100.274 90.147 11.842 1.719 717 2.352 8.167 $51.665 $31.119 1.117 $11.58 11825.783 $25.034 7.45 5641.142 1.965 $15.52 4.644 $12.00 100.827 $16.8 14.372 $35.694 $49.16 156.57 409.654 $36.11 3.266 3.934 37.00 100.255 4.194 2.237 $22.00 100.46 37.823 $40.96 81.945 $15.00 11.8 33.054 $53.79 3.732 $29.63 4701.00 100.34 72.37 6.86 169.982 $29.67 5.171 1.23 18012.393 7.448 29.539 80.660 $13.3 16.931 2.4 17.001 18.526 4.058 2.145 2.00 100.58 100.660 1.478 $32.1 23.84 8.532 2.625 104.8 14.716 $40.303 $30.148 217.5 13.976 $31.048 $14.83 34.00 100.7 4.3 15 13.793 $26.313 $30.42 89.59 1.149 $17.591 $42.13 133.560 $40.75 3047.00 58 Percent Living in Poverty (2008)5 Household Density6 Population Density6 Percent Rural Housing7 .10 100.030 $39.7 11.010 $19.04 288.00 100.5 9.867 3.90 137.182 $36.794 $16.774 $33.205 $29.00 100.86 2.40 283.00 100.856 $15.272 $28.278 $44.00 51.539 $42.72 1532.

56 7.Federal Communications Commission FCC 10-129 APPENDIX C Unserved Areas By County or County Equivalent County or County Equivalent Areas1 Hand Hanson Harding Hutchinson Hyde Jackson Jerauld Jones Lyman Marshall McCook McPherson Mellette Miner Perkins Potter Roberts Sanborn Shannon Sully Todd Tripp Turner Walworth Ziebach Tennessee Population2 Households3 Average Per Capita Income (1999)4 Median Household Income (1999)4 Median Household Income (2008)4 3.19 100.375 $20.00 100.549 $41.00 100.1 14.87 2.875 $48.28 8.428 $18.982 1.916 $32.00 100.3 11.059 $27.198 $36.40 83.681 8.167 5.366 5.305 $36.824 $36.81 329.623 947 3.592 59 Percent Living in Poverty (2008)5 10.40 1.435 2.123 9.374 $12.237 891 3.00 100.332 2.21 298.058 652 1.1 18.4 Household Density6 2.32 5.92 1.157 $37.103 $23.862 $15.16 9.519 $27.673 $41.462 $16.39 144.61 43.22 138.145 7.00 100.00 .856 $15.69 44.30 0.119 $39.1 32.834 $18.00 100.466 $39.07 49.32 3.362 $15.00 76.95 4.000 $30.2 13.66 53.219 $29.00 100.6 12.407 $7.06 102.36 93.54 353.451 $42.006 $45.026 $31.30 16.709 $28.5 8 16.21 100.671 2.51 1.43 8.00 100.00 100.01 166.4 34.00 100.447 13.982 2.410 $25.00 43.492 $7.6 15.00 100.196 746 $18.988 $25.779 2.1 13.155 $15.030 1.029 542 2.5 46 8.6 18.067 $34.690 $30.150 $51.43 540.035 $28.4 14.74 1.343 $15.380 $23.356 10.00 49.234 3.322 $33.896 $13.048 $36.778 $12.73 160.00 100.320 5.06 2.00 100.500 $20.750 $30.644 $31.301 $6.00 Percent Rural Housing7 100.01 2.609 1.5 21.1 54.2 7.333 $36.976 $39.05 206.811 4.83 200.730 2.102 $28.274 3.542 1.236 $35.31 46.250 1.27 1.024 3.00 100.734 $17.89 180.567 $35.2 40.00 100.981 $16.339 1.063 $43.00 100.65 1.286 $17.45 8.6 13.8 15 10.00 100.45 3.870 579 873 852 431 1.139 1.288 $28.509 $30.35 7.14 67.637 1.922 $16.049 $25.867 $46.714 $13.463 $32.866 $39.52 13.356 $9.086 $28.3 8.00 100.31 38.13 310.362 1.396 $22.711 1.44 100.57 372.417 $13.238 2.776 $17.424 2.748 $10.18 1.794 $15.377 $33.900 2.373 $27.297 442 2.945 $30.851 2.3 12.735 $14.480 1.30 6.30 Population Density6 93.52 4.

502 $21.123 43.65 100.00 48.947 2.07 2000.9 15.422 $28.137 10.809 $23.682 $17.307 7.15 7.693 19.8 20.359 $32.00 80.58 502.020 $10.43 100.737 9.19 1024.413 11.64 35.968 $26.526 $32.71 269.958 $30.6 14.74 1356.969 $14.760 $27.883 $49.416 2.238 $31.48 100.734 7.013 $24.061 $24.4 19.831 $37.673 $24.422 $32.731 7.692 29.576 5.29 2919.320 $17.31 1611.7 23.7 17.039 16.576 $33.00 100.679 $41.131 $31.17 1434.11 35.547 $36.00 82.749 $16.32 100.384 $19.61 41.216 9.21 18.573 $17.472 $28.098 2.851 6.00 62.6 17.142 13.016 $39.67 746.681 $12.721 $33.097 $41.00 48.889 $16.428 3.303 3.64 4.2 10.082 800 14.00 50.194 $33.484 $28.43 81.73 30.61 1523.282 3.471 23.405 $13.4 37.688 $32.72 794.90 2024.01 61.081 $38.00 100.8 23.217 $16.4 19 19.640 $40.8 21.09 65.877 26.093 $26.152 19.782 $23.982 $32.927 $14.801 22.7 32.81 56.64 1244.243 4.236 $49.179 $29.331 $48.451 $12.739 $32.4 13.92 1365.860 $34.12 1400.00 100.615 $27.52 1182.829 $13.12 44.84 1229.446 10 18.688 5.527 $28.671 $29.633 3.53 2465.38 73.00 100.57 61.944 2.901 $39.114 1.902 7.979 $19.369 $47.9 19.377 3.999 $16.00 55.65 35.00 2.279 20.151 $14.614 $15.96 33.276 $18.Federal Communications Commission FCC 10-129 APPENDIX C Unserved Areas By County or County Equivalent County or County Equivalent Areas1 Bledsoe Cannon Clay DeKalb Dyer Fentress Gibson Hancock Haywood Houston Jackson Lake Lauderdale Marshall Perry Pickett Scott Wayne Texas Armstrong Atascosa Austin Bailey Bandera Baylor Blanco Population2 Households3 Average Per Capita Income (1999)4 Median Household Income (1999)4 Median Household Income (2008)4 13.64 1153.80 3044.6 2.804 7.320 $11.77 87.635 $16.60 25.276 $26.69 29.29 12.02 100.794 18.667 49.995 $29.721 $38.32 35.157 $33.627 $39.18 100.225 8.13 41.847 7.56 1429.794 $13.73 1619.027 8.29 100.5 17.140 $12.694 37.6 22.751 $38.600 17.669 $15.571 9.788 $23.753 4.34 51.27 3309.74 79.509 14.00 60 Percent Living in Poverty (2008)5 Household Density6 Population Density6 Percent Rural Housing7 .2 18 10.89 187.105 $19.614 4.3 21.8 24.257 6.00 100.024 8.986 $14.1 30.457 $28.68 40.42 22.323 26.80 100.47 41.39 100.64 37.

18 21.53 3.917 $35.123 $41.00 100.666 6.4 11 22.33 Population Density6 26.888 2.463 $31.714 $25.340 4.4 Household Density6 0.8 33.291 7.6 13.769 $27.590 $40.848 $31.617 4.94 1.649 $25.7 17.51 1.898 $21.29 155.125 $15.525 $29.441 $37.194 $25.318 $16.205 $33.734 3.445 $34.00 26.505 $49.08 95.452 $16.129 7.00 9.748 $33.364 $17.63 100.96 1.41 1434.724 2.985 20.34 75.381 11.692 19.44 65.00 33.634 $48.46 100.00 42.76 265.73 135.407 1.085 $25.2 19.7 19.95 Percent Rural Housing7 100.164 $40.462 $50.87 3.284 7.357 $15.64 257.00 64.156 $9.44 20.154 3.283 9.910 $15.450 9.619 $27.446 $32.083 867 3.596 2.00 53.653 $15.71 7.81 47.24 7.14 77.368 $15.3 15.Federal Communications Commission FCC 10-129 APPENDIX C Unserved Areas By County or County Equivalent County or County Equivalent Areas1 Borden Bowie Brewster Briscoe Calhoun Callahan Camp Carson Cass Castro Childress Clay Cochran Coke Collingsworth Colorado Concho Cooke Cottle Crane Crosby Dallam Dawson DeWitt Dickens Dimmit Population2 Households3 Average Per Capita Income (1999)4 Median Household Income (1999)4 Median Household Income (2008)4 593 92.6 21.290 1.917 $44.436 4.610 38.92 1250.385 1.849 $32.457 $12.66 103.01 74.125 $16.9 25.79 5.1 8.895 61 Percent Living in Poverty (2008)5 9 19.09 81.462 20.9 21.25 21.05 64.22 100.267 13.13 6.48 100.140 $18.211 $28.493 $38.09 96.001 $27.206 2.92 390.16 15.331 1.343 $27.734 $15.780 $13.946 $28.88 21.493 $36.92 3.11 130.29 245.727 $17.88 4.5 18.192 $40.050 1.3 17.04 342.06 64.386 $29.00 58.189 $34.183 $14.9 25.889 $16.500 $19.775 2.531 $34.017 6.533 12.777 $14.3 15 20.202 7.82 805.6 23.225 $30.00 100.39 154.486 $39.251 29.20 100.23 97.28 174.94 10.347 5.822 $39.67 779.765 $29.4 11.90 36.114 $33.369 2.12 591.867 589 7.313 $37.33 59.192 6.381 2.311 4.480 2.83 15.758 238 34.7 14.753 958 14.77 31.204 $16.67 1650.61 9.07 2417.218 $17.55 2.705 $29.72 62.285 $28.457 $35.435 $50.738 $27.84 235.361 $13.378 $36.06 100.50 475.11 6.64 43.011 $14.3 26.536 10.388 $35.441 $30.445 $13.3 10.294 $37.4 17.416 696 1.442 $43.73 .52 3846.977 3.212 $15.374 $14.84 3.425 $31.406 13.62 39.438 $32.1 15.

00 78.82 .031 $12.186 131.589 $27.7 16.455 1.81 44.84 34.24 771.57 14.45 795.704 $18.163 15.280 47.514 $15.09 325.338 $16.75 56.17 1.280 3.152 22.815 $52.34 6.941 1.43 0.2 15.01 216.794 $30.489 $38.18 100.006 $22.723 8.60 786.280 $35.5 18.2 22.97 428.001 11.316 $32.977 4.67 859.597 45.11 61.912 6.1 9 14.653 1.6 10.Federal Communications Commission FCC 10-129 APPENDIX C Unserved Areas By County or County Equivalent County or County Equivalent Areas1 Donley Duval Eastland Ector Edwards Falls Fisher Floyd Foard Franklin Freestone Frio Gaines Garza Glasscock Goliad Gray Gregg Hale Hansford Hardeman Hartley Haskell Hemphill Hill Hockley Population2 Households3 Average Per Capita Income (1999)4 Median Household Income (1999)4 Median Household Income (2008)4 3.29 237.74 41.001 18.93 38.21 222.503 1.371 62 Percent Living in Poverty (2008)5 17.817 $56.896 1.923 16.07 5.321 13.07 926.690 $35.482 2.74 5.9 17.563 $16.216 3.991 7.718 726 5.04 5.702 $18.984 5.1 19.00 63.3 17.47 64.472 35.449 $13.832 $31.00 51.248 117.75 145.022 $29.5 22.361 11.04 19.89 35.27 319.007 $54.120 $14.270 561 4.2 14.564 3.327 $23.38 23.92 21.45 Population Density6 168.615 2.43 25.18 228.655 $17.703 4.504 $30.14 6.659 $26.205 1.349 6.918 $16.312 $46.212 7.00 94.64 146.86 100.803 $15.78 3.279 $17.364 $45.50 29.4 26.799 $17.006 $31.802 $45.27 100.206 $14.37 243.072 $40.813 $31.234 5.00 52.792 $35.51 1.291 $34.84 66.16 16422.176 $39.298 $26.868 $31.844 $34.952 16.162 5.7 14.75 7.86 100.528 35.4 22.201 $31.438 $28.958 $11.152 $25.850 12.126 $16.691 $14.127 $35.600 $31.14 Percent Rural Housing7 100.00 100.6 Household Density6 4.83 45.824 $18.80 79.51 39.258 $46.201 1.82 37.628 1.929 $15.069 $13.416 $26.22 1401.602 408 2.5 15.311 $15.2 24.067 $14.12 5295.153 $31.085 $35.489 $37.875 $33.35 8.273 $44.71 19.324 $14.081 4.53 5.368 $35.830 $41.07 1145.434 $32.27 10.408 $16.97 4.870 $15.955 $31.44 100.206 $35.637 22.020 $42.851 $25.900 3.655 $34.2 8.930 1.432 $27.989 1.456 $31.033 18.00 17.71 101.2 17.03 179.51 37.5 28.73 3.6 21.283 $24.838 $32.91 178.9 15.44 1522.888 $45.51 21.4 14.1 12 17.03 24.489 7.21 415.26 45.088 $12.

00 100.2 22.286 13.3 13.4 11.146 34.69 .041 1.65 1221.902 $32.212 $25.393 5.264 $42.698 32.4 21.981 $31.86 61.1 21.055 $33.48 372.433 $35.06 0.56 100.725 5.00 100.275 5.027 $9.58 43.898 $29.512 14.04 126.5 12.350 $13.2 17.94 53.783 13.656 $13.7 13.5 16.06 9.212 $46.6 27.857 $31.137 $43.85 0.650 63 Percent Living in Poverty (2008)5 26.34 54.981 11.363 129 289 88 1.374 2.829 1.132 $30.542 $13.692 $17.197 15.05 36.Federal Communications Commission FCC 10-129 APPENDIX C Unserved Areas By County or County Equivalent County or County Equivalent Areas1 Houston Howard Hudspeth Hutchinson Jackson Jasper Jeff Davis Jim Hogg Jones Karnes Kenedy Kent King Kinney Kleberg Knox La Salle Lamar Lamb Lavaca Leon Lipscomb Live Oak Loving Lynn Madison Population2 Households3 Average Per Capita Income (1999)4 Median Household Income (1999)4 Median Household Income (2008)4 22.104 $35.81 1384.278 $38.02 122.08 100.846 $12.52 67.819 19.179 3.60 91.951 7.83 637.084 $14.661 $26.76 13.382 8.48 28.20 2111.398 $17.861 49.625 $28.094 11.964 $32.61 2.609 $27.572 $26.394 $29.221 $35.00 18.249 12.23 766.62 20.659 $31.693 $15.357 4.587 $35.42 20.247 42 5.599 $16.119 $30.576 $36.22 866.00 22.00 4.27 0.69 24.60 100.42 581.96 83.603 $17.437 6.859 2.5 24.861 19 2.49 Population Density6 657.453 $21.54 40.20 10.44 36.256 $36.82 609.250 10.636 $18.3 21.00 22.1 17.00 33.804 $44.45 79.6 21.21 100.016 19.06 6.4 20.00 83.8 Household Density6 18.2 30.000 $15.25 100.418 $33.00 100.814 $41.320 $29.31 2.00 100.272 $38.80 56.169 $16.93 22.548 $44.8 12.585 18.537 3.090 $14.89 100.58 943.526 $25.23 15.00 55.24 17.588 $35.056 $28.37 19.694 $29.185 $13.939 $35.20 632.959 $17.032 8.00 3.071 $14.317 $16.2 21.92 Percent Rural Housing7 73.8 14.313 $25.328 $15.638 1.979 923 1.29 4.88 32.739 3.469 $29.04 0.37 35.233 30.000 $26.137 21.321 $15.3 19.652 16.74 151.1 29.674 4.4 12.1 14.549 $17.79 234.490 $43.045 $36.525 $15.370 5.625 $49.797 $33.36 487.01 78.051 388 708 281 3.73 3.104 $37.376 $50.805 $21.886 $24.254 $30.333 1.35 157.78 0.089 4.000 $30.833 $29.67 1.057 $40.86 23.60 1222.778 $37.1 11.55 8.8 23.626 $12.443 $9.

89 24.08 14.693 10.16 6.210 $16.182 524 18.90 18.00 50.613 23.564 1.94 4.752 14.48 28.92 53.06 1130.118 5.209 $38.23 100.Federal Communications Commission FCC 10-129 APPENDIX C Unserved Areas By County or County Equivalent County or County Equivalent Areas1 Marion Martin Maverick McMullen Medina Milam Mitchell Moore Morris Motley Navarro Newton Nolan Ochiltree Panola Parmer Pecos Polk Potter Presidio Real Red River Reeves Roberts Robertson Sabine Population2 Households3 Average Per Capita Income (1999)4 Median Household Income (1999)4 Median Household Income (2008)4 10.492 $29.43 66.98 2035.02 547.321 $15.50 165.949 3.875 12.347 $31.837 $43.707 $15.75 33.214 $15.93 380.99 1.20 0.046 5.35 4773.224 16.48 10.00 49.49 100.96 1798.018 4.551 $40.118 $27.057 $63.836 $21.377 $36.11 89.78 296.011 $28.923 $14.902 $31.74 16.5 22.264 3.544 4.82 10.25 100.510 $43.058 $10.95 501.162 5.9 14.529 9.758 $22.612 $16.811 $20.8 18.556 14.198 $31.492 $19.98 1117.93 40.279 837 44.7 20.9 26.909 $30.184 $12.077 $16.524 $36.680 $42.306 $44.399 $34.85 37.09 704.513 52.265 $37.77 100.308 12.043 $15.05 12.74 1.013 $31.43 105.873 5.062 833 15.5 22.496 8.66 53.439 $14.3 18.084 9.34 4.00 59.5 26.27 49.36 20.186 $25.852 $29.955 11.60 18.792 $28.730 $35.73 80.947 $9.00 1606.033 $30.14 22.695 6.275 24.84 0.632 $41.72 100.472 352 14.7 12 13.64 1094.52 Population Density6 1164.813 $28.258 $15.266 $13.714 $15.988 $27.219 $33.18 763.879 9.57 50.00 76.346 $37.443 64 Percent Living in Poverty (2008)5 21.00 Percent Rural Housing7 100.00 .915 1.026 $51.584 $15.283 $36.46 3.230 20.860 $25.677 $32.500 $26.402 2.63 636.268 $28.5 6.886 $27.108 5.449 343 6.5 15.25 881.063 $33.212 $15.918 7.456 13.5 21.348 $31.232 $32.495 $29.062 4.809 3.144 120.70 40.6 Household Density6 27.558 $23.834 $14.917 $40.92 52.6 15.42 43.490 $31.821 $25.78 75.00 76.6 19 18.433 2.27 927.66 4.535 $15.983 43.8 16.6 16.307 46.290 $35.930 $36.647 $8.5 13.11 12.29 17.033 $44.500 $36.929 $34.381 $14.2 20.558 $14.002 16.260 49.787 $40.00 28.32 10.920 $14.5 15.23 130.64 132.72 62.72 54.21 100.892 9.35 24.467 2.319 $14.438 1.17 170.36 345.6 17.3 20.57 31.8 27.2 13.

Federal Communications Commission

FCC 10-129

APPENDIX C
Unserved Areas
By County or County Equivalent
County or County Equivalent Areas1

San Augustine
San Jacinto
San Saba
Scurry
Shackelford
Shelby
Sherman
Stephens
Stonewall
Terrell
Terry
Throckmorton
Titus
Tyler
Upshur
Upton
Uvalde
Van Zandt
Victoria
Walker
Ward
Washington
Wheeler
Wilbarger
Willacy
Wilson

Population2

Households3

Average
Per Capita
Income
(1999)4

Median
Household
Income
(1999)4

Median
Household
Income
(2008)4

8,576
24,882
5,881
15,973
3,105
26,529
2,930
9,585
1,440
924
12,135
1,667
29,793
20,470
38,331
3,149
26,461
52,197
86,755
64,212
10,549
32,244
4,772
13,782
20,600
40,398

3,469
9,701
2,177
5,613
1,215
10,143
1,038
3,634
604
377
4,103
688
10,135
7,621
14,441
1,154
8,722
19,770
30,993
19,059
3,851
12,042
1,931
5,206
5,748
13,747

$15,548
$16,144
$15,309
$15,871
$16,341
$15,186
$17,210
$15,475
$16,094
$13,721
$13,860
$17,719
$15,501
$15,367
$16,358
$14,274
$12,557
$16,930
$18,379
$14,508
$14,393
$17,384
$16,083
$16,520
$9,421
$17,253

$27,025
$32,220
$30,104
$31,646
$30,479
$29,112
$33,179
$29,583
$27,935
$24,219
$28,090
$28,277
$32,452
$29,808
$33,347
$28,977
$27,164
$35,029
$38,732
$31,468
$29,386
$36,760
$31,029
$29,500
$22,114
$40,006

$30,306
$40,606
$35,739
$42,565
$43,294
$35,154
$42,684
$38,168
$37,325
$30,359
$32,788
$34,865
$40,295
$36,730
$42,947
$43,137
$33,121
$42,802
$46,104
$38,244
$42,595
$46,210
$43,124
$38,536
$29,079
$54,206

65

Percent
Living in
Poverty
(2008)5
24.2
19.1
21.2
18.3
11.5
23.5
14.2
17.5
16.7
20.3
25
14.3
15.2
20.2
14.5
14.8
23.8
15.5
15.4
23.5
16.4
13.6
12
15.9
30.6
11.1

Household
Density6

16.25
43.60
5.18
17.70
3.40
33.41
3.17
10.71
1.57
0.39
13.64
1.83
72.57
22.18
65.23
2.54
17.00
61.51
98.31
81.54
12.63
52.93
5.22
14.19
34.52
50.06

Population
Density6

657.22
1699.92
191.90
621.90
132.93
1277.27
112.49
406.22
65.74
15.99
461.11
75.36
2468.68
825.73
2457.50
92.91
560.37
2329.55
3511.91
2420.40
460.88
1976.58
211.19
536.14
963.25
1703.49

Percent
Rural
Housing7
100.00
100.00
61.71
28.80
100.00
80.79
100.00
39.79
100.00
100.00
28.13
100.00
54.61
88.15
79.82
100.00
37.27
80.20
25.93
48.18
31.52
58.53
100.00
21.58
54.85
83.88

Federal Communications Commission

FCC 10-129

APPENDIX C
Unserved Areas
By County or County Equivalent
County or County Equivalent Areas1

Winkler
Wood
Young
Zapata
Zavala
Utah
Carbon
Daggett
Duchesne
Emery
Garfield
Grand
Kane
Millard
Piute
Rich
San Juan
Uintah
Wayne
Virginia
Amelia
Appomattox
Bath
Bedford city
Craig
Highland

Population2

Households3

Average
Per Capita
Income
(1999)4

Median
Household
Income
(1999)4

Median
Household
Income
(2008)4

6,675
42,461
17,579
13,847
11,678

2,409
16,843
7,016
4,464
3,422

$13,725
$17,702
$16,710
$10,486
$10,034

$30,591
$32,885
$30,499
$24,635
$16,844

$45,917
$41,529
$39,898
$32,249
$23,083

14.5
14.5
15.2
26.2
33.5

7.94
65.30
19.06
13.89
8.99

286.46
2590.27
760.65
447.82
263.53

18.92
82.45
33.80
42.99
38.18

19,549
938
16,861
10,510
4,658
9,589
6,577
12,082
1,404
2,205
15,055
29,885
2,589

7,120
350
5,372
3,359
1,562
3,893
2,432
3,755
492
734
4,292
9,628
933

$15,325
$15,511
$12,326
$14,243
$13,439
$17,356
$15,455
$13,408
$12,697
$16,267
$10,229
$13,571
$15,392

$34,036
$30,833
$31,298
$39,850
$35,180
$32,387
$34,247
$36,178
$29,625
$39,766
$28,137
$34,518
$32,000

$45,621
$44,963
$51,616
$48,569
$43,312
$38,540
$45,337
$46,823
$36,139
$53,159
$38,827
$57,769
$40,524

13.3
7.9
12.4
12
10.9
14.2
10
12.7
16.7
9
28.1
10.1
13

13.22
1.34
5.21
2.36
0.90
2.60
1.65
1.83
1.85
2.14
1.93
6.68
1.05

481.59
50.17
165.91
75.45
30.19
105.75
60.93
56.98
64.94
71.39
54.88
215.04
37.91

42.48
100.00
78.96
100.00
100.00
28.11
68.83
75.85
100.00
100.00
82.90
53.09
100.00

12,808
14,501
4,544
6,312
5,087
2,426

4,764
5,641
1,848
2,525
2,061
1,073

$18,858
$18,086
$23,092
$15,423
$17,322
$15,976

$40,252
$36,507
$35,013
$28,792
$37,314
$29,732

$49,180
$43,529
$42,446
$36,559
$45,703
$38,088

9.6
13
9.6
18
11.2
12.8

35.90
43.46
8.54
916.38
15.39
5.83

1335.11
1690.40
347.46
36660.94
623.51
258.10

100.00
100.00
100.00
0.00
100.00
100.00

66

Percent
Living in
Poverty
(2008)5

Household
Density6

Population
Density6

Percent
Rural
Housing7

Federal Communications Commission

FCC 10-129

APPENDIX C
Unserved Areas
By County or County Equivalent
County or County Equivalent Areas1

Surry
Virgin Islands
St. Croix Island
St. John Island
St. Thomas Island
Washington
Asotin
Ferry
Wisconsin
Buffalo
Burnett
Crawford
Lafayette
Menominee
Pepin
Trempealeau
Vernon
West Virginia
Calhoun
Clay
Doddridge
Hardy
Pleasants
Webster
Wyoming
Big Horn

Population2

Households3

Average
Per Capita
Income
(1999)4

Median
Household
Income
(1999)4

Median
Household
Income
(2008)4

7,128

2,717

$16,682

$37,558

$52,004

53,234
4,197
51,181

19,455
1,735
19,458

$11,868
$18,012
$14,061

$21,401
$32,482
$26,893

21,420
7,353

8,705
2,850

$17,748
$15,019

$33,524
$30,388

$41,275
$34,948

13,741
16,196
16,885
15,871
4,571
7,357
27,790
29,090

5,496
6,819
6,519
6,112
1,353
2,833
11,088
11,219

$18,123
$17,712
$16,833
$16,811
$10,625
$18,288
$17,681
$15,859

$37,200
$34,218
$34,135
$37,220
$29,440
$37,609
$37,889
$33,178

7,212
10,075
7,201
13,591
7,150
9,394

2,934
3,948
2,774
5,587
2,753
3,892

$11,491
$12,021
$13,507
$15,859
$16,920
$12,284

11,322

4,263

$15,086

67

Percent
Living in
Poverty
(2008)5

Population
Density6

Percent
Rural
Housing7

25.54

973.51

100.00

642.31
213.98
1,638.46

23474.00
8845.81
62290.87

11.98
35.82
3.94

16.3
21.1

33.71
3.34

1370.15
129.31

6.86
100.00

$47,198
$41,276
$41,646
$47,796
$34,042
$49,943
$48,650
$43,402

10
14.1
12
9.2
25.2
9.7
9.6
14.4

20.08
19.71
29.48
25.05
12.77
31.67
37.86
36.60

802.93
830.02
1138.27
964.63
377.88
1219.83
1510.49
1411.39

100.00
100.00
67.77
100.00
100.00
100.00
100.00
84.29

$21,578
$22,120
$26,744
$31,846
$32,736
$21,055

$26,023
$28,342
$32,226
$35,530
$42,474
$26,037

21.3
24.7
21.3
13.9
13.2
27.9

25.70
29.42
22.47
23.30
54.69
16.90

1045.35
1153.06
865.76
957.68
2105.75
700.10

100.00
100.00
100.00
100.00
56.00
100.00

$32,682

$44,304

11.4

3.61

135.88

100.00

NA
NA
NA

11.6

Household
Density6

NA
NA
NA

139 county or county equivalent areas. & note 69. where Household Size2000= Population2000/Households2000.129 8. 3) We estimate households for 2008 by assuming that the relationship between household size and population size in each area has not changed between 2000 and 2008.412 Percent Living in Poverty (2008)5 7. See CENSUS BUREAU.7 9. For the 12 counties in which we do not have 2008 population estimates. and 78 Municipalities in Puerto Rico.529 29. 2010). 2010) (2000 Census Data). Virginia Islands. e.913 $20.S.140 counties in the 50 States and the District of Columbia. 68 . 78 Municipal areas in Puerto Rico and 11 Municipal areas in American Samoa.5 8.html (last visited Mar. CENSUS BUREAU.458 3.93 Population Density6 88. We rely on Census Bureau 2000 population estimates for a single county in Alaska and the 11 Municipal areas in American Samoa.230 counties or county equivalent areas. we use Households based upon the 2000 Census.2.census.079 $50.13 100.39 116. 5) Proportion of Population Living in Poverty in 2008 is reported by the Census Bureau for 3. SMALL AREA INCOME AND POVERTY ESTIMATES: STATE AND COUNTY ESTIMATES FOR 2008. 2) We base our analysis on the most recent Census Bureau data available. We exclude two county equivalent areas in the Northern Mariana Islands (Rose Island Municipality and Northern Mariana Islands Municipality) due to data irregularities.619 $39.601 $36.census. including 3. territories. Northern Mariana Islands and the U. 4) We report two Income measures. we anticipate that we will have a more precise identification of unserved areas. Median Household Income in 2008 dollars is available for 3.66 69.48 551.41 Percent Rural Housing7 100.S.gov/servlet/DownloadDatasetServlet?_lang=en (last visited Mar.486 $72.141 counties in the States and District of Columbia.. POPULATION ESTIMATES DATA SETS.gov/Press-Release/www/2002/sumfile3. e. http://www.html (last visited Mar.census. 24.456 7. Per Capita Income and Median Household Income in 1999 dollars are reported for all county or county equivalent areas in the Census 2000 Summary File 3.B.gov/popest/datasets. CENSUS 2000 SUMMARY FILE 1 (SF 1) 100-PERCENT DATA.04 Technical Notes: 1) We examine a total of 3. Households2008 = Population2008 /Household Size 2000.S. 24.8 4. 2010).gov/did/www/saipe/data/statecounty/data/2008. See.379 $18.366 $35..388 2. Specifically. CENSUS 2000 SUMMARY FILE 3. See. See supra Part III. Guam. CENSUS BUREAU.73 2. http://www. As we work to improve our data.044 $32. We do not have Median Household Income in 2008 for one county in Alaska and Hawaii. 24.g. Northern Mariana Islands and the U.Federal Communications Commission FCC 10-129 APPENDIX C Unserved Areas By County or County Equivalent County or County Equivalent Areas1 Crook Natrona Sublette Weston Population2 Households3 Average Per Capita Income (1999)4 Median Household Income (1999)4 Median Household Income (2008)4 6.html (last visited Mar. http://www.457 73. Virgin Islands. Per Capita Income and Median Household Income.230 county or county equivalent areas.00 57.022 2. See CENSUS BUREAU. We rely on Census Bureau 2008 population estimates for 3. 2010). http://factfinder.139 of the 3.434 $51.2 Household Density6 2.791 $17.census.69 1.348 $54. Guam. and all of the U.a.00 15. 24.26 13. Id.g.056 $17.

supra Technical Note 3. 7) Rural Housing Proportion is defined as the number of housing units categorized as rural by the Census Bureau divided by the total number of housing units in the county. See 2000 Census Data. 69 .Federal Communications Commission FCC 10-129 6) Household density is defined as the ratio of households to the total land area in the county. See supra Technical Notes 2 and 3. Population Density is defined as the ratio of population to the total land area in the area. These estimates are based upon the most recent Census Bureau data available.

2008 70 FCC 10-129 .Federal Communications Commission APPENDIX D Commission’s Report on High-Speed Services for Internet Access: Status as of December 31.

as Amended by the Broadband Data Improvement Act. It requires the agency to reach a conclusion about whether all—not some. 09-51.” As numerous studies show. unleashing additional spectrum to enable build out of mobile broadband networks. and Possible Steps to Accelerate Such Deployment Pursuant to Section 706 of the Telecommunications Act of 1996. These policies include reforming the Universal Service Fund to support broadband through public-private partnerships. Sixth Broadband Deployment Report Broadband is critical 21st century infrastructure. Today’s report is a reminder that we must move swiftly to implement the recommendations of the National Broadband Plan. still have little prospect of getting broadband deployed to their homes. Consistent with the findings of the National Broadband Plan. A National Broadband Plan for Our Future. 71 . removing red tape and barriers to infrastructure investment. As a unanimous Commission held in its Joint Statement on Broadband earlier this year: “Working to make sure that America has world-leading high-speed broadband networks—both wired and wireless— lies at the very core of the FCC’s mission in the 21st century. Congress has instructed the FCC to periodically determine whether broadband is being deployed in a reasonable and timely fashion to all Americans. and ensure our global competitiveness. On Congress’s question of universality—whether all Americans are on track to being served—the best available data shows that between 14 and 24 million Americans live in areas where they cannot get broadband. to which every American household and small business must have access to maximize our nation’s economic growth. and collecting better data on broadband availability. denied access to the transformative power of broadband. penetration. catalyze investment. of the kind that our country achieved in the previous century with respect to traditional telephone service. America is behind where it needs to be on broadband to maintain its global competitiveness and drive economic growth. the report points out the great broadband successes in the United States. The report we release today uses new data and improved analysis to take an honest look at the current state of broadband in America. 09-137. In other words. Accordingly. But the statute requires more. it requires a conclusion about whether the United States is on the road to achieving truly universal broadband availability. without increasing the projected size of the Fund. pricing. including as many as 290 million Americans who have gained access to broadband over the past decade. despite years of waiting. I look forward to working with my colleagues to fulfill our responsibility. Fortunately. and performance to help policymakers and consumers alike. not most—Americans are being served in a reasonable and timely fashion. Without substantial reforms to the agency’s universal service programs. So. these areas will continue to be unserved. taking account of the millions of Americans who. we must conclude that broadband is not being deployed to all Americans in a reasonable and timely fashion. spur job creation.Federal Communications Commission FCC 10-129 STATEMENT OF CHAIRMAN JULIUS GENACHOWSKI Re: Inquiry Concerning the Deployment of Advanced Telecommunications Capability to All Americans in a Reasonable and Timely Fashion. GN Docket Nos. These are mostly expensive-to-serve areas with low population density. the National Broadband Plan has charted a course to accelerate broadband investment and help ensure that all Americans can connect to the vital infrastructure of the 21st century.

as Amended by the Broadband Data Improvement Act. So while this may technically be the Sixth Report. That told us nothing about the extent to which broadband was available within a zip code or the quality of that service. where zip codes are not surrogates for subscribers. climate change and the environment. Sixth Broadband Deployment Report The sixth time is the charm. that all broadband was being deployed to all Americans in a reasonable and timely fashion. Going down the same old path here would have done a further injustice to this country’s reinvigorated commitment to broadband. fact-driven process that resulted in the National Broadband Plan. GN Docket Nos. By relying on an inadequate and unrefined approach to data collection for the previous five reports. the Commission seriously defaulted on its statutory responsibility. Congress recognized how critical access to broadband is to the well-being of our country. the Commission used information from service providers that simply reported on which zip codes had at least one subscriber to broadband service at a speed of 200 kbps or higher. energy. given the depth of data we that has been mined as part of the lengthy. The false impression left by that approach was that everyone in a zip code was fully connected to high-speed broadband when all we really knew was that one person or business somewhere—perhaps on the very fringe of a zip code—subscribed to a minimum-speed service. it nonetheless concluded that the information was accurate enough to make a judgment about the state of broadband deployment for all Americans. This is even clearer now than it was at the time of those reports. we have a much more comprehensive view of where our country stands when it comes to broadband availability. health care or equal opportunity—there is no solution that does not have a broadband component to it. With that statutory mandate. As such. international competitiveness. and we have measures for assessing our progress nationally and as compared with our global competitors. it is—in my opinion—the first really credible effort by the Commission to deliver a report based on data of the quality and granularity needed to be truly responsive to Congress. In early data collection exercises.Federal Communications Commission FCC 10-129 STATEMENT OF COMMISSIONER MICHAEL J. and where the documented failure to connect millions upon millions of Americans disproves previous FCC findings that broadband is being reasonably and timely deployed. therefore. it found that the percentage of zip codes with at least one broadband subscriber—97% of the zip codes—adequately reflected the percentage of the population with access to broadband. Congress and the Administration reaffirmed the importance of broadband by charging the FCC to develop a national strategy for deployment and adoption. education. At last—a section 706 Report where broadband is really broadband. COPPS Re: Inquiry Concerning the Deployment of Advanced Telecommunications Capability to All Americans in a Reasonable and Timely Fashion. as amended by the Broadband Data Improvement Act—now section 1302(b) of Title 47 of the United States Code—the Commission is tasked with determining whether advanced telecommunications capability is being made available to all Americans in a reasonable and timely fashion. I still fail to see how anyone ever viewed this approach as indicative of anything useful. and Possible Steps to Accelerate Such Deployment Pursuant to Section 706 of the Telecommunications Act of 1996. 09-51. and found. Last year. With this Report. I am pleased to support the Broadband Deployment Report that we issue today. The five preceding reports lacked such data and the results were … poor policy choices. For all of the challenges this country faces—whether it’s job creation. Pursuant to section 706 of the Telecommunications Act of 1996. Good data is a prerequisite to good policy choices. A National Broadband Plan for Our Future. including input collected from the newly-revised FCC Form 477 72 . 09-137. Even though the majority of the Commission recognized the limited usefulness of the data in previous reports.

along with consumers. is it any surprise other nations catapulted ahead of the United States in the broadband race? To remedy the negative findings of the Report. are working together for an America with ubiquitous. where the Commission and industry. I hope to see a more in-depth global dimension to future reports. This Commission stands poised to move forward on such a path. there is still room for improvement. Fortunately. between the able-bodied and persons with disabilities. I commend everyone at the Commission—and they are many—who contributed their expertise and analysis to the production of this much-improved Report. As with all great infrastructure challenges this country has faced. we still have a long way to go to ensure that all Americans have broadband access. we have a sound path available to us. between the haves and have-nots. particularly as broadband mapping information becomes available pursuant to the Broadband Data Improvement Act.Federal Communications Commission FCC 10-129 requiring providers to report broadband subscribership by Census Tract instead of zip code. track and compare its approaches to broadband with those of our global competitors even more deeply than we do here. We must strive to make future reports even more detailed and thorough. we must move forward in a collaborative effort. value-laden broadband. The findings of today’s Report summon us to implement those recommendations and thereby address our statutory responsibilities. affordable. affordable broadband. I am confident that the course we start down with today’s Report will lead us to just such an outcome. value-laden. the next step—as mandated by statute—is for the Commission to take immediate action to accelerate deployment of such capability through the removal of barriers to infrastructure investment and the promotion of competition in the market. Today’s Report sadly confirms the existence of those digital divides. between those living in big cities and those living in rural areas or on tribal lands. 73 . With these datareliant observations. high-speed. While there is no doubt that broadband deployment and adoption have grown significantly over the last decade. through the recommendations of the National Broadband Plan. how could the Commission possibly continue to conclude that all is well and good when it comes to broadband deployment to all Americans? With our heads in the sand for so many years. The National Broadband Plan observed that in the United States today there are digital divides when it comes to access to high-quality. While I support today’s Report as one that is light years ahead of its prior iterations. it is critical that the United States understand. To that end. In addition.

A National Broadband Plan for Our Future. It is only reasonable to question the rationale behind this confusing pivot. Collecting granular data.Federal Communications Commission FCC 10-129 DISSENTING STATEMENT OF COMMISSIONER ROBERT M. however. Instead of focusing on the great strides that America has made in broadband deployment. As a result of proceedings recently initiated by the Commission – such as the Notice of Inquiry asking whether the Commission should regulate 21st Century broadband Internet access services under old common carrier rules – I question whether this Report will be used to justify additional regulation. In this Report. 09-51. “Deployment” and “subscribership” are two distinct concepts with different attributes and areas for improvement. the majority is sidelining the deployment figure of 95 percent in favor of a seemingly smaller subscribership number. This 180 degree reversal is unsettling considering that since the issuance of the Commission’s first Section 706 Report. Although broadband has proliferated across America faster than any other transformative modern technology. Reforming our Universal Service subsidy program coupled with opening windows of opportunity for the construction of new delivery platforms. It is unclear where that conclusion will lead. But. subscribership data does not equate to the “availability” of broadband. however. including subscribership numbers. it is also Congress’ mandate to us as explicitly called for in the Act.S. The plain language of Section 706 was written with a deregulatory bent. is important. Today. as Amended by the Broadband Data Improvement Act. however. as the Act requires. In many instances the Report confuses the facts by substituting the terms “deployment” and “subscribership” as if they were synonymous and interchangeable.” The Commission should focus its resources and energy on connecting the 7 million households that currently do not have access to high-speed Internet.” Today’s Report concludes that the Commission will meet this statutory requirement by addressing the National Broadband Plan’s proposals. but I am concerned that regulating with a light touch is not what this current Report will be used for in the future. Sixth Broadband Deployment Report Section 706 of the Telecommunications Act of 1996 requires that the FCC determine whether “advanced telecommunications capability is being deployed to all Americans in a reasonable and timely fashion. the FCC has answered “yes” to that question. In fact.” In all previous reports dating back to 1999. which is what Congress requires the Commission to assess under Section 706. the answer is “no” for the first time. fixed broadband infrastructure capable of supporting actual download speeds of at least 4 Mbps. They are not. and Possible Steps to Accelerate Such Deployment Pursuant to Section 706 of the Telecommunications Act of 1996. such as wireless broadband. can be accomplished without contorting data and 74 . McDOWELL Re: Inquiry Concerning the Deployment of Advanced Telecommunications Capability to All Americans in a Reasonable and Timely Fashion. Our task is to focus on Congress’ explicit directive to analyze deployment progress for purposes of the Section 706 Report. the small percentage of Americans who do not have access to it deserve our highest priority. this Report emphasizes subscribership. America has made impressive improvements in developing and deploying broadband infrastructure and services. this Report even states that “95% of the U. GN Docket Nos. 09-137.” I am concerned that this Report fails to provide sufficient justification as to why the Commission is reversing course from previous reports. Congress stated that “[i]f the Commission’s determination is negative. contrary to the Act’s goal of “removing barriers to infrastructure investment. it shall take immediate action to accelerate deployment of such capability by removing barriers to infrastructure investment and by promoting competition in the telecommunications market. In Section 706(b). Not only does connecting the unserved make for sound public policy. population lives in housing units with access to terrestrial. referencing findings from the National Broadband Plan.

Federal Communications Commission FCC 10-129 conclusions or laying a predicate for more regulation. 75 . Doing the latter only undermines the pursuit of our Congressional directives. Therefore. I respectfully dissent.

will be in vain unless we have universal adoption of broadband as well. Universal availability. Other commonly cited barriers to adoption include digital literacy and relevancy. Accordingly. Not long ago. one mother shared her experience on broadband. For those Americans who lack access. GN Docket Nos. her neighbors have broadband.S. They can work from home when needed. including for example. Yet our most recent data indicates that 14 to 24 million Americans lack access to broadband in their homes. I believe that it is appropriate for the Commission to conclude that broadband has not been deployed in a reasonable and timely fashion to all Americans. 09-137. as Amended by the Broadband Data Improvement Act. I am committed to doing my part in addressing these issues as expeditiously as possible so we can achieve an America where every citizen has access to and has adopted broadband. it is more difficult for citizens to participate in our economy. Cost is the most cited reason for not subscribing to broadband service. we should not be content when a segment of our population is left behind. I support the development of a Digital Literacy Corps – a group that will be dedicated to ensuring all Americans recognize the many benefits of broadband and are comfortable with digital technology. where broadband still is not available because it is not economical for the private sector to deploy broadband and offer service. it is a necessity.gov and expressed frustration that not less than half a mile away. CLYBURN Re: Inquiry Concerning the Deployment of Advanced Telecommunications Capability to All Americans in a Reasonable and Timely Fashion. In order to remedy the lack of broadband availability. and children who use the Internet during the school day often need access to it at home to complete their homework. Most parents cannot search for employment without using the Internet. Section 706 contemplates that all Americans obtain the benefits of broadband. Nonetheless. research term papers. 09-51. and obtain access to critical information that is available only online. In addition. they have done so. Indeed. Sixth Broadband Deployment Report Access to broadband at home is no longer a convenience. and Possible Steps to Accelerate Such Deployment Pursuant to Section 706 of the Telecommunications Act of 1996. The National Broadband Plan made a number of recommendations on how to make broadband affordable for all Americans. Without broadband. it does not matter to them that 95% of Americans have access. As a nation. and apply to college. A National Broadband Plan for Our Future. especially given the additional broadband availability data from the National Broadband Plan that we rely upon in this Sixth Report. no matter where they live or what their income may be. Nearly 93 million Americans have not adopted broadband at home. there are many geographic areas in the U. communicate with others. Their children can access the Internet to improve their educational experience from home. I believe that where companies have had a business case to offer broadband service. it is appropriate that the Commission fully consider the recommendations made in the National Broadband Plan to encourage broadband deployment.Federal Communications Commission FCC 10-129 STATEMENT OF COMMISSIONER MIGNON L. comprehensive reform of the universal service fund. 76 . What matters to them is that they do not have access in their homes. however.

23.3 He explained. 4 Id. 09-137. First. and Possible Steps to Accelerate Such Deployment Pursuant to Section 706 of the Telecommunications Act of 1996.1 Each year networks go further and faster. population has access to a 4 Mbps/1 Mbps terrestrial broadband service. as Amended by the Broadband Data Improvement Act.Federal Communications Commission FCC 10-129 DISSENTING STATEMENT OF COMMISSIONER MEREDITH A. “[w]e must always be looking for ways to remove barriers to investment and promote competition. A finding of timely and reasonable need not—nor should it be—a congratulatory one. 09-51. Moreover. BAKER Re: Inquiry Concerning the Deployment of Advanced Telecommunications Capability to All Americans in a Reasonable and Timely Fashion. and I am troubled by giving such significant efforts a failing grade. GN Docket Nos. 2010). yet this Report limits its findings to terrestrial solutions even when 1 Robert W. All evidence suggests that answer be made in the affirmative. A National Broadband Plan for Our Future. at 20 (2010). Section 706 is not technology specific. 09-51. 3 Inquiry Concerning the Deployment of Advanced Telecommunications Capability to All Americans in a Reasonable and Timely Fashion. and Possible Steps to Accelerate Such Deployment Pursuant to Section 706 of the Telecommunications Act of 1999.com/press-releases/broadband-america-study-shows-importanceinvestment-0) (last visited July 20. but the job is far from complete. GN Docket No. Rather. wired. I have a number of concerns with the manner in which the Commission reached this inopportune decision. I cannot support this decision. Separate Statement of Chairman William E. the Commission concluded that broadband deployment was timely and reasonable. Chairman Kennard explained that a finding of timely and reasonable does not “let[] us off the hook” from our oversight role. the Commission has changed course by concluding that broadband deployment now is not reasonable and timely. wireless. the Report focuses almost exclusively on terrestrial broadband options. 2010) (available at http://www.broadbandforamerica. Singer. and satellite companies continue to pour billions of dollars into our nation’s broadband network. By every possible metric.S. broadband providers have invested $27 billion annually in networks and infrastructure. 77 . From 2003 to 2009. Omnibus Broadband Initiative (OBI). The Economic Impact of Broadband Investment. Nor is it a finding that the government has no role to promote broadband deployment in areas in which market forces will not likely result in deployment. under a consistent minimal regulatory framework. Broadband deployment continues to be timely and reasonable. Report. Kennard. 2 FCC.”4 I agree. Crandall & Hal J. The goal encapsulated by section 706 is universal broadband availability. at 2 (Feb. 14 FCC Rcd 2398 (1999). Connecting America: The National Broadband Plan. The National Broadband Plan found that 95 percent of the U. and 80 percent have choice of broadband offerings. Nowhere in section 706 does it require that goal to be reached definitively in 2010. the question is whether network providers continue to make demonstrable progress towards that goal. Broadband infrastructure deployment and investment are a remarkable and continuing success story. In a striking departure from that decade of consistent Commission findings. and believe that the same rationale and approach applies equally to this Report. Sixth Broadband Deployment Report The Commission’s obligation under section 706 is to evaluate broadband infrastructure deployment.2 In every prior Section 706 Report.

I would have preferred a more fulsome evaluation of broadband deployment based on the five tiers of broadband speeds adopted by the Commission to provide fuller context as to how broadband services are deployed and used across different speed tiers.6 I share concerns expressed in prior Section 706 Reports that our speed measurements should be “designed for data collection and as points of reference. 5 Sixth Broadband Deployment Report. and a fresh look at broadband speed is appropriate. Third. High-Cost Universal Service Support.” nor should it be used “to drive the market. para.19 (detailing access to terrestrial 768 kbps services). greater context as to how 4 Mbps-capable broadband networks have been deployed over time would greatly inform this analysis. Our analysis should be significantly more granular to identify particular geographic areas or communities for which deployment has lagged. supra. at n. Third Report. Current technologies may not allow competition at higher speeds. FCC 10-129. but satellite broadband. A more granular and focused analysis could help target commercial and community investment going forward and bring public attention to the affected communities. the Technical Paper describing the model relied upon by the Plan has only recently been placed out for comment in the context of universal service reform. as well as the additional functionality of mobility. but we should not adopt the 4Mbps/1Mbps speed threshold as the definition of “broadband” without conducting our own due diligence. Indeed. 17 FCC Rcd 2844. I am troubled by our decision as a regulatory agency to decide a fixed definition of broadband speed as 4 Mbps downstream. 10 Connect America Fund.”7 We should not use our broadband speed measurements as “an ultimate goal. 10 (2002).81. 1 Mbps upstream. A National Broadband Plan for Our Future. this Report prematurely accepts the Model’s results today in concluding deployment is not timely and reasonable.Federal Communications Commission FCC 10-129 discussing relatively low speeds of service easily reached by today’s wireless and satellite offerings. We should not select a new speed and then judge the reasonableness of deployment based upon a snapshot of current conditions. 7 Inquiry Concerning the Deployment of Advanced Telecommunications Capability to All Americans in a Reasonable And Timely Fashion. supra. 6 Local Telephone Competition and Broadband Reporting. Second. and Possible Steps To Accelerate Such Deployment Pursuant to Section 706 of the Telecommunications Act of 1996.5 The Commission should not make consumer judgments about the viability and utility of satellite and wireless solutions that provide clear facilities-based competition opportunities. 19 FCC Rcd 22340 (2004). The Plan’s findings and recommendations relied upon in this Report may or may not be the correct ones. The National Broadband Plan reports that more than half of consumers that could purchase 4 Mbps/1 Mbps broadband have concluded that a slower offering is more than sufficient for their broadband needs. 25 FCC Rcd 6657. Notice of Inquiry and Notice of Proposed Rulemaking. the Commission’s finding of nationwide untimely and unreasonable deployment is overly broad. C (2010). It is true that prior Section 706 Reports have focused on slower “first generation” broadband services.10 Regardless of the conclusion the Commission ultimately reaches in that context. at n.”8 I also have concerns with the merits of selecting 4 Mbps/1Mbps as the broadband speed with which to evaluate deployment. 78 . Lastly. 9 Sixth Broadband Deployment Report. 3G and 4G wireless solutions do provide a level of connectivity that is “broadband” to most consumers. at App. 8 Id. Report and Order.9 Even if we were to adopt a new higher speed. the Commission should not adopt National Broadband Plan findings and recommendations without opportunity for notice and comment as well as Commission deliberation.

Specifically. and will be necessary to fund tomorrow’s broadband networks. however. 79 . I am troubled. I have concerns that the proposals to shift broadband Internet access services to monopoly-era Title II requirements will undermine the regulatory certainty and stable foundation that has attracted capital to this sector to date.Federal Communications Commission FCC 10-129 The Commission should redouble its effort to promote and create incentives for private investment in networks and technologies that can drive broadband further and faster throughout the nation. particularly in unserved and underserved communities. The Commission should maintain the existing minimal regulatory approach under Title I and work proactively with carriers and investors to target actions to attract more capital and resources to support broadband networks. by recent developments at the Commission that appear to be moving us in the opposite direction.

Sign up to vote on this title
UsefulNot useful