August 3, 2000


Separate Statement of
Commissioner Gloria Tristani


Re:	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. 

	I guardedly concur with today’s Report.  While the Report concludes that certain 
populations are “particularly vulnerable to not receiving advanced services in a timely 
fashion,” it does not sufficiently state the at risk status of these populations.  Moreover, in 
order to comply with our statutory mandate to “determine whether advanced 
telecommunications capability is being deployed to all Americans in a reasonable and 
timely fashion,” we must have a better picture of the deployment of advanced services 
than the existing data afford.  

I am troubled about the factors and data that suggest certain populations – those 
living in rural areas, the U.S. territories, inner cites, and tribal areas, as well as low 
income consumers and minorities -- are at heightened risk of not having access to 
advanced services if left to market forces alone.  As the Report indicates, the data show a 
correlation between population density and the presence of broadband subscribers, with 
areas of low population density much less likely to have subscribers to broadband 
services.  Thus, rural consumers and those on Indian lands outside of population centers 
are particularly at risk.  Other factors, such as the limitations of particular technologies, 
further increase this risk.  Moreover, the correlation between income and advanced 
services indicates that low-income consumers are likewise at risk of not having access to 
broadband services, a risk heightened by other factors including the poor quality existing 
plant in inner cities.

A review of data showing penetration rates for residential high-speed services 
shows great variance in penetration rates among states.  I note that among certain states 
and U.S. territories, including Wyoming, Puerto Rico, and New Mexico, residential 
penetration is as low as 0.23%.  These data underscore the need to learn more about the 
relationship between penetration rates and particular population groups, so that we may 
more closely monitor deployment of advanced services.

While the Commission undertook new data collection efforts in preparation for 
this second report on the deployment of advanced telecommunications capability, the 
available data do not provide a full and accurate picture of the state of deployment.  The 
data on which the Report relies suffer from several weaknesses that undermine our ability 
to draw well-supported conclusions and to identify with specificity at-risk communities.  
The Commission must rectify this when we undertake data collection efforts in the future.  

As the Report itself acknowledges, the zip code data are of limited usefulness, 
because providers were asked to report whether there is at least one subscriber in a 
particular zip code, not the number of subscribers in a particular zip code.  Thus, the data 
do not indicate the extent to which the presence of broadband in a particular zip code 
indicates more widespread availability.  The availability of data on actual numbers of 
subscribers in a particular zip code or data at a more granular geographic area would 
provide a better picture of the state of deployment.  Similarly, because providers were not 
required to distinguish between residential and small business customers, the data do not 
provide an accurate snapshot of deployment to residential users.  In some zip codes, 
broadband and advanced services may be available to business users but unavailable, and 
perhaps unaffordable, to residential users.  In addition, the available data do not track 
service providers with fewer than 250 lines installed to subscribers in any state.  
Accordingly, there may be a substantial number of small providers’ lines that are 
unreported, another piece of data that is necessary for a more complete view of 
deployment.

Another major weakness of the data is the lack of information concerning 
deployment in the United States territories:  Puerto Rico, Guam, the U.S. Virgin Islands, 
the Northern Mariana Islands, and American Samoa.  The limited data suggest that there 
is virtually no advanced services deployment outside the fifty states, but the Commission 
must engage in further outreach to ensure full reporting and to understand how 
reasonable and timely deployment in these areas can be assured.

It bears emphasizing that while the case studies included in the Report provide 
instructive examples of successful broadband deployment strategies, there is no evidence 
that these case studies are representative of communities of their size in terms of 
advanced services deployment.  While I am pleased to read about deployment success 
stories, the availability of broadband in four of the five communities studied does not 
provide reassurance that deployment of advanced services is reasonable and timely.
 
	I commend the Commission’s efforts in this year’s Report, which I think 
represents a substantial improvement both in breadth of data and analysis over last year’s 
effort.  I particularly commend our staff’s work at interpreting the data.  Once again, I am 
hopeful that the Commission will continue to learn from its experience and ensure that it 
has a more accurate picture of advanced services deployment in our next report.

In sum, while our report again concludes that the deployment of advanced 
services is reasonable and timely, it indicates there are populations at risk of being left 
behind the high-speed bandwagon.  As Congress determined in Section 706 and 
throughout the Act, this Commission’s responsibility to encourage deployment of 
advanced services is to all Americans, whether they live in the suburbs, the farms, the 
reservations, the inner cities, or outside the continental United States.  Congress, wisely 
foresaw and recognized that advanced services must be universally available so that all 
Americans and all communities throughout America can benefit and be part of the 
information economy.  In accordance with Congress’s direction, we must take the 
necessary steps to ensure that the populations that we have identified as vulnerable and at 
risk, no longer remain so.

1

2