Appropriate Regulatory Treatment for Broadband Access to the Internet Over Wireless Networks
FederalRulings
Ask Donna
How this section applies to your facts.
FCC Declaratory Rulings › Appropriate Regulatory Treatment for Broadband Access to the Internet Over Wireless Networks
Text
Federal Communications Commission FCC 07-30
Before the
Federal Communications Commission
Washington, D.C. 20554
In the Matter of
Appropriate Regulatory Treatment for Broadband
Access to the Internet Over Wireless Networks
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
WT Docket No. 07-53
DECLARATORY RULING
Adopted: March 22, 2007 Released: March 23, 2007
By the Commission: Chairman Martin and Commissioners Tate and McDowell issuing separate
statements; and Commissioners Copps and Adelstein concurring and issuing separate statements.
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Heading Paragraph #
I. INTRODUCTION ............................................................................................................................ 1
II. BACKGROUND .............................................................................................................................. 3
A. Commission Classification of Broadband Internet Access Services ............................................. 3
B. Prior Proceedings Considering Issues Pertaining to Wireless Broadband ..................................... 8
C. Current Wireless Broadband Internet Access Services and Technologies................................... 11
III. DISCUSSION................................................................................................................................. 18
A. Classification of Wireless Broadband Internet Access Service as Information Service............... 19
B. Classification of the Transmission Component of Wireless Broadband Internet Access
Service as �Telecommunications� and not �Telecommunications Service�................................ 29
C. Continued Applicability of Title III Licensing Provisions.......................................................... 35
D. Applicability of the �Commercial Mobile Service� Provisions of Section 332 of the Act........... 37
E. Applicability of Other Statutory Provisions............................................................................... 57
1
vice�................................ 29
C. Continued Applicability of Title III Licensing Provisions.......................................................... 35
D. Applicability of the �Commercial Mobile Service� Provisions of Section 332 of the Act........... 37
E. Applicability of Other Statutory Provisions............................................................................... 57
1. Access by Persons with Disabilities .................................................................................... 58
2. Pole Attachments and Local Authority over Zoning............................................................ 60
3. Rights and Obligations related to Interconnection ............................................................... 66
4. Consumer Protection Obligations ....................................................................................... 69
IV. ORDERING CLAUSES ................................................................................................................. 71
I. INTRODUCTION
1. In this Declaratory Ruling, we find that wireless broadband Internet access service is an
information service under the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (Communications Act or Act).1
We also find that the transmission component of wireless broadband Internet access service is
1 47 U.S.C. �� 151 et seq. We note that this order addresses terrestrial wireless broadband and does not address
satellite broadband services.
Federal Communications Commission FCC 07-30
2
�telecommunications� and that the offering of the telecommunications transmission component as part of
a functionally integrated Internet access service offering is not �telecommunications service� under
section 3 of the Act
eq. We note that this order addresses terrestrial wireless broadband and does not address
satellite broadband services.
Federal Communications Commission FCC 07-30
2
�telecommunications� and that the offering of the telecommunications transmission component as part of
a functionally integrated Internet access service offering is not �telecommunications service� under
section 3 of the Act. Further, we find that neither the Communications Act nor relevant precedent
mandates that broadband transmission be a �telecommunications service� when provided to an Internet
Service Provider (ISP) as a wholesale input for the ISP�s own wireless broadband Internet access service
offering, but the provider may choose to offer it as such. Finally, we find that mobile wireless broadband
Internet access service is not a �commercial mobile service� under section 332 of the Act.2
2. In making these determinations, we provide regulatory certainty regarding the
classification of wireless broadband Internet access service.3 This approach is consistent with the
framework that the Commission established for cable modem Internet access service,4 wireline broadband
Internet access service,5 and Broadband over Power Line (BPL)-enabled Internet access service6 and it
establishes a minimal regulatory environment for wireless broadband Internet access service that
promotes our goal of ubiquitous availability of broadband to all Americans.7 Addressing the appropriate
regulatory classification of wireless broadband Internet access also furthers our efforts to establish a
consistent regulatory framework across broadband platforms by regulating like services in similar
manner.8
II. BACKGROUND
A. Commission Classification of Broadband Internet Access Services
3. The Commission has not previously considered the appropriate classification of wireless
2 See 47 U.S.C. � 332(d)(1).
3 Commission rule 1.2 provides the Commission with the authority to issue declaratory rulings to remove an
uncertainty
dband platforms by regulating like services in similar
manner.8
II. BACKGROUND
A. Commission Classification of Broadband Internet Access Services
3. The Commission has not previously considered the appropriate classification of wireless
2 See 47 U.S.C. � 332(d)(1).
3 Commission rule 1.2 provides the Commission with the authority to issue declaratory rulings to remove an
uncertainty. See 47 C.F.R. � 1.2; see also 5 U.S.C. � 554(e) (stating that an agency, �in its sound discretion, may
issue a declaratory order to . . . remove uncertainty.�).
4 Inquiry Concerning High-Speed Access to the Internet Over Cable and Other Facilities; Internet Over Cable
Declaratory Ruling; Appropriate Regulatory Treatment for Broadband Access to the Internet Over Cable Facilities,
Declaratory Ruling and Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, 17 FCC Rcd 4798, 4801, para. 4 (2002) (Cable Modem
Declaratory Ruling), aff�d, Nat�l Cable & Telecomms. Ass�n v. Brand X Internet Servs., 125 S. Ct. 2688 (2005)
(NCTA v. Brand X).
5 Appropriate Framework for Broadband Access to the Internet over Wireline Facilities; Universal Service
Obligations of Broadband Providers; Review of Regulatory Requirements for Incumbent LEC Broadband
Telecommunications Services; Computer III Further Remand Proceedings: Bell Operating Company Provision of
Enhanced Services; 1998 Biennial Regulatory Review � Review of Computer III and ONA Safeguards and
Requirements; Conditional Petition of the Verizon Telephone Companies for Forbearance Under 47 U.S.C. � 160(c)
with Regard to Broadband Services Provided via Fiber to the Premises; Petition of the Verizon Telephone
Companies for Declaratory Ruling or, Alternatively, for Interim Waiver with Regard to Broadband Services
Provided via Fiber to the Premises; Consumer Protection in the Broadband Era, Report and Order and Notice of
Proposed Rulemaking, 20 FCC Rcd 14853, 14855, para
nder 47 U.S.C. � 160(c)
with Regard to Broadband Services Provided via Fiber to the Premises; Petition of the Verizon Telephone
Companies for Declaratory Ruling or, Alternatively, for Interim Waiver with Regard to Broadband Services
Provided via Fiber to the Premises; Consumer Protection in the Broadband Era, Report and Order and Notice of
Proposed Rulemaking, 20 FCC Rcd 14853, 14855, para. 1 (2005) (respectively Wireline Broadband Internet Access
Services Order and Consumer Protection in the Broadband Era NPRM), petitions for review pending, Time Warner
Telecomms. v. FCC, No. 05-4769 (and consolidated cases) (3rd Cir. filed Oct. 26, 2005).
6 In the Matter of United Power Line Council�s Petition for Declaratory Ruling Regarding the Classification of
Broadband over Power Line Internet Access Service as an Information Service, WC Docket No. 06-10,
Memorandum Opinion and Order, 21 FCC Rcd 13281 (2006) (BPL-Enabled Internet Access Services Order).
7 See 47 U.S.C. � 157.
8 See Wireline Broadband Internet Access Services Order, 20 FCC Rcd at 14862, para. 11 n.30 (stating that while
the Commission was not addressing classification issues of other non-wireline broadband Internet access services in
the Wireline Broadband Internet Access Services Order, it will act consistent with the analysis and conclusions
reached therein).
Federal Communications Commission FCC 07-30
3
broadband Internet access service. Title III of the Act generally provides the Commission with authority
to regulate �radio communications� and �transmission of energy by radio.�9 Among other provisions,
Title III allows the Commission to make such rules and regulations and prescribe such restrictions and
conditions as may be necessary to carry out the provisions of the Act.10 The Act also distinguishes
between fixed and mobile services.11 Fixed wireless telecommunications services provided on a common
carrier basis are generally subject to regulation under Title II of the Act
provisions,
Title III allows the Commission to make such rules and regulations and prescribe such restrictions and
conditions as may be necessary to carry out the provisions of the Act.10 The Act also distinguishes
between fixed and mobile services.11 Fixed wireless telecommunications services provided on a common
carrier basis are generally subject to regulation under Title II of the Act. Section 332 of the Act provides
the regulatory scheme for mobile services, differentiating between private and commercial mobile
services and requiring that commercial mobile radio service (CMRS) providers be regulated as common
carriers under Title II of the Act.12
4. In proceedings involving cable, wireline, and BPL, the Commission has examined the
regulatory classification applicable to certain broadband services and determined to adopt a pro-
competitive, deregulatory regime for these services. In particular, the Commission has classified cable,
wireline, and BPL broadband Internet access services as �information services,� thus reducing regulatory
requirements and uncertainties that could have slowed development of these broadband services.
5. The Commission released the Cable Modem Declaratory Ruling in 2002, classifying
cable modem service as an interstate information service, which includes no separate offering of a
telecommunications service.13 The Commission found that the classification of cable modem service
depended on the nature of the functions that the end user is offered and that cable modem service, in fact,
combined �the transmission of data with computer processing, information provision, and computer
interactivity, enabling end users to run a variety of applications.�14 As a part of the classification, the
Commission determined that the Computer Inquiry obligation to offer the transmission underlying any
information service on a common carrier basis did not apply to information services provided over cable
facilities.15 In NCTA v
omputer processing, information provision, and computer
interactivity, enabling end users to run a variety of applications.�14 As a part of the classification, the
Commission determined that the Computer Inquiry obligation to offer the transmission underlying any
information service on a common carrier basis did not apply to information services provided over cable
facilities.15 In NCTA v. Brand X the Supreme Court upheld, as a lawful construction of the Act, the
Commission�s conclusion that cable companies that sell broadband Internet service do not provide
�telecommunications services� and therefore are exempt from mandatory Title II common carrier
regulation.16
6. On September 23, 2005, the Commission issued the Wireline Broadband Internet Access
Services Order, which, among other things, established a regulatory framework for broadband Internet
9 See Title III - Provisions Relating to Radio, 47 U.S.C. �� 301 et seq. The term �radio communication� or
�communication by radio� means the transmission by radio of writing, signs, signals, pictures, and sounds of all
kinds, including all instrumentalities, facilities, apparatus, and services (among other things, the receipt, forwarding,
and delivery of communications) incidental to such transmission.� 47 U.S.C. � 153 (33).
10 47 U.S.C. � 303(r).
11 See 47 U.S.C. � 153 (27) (defining �mobile service�).
12 �Commercial mobile service� is defined to mean �any mobile service . . . that is provided for profit and makes
interconnected service available (A) to the public or (B) to such classes of eligible users as to be effectively
available to a substantial portion of the public.� 47 U.S.C. � 332(d)(1). See infra Section III.D. for further
discussion of the regulatory requirements applicable to CMRS.
13 See Cable Modem Declaratory Ruling, 17 FCC Rcd at 4802, para. 7.
14 Id., 17 FCC Rcd at 4822, para. 38.
15 Id., 17 FCC Rcd at 4825-26, paras
the public or (B) to such classes of eligible users as to be effectively
available to a substantial portion of the public.� 47 U.S.C. � 332(d)(1). See infra Section III.D. for further
discussion of the regulatory requirements applicable to CMRS.
13 See Cable Modem Declaratory Ruling, 17 FCC Rcd at 4802, para. 7.
14 Id., 17 FCC Rcd at 4822, para. 38.
15 Id., 17 FCC Rcd at 4825-26, paras. 43-46 (finding that the Computer II obligations have only been applied to
traditional wireline services and facilities, which the Commission has explicitly limited to services provided over the
infrastructure of traditional telephone networks, and declining to extend such obligations to information services
provided over cable facilities).
16 See NCTA v. Brand X, 125 S. Ct. at 2695, 2702-10.
Federal Communications Commission FCC 07-30
4
access services offered by wireline facilities-based providers.17 The Commission acted to further its goal
of �developing a consistent regulatory framework across platforms by regulating like services in a similar
functional manner.�18 There, the Commission found that wireline broadband Internet access is an
information service because it offers end users �the capability for �generating, acquiring, storing,
transforming, processing, retrieving, utilizing, or making available information via
telecommunications.��19 The Commission also determined that neither the Communications Act nor
relevant precedent mandated that broadband transmission be a telecommunications service when provided
to an ISP, but the provider may choose to offer it as such.20 The Commission further determined that the
use of the transmission component of wireline broadband Internet access service as part of a facilities-
based provider�s offering of that service to end users using its own transmission facilities is
�telecommunications� and not a �telecommunications service� under the Act.21 Additionally, the
Commission noted that the broadband Internet access market had several emergin
termined that the
use of the transmission component of wireline broadband Internet access service as part of a facilities-
based provider�s offering of that service to end users using its own transmission facilities is
�telecommunications� and not a �telecommunications service� under the Act.21 Additionally, the
Commission noted that the broadband Internet access market had several emerging platforms and
providers in most areas of the country.22 The Commission also eliminated the Computer Inquiry
requirements applicable to wireline broadband Internet access services offered by facilities-based
providers.23
7. On November 7, 2006, the Commission released the BPL-Enabled Internet Access
Services Order, classifying BPL-enabled Internet access service as information service. The Commission
found that BPL-enabled Internet access service is an information service because it offers a single,
integrated service (i.e., Internet access) to end users, in that BPL-enabled Internet access service combines
computer processing, information provision, and computer interactivity with data transport, enabling end
users to run a variety of applications (e.g., e-mail, web pages, and newsgroups).24 The Commission also
determined that the transmission component underlying BPL-enabled Internet access service is
�telecommunications� and that the offering of the telecommunications transmission component as part of
a functionally integrated finished BPL-enabled Internet access service offering is not a
�telecommunications service� under the Act.�25 The Commission noted that its determination regarding
BPL-enabled Internet access service would remove regulatory uncertainty regarding the classification of
the service and would further the Commission�s goal of developing a consistent regulatory framework
across broadband platforms by regulating like services in a similar manner.26
B. Prior Proceedings Considering Issues Pertaining to Wireless Broadband
8
ed that its determination regarding
BPL-enabled Internet access service would remove regulatory uncertainty regarding the classification of
the service and would further the Commission�s goal of developing a consistent regulatory framework
across broadband platforms by regulating like services in a similar manner.26
B. Prior Proceedings Considering Issues Pertaining to Wireless Broadband
8. The Commission has received comments regarding the appropriate regulatory
classification of wireless broadband Internet access services in the context of the IP-enabled Services
NPRM, the Wireless Broadband Access Task Force Report, and the Consumer Protection in the
Broadband Era NPRM.
17 See Wireline Broadband Internet Access Services Order, 20 FCC Rcd at 14853.
18 Id., 20 FCC Rcd at 14855, para. 1.
19 Id., 20 FCC Rcd at 14863, para. 14 (quoting 47 U.S.C. � 153(20)).
20 Id., 20 FCC Rcd at 14909-10, para. 103.
21 Id., 20 FCC Rcd at 14909-11, para. 104.
22 Id., 20 FCC Rcd at 14856, para. 3.
23 Id., 20 FCC Rcd at 14857, 14872-98, paras. 4, 32-85.
24 BPL-Enabled Internet Access Services Order, 21 FCC Rcd at 13286-87, para. 9.
25 Id. 21 FCC Rcd at 13288, para. 12.
26 Id. 21 FCC Rcd at 13281-82, para. 2.
Federal Communications Commission FCC 07-30
5
9. Commenting in response to the IP-enabled Services NPRM,27 both CTIA and Virgin
Mobile recommended generally that wireless broadband be regulated with a light touch and only at the
federal level.28 In response to the Wireless Broadband Access Task Force Report,29 commenters
consistently endorsed a national approach for wireless broadband that has a light regulatory touch, with at
most a limited state role.30 Cingular Wireless & Bellsouth (filing jointly), CTIA, T-Mobile, and
Microsoft all asserted that wireless broadband should be classified as an interstate service,31 regardless of
whether it was deemed a telecommunications service or information service.32 In addition, Cingular
Wireless & BellSouth and Cisco contended that wireless bro
t regulatory touch, with at
most a limited state role.30 Cingular Wireless & Bellsouth (filing jointly), CTIA, T-Mobile, and
Microsoft all asserted that wireless broadband should be classified as an interstate service,31 regardless of
whether it was deemed a telecommunications service or information service.32 In addition, Cingular
Wireless & BellSouth and Cisco contended that wireless broadband Internet access service should be
classified as an information service, asserting that the deregulatory features of CMRS allowed under
section 332 were not sufficient.33 Finally, NextG recommended that the Commission carefully consider
all of the ramifications of classifying wireless broadband Internet access service as an information
service, noting that if an entity is classified as providing only information services, it may face even
greater hurdles in accessing utility poles and public rights-of-way -- two elements that NextG maintains
are critical to the deployment of wireless broadband infrastructure.34
10. In response to the Consumer Protection in the Broadband Era NPRM,35 both Cingular
Wireless and CTIA commented on matters associated with the classification of wireless broadband
services. Cingular Wireless asserted that broadband Internet access services, including those provided
over wireless networks, were interstate in nature.36 In addition, Cingular Wireless noted that, because the
CMRS industry was already robustly competitive and bound by consumer protection rules that protected
the public interest, there was no need to extend wireline consumer protection policies to wireless
broadband Internet access services.37 Cingular Wireless also argued that there is a statutory basis for not
applying generic broadband regulation to CMRS operators
less noted that, because the
CMRS industry was already robustly competitive and bound by consumer protection rules that protected
the public interest, there was no need to extend wireline consumer protection policies to wireless
broadband Internet access services.37 Cingular Wireless also argued that there is a statutory basis for not
applying generic broadband regulation to CMRS operators. Section 332, it argued, differentiates CMRS
from other delivery technologies by limiting state authority and requiring the Commission to forbear from
unnecessary common carrier regulation.38 A CMRS operator�s broadband Internet access service, it
asserted, is part of a CMRS service offering and cannot be subjected to levels of regulation that the
27 See IP-Enabled Services, WC Docket No. 04-36, Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, 19 FCC Rcd 4863, 4908 (2004)
(IP-enabled Services NPRM).
28 CTIA Comments at ii; Virgin Mobile Comments at 4.
29 See Wireless Broadband Access Task Force Report, GN Docket No. 04-163, at 66-73 (Feb. 2005) (WBATF
Report) available at http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-257247A1.doc We note that this is
not a Commission report, but a staff report.
30 See, e.g., Cingular Wireless & BellSouth Comments at 10; CTIA Comments at 16; Microsoft Comments at 8-9;
T-Mobile Reply Comments at 6.
31 Cingular Wireless & BellSouth Comments at 6-7; CTIA Comments at 15; Cisco Reply Comments at 7.
32 Cingular Wireless & BellSouth Comments at 9-10; CTIA Comments at 15.
33 Cingular Wireless & BellSouth Comments at 6-10; Cisco Reply Comments 3-6 (noting that certain deregulatory
features of section 332(c) apply to CMRS services, but not fixed services, which also should benefit from a
deregulatory approach).
34 NextG Networks Comments at 15-17 (noting that section 332(c)(7) has assisted in the expeditious deployment of
wireless broadband infrastructure and services).
35 Consumer Protection in the Broadband Era NPRM, 20 FCC Rcd at 14929
ng that certain deregulatory
features of section 332(c) apply to CMRS services, but not fixed services, which also should benefit from a
deregulatory approach).
34 NextG Networks Comments at 15-17 (noting that section 332(c)(7) has assisted in the expeditious deployment of
wireless broadband infrastructure and services).
35 Consumer Protection in the Broadband Era NPRM, 20 FCC Rcd at 14929.
36 Cingular Wireless Comments at 7-11.
37 Id.
38 Id. at 12-13.
Federal Communications Commission FCC 07-30
6
Commission finds appropriate for other providers.39 Meanwhile, CTIA stated that broadband Internet
access, including wireless, was an interstate service,40 and argued that the Commission should regulate
wireless with a light regulatory touch (if it regulates at all), �regulating down� to the least regulated
element of that service.41
C. Current Wireless Broadband Internet Access Services and Technologies
11. Wireless broadband Internet access services use spectrum, wireless facilities and wireless
technologies to provide subscribers with high speed Internet access capabilities.42 Some wireless network
technologies, such as CDMA 1xRTT and GPRS, transmit data at speeds less than 200 kbps in one
direction and provide customers with access to mobile data applications such as text messaging, e-mail,
and ring tone downloads. Wireless broadband networks, on the other hand � such as CDMA 1x EV-DO
(EV-DO), Wideband CDMA (WCDMA) with High Speed Downlink Packet Access (HSDPA), and Wi-Fi
� transmit data at speeds greater than 200 kbps in at least one direction and provide access to the
applications available on the slower networks as well as services that require greater bandwidth, such as
video programming, music downloads, and high-resolution games. Wireless broadband service providers
also offer Internet access, although wireless broadband Internet access service is offered in different ways
depending on the provider and the end user�s device
nd provide access to the
applications available on the slower networks as well as services that require greater bandwidth, such as
video programming, music downloads, and high-resolution games. Wireless broadband service providers
also offer Internet access, although wireless broadband Internet access service is offered in different ways
depending on the provider and the end user�s device. Some wireless broadband Internet access services
offer full and unrestricted access to the Internet, such as those which consumers can receive using a laptop
computer with a Wi-Fi or EV-DO connection. Other wireless broadband Internet access services, such as
those available with a cell phone, enable users to access a limited selection of web sites.43 Wireless
broadband Internet access services can be provided using mobile, portable, or fixed technologies,44 and
wireless broadband technologies can transmit data over short, medium, or long ranges, and can be used
both through the licensed use of spectrum and unlicensed devices.
12. Several mobile telephone carriers currently provide, in certain locations, wireless
broadband Internet access through mobile broadband technologies and the licensed use of spectrum. For
example, EV-DO and WCDMA with HSPDA are potentially capable of providing wireless broadband
Internet access at speeds ranging from 400-800 kbps.45 These technologies can enable subscribers to
access the Internet while in motion (traveling at high speeds) via, for example, a smartphone, or a wireless
39 Id. at ii. Cingular noted that �the Commission must recognize the unique nature of CMRS, which has long
involved the joint provision of telecommunications and information services.� Id. at 12-13.
40 CTIA Comments at 8-10 (asserting that the Commission should continue to promote the competitive market for
Internet services by developing a deregulatory national framework for broadband Internet access services).
41 Id. at 8-9
Commission must recognize the unique nature of CMRS, which has long
involved the joint provision of telecommunications and information services.� Id. at 12-13.
40 CTIA Comments at 8-10 (asserting that the Commission should continue to promote the competitive market for
Internet services by developing a deregulatory national framework for broadband Internet access services).
41 Id. at 8-9. As an example, CTIA noted that a consumer could use a mobile handset with CMRS voice capability,
along with Wi-Fi technology, that could work seamlessly between the consumer�s cellular or PCS service and VoIP
service provided over a wireless router and a wireline broadband connection in the home. It proposed regulating
such a converged service on the basis of the least regulated technology.
42 See Section III.A., infra (defining �wireless broadband Internet access service� and explaining that the term �high
speed� means infrastructure capable of delivering a speed in excess of 200 kbps in at least one direction).
43 For more information on wireless broadband data services, see Implementation of Section 6002(b) of the Omnibus
Budget Reconciliation Act of 1993, Annual Report and Analysis of Competitive Market Conditions with Respect to
Commercial Mobile Services, Eleventh Report, 21 FCC Rcd 10947 (2006).
44 Mobile broadband services typically use smaller devices, feature seamless handoff in the network, and can be
used at while in motion at a variety of locations, while portable broadband services generally use larger devices,
such as laptops, and offer more limited mobility.
45 We note that the maximum speeds for these technologies are higher. For example, CDMA2000 Revision A
1xEV-DO can have a downlink speed up to 3.09 Mbps. HSDPA can have a downlink speed of 14.4 Mbps.
Federal Communications Commission FCC 07-30
7
modem card connected to a laptop computer or PDA.46
13
vices generally use larger devices,
such as laptops, and offer more limited mobility.
45 We note that the maximum speeds for these technologies are higher. For example, CDMA2000 Revision A
1xEV-DO can have a downlink speed up to 3.09 Mbps. HSDPA can have a downlink speed of 14.4 Mbps.
Federal Communications Commission FCC 07-30
7
modem card connected to a laptop computer or PDA.46
13. Wireless broadband Internet access services that are often considered �portable� in nature
are currently offered, for example, by providers through Orthogonal Frequency Division Multiplexing
(OFDM) technology and the licensed use of spectrum.47 These providers enable their subscribers to
access the Internet with �plug-and-play� modem devices that attach to a desktop or laptop computer.
Customers can transport these modem devices to other locations in the provider�s coverage area where a
network signal is available, though they may not have the ability to maintain a connection while in
motion (traveling at high speeds). These devices are currently manufactured in accordance with vendor-
specific, proprietary standards. However, standardized 802.16 WiMAX equipment is being developed.48
Typical downstream speeds for the wireless Internet access services, offered using portable broadband
technologies, range from 768 kbps to 1.5 Mbps, and networks can extend five to 30 miles.49
14. Wireless broadband Internet access services offered using fixed wireless broadband
technologies allow consumers to access the Internet from a fixed point while stationary and often require
a direct line-of-sight between, for example, the wireless rooftop antenna and the network transmitter.
These services have been offered through both the licensed use of spectrum and unlicensed devices
14. Wireless broadband Internet access services offered using fixed wireless broadband
technologies allow consumers to access the Internet from a fixed point while stationary and often require
a direct line-of-sight between, for example, the wireless rooftop antenna and the network transmitter.
These services have been offered through both the licensed use of spectrum and unlicensed devices. For
example, thousands of small Wireless Internet Services Providers (WISPs) provide such wireless
broadband Internet access at speeds of around one Mbps using unlicensed devices, often in rural areas not
served by cable or wireline broadband networks.50 These networks typically have a reach of one to five
miles, and customers often must have a rooftop antenna that can establish a line-of-sight connection with
the network transmitter.
15. Consumers also access the Internet through Wireless Local Area Networks (WLANs).
WLANs are widely deployed and enable consumers to obtain wireless broadband Internet access within
100 to 300 feet of a wireless access point. The most prevalent WLAN technology is equipment
manufactured in accordance with the IEEE 802.11 family of standards, commonly known as �Wi-Fi,�
short for wireless fidelity. Wi-Fi networks use unlicensed devices and feature data transfer rates at speeds
of up to 11 Mbps for 802.11b and up to 54 Mbps for 802.11a and 802.11g. Wi-Fi networks often must
rely on another type of broadband connection, whether wireline, cable, or wireless, for access to the
Internet. Wi-Fi allows consumers to extend, for example, the reach of a landline broadband connection
46 See, e.g., Cingular Wireless, Media and Entertainment, www.cingular.com (last visited January 29, 2007); Sprint,
Sprint Mobile Broadband Solutions on the Power Vision Network, www.sprint.com (last visited January 29, 2007).
47 Currently these services are being provided using spectrum in the WCS and BRS/EBS bands. See, note 49, infra
ample, the reach of a landline broadband connection
46 See, e.g., Cingular Wireless, Media and Entertainment, www.cingular.com (last visited January 29, 2007); Sprint,
Sprint Mobile Broadband Solutions on the Power Vision Network, www.sprint.com (last visited January 29, 2007).
47 Currently these services are being provided using spectrum in the WCS and BRS/EBS bands. See, note 49, infra.
48 The IEEE 802.16 standard, first developed in 2001 for fixed wireless systems (e.g., backhaul) operating in the 11-
16 GHz frequency range of licensed �upper� bands, continues to evolve. In 2003, IEEE 802.16(a) � commonly
referred to as WiMax � was developed for operations in lower frequencies in the 2-11 GHz range, including licensed
bands as well as bands that permit use of unlicensed wireless devices. More recently, the IEEE 802.16(a) standard
has been extended to include 802.16(d), which is also for fixed wireless broadband applications. See Richard Shim,
WiMax in the Wings, CNet News.Com, June 25, 2004, available at http://news/zdnet.com/2100-9584_22-
5247984.html.
49 Clearwire, for example, has launched wireless broadband service in 29 U.S. cities using Orthogonal Frequency
Division Multiplexing (OFDM) and Time Division Duplex (TDD) technology, and spectrum in the 2.5 GHz
BRS/EBS band. See Clearwire Corporation, SEC Form S-1, at 53, filed May 11, 2006. BellSouth currently offers a
non-line-of-sight, portable wireless broadband service using OFDM technology in five southern cities that allows
wireless high-speed Internet access at speeds ranging from 384 kbps to 1.5 Mbps. BellSouth, Wireless Broadband
Service - Products, http://www.wirelessbb.bellsouth.net/sales/asp/wbb_Products.asp (last visited January 29, 2007).
50 See, WBATF Report at 31-32; see also, Wireless Internet Service Providers Association (WISPA), Part 15.org,
and ISP-Market, Broadband Wireless Access 2002: Service Provider Profiles, Market Drivers and Spending
Projections, ISP-Market LLC Industry Report (2002)
Broadband
Service - Products, http://www.wirelessbb.bellsouth.net/sales/asp/wbb_Products.asp (last visited January 29, 2007).
50 See, WBATF Report at 31-32; see also, Wireless Internet Service Providers Association (WISPA), Part 15.org,
and ISP-Market, Broadband Wireless Access 2002: Service Provider Profiles, Market Drivers and Spending
Projections, ISP-Market LLC Industry Report (2002).
Federal Communications Commission FCC 07-30
8
within their home or to connect to the Internet at public �hot spots,� such as restaurants, coffee shops,
hotels, airports, convention centers, and city parks, using a laptop computer or smartphone with an
internal or external Wi-Fi modem.51 Some mobile telephone carriers use Wi-Fi hot spots to complement
their mobile data services provided through the licensed use of spectrum.52
16. Wireless broadband service providers offer access to different types of content and
applications based on the speed and capabilities of the technology used to provide the service and the type
of end user device. For instance, many of the mobile telephone carriers that provide mobile wireless
broadband service for mobile handsets offer a range of IP-based multimedia content and services �
including ring tones, music, games, video clips and video streaming � that are specially designed to work
with the small screens and limited keypads of mobile handsets.53 This content is typically sold through a
carrier-branded, carrier-controlled portal. Mobile handsets typically enable users to access a limited
selection of web sites; in some cases, providers use filters to limit the web sites that a customer can
access, and, in other cases, subscribers can enter any URL using a handset but the site may not be
viewable due to software, processing, or other constraints of the device
ld through a
carrier-branded, carrier-controlled portal. Mobile handsets typically enable users to access a limited
selection of web sites; in some cases, providers use filters to limit the web sites that a customer can
access, and, in other cases, subscribers can enter any URL using a handset but the site may not be
viewable due to software, processing, or other constraints of the device. On the other hand, wireless
broadband Internet access services for laptop and desktop computers typically allow consumers to access
the same applications they would have with a cable or wireline broadband Internet access connection,
including full Internet access, e-mail, Internet file downloads, and corporate server access.
17. The number of reported subscribers to wireless broadband Internet access service
continues to grow.54 Wireless broadband technologies and the business models for their deployment
continue to evolve at a rapid pace. There have been significant technical advances in recent years, and
more are anticipated over the next few years. Further, we expect that wireless broadband will play a
critical role in ensuring that broadband reaches rural and underserved areas, where it may be the most
efficient means of delivering these services.
III. DISCUSSION
18. For the reasons discussed below, we classify wireless broadband Internet access service
as an information service. We also find that the transmission component of wireless broadband Internet
51 These hot spots usually function as an extension of another broadband Internet access network end point (e.g.,
wireline broadband Internet access or cable modem Internet access end point).
52 In the past year, mobile carriers continued to extend their Wi-Fi coverage by entering into agreements with other
carriers. See, e.g., T-Mobile, T-Mobile Hotspot U.S
wireless broadband Internet
51 These hot spots usually function as an extension of another broadband Internet access network end point (e.g.,
wireline broadband Internet access or cable modem Internet access end point).
52 In the past year, mobile carriers continued to extend their Wi-Fi coverage by entering into agreements with other
carriers. See, e.g., T-Mobile, T-Mobile Hotspot U.S. Location Map, http://locations.hotspot.t-mobile.com (last
visited January 29, 2007) (T-Mobile claims it has 8,283 hotspots where its customers can get connectivity).
53 In addition, some wireless carriers are providing broadcast-like mobile video content. For example, via MobiTV,
Sprint and Cingular provide streaming of existing cable channels over their 1xRTT and GPRS/EDGE networks,
respectively. Verizon Wireless, via VCAST, plans to provide streaming clips over their 1x EV-DO. Both
Qualcomm and Crown Castle are planning Multicast video using MediaFLO and DVB-H, respectively. See, e.g.,
Jefferson Graham, TV on Cellphones? Funny but Profitable, USA TODAY, Sept. 27, 2005; Verizon, On Demand In
the Palm of Your Hand: Verizon Wireless Launches �VCast� � Nation�s First and Only Consumer 3G Multimedia
Service, Jan. 7, 2005, available at http://news.vzw.com/news/2005/01/pr2005-01-07.html.
54 As of June 30, 2006, satellite and wireless (both fixed and mobile) and powerline constituted 18.4 percent of
high-speed lines, compared to 44.1% for cable, 34.9% for wireline ADSL, 1.5% for other wireline, and 1.1% for
fiber. With regard to advanced services, satellite, wireless, and powerline constituted a far lower percentage � 4.5%,
compared to 55.9% for cable, 36.3% for wireline ADSL, 1.9% for other wireline, and 1.4% for fiber. See �High
Speed Services for Internet Access: Status as of June 30, 2006,� Report from the Industry Analysis and Technology
Division, Wireline Competition Bureau, (rel. Jan. 2007)
. With regard to advanced services, satellite, wireless, and powerline constituted a far lower percentage � 4.5%,
compared to 55.9% for cable, 36.3% for wireline ADSL, 1.9% for other wireline, and 1.4% for fiber. See �High
Speed Services for Internet Access: Status as of June 30, 2006,� Report from the Industry Analysis and Technology
Division, Wireline Competition Bureau, (rel. Jan. 2007). The mobile wireless subscriber percentages include some
mobile telephone subscribers whose handset is enabled to operate on a high-speed (e.g., EV-DO or
WCDMA/HSPDA) wireless network but who do not subscribe to mobile wireless high-speed Internet access service
on a month-to-month or longer term basis.
Federal Communications Commission FCC 07-30
9
access service is �telecommunications� and that the offering of the telecommunications transmission
component as part of a functionally integrated Internet access service offering is not �telecommunications
service� under section 3 of the Act. Further, we find that neither the Communications Act nor relevant
precedent mandates that broadband transmission be a �telecommunications service� when provided to an
ISP as a wholesale input for the ISP�s own wireless broadband Internet access service offering, but that
the provider may choose to offer it as such. We also find that mobile wireless broadband Internet access
service is not a �commercial mobile service� under section 332 of the Act. Finally, we conclude that
wireless broadband Internet access service is jurisdictionally interstate.
A. Classification of Wireless Broadband Internet Access Service as Information
Service
19. Definition
that
the provider may choose to offer it as such. We also find that mobile wireless broadband Internet access
service is not a �commercial mobile service� under section 332 of the Act. Finally, we conclude that
wireless broadband Internet access service is jurisdictionally interstate.
A. Classification of Wireless Broadband Internet Access Service as Information
Service
19. Definition. For purposes of this proceeding, we define wireless broadband Internet
access service as a service that uses spectrum, wireless facilities and wireless technologies to provide
subscribers with high-speed (broadband) Internet access capabilities.55 The definition we adopt here is
consistent with the definition of broadband Internet access service that the Commission previously has
adopted in the wireline and cable contexts.
20. In both the cable and wireline contexts, the Commission focused on the end-user�s
experience in defining cable modem and wireline broadband Internet access service.56 The Supreme
Court upheld this approach in Brand X.57 In the Cable Modem Order, the Commission stated that cable
modem service was �a service that uses cable system facilities to provide residential subscribers with
high-speed Internet access, as well as many applications or functions that can be used with high-speed
Internet access.�58 In the Wireline Broadband Internet Access Order, the Commission defined wireline
broadband Internet access service as �a service that uses existing or future wireline facilities of the
telephone network to provide subscribers with [broadband] Internet access capabilities.�59
21. We adopt a similar definition for wireless broadband Internet access and define wireless
broadband Internet access service as a service that uses spectrum, wireless facilities and wireless
technologies to provide subscribers with high-speed (broadband) Internet access capabilities
ilities of the
telephone network to provide subscribers with [broadband] Internet access capabilities.�59
21. We adopt a similar definition for wireless broadband Internet access and define wireless
broadband Internet access service as a service that uses spectrum, wireless facilities and wireless
technologies to provide subscribers with high-speed (broadband) Internet access capabilities. As with
both cable and wireline Internet access, this definition appropriately focuses on the end user�s experience,
factoring in both the functional characteristics and speed of transmission associated with the service.
22. Information Service. We determine that wireless broadband Internet access service,
55 This proceeding is limited to broadband Internet access services and does not implicate narrowband data services
(e.g., one-way paging). For purposes of this proceeding, we define the line between broadband and narrowband
consistent with the Commission�s definition in other contexts (i.e., services with over 200 kbps capability in at least
one direction). See e.g., Wireline Broadband Internet Access Services Order, 20 FCC Rcd at 14860 n.15; 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, CC Docket No. 98-146, Second Report, 15 FCC Rcd 20913, 20919-20 (2000)
(Second 706 Report) (defining the term �high speed� to mean infrastructure capable of delivering a speed in excess
of 200 kbps in at least one direction). Although this definition remains in effect today, the Commission may
examine and modify it for future purposes. Cf. Wireline Broadband Internet Access Services Order, 20 FCC Rcd at
14860 n.15.
56 See Cable Modem Declaratory Ruling, 17 FCC Rcd at 4799; Wireless Broadband Internet Access Services Order,
20 FCC Rcd at 14860.
57 NCTA v. Brand X, 125 S. Ct
00 kbps in at least one direction). Although this definition remains in effect today, the Commission may
examine and modify it for future purposes. Cf. Wireline Broadband Internet Access Services Order, 20 FCC Rcd at
14860 n.15.
56 See Cable Modem Declaratory Ruling, 17 FCC Rcd at 4799; Wireless Broadband Internet Access Services Order,
20 FCC Rcd at 14860.
57 NCTA v. Brand X, 125 S. Ct. at 2703-05.
58 See Cable Modem Declaratory Ruling, 17 FCC Rcd at 4819. See Second 706 Report, 15 FCC Rcd at 20919-20
(defining the term �high speed� to mean infrastructure capable of delivering a speed in excess of 200 kbps in at least
one direction).
59 Wireless Broadband Internet Access Services Order, 20 FCC Rcd at 14860, para. 9.
Federal Communications Commission FCC 07-30
10
whether offered using mobile, portable, or fixed technologies, is an �information service� under the
Communications Act. This finding is consistent with the Commission�s classification of broadband
Internet access services provided over cable, wireline, and BPL networks, and the Supreme Court�s
Brand X decision.
23. Under the Act, a service is subject to different regulatory frameworks depending on
whether it constitutes an �information service� or a �telecommunications service.� The Act defines
�information service� as
the offering of a capability for generating, acquiring, storing, transforming, processing,
retrieving, utilizing, or making available information via telecommunications, and
includes electronic publishing, but does not include any use of any such capability for the
management, control, or operation of a telecommunications system or the management of
a telecommunications service.60
24
as
the offering of a capability for generating, acquiring, storing, transforming, processing,
retrieving, utilizing, or making available information via telecommunications, and
includes electronic publishing, but does not include any use of any such capability for the
management, control, or operation of a telecommunications system or the management of
a telecommunications service.60
24. The Act defines �telecommunications service� as �the offering of telecommunications for
a fee directly to the public, or to such classes of users as to be effectively available directly to the public,
regardless of the facilities used�61 and �telecommunications� as �the transmission, between or among
points specified by the user, of information of the user�s choosing, without change in the form or content
of the information as sent and received.�62
25. In the Cable Modem Declaratory Ruling, the Wireline Broadband Internet Access
Services Order, and the BPL-Enabled Internet Access Services Order, the Commission addressed the
proper classification for broadband Internet access service provided over cable system facilities, wireline
facilities, and BPL facilities, respectively.63 In each case, the Commission determined that the broadband
Internet access service in question should be classified as an information service.64 The Commission
determined that cable, wireline, and BPL providers offered broadband Internet access as a single,
integrated service (i.e., Internet access) that inextricably combined the transmission of data over cable or
wireline networks with computer processing, information provision, and computer interactivity, enabling
end users to run a variety of Internet applications such as email, newsgroups, and interaction with or
hosting of web pages.65 These applications, the Commission held, �encompass the capability for
�generating, acquiring, storing, transforming, processing, retrieving, utilizing, or making available
information via telecommunications,� and taken together
nd computer interactivity, enabling
end users to run a variety of Internet applications such as email, newsgroups, and interaction with or
hosting of web pages.65 These applications, the Commission held, �encompass the capability for
�generating, acquiring, storing, transforming, processing, retrieving, utilizing, or making available
information via telecommunications,� and taken together constitute an information service as defined by
the Act.�66 In Brand X, the Supreme Court upheld the Commission�s findings that broadband Internet
60 47 U.S.C. � 153(20).
61 47 U.S.C. � 153(46).
62 47 U.S.C. � 153(43).
63 See Cable Modem Declaratory Ruling, 17 FCC Rcd at 4818-24, paras. 31-41; Wireline Broadband Internet
Access Services Order, 20 FCC Rcd at 14862-65, paras. 12-17; BPL-Enabled Internet Access Services Order, 21
FCC Rcd at 13285-90, paras. 17-15.
64 See Cable Modem Declaratory Ruling, 17 FCC Rcd at 4822, para 38; Wireline Broadband Internet Access
Services Order, 20 FCC Rcd at 14862, para. 12; BPL-Enabled Internet Access Services Order, 21 FCC Rcd at
13285, para. 8.
65 See Cable Modem Declaratory Ruling, 17 FCC Rcd at 4822, para. 38; Wireline Broadband Internet Access
Services Order, 20 FCC Rcd at 14863, para. 14; BPL-Enabled Internet Access Services Order, 21 FCC Rcd at
13285-87, para. 9. See also NCTA v. Brand X, 125 S. Ct. at 2704 (stating that the key question in classifying
offerings with both telecommunications and information service capabilities is whether the telecommunications
transmission capability is �sufficiently integrated� with the information service component �to make it reasonable to
describe the two as a single, integrated offering�).
66 See Wireline Broadband Internet Access Services Order, 20 FCC Rcd at 14863-64, para. 14.
Federal Communications Commission FCC 07-30
11
access service offered via cable modem is an integrated information service, and that the transmission
component of that service is not a telecommunications service.67
26
�to make it reasonable to
describe the two as a single, integrated offering�).
66 See Wireline Broadband Internet Access Services Order, 20 FCC Rcd at 14863-64, para. 14.
Federal Communications Commission FCC 07-30
11
access service offered via cable modem is an integrated information service, and that the transmission
component of that service is not a telecommunications service.67
26. In view of the statutory provisions, Commission precedent, and the Brand X decision, we
find that wireless broadband Internet access service is similarly an �information service.� Like cable
modem service, wireline broadband Internet access service, and BPL-enabled Internet access service,
wireless broadband Internet access service offers a single, integrated service to end users, Internet access,
that inextricably combines the transmission of data with computer processing, information provision, and
computer interactivity, for the purpose of enabling end users to run a variety of applications.68 These
applications, identical to those provided by cable modem service, wireline broadband Internet access, or
BPL-enabled Internet access, �taken together constitute an information service as defined by the Act.�
Accordingly, we find that wireless broadband Internet access service meets the statutory definition of an
information service under the Act.
27. In addition, we find that classifying wireless broadband Internet access service as an
information service furthers the goals of sections 7 and 230(b)(2) of the Communications Act, and section
706 of the Telecommunications Act of 1996.69 As noted above, wireless broadband Internet access
technologies continue to evolve at a rapid pace. Through this classification, we provide the regulatory
certainty needed to help spur growth and deployment of these services
s service as an
information service furthers the goals of sections 7 and 230(b)(2) of the Communications Act, and section
706 of the Telecommunications Act of 1996.69 As noted above, wireless broadband Internet access
technologies continue to evolve at a rapid pace. Through this classification, we provide the regulatory
certainty needed to help spur growth and deployment of these services. Particularly, the regulatory
certainty we provide through this classification will encourage broadband deployment in rural and
underserved areas, where wireless broadband may be the most efficient broadband option. Additionally,
we believe that wireless broadband Internet access service can provide an important homeland security
function by creating redundancy in our nation�s communications infrastructure. As with the
Commission�s determination when classifying wireline broadband Internet access services, we similarly
find that our actions in this Declaratory Ruling will not affect the government�s implementation or
enforcement of the Uniting and Strengthening America by Providing Appropriate Tools Required to
Intercept or Obstruct Terrorism Act of 2001 (USA Patriot Act),70 or the Commission�s rules
implementing the National Security Emergency Preparedness Telecommunications Service Priority
System.71
28. Having concluded that wireless broadband Internet access service is an information
service, we also find that the service is jurisdictionally interstate.72
67 NCTA v. Brand X, 125 S. Ct. at 2703-10.
68 See id. at 2704-05 (�The question, then, is whether the transmission component of cable modem service is
sufficiently integrated with the finished service to make it reasonable to describe the two as a single, integrated
offering. We think that they are sufficiently integrated. . . .�) (citation omitted).
69 See 47 U.S.C. � 157 (directing that the Commission shall encourage the deployment of advanced
telecommunications capability to all Americans); 47 U.S.C
ponent of cable modem service is
sufficiently integrated with the finished service to make it reasonable to describe the two as a single, integrated
offering. We think that they are sufficiently integrated. . . .�) (citation omitted).
69 See 47 U.S.C. � 157 (directing that the Commission shall encourage the deployment of advanced
telecommunications capability to all Americans); 47 U.S.C. � 230(b)(2) (stating that it is the policy of the United
States �to preserve the vibrant and competitive free market that presently exists for the Internet�); and � 706, Pub. L.
104-104, Title VII, Feb. 8, 1996, 110 Stat. 153, reproduced in the notes under 47 U.S.C. � 157.
70 Pub. L. No. 107-56, 115 Stat. 272 (2001) (codified in scattered sections of 18 U.S.C., 47 U.S.C., and 50 U.S.C.).
71 47 C.F.R. Part 64, App. A. See Wireline Broadband Internet Access Services Order, 20 FCC Rcd at 14917-18,
paras. 115-18. We also note that because we classify wireless broadband Internet access service as an information
service, section 222 has no bearing on the obligation of providers of that service to make reports of suspected child
pornography to the CyberTipLine pursuant to 42 U.S.C. � 13032. See 47 U.S.C. � 222.
72 See e.g., Cable Modem Declaratory Ruling, 17 FCC Rcd at 4832, para. 59 (using the end-to-end analysis to
determine that cable modem Internet access service is jurisdictionally interstate); Wireline Broadband Internet
Access Services Order, 20 FCC Rcd at 14853; BPL-Enabled Internet Access Services Order 21 FCC Rcd at 13288,
para. 11; see also GTE Tel. Operating Cos., Memorandum Opinion and Order, 13 FCC Rcd 22466 (1998) (finding
GTE�s ADSL service to be properly tariffed as an interstate service), recon. denied, 17 FCC Rcd 27409 (1999).
Federal Communications Commission FCC 07-30
12
B. Classification of the Transmission Component of Wireless Broadband Internet
Access Service as �Telecommunications� and not �Telecommunications Service�
29
perating Cos., Memorandum Opinion and Order, 13 FCC Rcd 22466 (1998) (finding
GTE�s ADSL service to be properly tariffed as an interstate service), recon. denied, 17 FCC Rcd 27409 (1999).
Federal Communications Commission FCC 07-30
12
B. Classification of the Transmission Component of Wireless Broadband Internet
Access Service as �Telecommunications� and not �Telecommunications Service�
29. We determine that the transmission component of wireless broadband Internet access
service is properly classified as �telecommunications� and not �telecommunications service.�73 That is,
we find that the transmission component of wireless broadband Internet access service is
telecommunications74 and the offering of this telecommunications transmission component as part of a
functionally integrated, finished Internet access service offering is not �telecommunications service�
under section 3 of the Act.
30. The Commission has already recognized that �[a]ll information services require the use
of telecommunications to connect customers to the computers or other processors that are capable of
generating, storing, or manipulating information.�75 The Commission has also determined that the
transmission of information may constitute �telecommunications,� but that it is not necessarily a
�telecommunications service.�76 As stated above, the definition of a �[t]elecommunications service�
requires that the telecommunications be �offer[ed] for a fee directly to the public, or to such classes of
users as to be effectively available to the public, regardless of the facilities used.�77 Thus, in the Cable
Modem Declaratory Ruling, the Commission determined that the transmission component of cable
modem service was �telecommunications� but not a �telecommunications service� because, as provided
to the user, the transmission component was �part and parcel of cable modem service� and was not being
offered as a stand-alone offering of transmission for a fee directly to the public, or to such classes of user
ratory Ruling, the Commission determined that the transmission component of cable
modem service was �telecommunications� but not a �telecommunications service� because, as provided
to the user, the transmission component was �part and parcel of cable modem service� and was not being
offered as a stand-alone offering of transmission for a fee directly to the public, or to such classes of users
as to be effectively available directly to the public.78 Similarly, in the Wireline Broadband Internet
Access Order, the Commission found that the transmission capability of wireline broadband Internet
access �is part and parcel of, and integral to, the Internet access service capabilities� and therefore that
wireline broadband Internet access service does not include the provision of a telecommunications service
to the end user.79 Finally, in the BPL-Enabled Internet Access Services Order, the Commission found that
the transmission component underlying BPL-enabled Internet access service is not a separate
�telecommunication service� because an �end user subscribing to BPL-enabled Internet access service
73 For purposes of this proceeding, we define the �transmission component� of wireless broadband Internet access
service as the transmission, between or among points specified by the user, of information of the user�s choosing,
without change in the form or content of the information as sent and received, over facilities-based wireless
communications systems.
74 As noted above, the Act�s definition of �information service� includes a transmission / telecommunications
component
adband Internet access
service as the transmission, between or among points specified by the user, of information of the user�s choosing,
without change in the form or content of the information as sent and received, over facilities-based wireless
communications systems.
74 As noted above, the Act�s definition of �information service� includes a transmission / telecommunications
component. The Act defines �information service� as �the offering of a capability for generating, acquiring, storing,
transforming, processing, retrieving, utilizing, or making available information (continued ...)
(Continued from previous page) via telecommunications, and includes electronic publishing, but does not include
any use of any such capability for the management, control, or operation of a telecommunications system or the
management of a telecommunications service.� 47 U.S.C. � 153(20) (emphasis added). See also 47 U.S.C. �
153(43) (defining �telecommunications� as �the transmission, between or among points specified by the user, of
information of the user�s choosing, without change in the form or content of the information as sent and received�).
75 See Implementation of the Non-Accounting Safeguards of Section 271 and 272 of the Communications Act of
1934, as amended, Order on Remand, 16 FCC Rcd 9751, 9770, para. 36 (2001) (Non-Accounting Safeguards
Remand).
76 See Federal-State Joint Board on Universal Service, Report and Order, 12 FCC Rcd 8776, 9179-80, paras. 788-90
the form or content of the information as sent and received�).
75 See Implementation of the Non-Accounting Safeguards of Section 271 and 272 of the Communications Act of
1934, as amended, Order on Remand, 16 FCC Rcd 9751, 9770, para. 36 (2001) (Non-Accounting Safeguards
Remand).
76 See Federal-State Joint Board on Universal Service, Report and Order, 12 FCC Rcd 8776, 9179-80, paras. 788-90
(1997) (finding that information services are not inherently telecommunications services simply because they are
offered via telecommunications); see also Cable Modem Declaratory Ruling, 17 FCC Rcd at 4823, para. 40.
77 47 U.S.C. � 153(46).
78 See Cable Modem Declaratory Ruling, 17 FCC Rcd at 4823, paras. 39-40.
79 Wireline Broadband Internet Access Services Order, 20 FCC Rcd at 14910-11, para. 104.
Federal Communications Commission FCC 07-30
13
expects to receive (and pay for) a finished, functionally integrated service that provides access to the
Internet, rather than receive (and pay for) two distinct services � Internet access service and a distinct
transmission service.�80
31. We find that the transmission component used for wireless broadband Internet access is
�telecommunications� because it provides �transmission, between or among points specified by the user,
of information of the user�s choosing, without change in the form or content of the information as sent
and received.�81 We conclude, consistent with the Commission�s finding in the Cable Modem
Declaratory Ruling, Wireline Broadband Internet Access Services Order, and BPL-Enabled Internet
Access Services Order, and the Supreme Court�s decision in Brand X, that the use of this
telecommunications transmission component as part of a provider�s offering of wireless broadband
Internet access service to end users using its own transmission facilities is not a �telecommunications
service� because it is part and parcel of the Internet access service�s information service capabilities.82
Specifically, we find that an end user subscri
on in Brand X, that the use of this
telecommunications transmission component as part of a provider�s offering of wireless broadband
Internet access service to end users using its own transmission facilities is not a �telecommunications
service� because it is part and parcel of the Internet access service�s information service capabilities.82
Specifically, we find that an end user subscribing to wireless broadband Internet access service expects to
receive (and pay for) a finished, functionally integrated service that provides access to the Internet, rather
than receive (and pay for) two distinct services � Internet access service and a distinct transmission
service.
32. We further determine that neither the Communications Act nor relevant precedent
mandate that broadband transmission be a �telecommunications service� when provided to an ISP as a
wholesale input for the ISP�s own broadband Internet access service offering.83 Indeed, neither the
Communications Act nor relevant precedent require a wireless broadband Internet access provider to offer
the transmission component of wireless broadband Internet access service as a telecommunications
service to anyone.84 However, the wireless broadband Internet access provider may choose to offer the
transmission component as a telecommunications service. We note that the transmission component of
wireless broadband Internet access service is a telecommunications service only if the entity that provides
the transmission voluntarily undertakes to provide it indifferently on a common carrier basis.85
33. Should the facility provider choose to offer the transmission component of wireless
broadband Internet access as a telecommunications service, the regulatory regime appropriate to the
80 BPL-Enabled Internet Access Services Order, 21 FCC Rcd at 13289, para. 14.
81 47 U.S.C. � 153(43).
82 See NCTA v. Brand X, 125 S. Ct
dertakes to provide it indifferently on a common carrier basis.85
33. Should the facility provider choose to offer the transmission component of wireless
broadband Internet access as a telecommunications service, the regulatory regime appropriate to the
80 BPL-Enabled Internet Access Services Order, 21 FCC Rcd at 13289, para. 14.
81 47 U.S.C. � 153(43).
82 See NCTA v. Brand X, 125 S. Ct. at 2705 (�transmission is a necessary component of Internet access�); Wireline
Broadband Internet Access Services Order, 20 FCC Rcd at 14910-11, para. 104 (finding that the use of the
transmission component as part and parcel of a facilities-based provider�s offering to end users of wireline
broadband Internet access service using its own transmission facilities is �telecommunications� and not a
�telecommunications service�).
83 See NCTA v. Brand X, 125 S. Ct. at 2708 (�The Act�s definition of �telecommunications service� says nothing
about imposing more stringent regulatory duties on facilities-based information-service providers�).
84 Cf. Wireline Broadband Internet Access Services Order, 20 FCC Rcd at 14909, para. 103 (finding that nothing
compels provider of wireline broadband Internet access to offer transmission component as a telecommunications
service to anyone).
85 Id., 20 FCC Rcd at 14910, para. 103. See also, Time Warner Cable Request for Declaratory Ruling that
Competitive Local Exchange Carriers May Obtain Interconnection Under Section 251 of the Communications Act
of 1934, as Amended, to Provide Wholesale Telecommunications Service to VoIP Providers, WC Docket No. 06-
55, Memorandum Opinion and Order, DA 07-709, para. 11 (rel. March 1, 2007) (�It is clear under the
Commission�s precedent that the definition of �telecommunications service� is not limited to retail services, but also
includes wholesale services when offered on a common carrier basis.�)
of 1934, as Amended, to Provide Wholesale Telecommunications Service to VoIP Providers, WC Docket No. 06-
55, Memorandum Opinion and Order, DA 07-709, para. 11 (rel. March 1, 2007) (�It is clear under the
Commission�s precedent that the definition of �telecommunications service� is not limited to retail services, but also
includes wholesale services when offered on a common carrier basis.�).
Federal Communications Commission FCC 07-30
14
nature of the telecommunications service will apply.86 For example, if a wireless broadband Internet
access provider chooses to offer the telecommunications transmission component as a
telecommunications service, then it is a common carrier service subject to Title II.87 In addition, a mobile
wireless Internet access provider that chooses to offer the telecommunications transmission component as
a telecommunications service may also be subject to the �commercial mobile service� provisions of the
Act, depending on whether that transmission service falls within the definition of CMRS in the Act.88
34. We also make clear that no aspect of the Computer Inquiry regime applies to the
provision of wireless broadband Internet access service.89 In particular, as noted above, no provider of
wireless broadband Internet access service has an obligation to provide the transmission component of
that service as a common carrier service, regardless of whether the provider is otherwise a common
carrier.90 We conclude that, for the reasons explained in the Cable Modem Declaratory Ruling in
reference to the cable modem service, subjecting wireless broadband Internet access service providers to
these obligations would disserve the goals of section 706 of the Telecommunications Act of 1996.91
C. Continued Applicability of Title III Licensing Provisions
35
ovider is otherwise a common
carrier.90 We conclude that, for the reasons explained in the Cable Modem Declaratory Ruling in
reference to the cable modem service, subjecting wireless broadband Internet access service providers to
these obligations would disserve the goals of section 706 of the Telecommunications Act of 1996.91
C. Continued Applicability of Title III Licensing Provisions
35. Our decision today to classify wireless broadband Internet access service as an
information service does not affect the general applicability of the spectrum allocation and licensing
provisions of Title III and the Commission�s rules to this service. These provisions and rules continue to
apply because the service is using radio spectrum.
36. Title III generally provides the Commission with authority to regulate �radio
communications� and �transmission of energy by radio.�92 Among other provisions, Title III gives the
86 We note that to be a �telecommunications service,� the offering in question must also, of course, satisfy the
definition of �telecommunications.� Thus, for example, the leasing of excess capacity on a wireless network has
been found to be telecommunications and, if offered on a common carrier basis, a �telecommunications service.�
See Implementation of the Local Competition Provisions of the Telecommunications Act of 1996, CC Docket No.
96-98, First Report and Order, 11 FCC Rcd 15499, 15990, para. 994 (1996) (Local Competition Order). By
comparison, the Commission found that satellite providers that merely leased bare �transponder capacity� do not
provide �telecommunications� because they do not transmit information when they lease bare transponder capacity.
Cf. Federal-State Joint Board on Universal Service, Access Charge Reform, Price Cap Performance Review for
Local Exchange Carriers, Transport Rate Structure and Pricing, End User Common Line Charge, CC Docket Nos.
96-45, 96-262, 94-1, 91-213, and 95-72, Fourth Order on Reconsideration in CC Docket No
cations� because they do not transmit information when they lease bare transponder capacity.
Cf. Federal-State Joint Board on Universal Service, Access Charge Reform, Price Cap Performance Review for
Local Exchange Carriers, Transport Rate Structure and Pricing, End User Common Line Charge, CC Docket Nos.
96-45, 96-262, 94-1, 91-213, and 95-72, Fourth Order on Reconsideration in CC Docket No. 96-45, Report and
Order in CC Docket Nos. 96-45, 96-262, 94-1, 91-213, 95-72, 13 FCC Rcd 5318, 5479 (1997).
87 See Wireline Broadband Internet Access Services Order, 20 FCC Rcd at 14909-10, para. 103 (finding that a
provider of the transmission component for wireline broadband Internet access service may offer the transmission on
a common carrier basis if it chooses to, thus subjecting it to Title II common carrier regulations).
88 See e.g., 47 U.S.C. �� 332(c)(1). See also, 47 C.F.R. Part 20. See further discussion of wireless broadband
Internet access service as it relates to CMRS in Section III.D., infra.
89 See NCTA v. Brand X, 125 S. Ct. at 2708 (�We think it improbable that the Communications Act unambiguously
freezes in time the Computer II treatment of facilities-based information-service providers�).
90 See Cable Modem Declaratory Ruling, 17 FCC Rcd at 4825, para. 43 & n.169 (finding that the Computer II
obligations have only been applied to traditional wireline services and facilities, which the Commission has
explicitly limited to services provided over the infrastructure of traditional telephone networks, and declining to
extend such obligations to information services provided over cable facilities).
91 See Cable Modem Declaratory Ruling, 17 FCC Rcd at 4826, para. 47.
92 See Title III - Provisions Relating to Radio, 47 U.S.C. �� 301 et seq. See also IP-Enabled Services NPRM, 19
FCC Rcd at 4918
explicitly limited to services provided over the infrastructure of traditional telephone networks, and declining to
extend such obligations to information services provided over cable facilities).
91 See Cable Modem Declaratory Ruling, 17 FCC Rcd at 4826, para. 47.
92 See Title III - Provisions Relating to Radio, 47 U.S.C. �� 301 et seq. See also IP-Enabled Services NPRM, 19
FCC Rcd at 4918.
Federal Communications Commission FCC 07-30
15
Commission the authority to adopt rules preventing interference and allows it to classify radio stations.93
It also establishes the basic licensing scheme for radio stations, allowing the Commission to grant,
revoke, or modify licenses.94 Title III further allows the Commission to make such rules and regulations
and prescribe such restrictions and conditions as may be necessary to carry out the provisions of the Act.95
Application of provisions governing access to and use of spectrum (and their corresponding Commission
rules) is not affected by whether the service using the spectrum is classified as a telecommunications or
information service under the Act. Accordingly, our decision today to classify wireless broadband
Internet access services as information services does not affect the applicability of Title III provisions and
corresponding Commission rules to these services. Further, nothing in this order should be construed as
modifying any spectrum use authorizations and service rule obligations arising out of license conditions
or rules governing unlicensed use of the spectrum.
D. Applicability of the �Commercial Mobile Service� Provisions of Section 332 of the
Act
37. Having determined that wireless broadband Internet access service, regardless of whether
offered using mobile, portable, or fixed technologies, is an information service under the Act, we now
address the applicability of the �commercial mobile service� provision of section 332 of the Act to this
broadband service
of the �Commercial Mobile Service� Provisions of Section 332 of the
Act
37. Having determined that wireless broadband Internet access service, regardless of whether
offered using mobile, portable, or fixed technologies, is an information service under the Act, we now
address the applicability of the �commercial mobile service� provision of section 332 of the Act to this
broadband service. As discussed below, we find that �mobile wireless broadband Internet access
service�96 is not a �commercial mobile service� as that term is defined in the Act and as implemented in
the Commission�s rules.97
38. Section 332 of Title III, enacted by Congress as part of the Omnibus Budget
Reconciliation Act of 1993 (the Budget Act),98 provides a specific framework that applies to providers of
�commercial mobile service.�99 The section defines �commercial mobile service� to mean:
any mobile service . . . that is provided for profit and makes interconnected service available (A) to the
public or (B) to such classes of eligible users as to be effectively available to a substantial portion of the
public.100
39. It distinguishes commercial mobile service from �private mobile service,� which is
defined as �any mobile service . . . that is not a [commercial mobile service] or the functional equivalent
of a commercial mobile service.�101 Section 332(c)(1)(A) requires that providers of commercial mobile
service be treated as common carriers under Title II of the Act but also authorizes the Commission to
93 47 U.S.C. �� 302, 303.
94 47 U.S.C. �� 307-309, 312, 316.
95 47 U.S.C. � 303(r). See, e.g., Interconnection and Resale Obligations Pertaining to Commercial Mobile Radio
Services, CC Docket No. 94-54, Memorandum Opinion and Order on Reconsideration, 14 FCC Rcd 16340, para. 27
bile
service be treated as common carriers under Title II of the Act but also authorizes the Commission to
93 47 U.S.C. �� 302, 303.
94 47 U.S.C. �� 307-309, 312, 316.
95 47 U.S.C. � 303(r). See, e.g., Interconnection and Resale Obligations Pertaining to Commercial Mobile Radio
Services, CC Docket No. 94-54, Memorandum Opinion and Order on Reconsideration, 14 FCC Rcd 16340, para. 27
(1999) (the Commission using its licensing authority under Title III to extend resale requirements to enhanced
services provided by CMRS carriers).
96 �Mobile wireless broadband Internet access service� is wireless broadband Internet access service that meets the
�mobile service� definition contained in the Act and the Commission�s rules. 47 U.S.C. � 153(27); 47 C.F.R. � 20.3
(defining �mobile service�).
97 47 U.S.C. � 332. See also 47 C.F.R. � 20.3 (defining �commercial mobile radio service� (CMRS)).
98 Pub. L. No. 103-66, 107 Stat. 312 (1993).
99 47 U.S.C. � 332.
100 47 U.S.C. � 332(d)(1); 47 C.F.R. � 20.3.
101 47 U.S.C. � 332(d)(3).
Federal Communications Commission FCC 07-30
16
forbear from applying most Title II provisions if it makes certain findings.102 The commercial mobile
service provisions of the Act are implemented under section 20.3 of the Commission�s rules, which
employs the term �commercial mobile radio service� (CMRS).103
40. Three years after adding section 332 to the Act, Congress passed the
Telecommunications Act of 1996.104 Among the revisions to the Act were amendments to section 3 of
the Act that defined the following terms: �telecommunications carriers� (section 3(44)),
�telecommunications service� (section 3(46)), and �information service� (section 3(20)).105 In defining
these terms, Congress noted that the definition of �telecommunications service� was intended to include
commercial mobile service.106
41
mong the revisions to the Act were amendments to section 3 of
the Act that defined the following terms: �telecommunications carriers� (section 3(44)),
�telecommunications service� (section 3(46)), and �information service� (section 3(20)).105 In defining
these terms, Congress noted that the definition of �telecommunications service� was intended to include
commercial mobile service.106
41. As discussed below, we find that mobile wireless broadband Internet access service is not
a �commercial mobile radio service� as that term is defined in the Act and implemented in the
Commission�s rules. We find first that mobile wireless broadband Internet access service does not fit
within the definition of �commercial mobile service� because it is not an �interconnected service� within
the meaning of section 332 of the Act and the Commission�s �commercial mobile radio service� rules.
Even if this service were an �interconnected service� for purposes of section 332, we find for the reasons
set out below that it would be unreasonable to classify mobile wireless broadband Internet access service
as commercial mobile service because that would result in an internal contradiction within the statutory
scheme. Concluding that mobile wireless broadband Internet access service, as an information service,
should not be included in the CMRS definition or subject to Title II common carrier obligations
applicable to telecommunications service providers is most consistent with Congressional intent to
maintain a regime in which information service providers are not subject to Title II regulations as
common carriers.
42. Mobile Wireless Broadband Internet Access Service Is Not an �Interconnected Service�
Under Section 332 and the Commission�s Regulations
Title II common carrier obligations
applicable to telecommunications service providers is most consistent with Congressional intent to
maintain a regime in which information service providers are not subject to Title II regulations as
common carriers.
42. Mobile Wireless Broadband Internet Access Service Is Not an �Interconnected Service�
Under Section 332 and the Commission�s Regulations. We find first that mobile wireless broadband
Internet access service does not meet the definition of �commercial mobile service� within the meaning of
section 332 of the Act as implemented by the Commission�s CMRS rules because such broadband service
is not an �interconnected service,� as defined in the Act and the Commission�s rules.
43. Section 332(d)(2) states that �the term �interconnected service� means service that is
interconnected with the public switched network (as such terms are defined by regulation by the
Commission) . . . .�107 Under the Commission�s Part 20 CMRS rules, �interconnected service� is defined
as �a service that is interconnected with the public switched network, or interconnected with the public
switched network through an interconnected service provider, that gives subscribers the capability to
communicate to or receive communication from all other users on the public switched network.�108 This
definition focuses on the service provided to end users109 and specifically does not include �any interface
102 47 U.S.C. � 332(c)(1).
103 47 C.F.R. � 20.3.
104 Telecommunications Act of 1996, Pub. L. No. 104-104, 110 Stat. 56 (1996).
105 Id.
106 H.R. Conf. Report 104-458.
107 47 U.S.C. � 332(d)(2).
108 47 C.F.R. � 20.3
from all other users on the public switched network.�108 This
definition focuses on the service provided to end users109 and specifically does not include �any interface
102 47 U.S.C. � 332(c)(1).
103 47 C.F.R. � 20.3.
104 Telecommunications Act of 1996, Pub. L. No. 104-104, 110 Stat. 56 (1996).
105 Id.
106 H.R. Conf. Report 104-458.
107 47 U.S.C. � 332(d)(2).
108 47 C.F.R. � 20.3.
109 The term �interconnected service� is defined functionally as �a service that is interconnected with the public
switched network, or interconnected with the public switched network through an interconnected service provider,
that gives subscribers the capability to communicate to or receive communication from all other users on the public
switched network . . . .� See 47 C.F.R. � 20.3 (emphasis added).
Federal Communications Commission FCC 07-30
17
between a licensee's facilities and the public switched network exclusively for a licensee's internal control
purposes.�110 The term �public switched network� is defined under our CMRS rules to mean �[a]ny
common carrier switched network, whether by wire or radio, including local exchange carriers,
interexchange carriers, and mobile service providers, that use the North American Numbering Plan in
connection with the provision of switched services.�111
44. In adopting the definitions of �interconnected service� and �public switched network�
with regard to commercial mobile service provision of the Act, the Commission stated �that by using the
phrase �interconnected service,� Congress intended that mobile services should be classified as
commercial services if they make interconnected service broadly available through their use of the public
switched network.�112 Congress�s purpose, the Commission concluded, was �to ensure that a mobile
service that gives its customers the capability to communicate to or receive communication from other
users of the public switched network should be treated as a common carriage offering . .
commercial services if they make interconnected service broadly available through their use of the public
switched network.�112 Congress�s purpose, the Commission concluded, was �to ensure that a mobile
service that gives its customers the capability to communicate to or receive communication from other
users of the public switched network should be treated as a common carriage offering . . . .�113 In
addition, the Commission determined that �any switched common carrier service that is interconnected
with the traditional local exchange or interexchange switched network will be defined as part of that
network for purposes of our definition of �commercial mobile radio services.��114 The Commission also
concluded that �use of the North American Numbering Plan by carriers providing or obtaining access to
the public switched network is a key element in defining the network because participation in the North
American Numbering Plan provides the participant with ubiquitous access to all other participants in the
Plan.� The Commission found that another important element is switching capability, which means �any
common carrier switching capability.�115
45. Based on foregoing, we conclude that mobile wireless broadband Internet access service
does not meet the definition of �interconnected service� under the Commission�s rules implementing
section 332 of the Act. Mobile wireless broadband Internet access services do not �give subscribers the
capability to communicate to or receive communications from all other users on the public switched
network.�116 The definition of �interconnected service� applicable to commercial mobile service focuses
on the service provided to the end users
� under the Commission�s rules implementing
section 332 of the Act. Mobile wireless broadband Internet access services do not �give subscribers the
capability to communicate to or receive communications from all other users on the public switched
network.�116 The definition of �interconnected service� applicable to commercial mobile service focuses
on the service provided to the end users. Under this definition, �interconnected service� has to give
�subscribers the capability to communicate to or receive communication from all other users on the public
switched network.�117 Mobile wireless broadband Internet access service in and of itself does not provide
this capability to communicate with all users of the public switched network. For example, mobile
wireless broadband Internet access services do not use the North American Numbering Plan to access the
Internet, which limits subscribers� ability to communicate to or receive communications from all users in
110 Id.
111 Id.
112 Second Report and Order Implementing Section 3(n) and 332 of the Communications Act as amended by Section
6002(b) of the Omnibus Reconciliation Act of 1993, 9 FCC Rcd 1411, 1434, para. 54 (1994) (CMRS Second Report
and Order).
113 Id. See also Calling Party Pays Memorandum Order and Opinion, 16 FCC Rcd 8297, para. 15 (stating that �for
a service to be interconnected, our rules merely require the technical capability to communicate or receive calls from
other users of the Public Switched Telephone Network.�
114 CMRS Second Report and Order, 9 FCC Rcd at 1436-37, para. 59.
115 Id. 9 FCC Rcd at 1437, para. 60.
116 See 47 C.F.R. � 20.3 (interconnected service definition) (emphasis added)
Rcd 8297, para. 15 (stating that �for
a service to be interconnected, our rules merely require the technical capability to communicate or receive calls from
other users of the Public Switched Telephone Network.�
114 CMRS Second Report and Order, 9 FCC Rcd at 1436-37, para. 59.
115 Id. 9 FCC Rcd at 1437, para. 60.
116 See 47 C.F.R. � 20.3 (interconnected service definition) (emphasis added).
117 The term �interconnected service� is defined as �a service that is interconnected with the public switched
network, or interconnected with the public switched network through an interconnected service provider, that gives
subscribers the capability to communicate to or receive communication from all other users on the public switched
network . . . .� See 47 C.F.R. � 20.3 (emphasis added).
Federal Communications Commission FCC 07-30
18
the public switched network.118 Instead, users of a mobile wireless broadband Internet access service
need to rely on another service or application, such as certain voice over Internet Protocol (VoIP) services
that rely in part on the underlying Internet access service, to make calls to, and receive calls from, �all
other users on the public switched network.� Therefore, mobile wireless broadband Internet access
service itself is not an �interconnected service� as the Commission has defined the term in the context of
section 332.119
46. Of course, our conclusion that mobile wireless broadband Internet access service is not an
�interconnected service� for purposes of section 332 does not decide whether other services or
applications may be �interconnected service� under section 332 and its implementing regulations. For
instance, we do not here address the question whether �interconnected VoIP� service is an
�interconnected service� under section 332
t mobile wireless broadband Internet access service is not an
�interconnected service� for purposes of section 332 does not decide whether other services or
applications may be �interconnected service� under section 332 and its implementing regulations. For
instance, we do not here address the question whether �interconnected VoIP� service is an
�interconnected service� under section 332. Such �interconnected VoIP� services have been recognized
as services separate from broadband Internet access service, and the Commission has imposed certain
obligations on interconnected VoIP, such as Enhanced 911 (E911) obligations, that it has not imposed on
broadband Internet access service.120
47. Nor does our interpretation of section 332 of the Communications Act and its
implementing regulations here alter either our decision in the CALEA proceeding to apply CALEA
obligations to all wireless broadband Internet access providers, including mobile wireless providers, or
our interpretations of the provisions of CALEA itself. As the Commission found, and the U.S. Court of
Appeals for the D.C. Circuit affirmed, the purposes and intent of CALEA are strikingly different than
those of the 1996 Telecommunications Act, which is embedded in the Communications Act. As the
Court noted, �CALEA--unlike the 1996 Act--is a law-enforcement statute . . . (requiring
telecommunications carriers to enable �the government� to conduct electronic surveillance) . . . . The
118 Id. See also 47 C.F.R. � 20.3 (defining the �public switched network� as �[a]ny common carrier switched
network . . . that use[s] the North American Numbering Plan in connection with the provision of switched
services.�). We note that common carrier switched networks that use the North American Numbering Plan to reach
the Internet switch traffic at less than broadband speeds. As the Commission explained in 2002, narrowband
Internet access services utilize the public switched telephone network and North American Numbering Plan
American Numbering Plan in connection with the provision of switched
services.�). We note that common carrier switched networks that use the North American Numbering Plan to reach
the Internet switch traffic at less than broadband speeds. As the Commission explained in 2002, narrowband
Internet access services utilize the public switched telephone network and North American Numbering Plan. See
Wireline Broadband Internet Access NPRM, 17 FCC Rcd at 3025-26, para. 11, n. 18 (stating that �[d]ial-up or
narrowband Internet access utilizes the same public switched telephone network (PSTN) infrastructure that
telephone subscribers use to place traditional circuit-switched voice calls.�). By contrast, mobile wireless broadband
Internet access service routes broadband data traffic directly to the Internet through data serving nodes, gateways, or
other forms of data routers.
119 While the Commission interpreted �the public switched network� in section 332 as continuing to
encompass �the network� as it is �continuously growing and changing because of new technology and
increasing demand,� we find that section 332 and our implementing rules did not contemplate wireless
broadband Internet access service as provided today. In fact, the Commission found that �commercial
mobile service� must still be interconnected with the local exchange or interexchange switched network as
it evolves: �any switched common carrier service that is interconnected with the traditional local exchange
or interexchange switched network will be defined as part of that network for purposes of our definition of
�commercial mobile radio services.�� CMRS Second Report and Order, 9 FCC Rcd at 1436-37, para. 59
be interconnected with the local exchange or interexchange switched network as
it evolves: �any switched common carrier service that is interconnected with the traditional local exchange
or interexchange switched network will be defined as part of that network for purposes of our definition of
�commercial mobile radio services.�� CMRS Second Report and Order, 9 FCC Rcd at 1436-37, para. 59.
120 The Commission has determined that VoIP services are interconnected in other contexts if they �(1) enable real-
time, two-way voice communications; (2) require a broadband connection from the user's location; (3) require IP-
compatible customer premises equipment; and (4) permit users to receive calls from and terminate calls to the
PSTN.� See In the Matter of Communications Assistance for Law Enforcement Act and Broadband Access and
Services, Docket No. 04-295, First Report and Order and Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, 20 FCC Rcd
14989, 15008, para. 39 (2005) (CALEA Order), aff�d American Council on Education v. FCC & USA, 451 F.3d 226
(D.C. Cir. 2006) (American Council on Education v. FCC & USA); In the Matter of E911 Requirements for IP-
Enabled Service Providers, WC Docket No. 05-196, First Report and Order and Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, 20
FCC Rcd 10245, 10257-58, para. 24 (2005).
Federal Communications Commission FCC 07-30
19
Communications Act (of which the Telecom Act is part), by contrast, was enacted �[f]or the purpose of
regulating interstate and foreign commerce in communication by wire and radio� . . .
IP-
Enabled Service Providers, WC Docket No. 05-196, First Report and Order and Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, 20
FCC Rcd 10245, 10257-58, para. 24 (2005).
Federal Communications Commission FCC 07-30
19
Communications Act (of which the Telecom Act is part), by contrast, was enacted �[f]or the purpose of
regulating interstate and foreign commerce in communication by wire and radio� . . . . The Commission's
interpretation of CALEA reasonably differs from its interpretation of the 1996 Act, given the differences
between the two statutes.�121 Thus, our interpretation of the separate statutory provisions in section 332
of the Communications Act, whose purposes closely track those of the Telecommunications Act of 1996
and the Communications Act generally, in no way affects our determination that mobile wireless
broadband Internet access service providers are subject to the CALEA statute.122
48. Mobile Wireless Broadband Internet Access Service is Not a �Commercial Mobile
Service� Even if It Were an �Interconnected Service� for Purposes of Section 332 and its Implementing
Regulations. If mobile wireless broadband Internet access service were an �interconnected service� for
purposes of section 332, we find there to be ambiguity in the statutory framework. One possible
interpretation of section 332, looking solely at its definitions, is that such service would qualify as a
�commercial mobile service� while also being an �information service.� We find, however, that such a
reading results in an internal contradiction in the statutory framework, and that the alternate reading that
mobile wireless broadband Internet access service is not a �commercial mobile service� avoids the
contradiction and is a reading fully consistent with the purposes of section 332 and the Communications
Act in general.
49
ing an �information service.� We find, however, that such a
reading results in an internal contradiction in the statutory framework, and that the alternate reading that
mobile wireless broadband Internet access service is not a �commercial mobile service� avoids the
contradiction and is a reading fully consistent with the purposes of section 332 and the Communications
Act in general.
49. The contradiction in the statutory framework arising from classifying mobile wireless
broadband Internet access service as both an information service and a commercial mobile service occurs
in the very common situation where a service provider is providing not only mobile wireless broadband
Internet access service, but also a separate service that is undoubtedly a CMRS service that is also a
telecommunication service under the Act, such as traditional mobile voice service.
50. Under those circumstances, the service provider would qualify as a telecommunications
carrier as a result of its provision of its traditional mobile voice service. The definition of
�telecommunications carrier� in section 3 of the Act states �[a] telecommunications carrier shall be
treated as a common carrier under this Act only to the extent that it is engaged in providing
telecommunications service.�123 Accordingly, under Section 3, that service provider is to be treated as a
common carrier for the telecommunications services it provides, but it cannot be treated as a common
carrier with respect to other, non-telecommunications services it may offer, including information
services. As discussed above, mobile wireless broadband Internet access service is an information
service.
51
e.�123 Accordingly, under Section 3, that service provider is to be treated as a
common carrier for the telecommunications services it provides, but it cannot be treated as a common
carrier with respect to other, non-telecommunications services it may offer, including information
services. As discussed above, mobile wireless broadband Internet access service is an information
service.
51. Yet, under this reading, the service provider�s offering of a CMRS information service �
i.e., its mobile wireless broadband Internet access service - would also mean that section 332 would
apply; and the terms of section 332 expressly require that a service provider would be treated as a
common carrier when it offers that �commercial mobile service.�124 In short, under this interpretation of
121 American Council on Education v. FCC & USA, 451 F.3d at 232.
122 Similarly, the meaning of the term �the public switched network� in section 332 and implementing regulations
has no impact on our interpretation of a similar term � �a publicly switched network� � found in the House Report
on CALEA. Quoting language in the House Report expressly stating Congress�s intent to provide for interception of
communications over the Internet and to prevent the Internet from offering �a safe haven for illegal activity,� we
found that the Internet backbone network is �a publicly switched network� for purposes of CALEA in support of our
intermediate finding that broadband Internet access service replaces a substantial portion of the local telephone
exchange service and our ultimate finding that such service is subject to CALEA under the statute�s Substantial
Replacement Provision (SRP). See CALEA Order, 20 FCC Rcd at 15003, para. 9 (quoting House Report) and
15004, para. 12 (emphasis in original).
123 47 U.S.C. � 153(44) (emphasis added).
124 47 U.S.C. � 332(c)(1)(A)
cess service replaces a substantial portion of the local telephone
exchange service and our ultimate finding that such service is subject to CALEA under the statute�s Substantial
Replacement Provision (SRP). See CALEA Order, 20 FCC Rcd at 15003, para. 9 (quoting House Report) and
15004, para. 12 (emphasis in original).
123 47 U.S.C. � 153(44) (emphasis added).
124 47 U.S.C. � 332(c)(1)(A).
Federal Communications Commission FCC 07-30
20
section 332, that section would require that the service provider be treated as a common carrier insofar as
it provides mobile wireless broadband Internet access service, while section 3 clearly would prohibit the
application of common carrier regulation of such a service provider�s provision of that service.
52. These contradictory statutory directives demonstrate an ambiguity in the Act � one that
we conclude is best resolved by finding that mobile wireless broadband Internet access service, as an
information service, is not included in the commercial mobile service definition. If we were to interpret
section 332 to include this type of Internet access service within the CMRS definition, the above-
described ambiguity could only be resolved by concluding that one of the two sections (section 3 or
section 332) should trump the other. We do not discern any reasonable basis for giving more weight to
one section than the other, however.
53. Moreover, construing the CMRS definition to include mobile wireless broadband Internet
access service, as CMRS information service, could lead to absurd results. For example, we could give
effect to section 3�s express common carrier exemption of a telecommunication carrier�s so-called CMRS
information service � and thereby override section 332�s express mandate to treat CMRS providers as
common carriers
uing the CMRS definition to include mobile wireless broadband Internet
access service, as CMRS information service, could lead to absurd results. For example, we could give
effect to section 3�s express common carrier exemption of a telecommunication carrier�s so-called CMRS
information service � and thereby override section 332�s express mandate to treat CMRS providers as
common carriers. Then, however, a company engaging solely in the provision of CMRS information
services would not qualify for the section 3 exemption (available only to telecommunications carriers)
and therefore would be subject to common carrier regulation under section 332, while a
telecommunications carrier who provided the exact same service in addition to its telecommunications
services would escape such common carrier regulation of its information service under the section 3
exemption. Such disparate treatment appears to have no rational basis and would introduce competitive
distortions into the marketplace. Nor could we avoid this result by exercising our forbearance authority
under section 10 of the Communications Act. Although section 10 specifically requires the Commission
to override Section 332�s application of common carrier regulations to CMRS providers if it determines
that a three-part test is satisfied,125 this mandate applies only to telecommunications carriers and
telecommunications services. Thus, if a non-telecommunications provider of mobile wireless broadband
Internet access service is deemed a CMRS provider, we would not be authorized by section 10 to forbear
from applying any applicable common carrier regulations to that provider. And while section 332 itself
grants the Commission some authority to forbear from applying Title II common carrier requirements to
CMRS providers (whether or not deemed telecommunications carriers), this statutory forbearance
authority is limited
d a CMRS provider, we would not be authorized by section 10 to forbear
from applying any applicable common carrier regulations to that provider. And while section 332 itself
grants the Commission some authority to forbear from applying Title II common carrier requirements to
CMRS providers (whether or not deemed telecommunications carriers), this statutory forbearance
authority is limited. It does not extend to a number of significant Title II provisions (including sections
201, 202, and 208 of the Act).126
54. By contrast, construing the CMRS definition to exclude mobile wireless broadband
Internet access service avoids absurd results while resolving the statutory ambiguity in a manner
consistent with the intent and goals of the Act. For one, the exclusion is consistent with and furthers the
Act�s overall intent to allow information services to develop free from common carrier regulations. A
contrary approach would single out a significant segment of information service provider for such
regulation and thereby work at cross purposes with Congress�s intent to maintain a regime in which
125 Section 10 states that �[n]otwithstanding section 332(c)(1)(A) of this Act, the Commission shall forbear from
applying any regulation or any provision of this Act to a telecommunications carrier or telecommunications service,
or class of telecommunications carriers or telecommunications services . . . if the Commission determines that � (1)
enforcement of such regulation or provision is not necessary to ensure that the charges, practices, classifications or
regulations by, for, or in connection with that telecommunications carrier or telecommunications service are just and
reasonable and are not unjustly or unreasonably discriminatory; (2) enforcement of such regulation or provision is
not necessary for the protection of consumers; and (3) forbearance from applying such provision or regulation is
consistent with the public interest.� 47 U.S.C. � 160(a).
126 See 47 U.S.C
onnection with that telecommunications carrier or telecommunications service are just and
reasonable and are not unjustly or unreasonably discriminatory; (2) enforcement of such regulation or provision is
not necessary for the protection of consumers; and (3) forbearance from applying such provision or regulation is
consistent with the public interest.� 47 U.S.C. � 160(a).
126 See 47 U.S.C. � 332(c)(1)(A).
Federal Communications Commission FCC 07-30
21
information service providers can develop without the impediments of common carrier regulation.127
55. Second, our interpretation of the definition supports the Congressional goal of promoting
broadband deployment and encouraging competition in the provision of broadband services, by ensuring
regulatory parity among all broadband Internet access services - regardless of whether they are offered
through wireline, cable, or wireless technology. Similarly, this approach also ensures consistent
regulatory treatment among wireless broadband Internet access services using mobile, portable, or fixed
technologies, both licensed and unlicensed. Classifying all wireless broadband Internet access services as
non-CMRS information services, will result in a uniform, technology neutral regulatory scheme for the
provision of all wireless Internet access services -- regardless of whether providers are using mobile,
portable, or fixed technologies, or a combination of those technologies. Without a consistent approach
toward all Internet access providers (both within the wireless industry and across diverse technologies),
and absent a showing that an application of common carrier regulation to only one type of Internet access
provider will promote the public interest, the possibility of full and fair competition will be compromised.
56
r a combination of those technologies. Without a consistent approach
toward all Internet access providers (both within the wireless industry and across diverse technologies),
and absent a showing that an application of common carrier regulation to only one type of Internet access
provider will promote the public interest, the possibility of full and fair competition will be compromised.
56. In sum, our statutory interpretation of the scope of the CMRS definition eliminates any
ambiguity or conflict between sections 332 and 3 of the Communications Act, avoids any absurd or
otherwise irrational results, furthers Congress�s goal of encouraging the development of information
services by ensuring that they remain free from common carrier regulation, and serves the Act�s
overarching goal of fostering competition by providing a level playing field in the market and removing
unnecessary regulatory impediments. Accordingly, we conclude that wireless broadband Internet access
service, as an information service, cannot also be a �commercial mobile service� under section 332 of the
Communications Act.
E. Applicability of Other Statutory Provisions
57. In light of our determination that wireless broadband Internet access service is an
information service and not CMRS, we now address the applicability of certain statutory provisions to
this information service. First, we reiterate our commitment to monitor the need to apply section
255(regarding access by persons with disabilities). Next, we address the applicability of sections
224(regarding pole attachments), 332(c)(7)(local authority over zoning), and 251(interconnection
obligations). Finally, we remind the providers of wireless broadband Internet access service that certain
consumer protections obligations might apply.
1. Access by Persons with Disabilities
58. We reiterate our commitment to effectuate the accessibility policy embodied in section
255 of the Act
4(regarding pole attachments), 332(c)(7)(local authority over zoning), and 251(interconnection
obligations). Finally, we remind the providers of wireless broadband Internet access service that certain
consumer protections obligations might apply.
1. Access by Persons with Disabilities
58. We reiterate our commitment to effectuate the accessibility policy embodied in section
255 of the Act. We will continue to monitor the development of wireless broadband Internet access
service and its effects on the policy goals of section 255.128
59. Section 255(c) of the Act requires that �a provider of telecommunications service shall
ensure that the service is accessible to and usable by individuals with disabilities, if readily achievable.�129
Although section 255 expressly applies to telecommunications services and not information services, the
127 See Federal-State Joint Board on Universal Service, Report to Congress, CC Docket No. 96-45, 13 FCC Rcd
11501, 11511, para. 21 (1998); see also 47 U.S.C. � 231(e)(4) (excluding �telecommunications services� from the
definition of �Internet access service�). We note that wireless services similar to mobile wireless broadband Internet
access service were not available in the market place in 1993 when Congress adopted section 332 or, in 1996, when
Congress adopted the section 3 definition of �telecommunication carrier.�
128 The Commission is currently reviewing the issue of disability access with respect to IP-enabled services. IP-
Enabled Services NPRM, 19 FCC Rcd at 4897-501, paras. 58-60. See also Wireline Broadband Internet Access
Services Order, 20 FCC Rcd at 14919-22.
129 47 U.S.C. � 255(c)
opted section 332 or, in 1996, when
Congress adopted the section 3 definition of �telecommunication carrier.�
128 The Commission is currently reviewing the issue of disability access with respect to IP-enabled services. IP-
Enabled Services NPRM, 19 FCC Rcd at 4897-501, paras. 58-60. See also Wireline Broadband Internet Access
Services Order, 20 FCC Rcd at 14919-22.
129 47 U.S.C. � 255(c).
Federal Communications Commission FCC 07-30
22
Commission has used its ancillary jurisdiction under Title I to extend accessibility obligations to certain
information services in the past, including the wireline broadband Internet access service.130 While still at
the nascent stage, wireless broadband Internet access services are rapidly being developed and deployed.
We will continue to monitor the development of wireless broadband Internet access service and its effects
on the important policy goals of section 255.131 We reiterate our commitment to use our Title I and Title
III authority, as necessary, to give full effect to the accessibility policy embodied in section 255.
2. Pole Attachments and Local Authority over Zoning
60. Pole Attachments. We clarify that where a wireless service provider uses the same pole
attachments to provide both telecommunications and wireless broadband Internet access services, section
224 would apply, consistent with the U.S. Supreme Court's decision in National Cable and Telecom.
Ass�n. v. Gulf Power Co.132
61
section 255.
2. Pole Attachments and Local Authority over Zoning
60. Pole Attachments. We clarify that where a wireless service provider uses the same pole
attachments to provide both telecommunications and wireless broadband Internet access services, section
224 would apply, consistent with the U.S. Supreme Court's decision in National Cable and Telecom.
Ass�n. v. Gulf Power Co.132
61. The Pole Attachment Act, codified in section 224 of the Communications Act, gives
cable television systems and providers of telecommunications services the right to attach to utility poles
of power and telephone companies at regulated rates.133 Section 224(a)(4) defines �pole attachment� as
�any attachment by a cable television system or provider of telecommunications service to a pole, duct,
conduit, or right-of-way owned or controlled by a utility.�134 �Utility� is defined under the statute as �any
person who is a local exchange carrier or an electric, gas, water, steam, or other public utility, and who
owns or controls poles, ducts, conduits, or rights-of-way used, in whole, or in part, for any wire
telecommunications . . .�135
62. We clarify that where a wireless service provider uses the same pole attachments to
provide commingled services (i.e., both telecommunications and wireless broadband Internet access
services), section 224(e) would apply. We note that this determination is consistent with the U.S.
Supreme Court's decision in National Cable and Telecom. Ass�n. v. Gulf Power Co,136 where it held that:
a cable television system�s pole attachments that provided commingled services, both high-speed Internet
access service and cable television service, were �attachments� covered by the Pole Attachment Act
codified in section 224(d) of the Communications Act; and wireless telecommunications providers� pole
130 The Commission imposed accessibility obligations on voicemail and interactive menu services
levision system�s pole attachments that provided commingled services, both high-speed Internet
access service and cable television service, were �attachments� covered by the Pole Attachment Act
codified in section 224(d) of the Communications Act; and wireless telecommunications providers� pole
130 The Commission imposed accessibility obligations on voicemail and interactive menu services. See
Implementation of Sections 255 and 251(a) of the Communications Act of 1924, as Enacted by the
Telecommunications Act of 1996, Access to Telecommunications Service, Telecommunications Equipment and
Customer Premises Equipment by Persons with Disabilities, WT Docket No. 96-198, Report and Order and Further
Notice of Inquiry, 16 FCC Rcd 6417, 6455, para. 93 (1999) (Section 255 Order). The Commission declined, at that
time, however, to extend accessibility obligations to other information services, such as email, electronic
information services, and web pages, that did not appear to have the potential to render telecommunications services
inaccessible to persons with disabilities. Id. at 6461, para 107. The Commission adopted a Further Notice of
Inquiry at the same time to obtain additional information about Internet telephony and certain computer-based
equipment that replicates the current telecommunications functionality. See also Wireline Broadband Internet
Access Services Order 20 FCC Rcd at 14919, paras. 121-124 (where the Commission uses its ancillary jurisdiction
under Title I to extend accessibility obligations to the wireline broadband Internet access service.)
131 The Commission is currently reviewing the issue of disability access with respect to IP-enabled services. IP-
Enabled Services NPRM, 19 FCC Rcd at 4897-501, paras. 58-60. See also Wireline Broadband Internet Access
Services Order, 20 FCC Rcd at 14919-22.
132 534 U.S. 327 (2002).
133 See 47 U.S.C. � 224.
134 47 U.S.C. � 224(a)(4).
135 47 U.S.C. � 224(a)(1).
136 534 U.S. 327 (2002)
131 The Commission is currently reviewing the issue of disability access with respect to IP-enabled services. IP-
Enabled Services NPRM, 19 FCC Rcd at 4897-501, paras. 58-60. See also Wireline Broadband Internet Access
Services Order, 20 FCC Rcd at 14919-22.
132 534 U.S. 327 (2002).
133 See 47 U.S.C. � 224.
134 47 U.S.C. � 224(a)(4).
135 47 U.S.C. � 224(a)(1).
136 534 U.S. 327 (2002).
Federal Communications Commission FCC 07-30
23
attachments of associated wireless equipment are covered under section 224(e) of the Communications
Act.137 Although we do not reach the question of the applicability of section 224 when an entity is solely
providing wireless broadband Internet access services, we note that that issue may be addressed in other
pending Commission proceedings.138
63. Local Authority over Zoning. We clarify that section 332(c)(7)(B) would continue to
apply to wireless broadband Internet access service that is classified as an �information service� where a
wireless service provider uses the same infrastructure to provide its �personal wireless services� and
wireless broadband Internet access service.
64. Section 332(c)(7) preserves state and local authority over zoning and land use decisions
for �personal wireless service facilities. �139 �Personal wireless services� is defined to mean commercial
mobile services, unlicensed wireless services, and common carrier wireless exchange access services.140
Under 332(c)(7), state or local governments may not unreasonably discriminate among providers of
functionally equivalent services and shall not prohibit or have the effect of prohibiting the provision of
personal wireless services; may not regulate in a manner that prohibits or has the effect of prohibiting the
provision of personal wireless services; must act on applications within a reasonable period of time; and
must make any denial of an application in writing supported by substantial evidence in a written record.141
The statute also preempts local decisions pre
ibiting the provision of
personal wireless services; may not regulate in a manner that prohibits or has the effect of prohibiting the
provision of personal wireless services; must act on applications within a reasonable period of time; and
must make any denial of an application in writing supported by substantial evidence in a written record.141
The statute also preempts local decisions premised directly or indirectly on the environmental effects of
radio frequency (RF) emissions, assuming that the provider is in compliance with the Commission's RF
rules.142
65. Similar to application of section 224 to commingled services above, we find that section
332 (c)(7)(B) would continue to apply to wireless broadband Internet access service that is classified as an
137 Id. at 332-333, 339-342 (stating that the addition of another service --Internet access -- provided by a cable
television system does not change the character of the cable television system attaching to the pole and that is what
matters under the statute. Additionally, the Court held that wireless telecommunications providers� pole attachments
of associated wireless equipment are covered under section 224(e) of the Act.). See also, In the Matter of Fiber
Technologies Networks, LLC v. North Pittsburgh Telephone Co., File No. EB-05-MD-014, Memorandum Opinion
and Order, para. 23, DA 07-486, rel. Feb. 23, 2007.
138 In its comments on the Wireless Broadband Access Task Force Report, NextG Networks recommended that the
Commission carefully consider all of the ramifications of classifying wireless broadband Internet access service as
an information service, noting that if an entity is classified as providing only information services, it may face even
greater hurdles in accessing utility poles and public rights-of-way -- two elements critical to the deployment of
wireless broadband infrastructure. See Comments of NextG Networks, Inc. at 15-17, In re Wireless Broadband
Access Task Force Report
nternet access service as
an information service, noting that if an entity is classified as providing only information services, it may face even
greater hurdles in accessing utility poles and public rights-of-way -- two elements critical to the deployment of
wireless broadband infrastructure. See Comments of NextG Networks, Inc. at 15-17, In re Wireless Broadband
Access Task Force Report. As discussed above, these concerns may be addressed more appropriately in other
pending proceedings or pending petitions regarding the applicability of section 224 to broadband Internet access
service providers. See, e.g., Petition for Rulemaking of Fibertech Networks, LLC, RM-11303 (filed Dec. 7, 2005)
(requesting that the Commission adopt a set of �best practices� addressing competitor access to poles and conduct);
�Pleading Cycle Established for Petition for Rulemaking of Fibertech Networks, LLC,� Public Notice, 20 FCC Rcd
19865 (2005) and Petition of United States Telecom Association for a Rulemaking to Amend Pole Attachment Rate
Regulation and Complaint Procedure, RM-11293 (filed Oct. 11, 2005) ) (requesting that the Commission institute a
rulemaking to amend existing rules governing pole attachment rates, (continued ...)
(Continued from previous page) terms, and conditions); �Consumer and Governmental Affairs Bureau Reference
Information Center Petition for Rulemaking Filed,� Public Notice, rel. Nov. 2, 2005.
139 47 U.S.C. � 332(c)(7).
140 47 U.S.C. � 337(c)(7)(C)(i). We note that certain fixed wireless services may be considered exchange access
services but not all are.
141 See 47 U.S.C. � 332(c)(7)(B)(i)-(iii), (v).
142 47 U.S.C. � 332(c)(7)(B)(iv)
itions); �Consumer and Governmental Affairs Bureau Reference
Information Center Petition for Rulemaking Filed,� Public Notice, rel. Nov. 2, 2005.
139 47 U.S.C. � 332(c)(7).
140 47 U.S.C. � 337(c)(7)(C)(i). We note that certain fixed wireless services may be considered exchange access
services but not all are.
141 See 47 U.S.C. � 332(c)(7)(B)(i)-(iii), (v).
142 47 U.S.C. � 332(c)(7)(B)(iv).
Federal Communications Commission FCC 07-30
24
�information service� where a wireless service provider uses the same infrastructure to provide its
�personal wireless services� and wireless broadband Internet access service.143 We find that classifying
wireless broadband Internet access services as �information services� will not exclude these services from
the section 332(c)(7) framework when a wireless provider�s infrastructure is used to provide such services
commingled with �personal wireless service.� Commingling services does not change the fact that the
facilities are being used for the provisioning of personal wireless services. Therefore, application of
section 332(c)(7) should remain unaffected. This interpretation is consistent with the public interest goals
of this provision and ensures that wireless broadband Internet access service providers continue to use
existing wireless infrastructure to rapidly deploy their services.144 This result is also consistent with the
Commission�s commitment to its national broadband policy goals to �promote the deployment of
advanced telecommunications capability to all Americans in a reasonable and timely manner.�145
3. Rights and Obligations related to Interconnection
66. We clarify that a carrier providing both CMRS and wireless broadband Internet access
service has the same rights and obligations regarding interconnection under section 251 of the Act or
section 20.11 of the Commission�s rules that it would have if it were only providing CMRS.146
67
all Americans in a reasonable and timely manner.�145
3. Rights and Obligations related to Interconnection
66. We clarify that a carrier providing both CMRS and wireless broadband Internet access
service has the same rights and obligations regarding interconnection under section 251 of the Act or
section 20.11 of the Commission�s rules that it would have if it were only providing CMRS.146
67. Section 251 of the Act and section 20.11 of the Commission�s rules provide mobile radio
service providers with a number of rights and obligations involving or related to interconnection.147 In the
Local Competition Order, the Commission clarified that a carrier providing both a telecommunications
service and an information service, �must be classified as a telecommunications carrier for purposes of
section 251, and is subject to the obligations under section 251(a), to the extent that it is acting as a
telecommunications carrier.�148 The Commission also ruled that �telecommunications carriers that have
interconnected or gained access under sections 251(a)(1), 251(c)(2), or 251(c)(3), may offer information
services through the same arrangement, so long as they are offering telecommunications services through
the same arrangement as well.�149 The Commission further clarified in the Wireline Broadband Internet
Access Order that its determination that wireline broadband Internet access was an information service
and not a telecommunications service had �no effect whatsoever on the section 251 interconnection
obligations of incumbent LECs or on competitive LECs� rights to obtain such interconnection.�150
68. Nothing in this order should affect the Commission�s previous finding that a carrier
143 See supra, para. 63.
144 In its comments on the Wireless Broadband Access Task Force Report, NextG Networks stated that access to
utility poles and public rights-of-way is critical to the deployment of wireless broadband infrastructure and services.
See Comments of NextG Networks, Inc
ion.�150
68. Nothing in this order should affect the Commission�s previous finding that a carrier
143 See supra, para. 63.
144 In its comments on the Wireless Broadband Access Task Force Report, NextG Networks stated that access to
utility poles and public rights-of-way is critical to the deployment of wireless broadband infrastructure and services.
See Comments of NextG Networks, Inc. at 15-16, In re Wireless Broadband Access Task Force Report.
145 See 47 U.S.C. � 157. See also Cable Modem Declaratory Ruling, 17 FCC Rcd at 4848, para. 97 (noting, in
attached Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, that one of the Commission�s national broadband policy goals is to
�promote the deployment of advanced telecommunications capability to all Americans in a reasonable and timely
manner�).
146 47 C.F.R. � 20.11.
147 See 47 U.S.C. � 251; 47 C.F.R. � 20.11. See also Local Competition Order, 11 FCC Rcd at 15989, para. 993.
148 Local Competition Order, 11 FCC Rcd at 15990, para. 995 (emphasis added).
149 Id. Of course, unbundled network elements are not available to carriers for the exclusive provision of
commercial mobile wireless services. Unbundled Access to Network Elements, Review of the Section 251
Unbundling Obligations of Incumbent Local Exchange Carriers, WC Docket No. 04-313, CC Docket No. 01-338,
Order on Remand, 20 FCC Rcd 2533, 2552-55, paras. 35-36 (2005), aff'd, Covad Communications Co. v. Federal
Communications Commission, 450 F.3d 528 (D.C. Cir. 2006).
150 Wireline Broadband Internet Access Services Order, 20 FCC Rcd at 14923 n.400
etwork Elements, Review of the Section 251
Unbundling Obligations of Incumbent Local Exchange Carriers, WC Docket No. 04-313, CC Docket No. 01-338,
Order on Remand, 20 FCC Rcd 2533, 2552-55, paras. 35-36 (2005), aff'd, Covad Communications Co. v. Federal
Communications Commission, 450 F.3d 528 (D.C. Cir. 2006).
150 Wireline Broadband Internet Access Services Order, 20 FCC Rcd at 14923 n.400.
Federal Communications Commission FCC 07-30
25
providing both a telecommunications service and information service, �must be classified as a
telecommunications carrier for purposes of section 251, and is subject to the obligations under section
251(a), to the extent that it is acting as a telecommunications carrier.�151 Further, consistent with the
previous findings, we clarify that our classification of wireless broadband Internet access service as
information service should not affect the application of section 20.11 to CMRS carriers and the
application of section 251 of the Act to any wireless carriers providing both telecommunications service
and information service.
4. Consumer Protection Obligations
69. We remind wireless broadband Internet access service providers that any consumer
protections obligations adopted in the Consumer Protection in the Broadband Era proceeding will extend
to wireless broadband Internet access services.
70. In the Consumer Protection in the Broadband Era NPRM, the Commission emphasized
consumer protection remains a priority and sought to develop a framework for consumer protection in the
broadband age.152 Such a framework would be built on the Commission�s Title I ancillary jurisdiction to
ensure that consumer protection needs are met by all providers of broadband Internet access services
regardless of the underlying technology, including providers of wireless broadband Internet access
services.153 Accordingly, any consumer protection measures adopted in that proceeding will extend to
wireless broadband Internet access services.
IV
ission�s Title I ancillary jurisdiction to
ensure that consumer protection needs are met by all providers of broadband Internet access services
regardless of the underlying technology, including providers of wireless broadband Internet access
services.153 Accordingly, any consumer protection measures adopted in that proceeding will extend to
wireless broadband Internet access services.
IV. ORDERING CLAUSES
71. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED, that pursuant to sections 1-4, 201(b) and 303(r) of the
Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. �� 151-54, 201(b), and 303(r), section 706 of the
Telecommunications Act of 1996, 47 U.S.C. � 157, and section 1.2 of the Commission�s rules, 47 C.F.R.
� 1.2, the Declaratory Ruling IS ADOPTED.
FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION
Marlene H. Dortch
Secretary
151 Local Competition Order, 11 FCC Rcd at 15990, para. 995 (emphasis added).
152 See Consumer Protection in the Broadband Era NPRM, 20 FCC Rcd at 14929-35, paras. 146-59.
153 Id.
Federal Communications Commission FCC 07-30
26
STATEMENT OF
CHAIRMAN KEVIN J. MARTIN
Re: Appropriate Regulatory Treatment for Broadband Access to the Internet Over Wireless
Networks, WT Docket No. 07-53
In this Ruling, we find that wireless broadband Internet access service is an information service,
and that mobile wireless broadband Internet access service is not a �commercial mobile service� under
section 332 of the Act.
Today�s ruling highlights that the broadband market today is increasingly characterized by
multiple platforms that are vigorously competing for customers. Wireless service is becoming
increasingly important as another platform to compete with cable and DSL as a provider of broadband.
I have long believed that the Commission should focus on creating a regulatory environment that
promotes investment and competition by minimizing economic regulation. In addition, the Commission
must set the rules of the road so that players can compete on a level playing field
e is becoming
increasingly important as another platform to compete with cable and DSL as a provider of broadband.
I have long believed that the Commission should focus on creating a regulatory environment that
promotes investment and competition by minimizing economic regulation. In addition, the Commission
must set the rules of the road so that players can compete on a level playing field. In other words, all
providers of the same service should be treated in the same manner regardless of the technology that they
employ.
Today�s classification eliminates unnecessary regulatory barriers for wireless broadband Internet
access service providers and will further encourage investment and promote competition in the broadband
market. The Commission�s action also clarifies any regulatory uncertainty and establishes a consistent
regulatory framework across broadband platforms. We have already classified Internet access services
provided over cable plant, wireline facilities, and broadband over powerline as information services.
Now, wireless broadband Internet access service will be treated the same way. This action is particularly
timely in light of the recently auctioned AWS-1 spectrum for wireless broadband and our upcoming 700
MHz auction.
Federal Communications Commission FCC 07-30
27
CONCURRING STATEMENT OF
COMMISSIONER MICHAEL J. COPPS
Re: Appropriate Regulatory Treatment for Broadband Access to the Internet Over Wireless
Networks, WT Docket No. 07-53
I concur in today�s decision not because I like it. Not because I think it�s the right thing to do.
But because in light of the Commission�s post-Brand X decisions, today�s outcome has long been
inevitable. I nevertheless want to reiterate my view that consigning broadband services to an
indeterminate Title I regulatory limbo is no substitute for a genuine national broadband strategy. It
doesn�t give either businesses or consumers the kind of certainty that they are entitled to
ing to do.
But because in light of the Commission�s post-Brand X decisions, today�s outcome has long been
inevitable. I nevertheless want to reiterate my view that consigning broadband services to an
indeterminate Title I regulatory limbo is no substitute for a genuine national broadband strategy. It
doesn�t give either businesses or consumers the kind of certainty that they are entitled to. And I simply
cannot accept, when the stakes are so high, that deferring difficult decisions�rather than actually making
them�constitutes a responsible regulatory framework.
To be sure, we have clarified certain questions about E911 and CALEA and decided (unwisely in
my view) that broadband providers need not contribute to Universal Service. But we still haven�t
addressed important questions about such things as privacy, disabilities access and the future of the
Internet. I hope that we will move expeditiously to patch these alarming holes in the leaky roof we have
created. Until we do so, I fear it will be the American public that gets soaked.
Moreover, the multi-faceted nature of wireless services and devices raises a whole host of novel
questions that today�s Order does not even attempt to answer. For instance: consider a cutting-edge
device like Apple�s much-anticipated iPhone, which allows a user to communicate via IP-based Wi-Fi
technology as well as traditional CMRS service. Under our precedent, a consumer who uses the CMRS
features of the device to place a phone call can be secure in the knowledge that our Title II CPNI rules
require the carrier to protect his or her call and location information
der a cutting-edge
device like Apple�s much-anticipated iPhone, which allows a user to communicate via IP-based Wi-Fi
technology as well as traditional CMRS service. Under our precedent, a consumer who uses the CMRS
features of the device to place a phone call can be secure in the knowledge that our Title II CPNI rules
require the carrier to protect his or her call and location information. But what about when that very same
consumer uses that very same device just moments later to send an email via Wi-Fi, to call up a map of
his or her location via a browser, or even to place a VoIP call to another Internet user? Because those
services�which the customer can be excused for thinking of as functionally identical to the CMRS call�
are now classified as Title I information services, the carrier appears to be entirely free, under our present
rules, to sell off aspects of the customer�s call or location information to the highest bidder. Caveat
emptor, indeed!
Finally, I would like to point out one additional�and more promising�aspect of today�s
decision. Back in 2005, the Commission issued a policy statement adopting four principles applicable to
Internet access services, including that �consumers are entitled to connect their choice of legal devices
that do not harm the network.�1 Now that IP-based wireless services are classified as Title I information
services, the inescapable logical implication of our 2005 decision is that the right to attach network
devices�as well as the three other principles of our policy statement�now applies to wireless broadband
services.
1 Policy Statement, FCC 05-151, at 3 (2005) (citing Hush-A-Phone Corp. v. United States, 238 F.2d 266, 269 (D.C.
Cir. 1956); Use of the Carterfone Device in Message Toll Telephone Service, 13 FCC 2d 420 (1968)) (The other
principles are: �[C]onsumers are entitled to access the lawful Internet content of their choice
les of our policy statement�now applies to wireless broadband
services.
1 Policy Statement, FCC 05-151, at 3 (2005) (citing Hush-A-Phone Corp. v. United States, 238 F.2d 266, 269 (D.C.
Cir. 1956); Use of the Carterfone Device in Message Toll Telephone Service, 13 FCC 2d 420 (1968)) (The other
principles are: �[C]onsumers are entitled to access the lawful Internet content of their choice. � [C]onsumers are
entitled to run applications and use services of their choice, subject to the needs of law enforcement. �
[C]onsumers are entitled to competition among network providers, application and service providers, and content
providers.�)
Federal Communications Commission FCC 07-30
28
I believe the Commission accordingly has a clear and pressing responsibility to open a rulemaking
that will clarify how these Title I principles should be applied in the wireless context. I also believe we
should include questions about how and whether the classification of CMRS services as Title II services
incorporates the principle of the seminal 1968 Carterfone decision.2 I believe that our answers to these
questions�or our failure to answer them�will have a direct impact on the pace of technological
innovation in the years ahead and on the extent to which consumers can take full advantage of that
innovation.
Indeed, as the Commission has already recognized in a host of areas�such as Carterfone�s
discussion of the PSTN, our 2005 Policy Statement�s discussion of the Internet, and our rules on cable
set-top boxes�consumers generally benefit when they can select from among a range of network
attachments, including devices not chosen for them by their service provider. Indeed, without these
decisions, groundbreaking devices like the fax machine and dial-up modem�which provided most of us
with our first taste of the Internet�would never have become so commonplace and so inexpensive so
quickly
op boxes�consumers generally benefit when they can select from among a range of network
attachments, including devices not chosen for them by their service provider. Indeed, without these
decisions, groundbreaking devices like the fax machine and dial-up modem�which provided most of us
with our first taste of the Internet�would never have become so commonplace and so inexpensive so
quickly. Nor is it likely that so many of us would have set up home networks and Wi-Fi routers if service
providers were free to charge us an extra fee for doing so.
In light of the enormous benefits that the Commission�s device attachment rules have enabled for
so many of the networks regulated by the Commission, I would have preferred that today�s
reclassification item contain an NPRM teeing up these issues for wireless networks. I certainly hope that
my colleagues will join me in taking up these important questions soon. There is so much potential in
wireless broadband�for consumers and entrepreneurs both�and our challenge is to do everything we
can to make sure the promise of these pioneering technologies is redeemed.
2 See id.
Federal Communications Commission FCC 07-30
29
CONCURRING STATEMENT OF
COMMISSIONER JONATHAN S. ADELSTEIN
Re: Appropriate Regulatory Treatment for Broadband Access to the Internet Over Wireless
Networks, WT Docket No. 07-53
In this Declaratory Ruling, the Commission clarifies the regulatory framework for wireless
broadband services. We determine that the treatment should be consistent with the framework established
for broadband Internet access services provided over cable modem, wireline broadband, and power line
facilities. While I have reservations with several aspects of this approach and the lack of public input into
this process, I generally support this Declaratory Ruling because it is consistent with our broader efforts
to treat similar services in a similar manner across technology platforms
for broadband Internet access services provided over cable modem, wireline broadband, and power line
facilities. While I have reservations with several aspects of this approach and the lack of public input into
this process, I generally support this Declaratory Ruling because it is consistent with our broader efforts
to treat similar services in a similar manner across technology platforms.
Now that we have put these providers on similar footing, it is high time to turn to protecting
consumers in the broadband age. In fact, it is frustrating that the Commission is able to generate yet
another reclassification item while the Broadband Consumer Protection Notice that we adopted over 18
months ago, and that will form the centerpiece of our consumer protection policies in this new
framework, remains pending. Instead, we are devoting resources to an item that was not even specifically
teed up by an interested party nor put out for public comment. Of course, some might say it is a lot easier
to generate an item quickly when there is no record to consider. Perhaps the handwriting was on the wall,
with no nuance to consider. But looking at the strained legal analysis in this item and the questions left
unanswered, it is hard to see how specific public input would not have benefited this item.
The goal of this Declaratory Ruling is ostensibly to promote wireless broadband deployment. It
is hard to fathom how it is likely to make much difference in the near term considering that no party
bothered to ask us to formally consider it. It is hard to see how clarifying the regulatory classification will
promote deployment when nobody was saying it was ever an impediment.
Rather than just going through the motions, I have made promoting wireless broadband
deployment one of my key goals while at the Commission
ly to make much difference in the near term considering that no party
bothered to ask us to formally consider it. It is hard to see how clarifying the regulatory classification will
promote deployment when nobody was saying it was ever an impediment.
Rather than just going through the motions, I have made promoting wireless broadband
deployment one of my key goals while at the Commission. Fostering deployment is so important because
we continue to see a residential broadband market in which, according to FCC statistics, telephone and
cable operators control a nearly 98 percent share, with many consumers lacking any meaningful choice of
providers. So, if we are to give our communities the communications tools to compete on the global
economic stage, it is critical that we take steps to promote much-needed competition in the provision of
broadband services.
In many different proceedings, I have made wireless broadband deployment a priority and have
actively worked with industry to secure real deployment. For example, I personally worked with Sprint
and Nextel to secure significant build-out commitments from the companies to launch service in the 2.5
GHz band in association with their merger. The companies provided a specific schedule of
implementation milestones that signal a commitment to deploy wireless broadband to at least 30 million
Americans across 20 markets, both large and small. The infusion of capital into this market should
stimulate product and service offerings that ultimately will benefit both the commercial and educational
segments of the 2.5 GHz industry.
Similarly, I put a strong emphasis on promoting the availability of affordable wireless broadband
services through our review of the AT&T-BellSouth merger
ericans across 20 markets, both large and small. The infusion of capital into this market should
stimulate product and service offerings that ultimately will benefit both the commercial and educational
segments of the 2.5 GHz industry.
Similarly, I put a strong emphasis on promoting the availability of affordable wireless broadband
services through our review of the AT&T-BellSouth merger. I worked closely with AT&T to secure the
company�s commitment to launch service in the under-used 2.3 GHz band by agreeing to a specific
Federal Communications Commission FCC 07-30
30
construction commitment over the next three and a half years. In addition, the applicants committed to
divest 2.5 GHz band licenses and leases held in the southeast, which will lead to the deployment of
wireless broadband services in this market in direct competition to the newly formed company.
I have also jumpstarted wireless broadband efforts in the 2.5 GHz band by pushing the
Commission to adopt more significant construction safe harbors. I believe the 2.5 GHz band has so much
potential, and we already are seeing companies provide broadband services in dozen of markets across the
country. I also pushed for more meaningful safe harbors in association with the construction extension
afforded the 2.3 GHz industry. But I was unsuccessful in that effort because others would not support a
greater commitment to wireless broadband deployment in conjunction with a three-year construction
extension.
So it is against that backdrop that I review the item before me. At bottom, the legal approach we
take here may not be my preferred option but I concur in today�s decision for the same reasons that I
concurred in our previous reclassification decisions.1 As I made clear at the time we adopted the Wireline
Broadband Internet Access Order, the reclassification approach raises some difficult questions about the
legal and policy framework for broadband services
ottom, the legal approach we
take here may not be my preferred option but I concur in today�s decision for the same reasons that I
concurred in our previous reclassification decisions.1 As I made clear at the time we adopted the Wireline
Broadband Internet Access Order, the reclassification approach raises some difficult questions about the
legal and policy framework for broadband services. My underlying concern with the reclassification
approach has always been that it takes the Commission outside the ambit of those core legal protections
and grounding afforded by Congress. Yet, I have been willing to move forward because we are acting in
a manner consistent with the Supreme Court�s guidance in the Brand X decision, and this Declaratory
Ruling, in turn, will give us an opportunity to adopt a consistent approach for cable, wireline, power line
broadband, and now wireless broadband services.
But even as we move forward with this decision today, it is worth mentioning some of the
important issues that we should make our first priority � chief among those is the protection of
consumers. Indeed, my support for the reclassification approach has been conditioned on the
Commission�s decision to use its Title I authority to address important consumer protection and other
concerns that remain relevant no matter how we classify broadband. I premised my support for the
Wireline Broadband Internet Access Order on our decision to adopt a concurrent and important
Broadband Consumer Protection Notice that sought comment on how we can ensure that we continue to
meet our consumer protection obligations in the Act. It has now been 18 months since we opened that
inquiry, so it is more important than ever that we make this proceeding a top priority.
Consumers must be at the top of our list, not the bottom, as we move into the broadband era
and important
Broadband Consumer Protection Notice that sought comment on how we can ensure that we continue to
meet our consumer protection obligations in the Act. It has now been 18 months since we opened that
inquiry, so it is more important than ever that we make this proceeding a top priority.
Consumers must be at the top of our list, not the bottom, as we move into the broadband era. Our
experience with the widespread and unauthorized proliferation of consumer telephone call records has
been a sharp reminder that this Commission has an obligation to ensure that consumers� privacy
expectations are met. But that privacy concern is not limited to the narrowband world. Consumers don�t
care whether their sensitive information is transferred by copper wire, fiber optic cable, a power line
connection, or a wireless broadband link. They merely want us to implement and enforce the legal
protections afforded by Congress.
We also need to advance the discussion of other sensitive issues, like our Truth-in-Billing rules,
access for persons with disabilities, and the preservation and advancement of universal service. Universal
1 Concurring Statement of Commissioner Jonathan S. Adelstein, Appropriate Framework for Broadband Access to
the Internet over Wireline Facilities, CC Docket No. 02-33, FCC 05-150, Report and Order and Notice of Proposed
Rulemaking (August 5, 2005) (Wireline Broadband Internet Access Order and Broadband Consumer Protection
Notice). Concurring Statement of Commissioner Jonathan S. Adelstein, United Power Line Council�s Petition for
Declaratory Ruling Regarding the Classification of Broadband over Power Line Internet Access Service as an
Information Service, WC Docket No. 06-10, FCC 06-165, Memorandum Opinion and Order (November 3, 2006)
(Wireline Broadband Internet Access Order and Broadband Consumer Protection
Notice). Concurring Statement of Commissioner Jonathan S. Adelstein, United Power Line Council�s Petition for
Declaratory Ruling Regarding the Classification of Broadband over Power Line Internet Access Service as an
Information Service, WC Docket No. 06-10, FCC 06-165, Memorandum Opinion and Order (November 3, 2006).
Federal Communications Commission FCC 07-30
31
service is a particularly critical because the Commission has a statutory obligation to ensure the sound
footing of our federal programs that ensure access for school, libraries, low income consumers, and Rural
America. This item also affects the jurisdictional classification of wireless broadband services without
exploring the implications for consumer protection or universal service.
Finally, I am troubled with a couple of specific aspects in our Declaratory Ruling. One suggested
reason for this decision is that it will provide regulatory certainty to wireless broadband Internet service
providers. But we must be careful in drawing such a bright line between wireless broadband services and
commercial mobile services and the regulatory protections that come with CMRS status. Those
protections can be important for many small wireless providers, so we must be careful not to violate the
tenet of �First, Do No Harm� in drawing such a firm distinction. Moreover, to get to that distinction, the
Commission engages in some legal gymnastics, particularly the conclusion that an interconnected mobile
wireless broadband Internet access service should not be considered a commercial mobile service. In our
bid to provide regulatory certainty, we must be careful not to leave providers to rely on such a tenuous
legal framework.
For all these reasons, I concur in this Order
istinction, the
Commission engages in some legal gymnastics, particularly the conclusion that an interconnected mobile
wireless broadband Internet access service should not be considered a commercial mobile service. In our
bid to provide regulatory certainty, we must be careful not to leave providers to rely on such a tenuous
legal framework.
For all these reasons, I concur in this Order.
Federal Communications Commission FCC 07-30
32
STATEMENT OF
COMMISSIONER DEBORAH TAYLOR TATE
Re: Appropriate Regulatory Treatment for Broadband Access to the Internet Over Wireless
Networks, WT Docket No. 07-53
Today, we continue down the path of deregulation as we move forward to ensure that the benefits
of the new Digital Age accrue to all Americans. Specifically, we eliminate some of the regulatory
requirements and uncertainties regarding wireless broadband services by classifying it as an �information
service.� The broadband Internet access market today is characterized by multiple platforms that are
vigorously competing for customers. In prior proceedings, the Commission has classified cable, wireline,
and BPL-enabled Internet access as information services. I am pleased that we do so in a technology-
neutral manner that provides wireless broadband Internet access services a level playing field with other
Internet access services.
Federal Communications Commission FCC 07-30
33
STATEMENT OF
COMMISSIONER ROBERT M. McDOWELL
Re: Appropriate Regulatory Treatment for Broadband Access to the Internet Over Wireless
Networks, WT Docket No. 07-53
Since coming to the Commission, I have advocated for the creation of regulatory parity when
possible. With respect to video franchising, for instance, I pressed for a follow up, fast-track rulemaking
to quickly build a record on the possibility of extending the de-regulatory benefits set forth in our recently
released order to all video providers, be they incumbent cable providers or over-builders
oming to the Commission, I have advocated for the creation of regulatory parity when
possible. With respect to video franchising, for instance, I pressed for a follow up, fast-track rulemaking
to quickly build a record on the possibility of extending the de-regulatory benefits set forth in our recently
released order to all video providers, be they incumbent cable providers or over-builders. And, I am
pleased that we will release that order no later than September. All market players deserve the certainty
and regulatory even-handedness necessary to spark investment, speed competition, empower consumers,
and make America a stronger player in the global economy.
Today�s action to classify wireless broadband Internet access service as an information service
creates regulatory parity. Our determination, which the Commission has previously taken for Internet
access over cable modem, wireline and power line facilities, will maximize innovation and consumer
benefits by ensuring that the market-driven framework established by Congress is fully realized as
wireless services continue to flourish and evolve. This year in particular the Commission is in an
excellent position to promote the dissemination of wireless licenses among a wide variety of applicants,
whether licensed or unlicensed, and therefore I believe our action is timely. I am excited about our work
to prepare for the forthcoming 700 MHz auction, as well as future deployment in the TV �white spaces,�
because I am hopeful that the competitive opportunities presented by these proceedings, along with the
certainty we create with today�s ruling, will broaden the ability for entities seeking to enter the global
wireless marketplace.
With respect to the substance of our action today, we first remind providers of wireless broadband
Internet access services that any consumer protection obligations adopted in other related proceedings are
extended to them
by these proceedings, along with the
certainty we create with today�s ruling, will broaden the ability for entities seeking to enter the global
wireless marketplace.
With respect to the substance of our action today, we first remind providers o
This text is long and has been trimmed here. Open the source document for the complete record.
This is a copy of a public record, reproduced as it was published. It is not legal advice, and it may not be the version a court would rely on. Check the official source before you cite it.