FCC 10 129a1

Federal Communications Commission
FCC 10-129
Before the
Washington, D.C. 20554
In the Matter of
Inquiry Concerning the Deployment of Advanced
Telecommunications Capability to All Americans
in a Reasonable and Timely Fashion, and Possible
Steps to Accelerate Such Deployment Pursuant to
Section 706 of the Telecommunications Act of
1996, as Amended by the Broadband Data
Improvement Act
A National Broadband Plan for Our Future
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
GN Docket No. 09-137
GN Docket No. 09-51
SIXTH BROADBAND DEPLOYMENT REPORT

Adopted: July 16, 2010
Released: July 20, 2010
By the Commission: Chairman Genachowski and Commissioners Copps and Clyburn issuing separate
statements; Commissioners McDowell and Baker dissenting and issuing separate statements.
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Para.
I. INTRODUCTION .................................................................................................................................. 1
II. BACKGROUND .................................................................................................................................... 8
III. STATUS OF BROADBAND DEPLOYMENT..................................................................................... 9
A. Benchmarking Broadband................................................................................................................ 9
B. Evidence of Broadband Availability.............................................................................................. 16
1. Model....................................................................................................................................... 18
2. Subscribership Data................................................................................................................. 19
a. Unserved Areas................................................................................................................. 20
b. Subscription Rates Are Lower in Native Homeland Areas............................................... 25
3. Consumer Survey .................................................................................................................... 26
4. International Report................................................................................................................. 27
IV. BROADBAND IS NOT BEING DEPLOYED TO ALL AMERICANS IN A
REASONABLE AND TIMELY FASHION........................................................................................ 28
V. IMMEDIATE ACTION TO ACCELERATE DEPLOYMENT .......................................................... 29
VI. ORDERING CLAUSES....................................................................................................................... 30
APPENDIX A Commenters
APPENDIX B Unserved Areas by State or U.S. Territory
APPENDIX C Unserved Areas by County or County Equivalent
APPENDIX D Commissions Report on High-Speed Services for Internet Access: Status as of
December 31, 2008

I.
FCC 10-129
INTRODUCTION
1. This is the Commissions Sixth Report issued under section 706 of the Telecommunications
Act of 1996, as amended,1 which requires the Commission to determine annually whether broadband2 is
being deployed to all Americans in a reasonable and timely fashion.3 Our analysis of broadband
subscribership data and the broadband availability model constructed for the National Broadband Plan4
indicates that while a substantial majority of Americans have access to broadband connections capable of
originat[ing] and receiv[ing] high-quality voice, data, graphics, and video telecommunications,5 roughly
80 million American adults do not subscribe to broadband at home,6 and approximately 14 to 24 million
Americans remain without broadband access capable of meeting the requirements set forth in section 706.
47 U.S.C. 1302(b) (2010). Section 706 of the Telecommunications Act of 1996, Pub. L. No. 104-104, 706, 110
Stat. 56, 153 (the Act), as amended in relevant part by the Broadband Data Improvement Act, Pub. L. No. 110-385,
122 Stat. 4096 (2008) (BDIA), is now codified in Title 47, Chapter 12 of the United States Code. See 47 U.S.C.
1301 et seq. We now refer to the reports required under section 706 of the Act as broadband deployment reports
and have updated our references to prior reports accordingly.
2
As explained below, in this report we use the term broadband synonymously with advanced
telecommunications capability. See infra para. 10.
3
47 U.S.C. 1302(b). As a one-time event, to take advantage of the Commissions parallel effort to understand the
state of broadband deployment when developing the National Broadband Plan, this years inquiry was conducted in
conjunction with the National Broadband Plan proceeding. See FCC, OMNIBUS BROADBAND INITIATIVE (OBI),
CONNECTING AMERICA: THE NATIONAL BROADBAND PLAN, GN Docket No. 09-51 (2010) (NATIONAL BROADBAND
PLAN); Inquiry Concerning the Deployment of Advanced Telecommunications Capability to All Americans in a
Reasonable and Timely Fashion, and Possible Steps to Accelerate Such Deployment Pursuant to Section 706 of the
Telecommunications Act of 1996, as Amended by the Broadband Data Improvement Act; A National Broadband
Plan for Our Future, GN Docket Nos. 09-51, 09-137, Notice of Inquiry, 24 FCC Rcd 10505, 10513, para. 14 (2009)
(Sixth Broadband Deployment NOI); A National Broadband Plan for Our Future, GN Docket No. 09-51, Notice of
Inquiry, 24 FCC Rcd 4342 (2009) (National Broadband Plan NOI), subsequent Public Notices omitted; see also 47
U.S.C. 1305(k)(2) (The national broadband plan required by this section shall seek to ensure that all people of the
United States have access to broadband capability . . . .). As a consequence, much of the analysis we rely on in this
report is summarized in the National Broadband Plan and documents released in support thereof. To avoid
unnecessary duplication, some of our findings and analyses from the Plan are adopted by reference.
4
As explained below, we estimate broadband availability using two sources of data: the FCC Form 477 Part 1A
broadband data collection for December 2008 (Dec. 2008 Form 477 Broadband Data) and the National Broadband
Plan model (Model). See infra Part III.B; Apps. B & C.
5
47 U.S.C. 1302(d)(1) (defining advanced telecommunications capability); see supra note 2.
See NATIONAL BROADBAND PLAN at 167 (relying on the 2010 Broadband Consumer Survey and stating that
[w]hile 65% of Americans use broadband at home, the other 35% (roughly 80 million adults) do not); JOHN
HORRIGAN, OBI, BROADBAND ADOPTION AND USE IN AMERICA 3 (OBI Working Paper Series No. 1, Feb. 2010)
(2010 BROADBAND CONSUMER SURVEY), available at http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC296442A1.pdf. We note that the 2010 Broadband Consumer Survey counted home broadband users as those who
said they used any one of the following technologies to access the internet from home: cable modem, a DSL-enabled
phone line, fixed wireless, satellite, a mobile broadband wireless connection for your computer or cell phone, fiber
optic, [or] T-1 without reference to the download or upload speed of their connection. Id. at 3. If the broadband
speed benchmark used in this report had been used in the survey, it is likely that a larger number of Americans
would have been reported as not having broadband.
FCC 10-129
Notwithstanding tremendous efforts by industry and government, those Americans will not gain such
access in the near future absent changes in policy.7
2. Accordingly, we conclude that broadband deployment to all Americans is not reasonable and
timely. This conclusion departs from previous broadband deployment reports, which held that even
though certain groups of Americans were not receiving timely access to broadband, broadband
deployment overall was reasonable and timely.8
3. As a consequence of that conclusion, section 706 mandates that the Commission take
immediate action to accelerate deployment of [advanced telecommunications] capability by removing
barriers to infrastructure investment and by promoting competition in the telecommunications market.9
The Commission will fulfill that requirement in part by addressing the proposals for Commission action
set forth in the National Broadband Plan.10
4. In determining whether broadband is being deployed to all Americans in a reasonable and
timely fashion, this Sixth Report takes the overdue step of raising the minimum speed threshold for
broadband from services in excess of 200 kilobits per second (kbps) in both directionsa standard
adopted over a decade ago in the 1999 First Broadband Deployment Report.11 As anticipated in previous
broadband deployment reports, technologies, retail offerings, and demand among consumersor in
other words, network capabilities, consumer applications and expectationshave evolved in ways that
demand increasing amounts of bandwidth and require us to [raise] the minimum speed for broadband
See infra Part IV; see also NATIONAL BROADBAND PLAN at 136; infra note 121 (explaining that broadband revenue
potential in certain areas of the United States is likely insufficient to cover the costs of deploying and operating
broadband networks, thus depriving industry of a business case to offer broadband services in these areas).
8
See Inquiry Concerning the Deployment of Advanced Telecommunications Capability to All Americans in a
Telecommunications Act of 1996, CC Docket No. 98-146, Report, 15 FCC Rcd 20913, 20918, 2099521003, paras.
8, 21743 (2000) (2000 Second Broadband Deployment Report) (concluding that [o]verall, deployment of
[broadband] to residential customers is reasonable and timely although certain categories of Americansincluding
low-income consumers, those living in sparsely populated or rural areas, minority consumers, Indians, persons with
disabilities and those living in the U.S. territoriesare vulnerable to not having timely access to broadband); see
also Inquiry Concerning the Deployment of Advanced Telecommunications Capability to All Americans in a
Telecommunications Act of 1996, CC Docket No. 98-146, Report, 14 FCC Rcd 2398, 2405, para. 16 (1999) (1999
First Broadband Deployment Report); Inquiry Concerning the Deployment of Advanced Telecommunications
Capability to All Americans in a Reasonable and Timely Fashion, and Possible Steps to Accelerate Such
Deployment Pursuant to Section 706 of the Telecommunications Act of 1996, CC Docket No. 98-146, Report, 17
FCC Rcd 2844, 2845, para. 1 (2002) (2002 Third Broadband Deployment Report); Availability of Advanced
Telecommunications Capability in the United States, GN Docket No. 04-54, Report, 19 FCC Rcd 20540, 20547
(2004) (2004 Fourth Broadband Deployment Report); Inquiry Concerning the Deployment of Advanced
Telecommunications Capability to All Americans in a Reasonable and Timely Fashion, and Possible Steps to
Accelerate Such Deployment Pursuant to Section 706 of the Telecommunications Act of 1996, GN Docket No. 0745, Report, 23 FCC Rcd 9615, 9616, para. 1 (2008) (2008 Fifth Broadband Deployment Report).
9
47 U.S.C. 1302(b).
10
See, e.g., NATIONAL BROADBAND PLAN at xixv.
11
See 1999 First Broadband Deployment Report, 14 FCC Rcd at 2406, para. 20 (stating, in relevant part, that
broadband and advanced telecommunications capability hav[e] the capability of supporting, in both the
provider-to-consumer (downstream) and the consumer-to-provider (upstream) directions, a speed . . . in excess of
200 [kbps] in the last mile).
FCC 10-129
from 200 kbps to, for example, a certain number of megabits per second (Mbps).12 To put 200 kbps in
context, in 1999, voice-over-broadband or interconnected voice over Internet protocol (VoIP) was just
beginning to emerge as a consumer application, and web pages were almost entirely text-based, with little
embedded graphics or video, making 200 kbps an arguably sufficient benchmark for broadband capability
at the time. Today, interconnected VoIP is subscribed to by over 21 million Americans,13 most web sites
feature rich graphics and many embed video, and numerous web sites now exist primarily for the purpose
of serving video content to broadband users.14 As a result, and as predicted by previous broadband
deployment reports, services at 200 kbps are not now capable of originat[ing] and receiv[ing] highquality voice, data, graphics, and video telecommunications, as those capabilities are delivered by
todays technology and experienced and expected by todays broadband users.15 As a result, we find that
the 200 kbps threshold is no longer the appropriate benchmark for measuring broadband deployment for
the purpose of this broadband deployment report.
5. As an alternative benchmark for this years report, and given that this years inquiry was
conducted in conjunction with the National Broadband Plan proceeding, we find it appropriate and
reasonable to adopt instead the minimum speed threshold of the national broadband availability target
proposed in the National Broadband Plan. The National Broadband Plan recommends as a national
broadband availability target that every household in America have access to affordable broadband
service offering actual download (i.e., to the customer) speeds of at least 4 Mbps and actual upload (i.e.,
from the customer) speeds of at least 1 Mbps.16 This target was derived from analysis of user behavior,
demands this usage places on the network, and recent experience in network evolution.17 It is the
minimum speed required to stream a high-quality even if not high-definitionvideo while leaving
sufficient bandwidth for basic web browsing and e-mail, a common mode of broadband usage today that
comports directly with section 706s definition of advanced telecommunications capability.18 As the
target for the broadband capability that the National Broadband Plan recommends should be available to
all Americans, this speed threshold provides an appropriate benchmark for measuring whether broadband
12
Id. at 240708, para. 25 ([W]e may find in future reports that evolution in technologies, retail offerings, and
demand among consumers has raised the minimum speed for broadband from 200 kbps to, for example, a certain
number of megabits per second (Mbps).); see also 2000 Second Broadband Deployment Report, 15 FCC Rcd at
20921, para. 14 (similar); 2002 Third Broadband Deployment Report, 17 FCC Rcd at 2851, para. 10 (recogniz[ing]
that products are beginning to emerge that require high-bandwidth capability, such as high-definition video and that
it may be appropriate to adjust the points at which we gauge advanced telecommunications capability in the
future); 2004 Fourth Broadband Deployment Report, 19 FCC Rcd at 20549. See also NATIONAL BROADBAND
PLAN at 1617 & Exh. 3-C.
13
Service providers reported more than 21 million U.S. subscriptions for interconnected VoIP service in the FCCs
Form 477 data collection for December 2008. See Dec. 2008 Form 477 Broadband Data.
14
See NATIONAL BROADBAND PLAN at 16, Exh. 3-B (reporting that 42% of home broadband users have downloaded
or streamed video); see also NATIONAL BROADBAND PLAN at 17 (stating that Cisco forecasts that video
consumption on fixed and mobile networks will grow at over 40% and 120% per year, respectively, through 2013).
15
47 U.S.C. 1302(d)(1); see also infra Part III.A.
16
See infra Part III.A (benchmarking broadband for purposes of this report); NATIONAL BROADBAND PLAN at 135
(recommending that the national broadband availability target also include acceptable quality of service for the
most common interactive applications).
17
See NATIONAL BROADBAND PLAN at 21, 25 n.50, 13536; see also OBI, BROADBAND PERFORMANCE (Technical
Paper, forthcoming).
18
47 U.S.C. 1302(d)(1) (defining advanced telecommunications capability).
FCC 10-129
deployment to all Americans is proceeding in a reasonable and timely fashion. It is by this benchmark
that we find that broadband remains unavailable to approximately 14 to 24 million Americans.19
6. We recognize that ensuring universal broadband is the great infrastructure challenge of our
time and deploying broadband nationwideparticularly in the United Statesis a massive undertaking.20
Therefore, we emphasize that our conclusion in no way diminishes the achievements industry has made
deploying better and faster forms of broadband to most Americans, nor the Commissions past efforts to
foster broadband deployment.21 The fact remains, however, that to ensure the realization of section 706s
goal that all Americans may benefit from the full range of services described in the statute, much more
remains to be done to foster broadband deployment.22
7. As a consequence of our conclusion that broadband is not being deployed to all Americans in
a reasonable and timely fashion, section 706 mandates that the Commission take immediate action to
accelerate deployment of [advanced telecommunications] capability by removing barriers to infrastructure
investment and by promoting competition in the telecommunications market.23 The National Broadband
Plan outlines a number of ways the Commission and others may accelerate broadband deployment.24 In
compliance with section 706, we will consider the proposals for Commission action set forth in the
National Broadband Plan for ways to remove barriers to infrastructure investment and promote
competition in telecommunications markets. The Commission issued a proposed agenda for considering
key recommendations of the National Broadband Plan.25 The Commission explained the purpose and
timing of more than sixty rulemakings and other notice-and-comment proceedings that when completed
19
See infra Part III.B; Apps. B & C; see also, e.g., NATIONAL BROADBAND PLAN at 136 (stating that, [a]t present,
there are 14 million people living in seven million housing units that do not have access to terrestrial broadband
infrastructure capable of meeting the National Broadband Availability Target). Even if the Commission were to
use a significantly slower speed threshold to measure broadband, the evidence shows that 12 million Americans
today lack access to terrestrial broadband services capable of delivering actual download speeds in excess of 768
kbps. See id. at 157 n.7.
20
See id. at 3.
21
See, e.g., Letter from Jay Bennett, Assistant Vice President Federal Regulatory, AT&T Services Inc., to Marlene
H. Dortch, Secretary, FCC, GN Docket No. 09-137, Attach. (filed June 14, 2010) (AT&T June 14 Ex Parte Letter)
(summarizing industry achievements in broadband deployment); Letter from Glenn T. Reynolds, Vice President
Policy, USTelecom, to Marlene H. Dortch, Secretary, FCC, GN Docket No. 09-137 (filed July 2, 2010) (USTelecom
July 2 Ex Parte Letter) (similar).
22
See USTelecom July 2 Ex Parte Letter at 5 (It is absolutely appropriate for the Commission to be concerned
about the remaining small percentage of Americans who may not have access to broadband in the foreseeable future
because such deployment is not currently economically viableindeed, Section 254 of the Act gives the
Commission both the responsibility and the authority to ensure access to advanced telecommunications and
information services . . . in all regions of the Nation.); AT&T June 14 Ex Parte Letter at 2 (emphasizing that to
the extent advanced telecommunications capability is not available over terrestrial networks in some limited areas,
the Commissions own data show that such lack of availability is due to the extremely high cost of serving those
areas).
23
47 U.S.C. 1302(b).
24
See, e.g., NATIONAL BROADBAND PLAN at xixv; id. at xv (stating that half of the recommendations in the
National Broadband Plan are offered to the Commission).
25
See FCC Announces Broadband Action Agenda, FCC News Release (rel. Apr. 8, 2010) (FCC Broadband Action
Agenda); see also Proposed 2010 Broadband Action Agenda Items, http://www.broadband.gov/plan/broadbandaction-agenda.html (last visited June 30, 2010).
FCC 10-129
will accelerate deployment and adoption of robust, affordable broadband for all Americans.26 Through
proceedings already underway and those that are still to be announced, we will work to ensure that every
American has a meaningful opportunity to benefit from the broadband communications era as
envisioned by section 706.27
II.
BACKGROUND
8. Section 706 requires the Commission to annually initiate a notice of inquiry concerning the
availability of advanced telecommunications capability to all Americans (including, in particular,
elementary and secondary schools and classrooms).28 In conducting this inquiry, the Commission must
determine whether advanced telecommunications capability is being deployed to all Americans in a
reasonable and timely fashion.29 Section 706 also requires the Commission to provide demographic
information for unserved areas30 and include an international comparison in its annual broadband
deployment report.31 The Commission must also conduct a consumer survey to evaluate the national
characteristics of the use of broadband and make the results of the survey public at least once per year.32
If the Commission finds that broadband is not being deployed to all Americans in a reasonable and timely
fashion, then the Commission shall take immediate action to accelerate deployment of such capability by
removing barriers to infrastructure investment and by promoting competition in the telecommunications
26
FCC Broadband Action Agenda at 1. For example, the National Broadband Plan explains that, [i]nfrastructure
such as poles, conduits, rooftops and rights-of-way play an important role in the economics of broadband networks.
Ensuring service providers can access these resources efficiently and at fair prices can drive upgrades and facilitate
competitive entry. NATIONAL BROADBAND PLAN at xii. To optimize infrastructure, the National Broadband Plan
recommends that the Commission [e]stablish low and more uniform rental rates for access to poles, and simplify
and expedite the process for service providers to attach facilities to poles and [i]mprove rights-of-way
management for cost and time savings. Id. The Commission has active proceedings to address pole attachments
and rights-of-way issues. See FCC Broadband Action Agenda at 6; Implementation of Section 224 of the Act;
Amendment of the Commissions Rules and Policies Governing Pole Attachments, WC Docket No. 07-245, RM11293, RM-11303, Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, 22 FCC Rcd 20195 (2007); Implementation of Section 224 of
the Act, A National Broadband Plan for Our Future, WC Docket No. 07-245, GN Docket No. 09-51, Order and
Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, FCC 10-84 (rel. May 20, 2010); Wireline Competition Bureau Seeks
Comment on Level 3 Communications Petition for Declaratory Ruling that Certain Right-of-Way Rents Imposed by
the New York State Thruway Authority are Preempted Under Section 253, WC Docket No. 09-153, Public Notice,
24 FCC Rcd 10998 (2009).
27
See Joint Statement on Broadband, GN Docket No. 10-66, 25 FCC Rcd 3420, para. 1 (2010).
28
47 U.S.C. 1302(b).
29
Id.
30
47 U.S.C. 1302(c) (requiring the Commission, in part, to compile a list of geographical areas not served by any
provider of advanced telecommunications capability).
31
47 U.S.C. 1303(b).
32
47 U.S.C. 1303(c). Although the Commission must make publicly available the results of the consumer surveys
it conducts at least once per year, the statute does not require that this be done in the broadband deployment report.
47 U.S.C. 1303(c)(2). As discussed below, the Commission unveiled the results of its first consumer survey on
February 23, 2010. See infra Part III.B.3; 2010 BROADBAND CONSUMER SURVEY.
FCC 10-129
market.33 The Sixth Broadband Deployment NOI contains a more detailed discussion of background
information relevant to the present inquiry.34
III.
STATUS OF BROADBAND DEPLOYMENT

A.
Benchmarking Broadband
9. Section 706 defines advanced telecommunications capability as high-speed, switched,

broadband telecommunications capability that enables users to originate and receive high-quality voice,
data, graphics, and video telecommunications using any technology.35 Over a decade ago in the 1999
First Broadband Deployment Report, the Commission determined that advanced telecommunications
capability and advanced servicesand, in effect, broadbandare services and facilities with an
upstream (customer-to-provider) and downstream (provider-to-customer) transmission speed of more than
200 kbps.36 At that time, the Commission rightly predicted that as technologies evolve, the concept of
broadband will evolve with it: we may consider todays broadband to be narrowband when tomorrows
technologies are deployed and consumer demand for higher bandwidth appears on a large scale.37
Nevertheless, all of the Commissions subsequent broadband deployment reports have been based on the
broadband speed threshold the Commission adopted in the 1999 First Broadband Deployment Report.
10. After considering the evidence in the record,38 we conclude that the Commissions broadband
speed threshold has not kept pace with the evolution of technology and consumer expectations. Although
we continue to treat advanced telecommunications capability and broadband as synonymous terms in this
report,39 we find that 200 kbps simply is not enough bandwidth to enable a user, using current technology,
to originate and receive high-quality voice, data, graphics, and video telecommunications, as section
706 requires of such services.40 Today, Americans increasingly are using their broadband connections to
33
47 U.S.C. 1302(b).
34
See Sixth Broadband Deployment NOI, 24 FCC Rcd at 1050521, paras. 132 (discussing the nations evolving
broadband goals, improvements in broadband data collection, and the actions the Commission, Congress, and other
governmental entities have taken concerning broadband that are relevant to the present report).
35
47 U.S.C. 1302(d)(1).
36
1999 First Broadband Deployment Report, 14 FCC Rcd at 2406, para. 20. The Commission has used the term
high-speed to describe services with over 200 kbps capability in at least one direction. See 2000 Second
Broadband Deployment Report, 15 FCC Rcd at 20920, para. 11; 2002 Third Broadband Deployment Report, 17
FCC Rcd at 285051, para. 9; 2004 Fourth Broadband Deployment Report, 19 FCC Rcd at 20551.
37
See supra note 12.
38
In the Sixth Broadband Deployment NOI and throughout this proceeding, we asked for comment on how the
Commission should define broadband. See Sixth Broadband Deployment NOI, 24 FCC Rcd at 1052325, paras. 36
41; National Broadband Plan NOI, 24 FCC Rcd at 434648, paras. 1522; Comment Sought on Defining
Broadband NBP Public Notice # 1, GN Docket Nos. 09-47, 09-51, 09-137, Public Notice, 24 FCC Rcd 10897
(2009).
39
See, e.g., CTIA Comments at 28 (stating that Congress apparently used broadband and advanced
telecommunications capability interchangeably and that the two terms, in fact, mean the same thing); Time Warner
Cable Comments at 4 (same); Western Telecommunications Alliance Comments at 45; NASUCA June 8, 2009
Comments in GN Docket 09-51 at 1213.
40
47 U.S.C. 1302(d)(1); see, e.g., NATIONAL BROADBAND PLAN at 17, Exh. 3-C. The Commission previously has
recognized that 200 kbps is insufficient bandwidth to enable the transmission of live video. See, e.g., Development
of Nationwide Broadband Data to Evaluate Reasonable and Timely Deployment of Advanced Services to All
Americans, Improvement of Wireless Broadband Subscribership Data, and Development of Data on Interconnected
Voice over Internet Protocol (VoIP) Subscribership, WC Docket No. 07-38, Report and Order and Further Notice of
Proposed Rulemaking, 23 FCC Rcd 9691, 9700, para. 19 (2008) (2008 Broadband Data Gathering Order)
(continued)
FCC 10-129
access high-quality video, and we anticipate that this demand will only continue to grow in the future.41
For example, many Americans now communicate with their families and friends through desktop
videoconference calls.42 Many users also now post their own videos and view others on such sites as
YouTube and Hulu.43 Instead of reading articles online, Americans often watch videos of todays top
stories.44 The growth and demand for high-quality videos by Americans is substantial, and this demand is
expected to grow at over 40 percent and 120 percent per year, respectively, through 2013.45
11. Thus, for purposes of this report,46 we update the Commissions broadband speed threshold.
Specifically, we benchmark broadband as a transmission service that actually enables an end user to
download content from the Internet at 4 Mbps and to upload such content at 1 Mbps over the broadband
providers network.47 Of the many possible service characteristics that could be used for this purpose, we
(continued from previous page)
(explaining that the range of information transfer capacities included in the current lowest tier of 200 kbps to 2.5
mbps captures a wide variety of services, ranging from services capable of transmitting real time video to simple
always-on connections not suitable for more than basic email or web browsing activities); Order on
Reconsideration, 23 FCC Rcd 9800 (2008). Nevertheless, in previous broadband deployment reports, the
Commission declined to modify its understanding of broadband to account for this limitation in part because
consumer demand for such services was only starting to emerge. See, e.g., 2002 Third Broadband Deployment
Report, 17 FCC Rcd at 2852, para. 12 (stating that certain applications, such as some video products, require
transmission speeds in excess of 200 kbps and that [a]s technology continues to evolve, and with it, consumer
expectations, it may be appropriate to adopt a higher threshold for advanced telecommunications capability and
revisit our analysis of deployment).
41
NATIONAL BROADBAND PLAN at 17.
42
Id.
43
Id.
44
Id.
45
Id. (stating that Cisco forecasts that video consumption on fixed and mobile networks will grow at over 40% and
120% per year, respectively, through 2013).
46
We emphasize that we are benchmarking broadband in this report solely for purposes of complying with our
obligations under section 706. We specifically do not intend this speed threshold to have any other regulatory
significance under the Commissions rules absent subsequent Commission action. For example, todays report has
no impact on which entities are classified as interconnected VoIP providers or what facilities must be provided on an
unbundled basis. See 47 C.F.R. 9.3 (defining interconnected VoIP service in relevant part as a service that
[r]equires a broadband connection from the users location); 47 C.F.R. 51.5 (defining advanced services); 47
C.F.R. 51.319(a)(2) (setting forth UNE obligations for hybrid loops). This report also does not prejudge the
outcome of possible changes to the Universal Service Fund (USF) or other Commission proceedings. See, e.g.,
NATIONAL BROADBAND PLAN at 14051; Connect America Fund, A National Broadband Plan for Our Future,
High-Cost Universal Service Support, WC Docket No. 10-90, GN Docket No. 09-51, WC Docket No. 05-337,
Notice of Inquiry and Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, FCC 10-58 (rel. Apr. 21, 2010) (Connect America Fund NOI
and NPRM). Similarly, our decision to benchmark broadband by means of a 4 Mbps download and 1 Mbps upload
speed threshold does not mean that the Commission will stop collecting and analyzing data on services provided at
slower and faster speeds. See generally 47 C.F.R. 1.70001.7002 (requiring entities to provide advanced
telecommunications capability data to the Commission in accord with the FCC Form 477 instructions).
47
By increasing the broadband transmission speed threshold, we find a decreased level of broadband availability.
This is a natural consequence of consumer expectations and the bandwidth demands of technology rising faster than
broadband is being deployed to all Americans. We recognize that broadband providers continue to increase the
availability of services that provide lower transmission speeds, including those in excess of 200 kbps in each
direction. See App. D, INDUST. ANALYSIS & TECH. DIV., FCC, HIGH-SPEED SERVICES FOR INTERNET ACCESS:
STATUS AS OF DECEMBER 31, 2008, at 3 (rel. Feb. 2010) (February 2010 High Speed Report). The benchmarks we
(continued)
FCC 10-129
find this benchmark appropriate for several reasons.48 First, as discussed above, section 706 requires that
broadband services enable users to originate and receive high-quality voice, data, graphics, and video
telecommunications.49 Our examination of overall Internet traffic patterns reveals that consumers
increasingly are using their broadband connections to view high-quality video, and want to be able to do
so while still using basic functions such as email and web browsing.50 Indeed, we expect that it is not
uncommon for more than one person to make use of a single Internet connection simultaneously,
particularly in multi-member households that subscribe to a single Internet access service. The evidence
shows that streaming standard definition video in near real-time consumes anywhere from 1-5 Mbps,
depending on a variety of factors.51 The availability of broadband connections that actually enable an end
user to download content from the Internet at 4 Mbps and to upload such content at 1 Mbps over the
broadband providers network is therefore a reasonable estimate of the availability of advanced
telecommunications services as defined by the statute.
12. We also believe the benchmark is a reasonable point at which to measure broadband
availability because it has been updated to reflect current demand patterns. The record shows that
approximately half of all broadband consumers today purchase service that is advertised to deliver
download speeds of up to 7 Mbps (though evidence suggests that the actual speeds of these connections
may be roughly half of advertised speeds).52 In addition, current trends indicate that consumers are likely
adopt in this report refer to actual speeds rather than advertised or up to speeds for essentially the same reasons
as set forth in the National Broadband Plan. See NATIONAL BROADBAND PLAN at 1822; but see Letter from Neil
M. Goldberg, Vice President and Counsel for National Cable & Telecommunications Association, to Marlene H.
Dortch, Secretary, FCC, GN Docket No. 09-51 (filed Mar. 26, 2010). When referring to the speed of a transmission
over the broadband providers network, we generally mean the data throughput delivered between the network
interface unit (NIU)i.e., the subscribers modem or other customer premise equipment (CPE)and the service
providers Internet gateway that is the shortest administrative distance from that NIU. See NATIONAL BROADBAND
PLAN at 156 n.2. We may adopt a different understanding of actual speed in future proceedings.
48
See, e.g., ADTRAN Comments at 10 (urging the Commission to assess broadband deployment and availability,
not by the speed advertised by providers, but rather by the actual speeds consumers can reasonably expect under
ordinary operating conditions); Free Press Comments at 15 (same); NASUCA June 8, 2009 Comments in GN
Docket 09-51 at 1819 (same). Unlike prior broadband deployment reports, we do not adopt a symmetrical
broadband speed threshold. The Commission previously has recognized, given the asymmetric use of most
residential subscribers, fast upload rates do not appear to be as necessary as fast download rates. 2004 Fourth
Broadband Deployment Report, 19 FCC Rcd at 20552. We continue to believe that Congress intended [broadband]
to bring to all Americans a two-way, truly interactive medium, rather than one that is passive and entertainmentoriented. 2000 Second Broadband Deployment Report, 15 FCC Rcd at 20921, para. 12. Symmetrical broadband
speeds, however, are not necessarily a requirement for fully interactive broadband service today. At present,
symmetrical capacity is rarely offered to residential customers. See, e.g., ADTRAN Comments at 1314; NCTA
Reply at 34; Verizon Reply at 1617.
49
47 U.S.C. 1302(d)(1).
50
See NATIONAL BROADBAND PLAN at 1617.
51
See FCC Broadband Task Force Status Update at the FCC September Commission Meeting 23 (Sept. 29, 2009),
available at http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-293742A1.pdf.
52
Thus, approximately half of all broadband subscribers in the United States purchase broadband service meeting
our benchmark today. See NATIONAL BROADBAND PLAN at 21 (Estimates of the average advertised up to
download speed that Americans currently purchase range from 6.7 Mbps to 9.6 Mbps, with the most detailed data
showing an average of approximately 8 Mbps and a median of approximately 7 Mbps.); see also id. (explaining
that the broadband speed consumers experience, on average, is about half of the speed to which they subscribe); id.
at 156 n.3 (stating that the median actual download speed in the United States in the first half of 2009 was
approximately 3 Mbps and is expected to exceed 4 Mbps by the end of 2010); id. at 135; see also February 2010
(continued)
FCC 10-129
to continue purchasing increasingly fast broadband connections in the future. In particular, the record
shows that the average advertised speed purchased by broadband users has grown approximately 20%
each year for the last decade.53 In contrast, when the Commission initially adopted a broadband speed
threshold for purposes of complying with section 706, it estimated that only 0.4 percent of residential
customers subscribed to a level of service meeting the adopted speed threshold.54
13. Naturally, any benchmark the Commission might adopt to measure broadband availability
could be criticized as being too low in some contexts and too high in others.55 Our present goal in
selecting a benchmark to measure broadband availability is one shared with prior Commissions: to
giv[e] us a relatively static point at which to gauge the progress and growth in the advanced services
market from one Report to the next.56 The broadband benchmark takes estimated future demand into
account, in part to minimize the risk of the Commission being forced to update its broadband benchmarks
on an overly frequent basis.57 We find that the speed threshold we adopt today satisfies the historic
purpose of this report by establishing a practical goal: one that is neither so lofty as to be merely
aspirational, nor so minimal that consumers are consigned to rudimentary Internet access that does not
support the high-quality services (including video) referenced in the statute.58 In any event, even if the
Commission were to use a significantly slower speed threshold to measure broadband, we would still find
that a significant number of Americans are unserved by broadband. For example, the evidence shows that

High Speed Report at 18, chart 13 (reporting distribution of residential fixed high-speed connections by download
speed tier as of December 31, 2008).
53
See NATIONAL BROADBAND PLAN at 21.
54
See 1999 First Broadband Deployment Report, 14 FCC Rcd at 2446, para. 91; see also id. at 243031, para. 61
(chart showing the availability, download speed and partial cost of various Internet access technologies at the time
the Commissions initial broadband speed threshold was adopted).
55
For example, while broadband providers in many urban areas currently offer Internet access service at speeds well
in excess of 4 Mbps download/1 Mbps upload today, in other areas, consumers do not have the option to subscribe
to terrestrial broadband services capable of delivering even 768 kbps actual download speeds because their residence
is more than 16,000 feet from the nearest digital subscriber line access multiplexer (DSLAM). See NATIONAL
BROADBAND PLAN at 2021, Exhs. 3-E & 3-F (presenting timelines for network upgrades by provider and
technology); id. at 157 n.7; see also infra note 58 (illustrating that commenters recommended a very wide range of
speed thresholds for measuring broadband availability).
56
2002 Third Broadband Deployment Report, 17 FCC Rcd at 2851, para. 10; 2004 Fourth Broadband Deployment
Report, 19 FCC Rcd at 20552 (stating that [n]ow that first-generation broadband is available to the vast majority of
U.S. households, it will become important to monitor the migration to next-generation networks and services).
57
We base our predictions of future demand partially on trend data, which suggest that demand for advertised
download speeds is growing at a compound annual growth rate of approximately 20%, which translates to a
doubling in speed approximately every 2 to 4 years. See NATIONAL BROADBAND PLAN at 25 n.50 (reporting annual
growth rates in subscribed speed of approximately 2025% per year).
58
See, e.g., Covad Comments at i (suggesting 100 Mbps by 2015); Internet2 Sept. 8, 2009 Reply, GN Docket Nos.
09-47, 09-51, 09-137 at 7 (stating that the Commission should adopt a definition of 100 Mbps in both directions for
individual consumers); Verizon Comments at 9 (recommending a downstream target of 50 Mbps for fixed services
and 5 Mbps for mobile services); but see DCPSC Comments at 4 (recommending we adopt the same speeds as the
National Telecommunications and Information Administration (NTIA) and the Department of Agricultures Rural
Utilities Service (RUS) of at least 768 kbps downstream and at least 200 kbps upstream to end users); NCTA
Comments at 3, 5 (same); TCA Comments at 3 (same).
10
FCC 10-129
12 million Americans today lack access to terrestrial broadband services capable of delivering actual
download speeds in excess of 768 kbps.59
14. Finally, the benchmark we have selected mirrors the speed threshold the National Broadband
Plan recommends as an initial national broadband availability target.60 The analysis that underlies the
selection of the national broadband availability target is equally applicable to our obligation to select an
appropriate benchmark for determining whether broadband is being deployed in a reasonable and timely
fashion. In both cases, the selection of a speed threshold focused on end user demand for high-quality
voice, data, graphics and video capabilities, not just as those services are used or experienced by current
subscribers, but as we expect them to evolve in the next several years.61 Furthermore, the benchmark we
have selected will allow the Commission to more easily measure progress towards accomplishment of the
goals set forth in the National Broadband Plan, which recommends that the Commission publish an
evaluation of plan progress and effectiveness as part of the annual broadband inquiry.62 Maintaining
consistency with the National Broadband Plan will avoid the confusion that likely would result from the
introduction of an additional speed threshold into the nationwide discussion of the National Broadband
Plan.
15. The Commissions broadband speed threshold benchmarks are not static, and we expect that
in the future consumers will demand other service features, perhaps including higher upload and
download speeds, service that meets specific functional criteria such as particular latency or jitter
thresholds, a symmetrical broadband connection, or the ability to stream high-definition video. We
recognize that as technologies evolve, the concept of broadband will evolve with it.63 Thus, we will
continue to monitor available technology and consumer expectations and modify our broadband
benchmarks accordingly.64 For the reasons described above, however, we find it appropriate for the
purposes of this report to benchmark broadband as a transmission service that actually enables an end user
to download content from the Internet at 4 Mbps and to upload such content at 1 Mbps over the
broadband providers network.
B.
Evidence of Broadband Availability
16. This years broadband deployment report is based on more comprehensive broadband data
than any of the Commissions prior reports. Our specific estimates of broadband availability are based
primarily on two sources of data: the Model that Commission staff created in conjunction with the
development of the National Broadband Plan and, consistent with previous broadband deployment
reports, the broadband subscribership data the Commission collects on FCC Form 477.65 For the first
59
See NATIONAL BROADBAND PLAN at 157 n.7.
60
Id. at 135. The National Broadband Plan also recommends that the actual 4 Mbps download and 1 Mbps upload
benchmark be used as a guide to public funding for broadband. See id. As explained above, this report adopts
benchmarks for broadband solely for the purposes of complying with the Commissions obligations under section
706 and does not prejudge any issues related to possible changes to USF funding mechanisms or other support. See
supra note 46.
61
See 47 U.S.C 1302(d)(1); NATIONAL BROADBAND PLAN at 1617.
62
See NATIONAL BROADBAND PLAN at xv, 334.
63
1999 First Broadband Deployment Report, 14 FCC Rcd at 240708, para. 25.
64
For example, the National Broadband Plan recommends revisiting the National Broadband Availability Target
every four years. See NATIONAL BROADBAND PLAN at 135.
65
See supra note 4; Dec. 2008 Form 477 Broadband Data; Apps. B & C; NATIONAL BROADBAND PLAN at 20, 129,
136; see also id. at 157 n.6; OBI, THE BROADBAND AVAILABILITY GAP (Technical Paper No. 1, 2010) (2010
BROADBAND AVAILABILITY GAP), attached to Connect America Fund NOI and NPRM at App. C. Naturally, our
(continued)
11
FCC 10-129
time, we also used Census Bureau data to help us understand how broadband availability varies by
particular demographics, such as income level and population density.66 To gain further insight into the
national characteristics of the use of broadband service capability, the Commission conducted a
consumer survey.67 Finally, we have conducted an international comparison of the extent of broadband
service capability, which will be released shortly.68
17. Comprehensive broadband data are essential to determining whether broadband is being
deployed to all Americans in a reasonable and timely fashion. Congress, the Commission, and other
federal agencies all have taken steps to improve broadband data collection efforts.69 Because these efforts
are on-going, the full range of new broadband data are not yet available. For example, February 2011 is
the deadline for the NTIA to post on its web site a comprehensive nationwide inventory map of existing
broadband service capability and availability.70 In addition, the National Broadband Plan recommends
that the Commission collect and analyze detailed market-by-market information on broadband pricing and
competition.71 We therefore expect that future broadband deployment reports will benefit from the

methods are limited by the available data and are therefore imperfect. For example, subscriber data are an imperfect
proxy for broadband availability or deployment. See, e.g., Sixth Broadband Deployment NOI, 24 FCC Rcd at
1052627, para. 45; 1999 First Broadband Deployment Report, 14 FCC Rcd at 2402, para. 7 (relying on
subscribership data as a proxy for deployment and availability, and noting that such data may not be a precise
estimate of actual deployment and availability); see also February 2010 High Speed Report at 45, nn.16 & 17
(explaining that mobile wireless connections are only reported at the state level and some business connections
could be miscategorized as residential connections); AT&T Comments at 3435 (supporting the use of Form 477
data because it is the Commissions primary and most reliable source of subscribership statistics); but see CPUC
Reply at 4 (recommending against the use of subscribership data because [a]vailability data, or infrastructure data,
shows where broadband is available. Meanwhile, subscribership data denotes where consumers are choosing to
purchase broadband service.). In addition, the only demographic information we collect in our subscription data is
the Census Tract in which the subscriber receives service. See infra note 105. We therefore caution that, due to the
limitations of the data, the lists of unserved areas compiled in this report necessarily are approximations and may be
both over- and under-inclusive. We will continue striving to improve the quality of the data we collect and our
analysis.
66
The Commission was unable to conduct this type of analysis in prior broadband deployment reports because the
data it previously collected were not sufficiently granular to allow a meaningful analysis of Census Bureau
categories. See February 2010 High Speed Report at 23 (describing significant changes the Commission made in
2008 in the broadband subscribership data it collects and the implications of this change); see also 47 U.S.C.
1302(c) (directing the Commission to determine the population, the population density, and the average per
capita income for unserved areas to the extent that Census Bureau data are available).
67
47 U.S.C. 1303(c)(1). See infra Part III.B.3; 2010 BROADBAND CONSUMER SURVEY.
68
See International Comparison Requirements Pursuant to the Broadband Data Improvement Act, International
Broadband Data Report, GN Docket No. 09-47, (forthcoming) (International Broadband Data Report); see also 47
U.S.C. 1303(b).
69
See Sixth Broadband Deployment NOI, 24 FCC Rcd at 1051321, paras. 1532. In 2008, the Commission
improved the quality of the data it collects on Form 477 and issued a Further Notice to consider additional
improvements in its broadband data collection. See 2008 Broadband Data Gathering Order, 23 FCC Rcd at 9708
12, paras. 3340.
70
47 U.S.C. 1305(l); see also 47 U.S.C. 1304(e)(10), (g); National Broadband Plan NOI, 24 FCC Rcd at 4364
65, para. 61. NTIA must make this inventory map accessible to the public on an NTIA website in a form that is both
interactive and searchable. 47 U.S.C. 1305(l).
71
12
FCC 10-129
continued progress being made to better understand broadband availability, which in turn should help the
nation reach its goal of universal broadband deployment.72
1.
Model
18. As part of the development of the National Broadband Plan, Commission staff developed a
nationwide model for broadband availability for both wired and wireless technologies.73 The output of
that model shows that approximately 14 million Americans, living in 7 million housing units, cannot get
residential broadband service that meets the benchmark adopted in this report.74
2.
Subscribership Data
19. Consistent with previous broadband deployment reports, we also estimate broadband
availability by analyzing the residential broadband subscribership data the Commission collects on Form
477.75 Every six months, the Commission collects on Form 477 basic service information from
broadband providers. Form 477 requires a provider to report, by Census Tract, the total number of
subscribers, the proportion of these subscribers that are residential subscribers, and the number of
subscribers broken down by speed tier (i.e., the bandwidth of the Internet access connection provided to
that customer) and technology.76 Our analysis of the Commissions subscribership data confirms the
overall levels of broadband availability indicated by the Model.77
a.
Unserved Areas
20. Before presenting our estimates, we highlight several key features of our analysis. First,
although the Commissions subscribership data are collected by Census Tract, we have aggregated
providers residential subscribership totals for the whole county (or county equivalent) due to questions
about the accuracy of the most recent data collected at the Census Tract level on Form 477.78 We
72
See, e.g., 47 U.S.C. 1301(3) (stating that [i]mproving Federal data on the deployment and adoption of
broadband service will assist in the development of broadband technology across all regions of the Nation).
73
See supra note 4; NATIONAL BROADBAND PLAN at 20, 129, 136; see also id. at 157 n.6; 2010 BROADBAND
AVAILABILITY GAP at 17.
74
Id.
75
See Dec. 2008 Form 477 Broadband Data; see also, e.g., 2002 Third Broadband Deployment Report, 17 FCC Rcd
at 2850, para. 9; 2004 Fourth Broadband Deployment Report, 19 FCC Rcd at 20567; 2008 Fifth Broadband
Deployment Report, 23 FCC Rcd at 9618, para. 6. Subscribership data from Form 477 also were analyzed for
purposes of better understanding competition among broadband providers in conjunction with the development of
the National Broadband Plan. See NATIONAL BROADBAND PLAN, CHAPTER 4: BROADBAND COMPETITION AND
INNOVATION POLICY at 3361. Because that competition analysis did not focus on broadband availability, we do not
rely on it in this report.
76
See 2008 Broadband Data Gathering Order, 23 FCC Rcd at 970001, para. 20 n.66. The analysis above was
based on the data collected under the modified Form 477 requirements. Formerly, Form 477 required covered
providers to report the number of broadband connections they provide in each state as well as the 5-digit ZIP codes
for which they had at least one customer. Local Competition and Broadband Reporting, CC Docket No. 99-301,
Report and Order, 15 FCC Rcd 7717, 774346, paras. 4952 (2000).
77
Compare supra note 73 (Model) with infra note 89 (Form 477 subscribership data).
78
See February 2010 High Speed Report at 45 (stating that for reasons of accuracy and confidentiality certain
results are presented at the level of the whole county); see also id. at 5 n.17 (explaining that the data as filed disclose
10% of Census Tracts have a share of households with high-speed connections over fixed-location technologies at or
above 100% and that the number of such outliers is substantially reduced, to 1%, when estimates are made for
individual counties and that [s]ome misinterpretation of reporting instructions can be expected whenever a
substantially modified data collection is implemented for the first time. We are investigating the reasons for these
(continued)
13
FCC 10-129
emphasize this decision is driven by the data and does not represent a Commission conclusion that
counties necessarily always are the best way to determine the geographical areas that are not served by
broadband under section 706.79 Second, because the speed tiers used to collect broadband information on
Form 477 do not match exactly the broadband benchmark adopted for purposes of this report, we must
select a reasonable proxy to conduct our analysis. Of the 72 combinations of upload and download
advertised transmission speeds for which the Commission collects data, the tiers closest to the benchmark
adopted in this report are those beginning at 3 Mbps or 6 Mbps download speed and 768 kbps or 1.5
Mbps upload speed.80 Because both OBI analysis and Form 477 data indicate that higher speeds are
available to more subscribers than elect to purchase them,81 and because the Form 477 data reflects
subscriber purchasing choices rather than availability,82 we take a conservative approach and select 3
Mbps download speed and 768 kbps upload speed as the cutoffs for the subscriber choice likely to
indicate that service offering actual speeds of 4 Mbps download and 1 Mbps upload is available to the
subscriber.83
21. Third, we have applied a de minimis threshold, under which we find broadband to be
available in a county only if at least 1 percent of the households in that county subscribe to broadband.84
We do not believe it is appropriate to assume that broadband is available to everyone in a county merely
because a single person in that county subscribes to broadband.85 At the same time, we recognize that not
anomalous census tract results and are working with the Form 477 filers to improve the accuracy of the data
currently collected and for future collections.).
79
See 47 U.S.C. 1302(c); see also, e.g., NCTA Comments at 89 (suggesting the Commission should define
geographic area in terms of Census Tracts, as it currently does for Form 477 but consider going forward, using
Census Block data, in coordination with NTIA). Because Form 477 currently does not collect data for geographic
areas smaller than the Census Tract, such as a Census Block, we reject suggestions to analyze the Commissions
broadband subscribership data on the basis of geographic areas smaller than a Census Tract. See, e.g., DCPSC
Comments at 8; Free Press Comments at 7778; NJ Rate Counsel Comments at 1213.
80
See 2008 Broadband Data Gathering Order, 23 FCC Rcd at 970001, para. 20.
81
OBI analysis indicates that 95% of the U.S. population lives in housing units with access to terrestrial, fixed
broadband infrastructure capable of supporting actual download speeds of at least 4 Mbps. NATIONAL BROADBAND
PLAN at 20. However, no more than half of those that purchase high-speed Internet access service actually purchase
services capable of delivering 4 Mbps download speeds. See supra para. 12, note 52. Our analysis of Form 477
data likewise shows that in counties where cable modem service with advertised download speeds of 3 Mbps and
upload speeds of 768 kbps are available, only 39% of cable modem subscribers choose to purchase at that speed or
higher. See Dec. 2008 Form 477 Broadband Data.
82
See FCC, FCC FORM 477, INSTRUCTIONS FOR MARCH 1, 2010 FILING (OF DATA AS OF 12/31/2009) at 6, Part III.B,
available at http://www.fcc.gov/Forms/Form477/477inst.pdf.
83
Were the Commission to conduct its Form 477 analysis with cutoffs of 6 Mbps download speed and 1.5 Mbps
upload speed, a larger number of Americans would be reported as lacking broadband access capable of meeting the
requirements set forth in section 706.
84
For each area we examine, we define the subscription rate as the number of residential connections that are at least
3 Mbps down and 768 kbps up divided by the number of households in the area. See App. B, Technical Notes 2 &
3. See also February 2010 High Speed Report at 5 n.17 (noting that the household subscription rate for an area is
the total number of residential connections in that area at a particular speed threshold divided by the estimated
number of households in that area).
85
See, e.g., Letter from Melissa E. Newman, Vice President Federal Relations, Qwest Corporation, to Marlene H.
Dortch, Secretary, FCC, WC Docket Nos. 09-47, 09-51, 09-137, Attach. at 15 (filed Sept. 17, 2009) (providing
Qwests proposal for broadband deployment to unserved areas and recognizing that the Commissions former use
(continued)
14
FCC 10-129
everyone for whom broadband is available elects to purchase it. For example, many consumers today
obtain Internet access via transmission services slower than the 4 Mbps upload and 1 Mbps download
speed threshold adopted in this report, even if a transmission service meeting this threshold is available.86
Given current subscription rates for Internet access transmission services of various speeds, we find
applying a 1 percent de minimis threshold in our availability analysis appropriately balances these
concerns.87 In particular, a 1 percent threshold will treat every county that literally is not served by any
provider of broadband as unserved, as well as those counties in which only a small fraction of the
households subscribe to broadband service.88 At the same time, because the 1 percent threshold is low,
we minimize the risk that we classify an area as unserved when broadband service in fact is available to a
majority of households, even if household adoption rates in that area happen to be relatively low.
(i)
1,024 Counties are Unserved Areas
22. Based on the analysis described above, we estimate that 1,024 out of 3,230 counties in the
United States and its territories are unserved by broadband.89 These unserved areas are home to 24
million Americans living in 8.9 million households.90 As set forth in more detail in Appendix B, the
1,024 unserved areas have, on average: (1) a population of 23,479; (2) a population density of 138.3
people per square mile; and (3) a per capita income of $14,565 measured in 1999 dollars.91 In contrast, a
typical U.S. census area has, on average: (1) a population of 95,481; (2) a population density of 283.5
people per square mile; and (3) a per capita income of $17,232 measured in 1999 dollars.92

of zip codes [was] problematic; as commentators have pointed out . . . it is questionable to conclude that an area is
served by a broadband provider if any part of the relevant zip code enjoys broadband service).
86
See supra note 81.
87
Based on the Commissions subscribership data collected on Form 477, 56% of all households subscribe to an
Internet access service faster than dial-up, and 45% of all households that subscribe to such a service, subscribe to a
service meeting our speed benchmark. These figures are somewhat lower than the figures reported in the National
Broadband Plan and in the 2010 Broadband Consumer Survey, which are based upon more recent data. See
NATIONAL BROADBAND PLAN at 167 (relying on the 2010 Broadband Consumer Survey and stating that [w]hile
65% of Americans use broadband at home, the other 35% (roughly 80 million adults) do not); 2010 BROADBAND
CONSUMER SURVEY at 13 (reporting that 65% of Americans use broadband at home where broadband is understood
to be any Internet access technology faster than dial-up).
88
47 U.S.C. 1302(c) (emphasis added). We find our interpretation of the statutory language described above to be
reasonable and faithful to Congresss intent, and preferable to the alternative interpretations of the statute we
considered. Nevertheless, we may find it appropriate to modify the de minimis threshold for identifying unserved
areas in the future.
89
47 U.S.C. 1302(c); Apps. B & C; NCTA Comments at 8 (stating that [t]he degree to which the size of the
[unserved] list shrinks over time will be a simple, yet effective, measure of the success of the Commissions
National Broadband Plan).
90
47 U.S.C. 1302(c); App. B (reporting the number of unserved areas in each state and U.S. territory).
91
47 U.S.C. 1302(c) (directing the Commission to determine the population, the population density, and the
average per capita income for unserved areas to the extent that Census Bureau data are available); App. B. As of the
time of this report, Per Capita Income was available from the Census Bureau only in 1999 dollars. See App. B,
Technical Note 4; CENSUS BUREAU, CENSUS 2000 SUMMARY FILE 3, http://www.census.gov/PressRelease/www/2002/sumfile3.html (last visited Mar. 24, 2010).
92
App. B.
15

(ii)
FCC 10-129
Unserved Areas Appear to Have Lower Income Levels
23. The unserved areas appear to have lower income levels than the U.S. as a whole.93 To
measure economic well-being, we examined Median Household Income and the percent of the population
living in poverty.94 We find that, when measured in 1999 dollars, on average, the 1,024 unserved areas
have a Median Household Income of $28,626 compared to $34,809 for the U.S. as a whole. We find that,
when measured in 2008 dollars, for 934 of the 1,024 unserved areas for which we have this information,95
the unserved areas have a Median Household Income, on average, of $37,785 compared to $44,172 for
the U.S. overall.96 Moreover, based on the percent of the population estimated by the Census Bureau to
live in poverty in 2008, we find, on average, 18.4 percent of the population live in poverty in the 934
unserved areas for which we have data, compared to 15.2 percent of the population for the U.S. overall.97
(iii)
Unserved Areas Appear to Be More Rural
24. The unserved areas also appear to be more rural than the U.S. as a whole.98 To determine
whether the unserved areas we identified were in urban or rural areas, we examined both household
density and housing units categorized as rural by the Census Bureau.99 On average, these 1,024 unserved
areas have a household density of 46.8 households per square mile and have 73 percent of the housing
units categorized as rural by the Census Bureau. In contrast, for the U.S as a whole, the typical county
93
Id.
94
Id.
95
Id. While we have Median Household Income in 1999 dollars for all 1,024 counties, we only have Median
Household Income in 2008 dollars for 934 of the 1,024 unserved areas. See id., Technical Note 4. We do not have
Median Household Income in 2008 for one county in Alaska, one county in Hawaii, and for all of the U.S.
territories. Id.
96
See App. B.
97
Id. & Technical Note 5. Hypothesis testing reveals a statistically significant difference, at the 95% confidence
level, in the mean income level between served and unserved areas for the income measures included in our
analysis. The Commissions recent High-Speed Report also suggests that subscription rates tend to increase with
income. See February 2010 High Speed Report at 52, 57, Charts 20 & 25; see also 2010 BROADBAND CONSUMER
SURVEY at 5 (reporting that 36% of non-adopter [respondents] cite cost as the main reason they do not have highspeed Internet at home); AT&T Comments at 47 (stating that low-income households struggling to make ends
meet may be reluctant to, or simply unable to, spend precious funds on broadband service); NATL TELECOMM. AND
INFO. ADMIN., DIGITAL NATION: 21ST CENTURY AMERICAS PROGRESS TOWARD UNIVERSAL BROADBAND
INTERNET ACCESS at 15 (2010), available at
http://www.ntia.doc.gov/reports/2010/NTIA_internet_use_report_Feb2010.pdf (Affordability . . . rates highest
among the major reasons for eschewing broadband at home among those with either no Internet at home or only
dial-up service.).
98
See App. B & Technical Notes 6 & 7; see also Broadband Opportunity Coalition Comments at 7 (stating that
deployment is severely lacking in isolated rural communities, such as Weirwood, Virginia, that are not situated
along major highways); Qwest Comments at 5 (stating that [c]learly the status quo is not working in regard to
rural deployment and change is needed); USTA Comments at 10 (stating that more needs to be done to ensure the
timely and reasonable deployment of broadband to Americans in rural and other uneconomic areas); Verizon
Comments at 6 (stating that some Americans living in remote, sparsely populated, or otherwise hard-to-serve areas
still lack . . . broadband service other than satellite). See also infra note 121.
99
See App. B & Technical Notes 6 & 7.
16
FCC 10-129
has a household density of 108.2 households per square mile and has 59 percent of housing units
categorized as rural by the Census Bureau.100
b.
Subscription Rates Are Lower in Native Homeland Areas101
25. The Commission has in past broadband deployment reports examined broadband availability
for various demographic groups, such as minorities, persons with disabilities, and Americans living in
Tribal areas.102 In particular, the Commission has recognized that certain categories of these Americans
are particularly vulnerable to not having access to broadband.103 In 2008, the Commission required Form
477 filers to report broadband connections by Census Tract permitting the Commission to conduct a
demographic analysis of subscription patterns.104 This change enables us to examine the subscription
rates in Native Homeland areas for the first time.105 We find that counties where at least half the
population lives in a Native Homeland area or where at least half the land mass is a Native Homeland
area also tend to have lower broadband subscription rates than the U.S. as a whole. We find that only
12.5 percent of all households on Native Homeland areas subscribe to a broadband service faster than
dialup compared to 56 percent of all households nationwide.106
100
Id. Hypothesis testing reveals a statistically significant difference, at the 95% confidence level, in the mean
income level between served and unserved areas for the rural indicator measures included in our analysis.
101
We designate a county as a Native Homeland area if at least 50% of the land mass is designated by the Census
Bureau as American Indian Area/Alaska Native Area/Hawaiian Homeland or at least 50% of the 2000 population
resided in the land area designated by the Census Bureau as American Indian Area/Alaska Native Area/Hawaiian
Homeland.
102
See, e.g., 2000 Second Broadband Deployment Report, 15 FCC Rcd at 20918, para. 8; see also supra note 8.
103
See supra note 8.
104
See February 2010 High Speed Report at 2.
105
We are, however, unable to draw definitive conclusions from the broadband subscription data for other
demographic groups. The Commission collects broadband providers subscription data by geographic area (Census
Tract) and does not collect customers demographic identity. At the time of this report, almost all of the countylevel demographic information that is readily available is from the 2000 Census. The Census Bureau estimates that
1 in 6 Americans move each year, and that roughly a third of these individuals change their county residence. See
KRISTIN A. HANSEN, CENSUS BUREAU, POPULATION PROFILE OF THE UNITED STATES: GEOGRAPHIC MOBILITY,
http://www.census.gov/population/www/pop-profile/geomob.html (last visited Mar. 24, 2010). Given the overall
migration patterns that may have occurred in the U.S. since 2000, we were concerned it could be misleading to draw
any inferences about demographic populations, such as minorities or persons with disabilities who likely changed
their residence. We assume that the geographic areas designated as Native Homelands did not significantly change
since 2000. Thus, we were able to confidently report on the subscription rates in Native Homeland areas. We note
that the Commissions Consumer Survey, discussed below, also reported demographic statistics for survey
respondents. See infra Part III.B.3. If we instead would designate a county as a Native Homeland area solely by
whether at least 50% of the land mass is designated by the Census Bureau as American Indian Area/Alaska Native
Area/Hawaiian Homeland, we would find similar levels of unserved Americans in such areas as compared to what is
reported below. See supra note 101. Specifically, under this alternative definition, we find there would be 106
unserved counties in Native Homeland areas, representing approximately 5 million Americans. Finally, we note that
other sources of information report that [s]ome segments of the populationparticularly low-income households,
racial and ethnic minorities, seniors, rural residents and people with disabilitiesare being left behind. NATIONAL
BROADBAND PLAN at 167; see also id. at 167, Exh. 9-A (reporting current adoption rates for different demographic
groups).
106
See Dec. 2008 Form 477 Broadband Data; see also supra note 87 (explaining a basis for why these figures, which
are based on the Commissions Form 477 data, differ somewhat from data reported in the National Broadband Plan
and the 2010 Broadband Consumer Survey).
17

3.
FCC 10-129
Consumer Survey
26. In October and November 2009, the Commission conducted its first periodic survey of endusers of the Internet [f]or the purpose of evaluating, on a statistically significant basis, the national
characteristics of the use of broadband service capability.107 On February 23, 2010, in compliance with
our new annual obligation, we released the results of our first survey, which was an effort to understand
the state of broadband adoption and use, as well as barriers facing those who do not have broadband at
home.108 The survey is novel in that it focused on the non-adoption of broadband at home so that its
results will help provide insight into factors associated with Americans who do not subscribe to an
Internet access service, even if one is available.109 With respect to non-adopters, the consumer survey
found that 35 percent or 80 million American adults do not use broadband at home and these Americans
fall into three categories, each with distinct demographic characteristics: (1) 22 percent of all American
adults do not use the Internet at all; (2) 6 percent of all American adults use the Internet but do not have
access at home, and (3) 6 percent of all American adults use dial-up Internet connections to go online
from home.110 The Commission will periodically conduct other consumer surveys, some of which may
focus on other aspects of the national characteristics of the use of broadband service capability.111
4.
International Report
27. Section 1303 requires the Commission to include an international comparison in its annual
broadband deployment report.112 Specifically, section 1303 requires the Commission to include
information comparing the extent of broadband service capability (including data transmission speeds and
price for broadband service capability) in a total of 75 communities in at least 25 countries abroad for
each of the data rate benchmarks for broadband service utilized by the Commission to reflect different
speed tiers.113 We are incorporating by reference a report from our International Bureau that will be
released shortly.114 This inaugural International Broadband Data Report will present data and
information on international broadband service capability, which is based on information submitted to the
107
47 U.S.C. 1303(c)(1).
108
See 2010 BROADBAND CONSUMER SURVEY at 3; 47 U.S.C. 1303(c)(2).
109
See 2010 BROADBAND CONSUMER SURVEY at 11. Survey respondents were asked what type of Internet access
transmission service they used at home, including dial-up. See, e.g., id. at 14. Because we are unable to discern
from the survey results what portion of the respondents use a broadband service, we do not rely on survey responses
regarding the availability of Internet access service to draw inferences regarding the availability of broadband in this
report.
110
See id. at 24; see also NATIONAL BROADBAND PLAN at 167.
111
See, e.g., 47 U.S.C. 1303(c)(1) (directing the Commission to conduct surveys of consumers in urban,
suburban, and rural areas, in the large business, small business, and residential consumer markets). On June 1,
2010, the Commission released the results of its second consumer survey, which focused on Americans
perspectives on online connection speeds. JOHN HORRIGAN & ELLEN SATTERWHITE, OBI, AMERICANS
PERSPECTIVES ON ONLINE CONNECTION SPEEDS FOR HOME AND MOBILE DEVICES (2010), available at
http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-298516A1.pdf; see also Press Release, FCC, FCC Survey
Finds 4 Out of 5 Americans Dont Know Their Broadband Speeds, Agency Announces Plans for National Speed
Testing, Starts Recruitment for 10,000 Volunteers (June 1, 2010), available at
http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-298525A1.pdf.
112
47 U.S.C. 1303.
113
47 U.S.C. 1303(b).
114
International Broadband Data Report. As the International Broadband Data Report will explain, that report
satisfies the Commissions obligations under the BDIA.
18
FCC 10-129
Commission and data gathered by Commission staff. The forthcoming International Broadband Data
Report also will provide information on, for example, actual prices advertised to consumers for broadband
services, community-level data, and information about the broadband market and broadband regulations
in various countries around the world.115
IV.
BROADBAND IS NOT BEING DEPLOYED TO ALL AMERICANS IN A REASONABLE

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

V.
FCC 10-129
IMMEDIATE ACTION TO ACCELERATE DEPLOYMENT
29. If the Commission finds that broadband is not being deployed in a reasonable and timely
manner, it must take immediate action to accelerate deployment of such capability by removing barriers
to infrastructure investment and by promoting competition in the telecommunications market.123 We
have already begun. The National Broadband Plan, which also seeks to ensure that all people of the
United States have access to broadband, proposes a number of ways to accelerate broadband deployment
by removing barriers to infrastructure investment and by promoting competition.124 Several proceedings
currently before the Commission provide a means to address some of these recommendations.125 Through
these proceedings, and others still to be commenced, we will work to ensure that broadband is being
deployed to all Americans in a reasonable and timely fashion.
VI.
ORDERING CLAUSES
30. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that, pursuant to section 706 of the Telecommunications Act
of 1996, as amended by the Broadband Data Improvement Act, 47 U.S.C. 1301 et seq., this Report IS
ADOPTED.
FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION
Marlene H. Dortch
Secretary

the deployment and adoption of broadband technology is vital to ensuring that our Nation remains competitive and
continues to create business and job growth); 47 U.S.C. 1305(k)(2) (directing the Commission to develop a
National Broadband Plan that would seek to ensure that all people of the United States have access to broadband
capability). Indeed, broadband is playing an increasingly central role in most aspects of American society. For
instance, broadband helps advance consumer welfare, civic participation, public safety and homeland security,
community development, health care delivery, energy independence and efficiency, education, worker training,
private sector investment, entrepreneurial activity, job creation and economic growth, and other national purposes.
47 U.S.C. 1305(k)(2)(D).
122
As stated above, we emphasize that our conclusion in this report in no way diminishes the progress broadband
providers have made to expand broadband deployment throughout America. See supra at para. 6. Nor should our
conclusion be taken as evidence that we are questioning the adequacy of the Commissions prior efforts to increase
broadband deployment.
123
See 47 U.S.C. 1302(b).
124
See NATIONAL BROADBAND PLAN at xixv; see also supra para. 7. Instead of choosing a specific path for
broadband in America, the plan describes actions the Commission and others should take in fostering innovation
and competition in networks, devices and applications; redirecting assets that government controls or influences in
order to spur investment and inclusion; and optimizing the use of broadband to help achieve national priorities. See
125
See supra note 26.
20
FCC 10-129
APPENDIX A
Comments in GN Docket No. 09-137
Commenter
ADTRAN, Inc.
AT&T Inc.
Broadband Opportunity Coalition et al.
Comcast Corporation
Covad Communications Company
CTIA - The Wireless Association
District of Columbia Public Service Commission
Free Press
National Association of State Utility Consumer Advocates
National Cable & Telecommunications Association
National Telecommunications Cooperative Association
New Jersey Division of Rate Counsel
One Economy
OPASTCO
PCIA and The DAS Forum
Pennsylvania Public Utility Commission
Qwest Corporation
Schools, Health and Libraries Broadband Coalition
Section 706 Joint Conference Committee
Sprint Nextel
SUNESYS, LLC
TCA Inc.
Time Warner Cable Inc.
United States Telecom Association
Verizon and Verizon Wireless
Wayne Longman
Western Telecommunications Alliance
Wireless Internet Service Providers Association
YourTel America Inc.
21
Abbreviation
ADTRAN
AT&T
Broadband Opportunity Coalition
Comcast
Covad
CTIA
DCPSC
Free Press
NASUCA
NCTA
NTCA
NJ Rate Counsel
One Economy
OPASTCO
PCIA
PPUC
Qwest
SHLB
Joint Conference
Sprint
SUNESYS
TCA
Time Warner Cable
USTA
Verizon
Wayne Longman
Western Telecommunications Alliance
WISPA
YourTel

Replies in GN Docket No. 09-137
Replies
AT&T Inc.
California Public Utilities Commission
Free Press
Georgia Power Company
GVNW Consulting, Inc.
National Association of State Utility Consumer Advocates
National Cable & Telecommunications Association
Verizon and Verizon Wireless
22
Abbreviation
AT&T
CPUC
Free Press
Georgia Power Company
GVNW
NASUCA
NCTA
Verizon
FCC 10-129
FCC 10-129
APPENDIX B
Unserved Areas
By State or U.S. Territory
Areas1
Population
(1000s)2
Households
(1000s)3
Average
Population
Average
Households
Average
Per Capita
Income
(1999)4
Average
Median
Household
Income
(1999)4
Average
Median
Household
Income
(2008)4
Average
%
Living
in
Poverty
(2008)5
Average
Household
Density6
Average
Population
Density6
Average
% Rural
Housing
7
All Areas
3,230
308,404.1
115,221.7
95,481
35,672
$17,232
$34,809
$44,172
15.2
108.20
283.47
59.1
Unserved
Areas
1,024
24,042.0
8,895.8
23,479
8,687
$14,565
$28,627
$37,785
18.4
46.79
138.30
72.6
78
19
3,954.0
3,450.8
1,307.8
1,338.3
50,693
181,623
16,766
70,438
$6,943
$18,784
$13,189
$37,345
$42,974
17.0
432.56
129.51
1,315.85
332.45
11.5
53.0
142
23
2,527.4
1,751.4
910.7
657.9
17,799
76,148
6,413
28,602
$15,348
$16,135
$30,163
$32,840
$38,896
$38,891
18.1
19.7
8.42
44.16
23.07
117.72
66.1
62.4
Mississippi
Arkansas
Oklahoma
Kentucky
Missouri
Georgia
Louisiana
Alabama
California
Tennessee
Kansas
Montana
South
Dakota
59
61
58
59
54
54
29
23
8
18
38
30
44
1,522.4
1,454.5
1,424.8
1,239.2
997.2
770.2
751.5
562.9
368.2
317.6
280.3
198.7
192.2
562.9
569.1
548.0
487.0
389.7
288.6
273.9
219.4
125.8
123.1
112.8
79.9
69.9
25,803
23,844
24,566
21,004
18,467
14,263
25,913
24,472
46,031
17,645
7,377
6,624
4,369
9,540
9,329
9,448
8,254
7,217
5,344
9,445
9,539
15,729
6,841
2,969
2,663
1,589
$13,636
$14,882
$15,294
$14,028
$14,879
$15,193
$13,371
$14,019
$18,049
$14,731
$16,892
$14,982
$14,016
$26,699
$27,888
$29,099
$26,125
$29,374
$29,701
$26,219
$26,586
$32,883
$27,819
$32,281
$28,287
$28,230
$32,551
$33,545
$38,532
$32,425
$36,216
$35,625
$34,437
$32,912
$40,602
$32,816
$40,732
$36,721
$37,530
24.4
20.8
17.6
23.9
18.1
21.6
22.9
22.2
16.7
21.9
11.8
15.4
18.2
16.95
13.23
12.11
22.71
12.60
16.05
12.59
13.86
4.94
17.31
3.93
1.09
1.72
45.64
33.72
31.35
57.76
32.29
42.58
34.78
35.48
14.10
44.67
9.79
2.70
4.61
75.0
69.5
67.0
81.5
78.3
86.7
70.7
89.4
70.7
84.3
83.3
91.9
95.9
Alaska
Michigan
Minnesota
22
8
9
179.9
145.3
145.1
59.5
58.6
56.0
8,176
18,158
16,120
2,702
7,323
6,219
$19,167
$16,433
$16,468
$45,251
$31,109
$34,147
$53,837
$36,540
$42,576
14.1
16.9
12.7
0.28
9.73
5.89
0.80
24.04
15.31
82.3
84.3
85.3
Puerto Rico
North
Carolina
Texas
South
Carolina
NA
NA
FCC 10-129
APPENDIX B
Unserved Areas
Areas1
Population
(1000s)2
Households
(1000s)3
Average
Population
Average
Households
Average
Per Capita
Income
(1999)4
Average
Median
Household
Income
(1999)4
Average
Median
Household
Income
(2008)4
Average
%
Living
in
Poverty
(2008)5
Average
Household
Density6
Average
Population
Density6
Average
% Rural
Housing
7
New
Mexico
10
136.4
51.0
13,637
5,104
$13,844
$26,102
$32,446
19.5
1.18
3.15
72.7
Utah
Wisconsin
North
Dakota
13
8
27
131.9
131.5
128.2
43.9
51.4
50.2
10,146
16,438
4,749
3,379
6,430
1,861
$14,248
$16,492
$15,417
$33,697
$35,111
$30,125
$45,477
$44,244
$42,435
13.1
13.0
13.9
1.13
10.32
1.55
3.29
26.65
3.98
79.2
94.0
94.0
U.S. Virgin
Islands
108.6
40.6
36,204
13,549
$14,647
$26,925
315.37
831.58
17.2
33
6
5
19
10
2
11
3
108.5
107.5
106.4
100.5
98.9
90.3
75.4
69.2
43.4
41.6
42.4
38.1
38.2
28.7
27.2
14.1
3,289
17,916
21,277
5,289
9,894
45,147
6,853
23,072
1,316
6,934
8,486
2,007
3,822
14,354
2,471
4,685
$15,094
$17,767
$17,760
$16,830
$18,492
$11,951
$15,014
$9,897
$29,650
$36,164
$35,259
$31,610
$39,158
$24,592
$32,460
$24,935
13.5
15.1
8.3
17.7
12.7
29.7
13.3
NA
2.04
14.77
1.92
2.17
1.07
1.85
2.04
107.54
5.14
38.30
4.84
5.55
2.61
5.36
5.79
528.26
96.3
60.7
74.4
88.4
71.1
72.3
88.8
41.4
5
4
61.1
57.3
20.1
9.3
12,225
14,323
4,017
2,337
$13,448
$4,203
$28,406
$17,295
22.8
NA
8.31
88.50
25.08
538.92
90.5
54.8
West
Virginia
54.6
21.9
9,104
3,648
$13,680
$26,013
$31,772
20.4
11.38
28.75
92.7
Virginia
Ohio
Iowa
7
2
4
52.8
45.1
44.4
20.6
17.7
17.8
7,544
22,567
11,106
2,947
8,839
4,458
$17,920
$15,140
$16,761
$35,024
$30,329
$33,083
$43,930
$39,543
$43,595
12.3
17.7
12.3
59.84
19.03
7.25
150.15
48.58
18.02
85.7
86.3
87.8
Nebraska
Illinois
Wyoming
Colorado
Nevada
Arizona
Idaho
Northern
Mariana
Islands
Florida
American
Samoa
24
NA
NA
$37,598
$43,527
$54,543
$39,726
$50,779
$32,351
$42,417
NA
$36,216
NA
FCC 10-129
APPENDIX B
Unserved Areas
Areas1
Indiana
Oregon
Washington
Hawaii
2
5
2
1
Population
(1000s)2
37.3
33.4
28.8
0.1
Households
(1000s)3
13.8
13.1
11.6
0.1
Average
Population
18,632
6,675
14,387
117
Average
Households
6,921
2,618
5,778
105
Average
Per Capita
Income
(1999)4
Average
Median
Household
Income
(1999)4
Average
Median
Household
Income
(2008)4
Average
%
Living
in
Poverty
(2008)5
Average
Household
Density6
Average
Population
Density6
Average
% Rural
Housing
$17,493
$16,378
$16,384
$13,756
$39,088
$32,093
$31,956
$9,333
$47,844
$39,205
$38,112
13.0
15.6
18.7
16.53
0.82
7.50
7.96
44.50
2.16
18.53
8.86
90.2
83.0
53.4
100.0
NA
NA
Technical Notes:
1) We examine a total of 3,230 counties or county equivalent areas, including 3,141 counties in the States and District of Columbia, 78 Municipal areas in Puerto Rico
and 11 Municipal areas in American Samoa, Guam, Northern Mariana Islands and the U.S. Virgin Islands. We exclude two county equivalent areas in the Northern
Mariana Islands (Rose Island Municipality and Northern Mariana Islands Municipality) due to data irregularities. As we work to improve our data, we anticipate that
we will have a more precise identification of unserved areas. See supra Part III.B.2.a. & note 69.
2) We base our analysis on the most recent Census Bureau data available. We rely on Census Bureau 2008 population estimates for 3,140 counties in the 50 States and
the District of Columbia, and 78 Municipalities in Puerto Rico. We rely on Census Bureau 2000 population estimates for a single county in Alaska and the 11
Municipal areas in American Samoa, Guam, Northern Mariana Islands and the U.S. Virginia Islands. See CENSUS BUREAU, POPULATION ESTIMATES DATA SETS,
http://www.census.gov/popest/datasets.html (last visited Mar. 24, 2010).
3) We estimate households for 2008 by assuming that the relationship between household size and population size in each area has not changed between 2000 and 2008.
Specifically, Households2008 = Population2008 /Household Size 2000, where Household Size2000= Population2000/Households2000. For the 12 counties in which we do not
have 2008 population estimates, we use Households based upon the 2000 Census. See, e.g., CENSUS BUREAU, CENSUS 2000 SUMMARY FILE 1 (SF 1) 100-PERCENT
DATA, http://factfinder.census.gov/servlet/DownloadDatasetServlet?_lang=en (last visited Mar. 24, 2010) (2000 Census Data).
4) We report two Income measures, Per Capita Income and Median Household Income. Per Capita Income and Median Household Income in 1999 dollars are reported
for all county or county equivalent areas in the Census 2000 Summary File 3. See, e.g., CENSUS BUREAU, CENSUS 2000 SUMMARY FILE 3,
http://www.census.gov/Press-Release/www/2002/sumfile3.html (last visited Mar. 24, 2010). Median Household Income in 2008 dollars is available for 3,139 county
or county equivalent areas. We do not have Median Household Income in 2008 for one county in Alaska and Hawaii, and all of the U.S. territories. See CENSUS
BUREAU, SMALL AREA INCOME AND POVERTY ESTIMATES: STATE AND COUNTY ESTIMATES FOR 2008,
http://www.census.gov/did/www/saipe/data/statecounty/data/2008.html (last visited Mar. 24, 2010).
5) Proportion of Population Living in Poverty in 2008 is reported by the Census Bureau for 3,139 of the 3,230 county or county equivalent areas. Id.
25
FCC 10-129
6) Household density is defined as the ratio of households to the total land area in the county. Population Density is defined as the ratio of population to the total land
area in the area. These estimates are based upon the most recent Census Bureau data available. See supra Technical Notes 2 and 3.
7) Rural Housing Proportion is defined as the number of housing units categorized as rural by the Census Bureau divided by the total number of housing units in the
county. See 2000 Census Data; supra Technical Note 3.
26
FCC 10-129
APPENDIX C
Unserved Areas
By County or County Equivalent
County or County Equivalent Areas1
Population2
Households3
Average
Per Capita
Income
(1999)4
Median
Household
Income
(1999)4
Median
Household
Income
(2008)4
Alaska
Aleutians East Borough
Aleutians West Census Area
Bethel Census Area
Bristol Bay Borough
Denali Borough
Dillingham Census Area
Haines Borough
Kenai Peninsula Borough
Kodiak Island Borough
Lake and Peninsula Borough
Nome Census Area
North Slope Borough
Northwest Arctic Borough
Prince of Wales-Outer Ketchikan Census
Area
2,810
4,529
17,236
953
1,848
4,933
2,271
53,409
13,049
1,488
9,261
6,615
7,502
5,533
546
1,056
4,546
373
769
1,514
935
19,790
4,156
479
2,705
1,895
1,851
2,044
$18,421
$24,037
$12,603
$22,210
$26,251
$16,021
$22,090
$20,949
$22,195
$15,361
$15,476
$20,540
$15,286
$18,395
$47,875
$61,406
$35,701
$52,167
$53,654
$43,079
$40,772
$46,397
$54,636
$36,442
$41,250
$63,173
$45,976
$40,636
$52,786
$62,849
$41,755
$67,214
$70,720
$50,827
$48,299
$54,206
$61,525
$43,687
$46,892
$72,499
$57,721
$44,491
Sitka City and Borough

Skagway-Hoonah-Angoon Census Area
8,889
3,436
3,301
1,369
$23,622
$19,974
$51,901
$40,879
Southeast Fairbanks Census Area

Valdez-Cordova Census Area
Wade Hampton Census Area
Wrangell-Petersburg Census Area
Yakutat City and Borough
Yukon-Koyukuk Census Area
6,753
9,362
7,717
5,910
657
5,701
2,265
3,567
1,768
2,303
216
2,006
$16,679
$23,046
$8,717
$23,494
$22,579
$13,720
$38,776
$48,734
$30,184
$46,434
$46,786
$28,666
27
Percent
Living in
Poverty
(2008)5
$61,436
NA
Population
Density6
Percent
Rural
Housing7
15.3
9
21.5
7.8
5.4
19.6
10.4
10.3
8
17.2
20.9
11.4
16.5
15.2
0.40
1.03
0.42
1.89
0.14
0.26
0.97
3.34
1.99
0.06
0.40
0.07
0.21
0.75
7.81
24.01
11.19
73.82
6.03
8.11
39.90
123.58
63.35
2.01
11.76
2.13
5.15
27.58
100.00
72.56
68.75
100.00
100.00
100.00
100.00
86.34
27.93
100.00
69.11
40.50
60.75
100.00
7.8
3.09
0.44
114.86
17.34
20.22
100.00
13.3
8.5
29.2
9.8
13.3
24.9
0.27
0.27
0.45
1.01
0.09
0.04
9.13
10.39
10.28
39.47
2.83
1.37
100.00
100.00
100.00
64.52
100.00
100.00
NA
$59,124
$58,946
$33,033
$54,274
$54,401
$33,900
Household
Density6
FCC 10-129
APPENDIX C
Unserved Areas
Alabama
Bibb
Blount
Bullock
Calhoun
Cherokee
Chilton
Choctaw
Clarke
Cleburne
Conecuh
Fayette
Greene
Lamar
Lowndes
Marengo
Marion
Perry
Pickens
Randolph
Sumter
Washington
Wilcox
Winston
Arkansas
Arkansas
Population2
Households3
Average
Per Capita
Income
(1999)4
Median
Household
Income
(1999)4
Median
Household
Income
(2008)4
21,629
57,441
10,796
113,419
24,545
42,444
14,055
26,304
14,799
13,066
17,691
9,172
14,295
12,644
21,055
29,465
10,643
19,524
22,620
13,266
17,204
12,803
23,974
7,668
21,562
3,680
45,853
9,944
16,370
5,600
10,041
5,885
5,356
7,154
3,638
5,798
4,603
8,209
11,966
3,891
7,552
8,728
5,130
6,347
4,653
9,771
$14,105
$16,325
$10,163
$17,367
$15,543
$15,303
$14,635
$14,581
$14,762
$12,964
$14,439
$13,686
$14,435
$12,457
$15,308
$15,321
$10,948
$13,746
$14,147
$11,491
$14,081
$10,903
$15,738
$31,420
$35,241
$20,605
$31,768
$30,874
$32,588
$24,749
$27,388
$30,820
$22,111
$28,539
$19,819
$28,059
$23,050
$27,025
$27,475
$20,200
$26,254
$28,675
$18,911
$30,815
$16,646
$28,435
$41,076
$46,086
$26,980
$39,997
$38,028
$40,292
$30,728
$34,101
$37,742
$27,068
$34,092
$26,001
$32,424
$30,225
$32,381
$31,602
$26,513
$31,053
$34,185
$24,221
$37,076
$23,090
$32,018
18.5
13.1
33.6
17.6
17.7
17.1
22.9
20.6
14.8
24.9
19.8
30.3
18.2
25.4
22.6
19.6
31.7
25.6
17.3
32.9
18.2
30.2
18.3
34.72
88.98
17.27
186.40
44.38
61.16
15.39
21.24
26.42
15.36
28.19
14.20
23.63
17.61
21.55
39.74
14.79
22.15
38.93
14.66
15.92
14.41
39.02
1230.72
3339.88
588.80
7535.89
1797.74
2358.80
613.03
810.85
1050.46
629.49
1139.77
563.26
958.65
641.17
840.23
1613.91
540.77
856.78
1502.05
566.85
587.29
523.57
1590.21
85.60
91.31
72.05
30.27
100.00
87.89
100.00
75.36
100.00
100.00
78.69
100.00
100.00
100.00
71.84
99.46
100.00
100.00
79.51
100.00
100.00
100.00
84.26
19,236
7,855
$16,401
$30,316
$37,295
20.1
19.46
794.66
39.96
28
Percent
Living in
Poverty
(2008)5
Household
Density6
Population
Density6
Percent
Rural
Housing7
FCC 10-129
APPENDIX C
Unserved Areas
Ashley
Baxter
Bradley
Calhoun
Chicot
Clark
Clay
Cleburne
Cleveland
Columbia
Conway
Craighead
Cross
Dallas
Desha
Drew
Fulton
Garland
Grant
Greene
Hempstead
Hot Spring
Howard
Independence
Izard
Jackson
Population2
Households3
Average
Per Capita
Income
(1999)4
Median
Household
Income
(1999)4
Median
Household
Income
(2008)4
22,233
42,115
11,906
5,435
11,993
23,888
15,845
25,397
8,665
24,146
20,755
92,640
18,808
8,144
13,538
18,670
11,688
97,465
17,690
40,684
22,900
31,909
14,143
34,641
12,992
16,936
8,601
18,760
4,568
2,202
4,417
9,022
6,630
10,753
3,302
9,432
8,145
36,427
7,148
3,102
5,244
7,312
4,838
41,829
6,676
16,008
8,702
12,607
5,407
13,640
5,291
6,419
$15,702
$16,859
$13,895
$15,555
$12,825
$14,533
$14,512
$17,250
$15,362
$15,322
$16,056
$17,091
$15,726
$14,610
$13,446
$16,264
$15,712
$18,631
$17,547
$16,403
$14,103
$15,216
$15,586
$16,163
$14,397
$14,564
$31,758
$29,106
$24,821
$28,438
$22,024
$28,845
$25,345
$31,531
$32,405
$27,640
$31,209
$32,425
$29,362
$26,608
$24,121
$28,627
$25,529
$31,724
$37,182
$30,828
$28,622
$31,543
$28,699
$31,920
$25,670
$25,081
$36,079
$34,666
$30,621
$34,908
$24,809
$34,327
$31,910
$36,707
$39,567
$35,162
$36,026
$39,989
$34,489
$31,608
$27,555
$34,919
$30,364
$38,020
$45,165
$37,017
$34,221
$37,619
$33,219
$36,019
$30,941
$30,490
29
Percent
Living in
Poverty
(2008)5
18.3
16.8
24.1
16.5
30.4
21.8
18.1
15.2
19.5
20.7
17.1
17.5
18.7
21
29
20.4
18.7
16.1
11.5
16.6
20.6
15.7
21.3
15.1
19.7
24.9
Household
Density6
24.14
75.97
18.30
8.65
18.62
27.60
24.78
45.92
14.50
31.52
37.32
130.32
30.54
12.20
17.70
22.54
18.91
143.92
28.00
70.45
31.42
51.89
24.08
45.35
22.37
26.73
Population
Density6
933.68
3384.09
702.05
350.45
685.81
1042.50
1037.06
1944.31
552.38
1231.13
1464.61
5124.43
1160.70
464.77
685.45
882.93
782.66
6176.53
1056.65
2771.96
1194.05
2050.10
920.46
1785.81
911.22
1013.27
Percent
Rural
Housing7
51.36
68.23
55.03
100.00
36.78
60.27
61.19
80.18
100.00
60.09
71.88
33.71
59.07
60.46
36.09
54.76
91.14
32.75
77.26
46.00
58.56
67.85
66.56
68.57
100.00
57.96
FCC 10-129
APPENDIX C
Unserved Areas
Jefferson
Johnson
Lafayette
Lawrence
Lee
Lincoln
Little River
Madison
Marion
Miller
Mississippi
Monroe
Montgomery
Nevada
Newton
Ouachita
Perry
Phillips
Pike
Poinsett
Polk
Pope
Randolph
Scott
Searcy
Sevier
Population2
Households3
Average
Per Capita
Income
(1999)4
Median
Household
Income
(1999)4
Median
Household
Income
(2008)4
78,373
24,851
7,705
16,861
10,782
13,609
12,807
15,651
16,774
43,226
46,808
8,518
9,047
9,157
8,298
25,770
10,317
21,603
10,616
24,721
20,257
59,952
18,134
11,248
8,048
16,519
28,414
9,495
3,066
6,777
3,607
3,999
5,152
5,996
7,028
16,771
17,388
3,411
3,684
3,592
3,390
10,381
4,041
7,925
4,216
9,623
8,075
22,776
7,226
4,440
3,442
5,985
$15,417
$15,097
$14,128
$13,785
$10,983
$12,479
$15,899
$14,736
$14,588
$16,444
$13,978
$13,096
$14,668
$14,184
$13,788
$15,118
$16,216
$12,288
$15,385
$13,087
$14,063
$15,918
$14,502
$13,609
$12,536
$14,122
$31,327
$27,910
$24,831
$27,139
$20,510
$29,607
$29,417
$27,895
$26,737
$30,951
$27,479
$22,632
$28,421
$26,962
$24,756
$29,341
$31,083
$22,231
$27,695
$26,558
$25,180
$32,069
$27,583
$26,412
$21,397
$30,144
$38,018
$34,307
$28,265
$31,160
$25,178
$34,820
$34,996
$33,221
$32,648
$38,192
$34,211
$27,044
$34,343
$31,432
$29,273
$34,370
$37,595
$26,436
$37,545
$31,511
$30,994
$40,728
$30,508
$33,458
$25,547
$32,062
30
Percent
Living in
Poverty
(2008)5
20.6
17.4
25.4
20.8
38.6
29
18.4
17
17.7
19.8
23.5
26
17.7
22
23.3
22
16.2
34.9
17.5
23.8
19.5
15.7
20.4
19.9
24.2
22.3
Household
Density6
88.58
37.53
14.63
28.75
17.92
24.25
24.09
18.70
28.06
69.27
52.11
14.04
11.58
14.77
10.08
35.18
18.73
31.19
17.61
32.62
23.57
73.84
27.82
12.58
12.06
29.29
Population
Density6
3211.31
1433.91
582.37
1155.37
599.43
712.67
968.86
716.58
1175.77
2687.71
1935.78
562.25
471.79
579.39
411.96
1417.23
733.52
1144.09
699.19
1270.01
939.65
2805.27
1108.53
496.77
515.91
1061.30
Percent
Rural
Housing7
30.95
77.38
100.00
63.53
54.82
100.00
74.97
100.00
100.00
40.22
33.99
68.09
100.00
71.02
100.00
56.43
100.00
46.38
100.00
63.18
72.14
56.58
68.35
73.13
100.00
67.81
FCC 10-129
APPENDIX C
Unserved Areas
Sharp
St. Francis
Stone
Union
Van Buren
White
Woodruff
Yell
American Samoa
Eastern District
Manu'a District
Swains Island
Western District
Arizona
Apache
La Paz
California
Alpine
Imperial
Mariposa
Modoc
Siskiyou
Tehama
Trinity
Tuolumne
Colorado
Population2
Households3
Average
Per Capita
Income
(1999)4
Median
Household
Income
(1999)4
Median
Household
Income
(2008)4
17,866
26,336
12,090
43,213
16,575
74,845
7,439
21,976
7,547
9,004
5,007
17,041
6,951
28,035
3,027
8,214
$14,143
$12,483
$14,134
$16,063
$16,603
$15,890
$13,269
$15,383
$25,152
$26,146
$22,209
$29,809
$27,004
$32,203
$22,099
$28,916
$31,801
$28,442
$28,724
$38,616
$35,155
$39,283
$26,185
$36,459
23,441
1,378
37
32,435
3,845
273
7
5,224
$4,350
$4,509
$3,597
$4,356
$18,271
$14,338
$18,125
$18,445
70,207
20,086
20,157
8,550
$8,986
$14,916
$23,344
$25,839
$31,728
$32,973
1,061
163,972
17,976
9,184
44,542
61,550
14,317
55,644
432
45,419
6,918
3,660
18,674
23,164
6,137
21,429
$24,431
$13,239
$18,190
$17,285
$17,570
$15,793
$16,868
$21,015
$41,875
$31,870
$34,626
$27,522
$29,530
$31,206
$27,711
$38,725
$49,320
$36,894
$44,419
$35,319
$36,823
$38,160
$34,726
$49,151
31
NA
NA
NA
NA
Percent
Living in
Poverty
(2008)5
19.7
31.4
19.4
19.8
18.3
16.7
27.1
17.6
Household
Density6
Population
Density6
Percent
Rural
Housing7
29.56
41.55
19.93
41.59
23.30
72.38
12.68
23.68
1248.70
1420.52
825.39
1640.31
976.88
2711.21
516.09
885.22
79.60
54.81
100.00
51.21
100.00
56.49
100.00
82.59
905.78
62.96
63.56
1,123.36
14857.37
1247.28
1202.54
18092.95
9.29
100.00
100.00
9.82
33.2
26.1
6.27
4.46
179.90
190.00
81.32
63.28
15.7
21.5
13.5
17.4
16.4
16.5
19.9
12.5
1.44
39.28
12.39
2.33
7.09
20.86
4.50
24.89
58.51
1087.95
476.70
92.81
297.04
784.96
193.08
958.62
100.00
22.84
100.00
70.73
67.62
49.90
100.00
54.39
NA
NA
NA
NA
FCC 10-129
APPENDIX C
Unserved Areas
Baca
Bent
Cheyenne
Conejos
Costilla
Crowley
Custer
Dolores
Gilpin
Hinsdale
Jackson
Kiowa
Kit Carson
Mineral
Otero
Phillips
Prowers
Saguache
Washington
Florida
Calhoun
Gilchrist
Hamilton
Lafayette
Liberty
Georgia
Population2
Households3
Average
Per Capita
Income
(1999)4
Median
Household
Income
(1999)4
Median
Household
Income
(2008)4
3,834
5,902
1,749
8,067
3,232
6,332
3,999
1,986
5,153
840
1,346
1,321
7,843
962
18,774
4,477
13,116
7,058
4,497
1,619
1,969
688
2,863
1,320
1,563
1,701
843
2,228
380
569
533
2,937
441
7,304
1,785
4,822
2,757
1,809
$15,068
$13,567
$17,850
$12,050
$10,748
$12,836
$19,817
$17,106
$26,148
$22,360
$17,826
$16,382
$16,964
$24,475
$15,113
$16,394
$14,150
$13,121
$17,788
$28,099
$28,125
$37,054
$24,744
$19,531
$26,803
$34,731
$32,196
$51,942
$37,279
$31,821
$30,494
$33,152
$34,844
$29,738
$32,177
$29,935
$25,495
$32,431
$31,963
$33,187
$46,017
$30,747
$25,208
$31,603
$50,660
$43,760
$62,332
$50,692
$40,413
$38,581
$39,997
$46,394
$33,234
$42,087
$35,730
$33,198
$38,982
17.7
29.4
12
21.2
24.8
46.2
11.8
11.8
6.2
7.3
15.6
12.2
14.5
10.4
22.2
11.9
19.1
29.9
12.4
1.50
3.90
0.98
6.27
2.63
8.03
5.41
1.86
34.38
0.75
0.83
0.75
3.63
1.10
14.87
6.51
8.00
2.23
1.78
63.33
130.06
38.64
222.40
107.57
198.09
230.21
79.04
1486.79
33.96
35.29
30.12
135.92
50.37
578.37
259.56
293.98
87.00
71.77
100.00
45.90
100.00
100.00
100.00
100.00
100.00
100.00
100.00
100.00
100.00
100.00
58.63
100.00
37.01
100.00
38.41
100.00
100.00
13,617
17,191
14,348
8,013
7,957
4,678
5,955
4,473
2,455
2,524
$12,379
$13,985
$10,562
$13,087
$17,225
$26,575
$30,328
$25,638
$30,651
$28,840
$33,613
$37,120
$32,444
$39,293
$38,608
20.9
16.8
29.3
25.6
21.5
24.00
49.27
27.87
14.76
9.52
824.62
1706.83
868.84
452.17
301.95
75.24
100.00
77.35
100.00
100.00
32
Percent
Living in
Poverty
(2008)5
Household
Density6
Population
Density6
Percent
Rural
Housing7
FCC 10-129
APPENDIX C
Unserved Areas
Appling
Bacon
Baker
Brantley
Calhoun
Candler
Clay
Crawford
Echols
Emanuel
Evans
Fannin
Franklin
Gilmer
Glascock
Habersham
Hancock
Jasper
Jefferson
Jenkins
Johnson
Lincoln
Macon
Marion
Meriwether
Miller
Population2
Households3
Average
Per Capita
Income
(1999)4
Median
Household
Income
(1999)4
Median
Household
Income
(2008)4
18,038
10,442
3,805
15,511
6,271
10,580
3,231
12,510
4,063
22,825
11,646
22,618
21,824
28,537
2,796
43,056
9,440
13,842
16,443
8,547
9,550
8,074
13,520
6,964
22,840
6,185
6,828
3,978
1,408
5,769
1,949
3,741
1,304
4,471
1,362
8,404
4,198
9,571
8,490
11,007
1,108
15,969
3,041
5,059
6,002
3,201
3,477
3,140
4,624
2,617
8,402
2,404
$15,044
$14,289
$16,969
$13,713
$11,839
$12,958
$16,819
$15,768
$15,727
$13,627
$12,758
$16,269
$15,767
$17,147
$14,185
$17,706
$10,916
$19,249
$13,491
$13,400
$12,384
$15,351
$11,820
$14,044
$15,708
$15,435
$30,266
$26,910
$30,338
$30,361
$24,588
$25,022
$21,448
$37,848
$25,851
$24,383
$25,447
$30,612
$32,134
$35,140
$29,743
$36,321
$22,003
$39,890
$26,120
$24,025
$23,848
$31,952
$24,224
$29,145
$31,870
$27,335
$34,654
$33,481
$31,834
$37,814
$29,435
$31,651
$26,697
$41,429
$35,925
$30,236
$33,269
$36,134
$37,110
$40,665
$36,630
$45,377
$28,039
$42,849
$31,191
$28,405
$28,704
$36,358
$29,374
$34,982
$35,566
$32,359
33
Percent
Living in
Poverty
(2008)5
20.3
19.3
26
17.6
33.4
23.7
31.1
17.8
26.7
26.2
24.8
15.2
18.8
17.1
16.8
13.5
31.4
15.4
22.9
26.8
28.2
18.4
26.5
24.1
18.7
25.7
Household
Density6
35.47
36.65
11.09
34.90
22.38
42.86
16.55
38.49
10.05
33.28
62.98
58.64
82.89
66.88
19.40
154.78
19.95
37.37
31.16
24.43
31.39
38.25
33.52
18.98
45.38
21.85
Population
Density6
1342.82
1396.09
410.36
1298.16
695.54
1515.18
668.08
1375.77
336.91
1225.42
2270.09
2481.30
3224.40
2579.58
768.78
5740.88
642.56
1365.74
1137.42
914.94
1142.92
1487.69
1146.47
713.18
1669.35
849.34
Percent
Rural
Housing7
71.21
71.28
100.00
99.08
100.00
70.82
100.00
100.00
100.00
69.40
64.60
100.00
90.74
88.84
100.00
68.87
71.78
100.00
80.97
64.45
100.00
100.00
59.69
100.00
81.27
100.00
FCC 10-129
APPENDIX C
Unserved Areas
Monroe
Montgomery
Oglethorpe
Pickens
Pierce
Pike
Quitman
Rabun
Screven
Stephens
Stewart
Talbot
Taliaferro
Tattnall
Taylor
Toombs
Towns
Twiggs
Union
Ware
Warren
Washington
Webster
Wheeler
White
Wilcox
Population2
Households3
Average
Per Capita
Income
(1999)4
Median
Household
Income
(1999)4
Median
Household
Income
(2008)4
25,252
8,930
14,106
31,176
18,127
17,569
2,703
16,514
15,133
25,493
4,666
6,414
1,863
23,469
8,766
28,102
11,042
10,257
21,351
35,879
5,844
21,006
2,164
6,877
25,299
8,750
8,964
3,182
5,454
12,184
6,892
6,104
1,099
6,921
5,704
9,992
1,779
2,492
776
7,427
3,258
10,641
4,745
3,682
8,861
13,628
2,240
7,379
832
2,250
9,806
2,828
$19,580
$14,182
$17,089
$19,774
$14,230
$17,661
$14,301
$20,608
$13,894
$15,529
$16,071
$14,539
$15,498
$13,439
$13,432
$14,252
$18,221
$14,259
$18,845
$14,384
$14,022
$15,565
$14,772
$13,005
$17,193
$14,014
$44,195
$30,240
$35,578
$41,387
$29,895
$44,370
$25,875
$33,899
$29,312
$29,466
$24,789
$26,611
$23,750
$28,664
$25,148
$26,811
$31,950
$31,608
$31,893
$28,360
$27,366
$29,910
$27,992
$24,053
$36,084
$27,483
$52,114
$35,888
$43,832
$52,222
$36,721
$57,143
$31,608
$37,119
$33,699
$34,881
$28,973
$32,206
$27,033
$35,647
$30,502
$33,139
$41,127
$34,823
$40,841
$34,983
$32,439
$35,394
$33,757
$31,728
$42,511
$31,128
34
Percent
Living in
Poverty
(2008)5
13.7
23
14.2
12.1
17.6
10.6
23.1
18.2
21.9
17.8
27.1
22.4
26.6
24.5
25.8
24.2
14
21.1
13.8
20.7
25.7
23.4
19.5
35.2
14.3
30.8
Household
Density6
63.83
36.40
31.98
134.30
52.81
80.45
17.84
44.51
23.34
142.21
10.17
16.31
9.53
48.52
23.22
76.65
66.25
28.47
66.19
39.76
20.47
30.88
10.33
23.10
104.72
23.01
Population
Density6
2265.66
1297.13
1236.36
5248.77
2007.88
2795.42
724.99
1865.13
879.67
5573.97
387.75
633.84
397.09
1535.56
863.13
2902.10
2847.36
1022.08
2747.10
1510.42
784.66
1084.65
397.12
755.89
4058.94
743.61
Percent
Rural
Housing7
75.61
98.57
99.85
80.25
76.19
100.00
66.72
100.00
81.38
60.74
100.00
100.00
100.00
81.27
100.00
51.16
100.00
100.00
100.00
27.76
100.00
61.56
100.00
100.00
100.00
100.00
FCC 10-129
APPENDIX C
Unserved Areas
Wilkes
Wilkinson
Hawaii
Kalawao
Iowa
Calhoun
Clayton
Greene
Van Buren
Idaho
Adams
Butte
Camas
Clark
Custer
Fremont
Lemhi
Minidoka
Oneida
Owyhee
Teton
Illinois
Alexander
Bond
Cass
Macoupin
Population2
Households3
Average
Per Capita
Income
(1999)4
Median
Household
Income
(1999)4
Median
Household
Income
(2008)4
10,282
10,026
4,154
3,774
$15,020
$14,658
$27,644
$32,723
$32,021
$40,093
117
105
$13,756
$9,333
9,887
17,566
9,293
7,676
3,999
6,942
3,767
3,126
$17,498
$16,930
$16,866
$15,748
$33,286
$34,068
$33,883
$31,094
$43,799
$46,462
$45,911
$38,207
3,499
2,751
1,126
910
4,254
12,551
7,808
18,645
4,130
10,877
8,833
1,439
1,031
452
302
1,730
4,133
3,269
6,464
1,456
3,818
3,083
$14,908
$14,948
$19,550
$11,141
$15,783
$13,965
$16,037
$13,813
$13,829
$13,405
$17,778
$28,423
$30,473
$34,167
$31,576
$32,174
$33,424
$30,185
$32,021
$34,309
$28,339
$41,968
8,152
18,253
13,574
48,138
3,253
6,363
5,327
18,935
$16,084
$17,947
$16,532
$17,298
$26,042
$37,680
$35,243
$36,190
35
Percent
Living in
Poverty
(2008)5
Population
Density6
Percent
Rural
Housing7
21.81
22.45
881.33
845.13
68.32
100.00
8.86
795.59
100.00
13.2
10.8
10.7
14.3
17.34
22.56
16.35
15.83
701.44
891.31
662.74
644.74
100.00
94.45
56.82
100.00
$37,479
$39,822
$49,282
$40,608
$41,450
$41,295
$36,423
$42,979
$44,846
$36,177
$56,228
13.2
14.9
9.2
16.5
13.3
13.6
15.4
13.4
11.7
17.5
7.9
2.56
1.23
1.05
0.52
0.86
6.72
1.71
24.55
3.44
1.42
19.61
105.49
46.15
42.07
17.11
35.13
221.40
71.62
850.94
121.28
49.72
684.61
100.00
100.00
100.00
100.00
100.00
82.02
63.63
53.97
100.00
77.45
100.00
$28,725
$45,930
$40,561
$45,009
29.5
14.3
12.4
12.6
34.49
48.01
36.11
55.74
1376.23
1673.62
1417.00
2192.68
55.78
67.53
56.83
58.01
NA
21.8
19.3
Household
Density6
NA
FCC 10-129
APPENDIX C
Unserved Areas
Menard
Schuyler
Indiana
Parke
Spencer
Kansas
Atchison
Bourbon
Chase
Chautauqua
Cheyenne
Clark
Clay
Cloud
Decatur
Dickinson
Elk
Ellis
Ellsworth
Gove
Graham
Gray
Greenwood
Harper
Hodgeman
Jewell
Population2
Households3
Average
Per Capita
Income
(1999)4
Median
Household
Income
(1999)4
Median
Household
Income
(2008)4
12,464
6,916
4,866
2,858
$21,584
$17,158
$46,596
$35,233
$57,884
$43,053
9.1
12.4
39.66
15.81
1548.59
653.58
72.77
53.39
17,152
20,111
6,389
7,453
$16,986
$18,000
$35,724
$42,451
$41,907
$53,781
16.7
9.3
38.56
50.44
1436.43
1869.45
80.36
100.00
16,481
14,851
2,804
3,768
2,742
2,108
8,859
9,453
2,912
19,328
3,047
27,801
6,250
2,548
2,592
5,688
6,861
5,857
1,948
3,142
6,160
5,925
1,161
1,550
1,190
864
3,669
3,852
1,259
7,909
1,325
11,324
2,390
1,041
1,106
2,000
2,892
2,478
735
1,393
$15,207
$16,393
$17,422
$16,280
$17,862
$17,795
$17,939
$17,536
$16,348
$17,780
$16,066
$18,259
$16,569
$17,852
$18,050
$18,632
$15,976
$16,368
$15,599
$16,644
$34,355
$31,199
$32,656
$28,717
$30,599
$33,857
$33,965
$31,758
$30,257
$35,975
$27,267
$32,339
$35,772
$33,510
$31,286
$40,000
$30,169
$29,776
$35,994
$30,538
$42,788
$37,575
$39,788
$35,460
$37,413
$41,482
$43,045
$39,126
$36,913
$46,289
$32,462
$44,846
$42,896
$42,205
$39,094
$49,864
$36,704
$37,575
$44,829
$37,937
13.6
15.6
12.3
14.4
10.4
12.4
11.1
13.6
12.5
9.3
16
11.2
10.5
9.9
11.2
8.8
15.5
13.4
9.6
12.6
38.12
23.31
3.61
5.87
2.69
2.16
13.76
13.21
3.26
22.79
4.71
30.89
8.73
2.38
2.89
6.55
6.02
7.31
2.27
3.46
1424.92
930.07
149.69
241.54
116.72
88.68
569.91
538.25
140.89
932.80
204.69
1258.24
333.82
97.21
123.12
230.18
253.74
309.16
85.51
153.24
36.74
47.99
100.00
100.00
100.00
100.00
47.06
45.60
100.00
63.11
100.00
24.66
67.26
100.00
100.00
100.00
64.12
100.00
100.00
100.00
36
Percent
Living in
Poverty
(2008)5
Household
Density6
Population
Density6
Percent
Rural
Housing7
FCC 10-129
APPENDIX C
Unserved Areas
Labette
Lincoln
Lyon
Meade
Mitchell
Morris
Nemaha
Ness
Norton
Osborne
Ottawa
Rawlins
Republic
Rush
Sheridan
Smith
Trego
Washington
Kentucky
Adair
Allen
Barren
Bath
Bell
Bourbon
Breathitt
Population2
Households3
Average
Per Capita
Income
(1999)4
Median
Household
Income
(1999)4
Median
Household
Income
(2008)4
21,871
3,261
35,562
4,359
6,292
6,037
10,112
2,945
5,370
3,804
6,026
2,503
4,812
3,232
2,510
3,901
2,882
5,791
8,817
1,395
13,575
1,634
2,602
2,528
3,758
1,292
2,045
1,667
2,387
1,095
2,102
1,407
1,012
1,680
1,226
2,381
$15,525
$15,788
$15,724
$16,824
$17,653
$18,491
$17,121
$17,787
$16,835
$16,236
$17,663
$17,161
$17,433
$18,033
$16,299
$14,983
$16,239
$15,515
$30,875
$30,893
$32,819
$36,761
$33,385
$32,163
$34,296
$32,340
$31,050
$29,145
$38,009
$32,105
$30,494
$31,268
$33,547
$28,486
$29,677
$29,363
$37,501
$40,793
$39,942
$48,307
$44,321
$41,867
$46,938
$44,389
$38,252
$37,568
$45,925
$38,980
$38,199
$39,197
$43,297
$34,547
$39,069
$40,445
15.7
10.7
15.3
9.5
10.6
10.4
9.3
9.3
12.3
12.4
8.7
12.7
11.8
10.9
11.2
11.9
10.7
9.4
33.71
4.54
41.79
4.46
8.99
8.66
14.08
2.74
6.12
4.26
8.36
2.34
6.72
4.50
2.80
4.36
3.24
6.45
1358.98
194.10
1595.38
167.01
371.85
362.49
523.43
120.19
232.96
186.80
330.98
102.41
293.43
195.92
112.89
187.57
138.03
264.96
49.50
100.00
25.51
100.00
49.58
100.00
100.00
100.00
43.28
100.00
100.00
100.00
100.00
100.00
100.00
100.00
100.00
100.00
17,773
19,090
41,566
11,750
29,055
19,828
15,813
6,940
7,388
16,781
4,728
11,629
7,891
6,071
$14,931
$14,506
$16,816
$15,326
$11,526
$18,335
$11,044
$24,055
$31,238
$31,240
$26,018
$19,057
$35,038
$19,155
$30,169
$36,097
$36,155
$30,960
$24,858
$41,220
$24,162
23.4
19.2
17.8
26.7
31.3
14.3
31.5
43.69
55.15
84.66
42.05
80.54
68.04
31.93
1705.73
2134.58
3417.98
1691.69
3223.34
2707.77
1225.95
74.73
76.62
62.14
100.00
60.76
42.26
78.70
37
Percent
Living in
Poverty
(2008)5
Household
Density6
Population
Density6
Percent
Rural
Housing7
FCC 10-129
APPENDIX C
Unserved Areas
Breckinridge
Butler
Carter
Casey
Clay
Edmonson
Fleming
Floyd
Franklin
Fulton
Garrard
Green
Hancock
Harlan
Harrison
Hart
Hopkins
Jackson
Johnson
Knott
Knox
Lawrence
Lee
Leslie
Letcher
Lewis
Population2
Households3
Average
Per Capita
Income
(1999)4
Median
Household
Income
(1999)4
Median
Household
Income
(2008)4
19,132
13,276
27,454
16,214
23,930
12,085
14,735
42,094
48,844
6,855
17,021
11,613
8,663
30,783
18,654
18,561
46,338
13,645
24,056
17,385
32,810
16,443
7,414
11,639
23,890
13,807
7,525
5,157
10,574
6,584
8,354
4,848
5,744
16,731
20,373
2,861
6,639
4,787
3,319
12,313
7,267
7,194
18,771
5,369
9,326
6,619
12,786
6,284
2,811
4,610
9,502
5,309
$15,402
$14,617
$13,442
$12,867
$9,716
$14,480
$14,214
$12,442
$21,229
$14,309
$16,915
$16,107
$16,623
$11,585
$17,478
$13,495
$17,382
$10,711
$14,051
$11,297
$10,660
$12,008
$13,325
$10,429
$11,984
$12,031
$30,554
$29,405
$26,427
$21,580
$16,271
$25,413
$27,990
$21,168
$40,011
$24,382
$34,284
$25,463
$36,914
$18,665
$36,210
$25,378
$30,868
$20,177
$24,911
$20,373
$18,294
$21,610
$18,544
$18,546
$21,110
$22,208
$39,128
$35,917
$33,435
$26,892
$22,365
$33,785
$33,584
$27,462
$48,291
$27,815
$40,083
$33,509
$46,518
$23,648
$42,445
$31,166
$40,027
$25,084
$31,116
$26,948
$25,090
$29,015
$23,786
$23,627
$27,374
$28,466
38
Percent
Living in
Poverty
(2008)5
18.9
19.2
20.8
26.2
38.3
20.7
18.5
28.1
13.1
30.1
16.6
20.7
13.2
33.9
15.3
21.7
18.5
27.1
26
30.2
33.4
27.1
33.9
30
29.4
26.4
Household
Density6
33.42
31.01
66.86
36.39
50.81
39.93
42.00
106.76
232.08
32.81
73.62
40.23
45.88
65.89
60.24
44.63
84.17
39.40
91.98
49.36
84.64
39.26
35.33
28.81
70.46
28.50
Population
Density6
1314.68
1204.76
2575.16
1477.63
1773.73
1601.96
1637.08
4243.30
9680.03
1369.07
2871.66
1658.40
1757.85
2635.60
2346.76
1729.50
3409.39
1550.26
3565.70
1879.51
3298.09
1500.57
1339.32
1141.05
2802.68
1095.88
Percent
Rural
Housing7
100.00
100.00
83.44
100.00
85.24
100.00
78.09
85.95
23.15
61.94
71.09
100.00
88.50
50.60
60.99
86.55
43.70
100.00
73.09
100.00
68.27
77.60
100.00
100.00
99.76
100.00
FCC 10-129
APPENDIX C
Unserved Areas
Lincoln
Logan
Lyon
Magoffin
Marion
Martin
McCreary
McLean
Mercer
Metcalfe
Nelson
Nicholas
Ohio
Owsley
Perry
Pike
Powell
Pulaski
Robertson
Rockcastle
Russell
Union
Washington
Wayne
Webster
Whitley
Population2
Households3
Average
Per Capita
Income
(1999)4
Median
Household
Income
(1999)4
Median
Household
Income
(2008)4
25,072
27,117
8,245
13,151
19,063
11,602
17,315
9,681
21,920
10,288
43,113
6,811
23,789
4,634
29,241
65,331
13,859
60,851
2,202
16,788
17,296
15,024
11,595
20,696
13,669
38,668
9,885
10,719
2,972
4,962
6,912
4,399
6,633
3,875
8,888
4,109
16,067
2,720
9,233
1,825
11,422
26,290
5,300
24,532
832
6,627
7,375
5,497
4,368
8,205
5,390
14,866
$13,602
$15,962
$16,016
$10,685
$14,472
$10,650
$9,896
$16,046
$17,972
$13,236
$18,120
$15,880
$15,317
$10,742
$12,224
$14,005
$13,060
$15,352
$13,404
$12,337
$13,183
$17,465
$15,722
$12,601
$15,657
$12,777
$26,542
$32,474
$31,694
$19,421
$30,387
$18,279
$19,348
$29,675
$35,555
$23,540
$39,010
$29,886
$29,557
$15,805
$22,089
$23,930
$25,515
$27,370
$30,581
$23,475
$22,042
$35,018
$33,136
$20,863
$31,529
$22,075
$34,401
$39,176
$40,932
$25,890
$37,766
$22,841
$22,253
$37,353
$42,912
$31,942
$48,125
$35,496
$35,953
$19,829
$28,124
$31,012
$30,737
$32,901
$35,621
$24,650
$27,866
$42,261
$40,375
$27,343
$39,754
$27,394
39
Percent
Living in
Poverty
(2008)5
21
17.8
16.4
34.9
19.7
35.3
35.4
17.6
15.4
22.4
12.7
17.4
19.1
37.6
27.2
25.1
25.8
24.3
23
26.9
23.5
18.4
16.6
28.1
17.7
27.2
Household
Density6
74.56
48.80
38.22
42.50
55.03
50.29
40.48
38.07
87.36
35.37
102.01
34.64
40.06
23.39
85.46
82.94
76.94
91.97
22.00
52.87
68.22
43.54
38.57
45.05
40.83
87.85
Population
Density6
2939.57
1928.98
1378.05
1603.47
1995.29
1906.78
1550.87
1523.87
3542.32
1412.62
3801.80
1383.56
1554.90
921.19
3338.24
3337.59
2942.16
3707.99
831.25
2087.17
2909.03
1592.80
1453.05
1786.14
1610.19
3377.36
Percent
Rural
Housing7
80.25
72.87
100.00
100.00
65.36
100.00
100.00
100.00
57.33
100.00
61.23
100.00
73.85
100.00
75.99
90.41
75.79
61.81
100.00
82.93
100.00
70.21
100.00
71.16
76.35
61.17
FCC 10-129
APPENDIX C
Unserved Areas
Louisiana
Allen Parish
Avoyelles Parish
Beauregard Parish
Bienville Parish
Caldwell Parish
Cameron Parish
Catahoula Parish
Claiborne Parish
Concordia Parish
East Carroll Parish
Evangeline Parish
Franklin Parish
Grant Parish
Jackson Parish
Lincoln Parish
Madison Parish
Morehouse Parish
Rapides Parish
Red River Parish
Richland Parish
Sabine Parish
Tensas Parish
Union Parish
Vernon Parish
Washington Parish
Population2
Households3
Average
Per Capita
Income
(1999)4
Median
Household
Income
(1999)4
Median
Household
Income
(2008)4
25,635
42,360
34,978
14,728
10,353
7,238
10,522
16,142
19,064
8,166
35,624
20,006
19,974
15,191
42,561
11,790
28,602
133,131
9,118
20,501
23,688
5,694
22,692
45,639
45,430
8,189
15,062
12,863
5,709
3,848
2,602
3,939
6,023
7,098
2,573
12,837
7,329
7,538
6,032
15,268
3,830
10,520
49,697
3,230
7,329
9,327
2,095
8,821
15,878
17,017
$13,101
$12,146
$15,514
$12,471
$13,884
$15,348
$12,608
$13,825
$11,966
$9,629
$11,432
$12,675
$14,410
$15,354
$14,313
$10,114
$13,197
$16,088
$12,119
$12,479
$15,199
$12,622
$14,819
$14,036
$12,915
$27,777
$23,851
$32,582
$23,663
$26,972
$34,232
$22,528
$25,344
$22,742
$20,723
$20,532
$22,964
$29,622
$28,352
$26,977
$20,509
$25,124
$29,856
$23,153
$23,668
$26,655
$19,799
$29,061
$31,216
$24,264
$40,131
$32,744
$43,398
$31,440
$34,298
$49,984
$31,236
$31,386
$29,807
$25,100
$29,733
$29,904
$38,896
$36,073
$36,720
$25,788
$32,168
$41,200
$31,495
$30,504
$34,786
$26,135
$35,624
$41,284
$30,725
40
Percent
Living in
Poverty
(2008)5
20.7
21.9
14
21
21.5
12.7
21.9
28.7
25.2
43.7
22.7
26.1
17.3
18.4
23.6
34.6
25.2
18
23.4
24.2
20.9
32.4
18.3
15.4
24.1
Household
Density6
33.53
50.89
30.15
18.17
19.56
5.51
14.95
21.39
27.39
19.38
53.63
32.08
30.96
26.66
90.29
18.89
36.01
100.66
23.42
36.71
27.38
9.45
25.86
34.36
67.85
Population
Density6
1071.20
1809.33
1108.75
704.27
726.85
198.20
559.80
798.17
1019.90
610.44
1932.56
1175.18
1168.40
1058.74
3238.94
613.62
1324.56
3757.70
829.83
1312.44
1077.96
347.73
1005.11
1195.28
2541.54
Percent
Rural
Housing7
72.39
66.42
68.95
84.04
100.00
100.00
100.00
78.81
44.53
34.42
57.35
72.07
100.00
68.18
38.48
29.97
48.93
36.76
75.20
64.32
90.96
100.00
88.21
52.26
60.32
FCC 10-129
APPENDIX C
Unserved Areas
Webster Parish
West Carroll Parish
West Feliciana Parish
Winn Parish
Michigan
Gladwin
Iron
Lake
Luce
Menominee
Oscoda
Presque Isle
Sanilac
Minnesota
Cass
Clay
Clearwater
Grant
Hubbard
Mahnomen
Marshall
Norman
Wilkin
Missouri
Adair
Andrew
Population2
Households3
Average
Per Capita
Income
(1999)4
Median
Household
Income
(1999)4
Median
Household
Income
(2008)4
40,754
11,495
15,003
15,408
16,081
4,171
3,596
5,405
$15,203
$12,302
$16,201
$11,794
$28,408
$24,637
$39,667
$25,462
$35,981
$30,922
$50,095
$31,108
17.9
23.7
21.9
23.9
68.47
31.98
36.95
16.21
2701.68
1160.50
885.73
568.63
53.36
100.00
100.00
64.12
25,920
12,001
11,014
6,614
24,202
8,836
13,650
43,024
10,523
5,238
4,550
2,341
10,073
3,691
5,846
16,324
$16,614
$16,506
$14,457
$16,828
$16,909
$15,697
$17,363
$17,089
$32,019
$28,560
$26,622
$32,031
$32,888
$28,228
$31,656
$36,870
$37,924
$36,325
$31,658
$36,851
$39,072
$34,239
$37,731
$38,521
17.8
15.4
20.1
20.3
15.7
17.7
13.8
14.5
51.14
10.29
19.41
7.32
23.19
15.64
20.68
44.64
2076.38
449.07
801.89
259.21
965.31
653.25
885.67
1693.73
92.87
76.79
100.00
73.30
67.31
100.00
84.73
79.68
28,732
55,767
8,249
6,005
18,810
5,128
9,502
6,605
6,286
11,497
20,310
3,256
2,427
7,603
1,941
3,847
2,672
2,416
$17,189
$17,557
$15,694
$17,131
$18,115
$13,438
$16,317
$15,895
$16,873
$34,332
$37,889
$30,517
$33,775
$35,321
$30,053
$34,804
$32,535
$38,093
$41,740
$48,988
$38,099
$38,532
$42,312
$34,493
$45,780
$41,496
$51,743
14.5
13
14.3
10.8
10.8
21.8
9.8
12
7.7
14.24
53.35
8.29
10.99
20.39
9.22
5.36
7.54
8.37
569.84
1943.06
327.36
444.21
824.26
348.93
217.05
304.97
321.58
100.00
30.95
100.00
100.00
87.13
100.00
100.00
100.00
49.47
24,943
16,923
9,632
6,412
$15,484
$19,375
$26,677
$40,688
$33,471
$54,491
27.3
9.4
43.99
38.89
1698.73
1473.47
34.20
59.28
41
Percent
Living in
Poverty
(2008)5
Household
Density6
Population
Density6
Percent
Rural
Housing7
FCC 10-129
APPENDIX C
Unserved Areas
Audrain
Barry
Bollinger
Buchanan
Butler
Caldwell
Carter
Cedar
Cooper
Dallas
Daviess
DeKalb
Douglas
Gasconade
Grundy
Harrison
Hickory
Howard
Jasper
Knox
Lewis
Maries
Marion
McDonald
Mercer
Monroe
Population2
Households3
Average
Per Capita
Income
(1999)4
Median
Household
Income
(1999)4
Median
Household
Income
(2008)4
26,049
36,301
11,990
89,408
41,383
9,248
5,890
13,652
17,535
16,844
7,911
12,275
13,438
15,261
10,125
8,844
9,048
9,918
116,813
4,020
9,951
9,046
28,225
22,731
3,523
9,127
9,947
14,272
4,574
34,924
16,948
3,632
2,357
5,631
6,251
6,521
3,142
3,761
5,355
6,155
4,266
3,681
3,995
3,728
46,275
1,654
3,760
3,593
11,039
8,527
1,501
3,568
$16,441
$14,980
$13,641
$17,882
$15,721
$15,343
$13,349
$14,356
$15,648
$15,106
$15,953
$12,687
$13,785
$17,319
$15,432
$14,192
$13,536
$15,198
$16,227
$13,075
$14,746
$15,662
$16,964
$13,175
$15,140
$14,695
$32,057
$28,906
$30,462
$34,704
$27,228
$31,240
$22,863
$26,694
$35,313
$27,346
$30,855
$31,654
$25,918
$35,047
$27,333
$28,707
$25,346
$31,614
$31,323
$27,124
$30,651
$31,925
$31,774
$27,010
$29,640
$30,871
$38,944
$38,692
$35,946
$42,269
$32,363
$39,417
$26,956
$32,014
$42,929
$34,600
$38,866
$41,592
$29,051
$38,468
$35,381
$34,294
$28,988
$40,527
$38,085
$31,193
$39,295
$38,515
$40,183
$35,298
$36,736
$39,606
42
Percent
Living in
Poverty
(2008)5
17.2
16.9
18
15
20.8
14.6
25.4
20.9
13.5
18.6
15.3
16.1
21.8
13.1
16.9
16.7
20
14.9
17.9
17
17.2
17
15.8
21
14.5
13.6
Household
Density6
37.58
46.60
19.32
218.21
59.33
21.54
11.60
28.68
31.03
31.10
13.95
28.94
16.50
29.31
23.23
12.20
22.70
21.30
182.60
7.95
19.70
17.14
64.43
42.13
7.76
14.13
Population
Density6
1435.13
1831.91
736.88
8523.65
2429.73
845.84
464.28
1183.06
1106.38
1204.15
554.23
886.55
657.44
1182.20
978.77
507.57
1002.11
800.35
7233.50
327.01
744.51
680.80
2519.88
1580.48
330.55
552.35
Percent
Rural
Housing7
40.92
76.23
100.00
12.82
51.96
100.00
100.00
72.57
54.45
81.01
100.00
84.06
77.12
68.12
40.69
69.46
100.00
62.86
23.90
100.00
100.00
100.00
24.21
100.00
100.00
100.00
FCC 10-129
APPENDIX C
Unserved Areas
Montgomery
Newton
Oregon
Osage
Ozark
Pemiscot
Perry
Pike
Putnam
Ralls
Randolph
Reynolds
Ripley
Schuyler
Scotland
Shannon
Shelby
Ste. Genevieve
Stoddard
Sullivan
Texas
Vernon
Washington
Wayne
Worth
Wright
Population2
Households3
Average
Per Capita
Income
(1999)4
Median
Household
Income
(1999)4
Median
Household
Income
(2008)4
11,804
56,120
10,264
13,465
9,227
18,515
18,743
18,476
4,862
9,832
25,723
6,388
13,485
4,110
4,798
8,423
6,411
17,720
29,537
6,629
24,598
20,009
24,548
12,652
2,039
18,443
4,651
21,498
4,236
5,109
3,855
7,302
7,162
6,461
2,085
3,805
9,613
2,612
5,428
1,700
1,825
3,369
2,597
6,557
11,979
2,682
10,029
7,844
8,808
5,286
862
7,287
$15,092
$17,502
$12,812
$17,245
$14,133
$12,968
$16,554
$14,462
$14,647
$16,456
$15,010
$13,065
$12,889
$15,850
$14,474
$11,492
$15,632
$17,283
$14,656
$13,392
$13,799
$15,047
$12,934
$13,434
$14,367
$13,135
$32,772
$35,041
$22,359
$39,565
$25,861
$21,911
$36,632
$32,373
$26,282
$37,094
$31,464
$25,867
$22,761
$27,385
$27,409
$20,878
$29,448
$39,200
$26,987
$26,107
$24,545
$30,021
$27,112
$24,007
$27,471
$24,691
$39,365
$41,822
$26,584
$47,420
$30,427
$27,188
$42,125
$39,524
$32,887
$47,865
$37,684
$30,482
$27,737
$29,924
$35,981
$28,559
$36,403
$50,542
$35,299
$34,628
$29,678
$32,919
$32,546
$27,249
$44,078
$28,561
43
Percent
Living in
Poverty
(2008)5
14.7
14.6
23.4
10
21.7
31.7
12.3
17.8
18.2
10.6
17.8
21
25.6
19.4
15.3
26
15.1
10.3
17.2
17
22.6
20.5
24.1
25.3
14.6
23.2
Household
Density6
21.96
89.59
12.97
22.22
12.43
37.55
39.49
27.46
9.39
20.87
53.33
7.87
21.42
13.35
10.94
8.39
12.80
35.27
35.71
10.18
20.87
23.99
32.32
16.62
7.65
27.04
Population
Density6
865.40
3431.84
535.25
842.90
519.49
1480.86
1508.95
960.24
402.62
807.80
1993.11
321.98
862.37
552.24
416.14
335.57
518.40
1305.14
1448.26
412.06
851.00
940.53
1159.57
694.63
323.43
1068.25
Percent
Rural
Housing7
100.00
63.12
79.31
100.00
100.00
34.93
57.66
55.14
100.00
98.14
46.41
100.00
100.00
100.00
100.00
100.00
100.00
78.11
68.37
100.00
99.26
57.10
82.95
100.00
100.00
73.26
FCC 10-129
APPENDIX C
Unserved Areas
Northern Mariana Islands

Rota Municipality
Saipan Municipality
Tinian Municipality
Mississippi
Adams
Amite
Attala
Benton
Bolivar
Calhoun
Carroll
Choctaw
Claiborne
Clarke
Coahoma
Copiah
Covington
George
Greene
Grenada
Hancock
Harrison
Holmes
Humphreys
Issaquena
Population2
Households3
Average
Per Capita
Income
(1999)4
Median
Household
Income
(1999)4
3,283
62,392
3,540
757
12,507
790
$10,326
$9,021
$10,344
$28,708
$22,555
$23,542
31,307
13,248
19,671
8,116
37,195
14,508
10,367
9,090
10,848
17,378
27,272
29,331
20,526
22,406
13,818
22,995
40,140
178,460
20,595
10,089
1,658
12,484
5,153
7,569
3,051
12,621
5,772
3,916
3,430
3,380
6,747
9,423
10,400
7,545
7,904
4,305
8,696
15,781
67,410
7,028
3,411
534
$15,778
$14,048
$13,782
$12,212
$12,088
$15,106
$15,744
$13,474
$11,244
$14,288
$12,558
$12,408
$14,506
$14,337
$11,868
$13,786
$17,748
$18,024
$10,683
$10,926
$10,581
$25,234
$26,033
$24,794
$24,149
$23,428
$27,113
$28,878
$27,020
$22,615
$26,610
$22,338
$26,358
$26,669
$34,730
$28,336
$27,385
$35,202
$35,624
$17,235
$20,566
$19,936
44
Median
Household
Income
(2008)4
Percent
Living in
Poverty
(2008)5
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
$29,830
$31,767
$29,786
$28,723
$28,779
$31,181
$35,106
$31,771
$27,876
$33,264
$28,320
$33,699
$31,639
$43,666
$36,547
$32,835
$43,491
$44,463
$23,369
$24,091
$26,522
26.7
24.2
25.7
23.3
35.2
20.1
17.8
24.7
35.1
21.1
32.2
24.6
24.4
16.3
22.2
21.3
17.4
16.2
34.9
35.2
48.1
Household
Density6
Population
Density6
Percent
Rural
Housing7
99.58
1,400.38
84.81
2296.24
28071.79
1892.76
100.00
1.93
22.37
68.02
18.16
26.76
19.95
42.45
24.73
16.51
21.69
22.29
25.14
49.21
37.77
49.60
46.85
19.39
54.52
84.17
307.17
27.24
24.13
4.01
2712.29
706.34
1029.60
749.98
1440.33
984.05
623.85
818.41
694.32
976.03
1700.52
1339.11
1823.47
1652.48
603.90
2061.60
3309.16
11602.73
929.63
815.93
129.38
30.91
100.00
64.68
100.00
43.30
83.63
100.00
100.00
71.54
100.00
32.02
58.74
100.00
100.00
100.00
45.46
36.41
19.69
72.41
50.46
100.00
FCC 10-129
APPENDIX C
Unserved Areas
Itawamba
Jackson
Jasper
Jefferson
Jefferson Davis
Kemper
Lawrence
Leake
Lincoln
Lowndes
Marion
Monroe
Montgomery
Neshoba
Newton
Noxubee
Perry
Pike
Pontotoc
Prentiss
Quitman
Scott
Sharkey
Simpson
Smith
Stone
Population2
Households3
Average
Per Capita
Income
(1999)4
Median
Household
Income
(1999)4
Median
Household
Income
(2008)4
23,175
130,694
18,253
8,872
12,653
9,967
13,370
22,844
34,931
59,284
25,830
37,250
11,266
30,530
22,355
11,828
12,235
39,961
29,004
25,707
8,724
28,850
5,556
28,034
15,809
16,025
8,956
47,489
6,748
2,996
4,699
3,725
5,114
8,317
13,183
21,997
9,457
14,308
4,351
11,378
8,380
4,215
4,463
15,207
10,992
9,883
3,088
10,380
1,839
10,247
5,943
5,584
$14,956
$17,768
$12,889
$9,709
$11,974
$11,985
$14,469
$13,365
$13,961
$16,514
$12,301
$14,072
$14,040
$14,964
$14,008
$12,018
$12,837
$14,040
$15,658
$14,131
$10,817
$14,013
$11,396
$13,344
$14,752
$14,693
$31,156
$39,118
$24,441
$18,447
$21,834
$23,998
$28,495
$27,055
$27,279
$32,123
$24,555
$30,307
$25,270
$28,300
$28,735
$22,330
$27,189
$24,562
$32,055
$28,446
$20,636
$26,686
$22,285
$28,343
$30,840
$30,495
$38,063
$51,034
$30,950
$24,352
$26,590
$28,549
$33,123
$31,525
$34,050
$36,069
$31,967
$34,251
$31,456
$35,410
$34,768
$25,668
$36,027
$30,697
$38,518
$34,111
$25,407
$31,632
$26,217
$34,508
$35,318
$39,735
45
Percent
Living in
Poverty
(2008)5
15
13.3
21
37.5
27.8
26.3
20.2
23.6
20.6
22.6
25.2
20.3
24.3
16.7
19.2
32.9
19.9
24
15.6
19
34.9
21.8
38.1
21.6
17.8
18.1
Household
Density6
43.54
179.80
27.00
17.08
30.98
13.01
31.05
39.20
59.64
118.03
47.63
48.75
27.69
53.56
38.67
17.02
18.91
97.73
58.32
61.96
21.55
47.37
12.99
47.62
24.86
35.98
Population
Density6
1682.39
6533.10
998.28
576.81
1150.54
486.25
1187.53
1427.34
2250.81
4379.26
1743.74
1872.29
1069.34
1996.14
1449.71
606.72
689.67
3718.99
2210.18
2381.88
762.76
1704.14
429.98
1740.59
934.57
1253.89
Percent
Rural
Housing7
89.11
30.28
100.00
76.90
100.00
100.00
100.00
84.69
63.29
39.65
69.87
64.58
63.59
75.21
84.71
75.73
100.00
51.14
82.68
76.51
63.98
71.37
100.00
85.05
100.00
78.16
FCC 10-129
APPENDIX C
Unserved Areas
Tallahatchie
Tishomingo
Union
Walthall
Warren
Washington
Wayne
Webster
Wilkinson
Winston
Yalobusha
Yazoo
Montana
Blaine
Broadwater
Carter
Cascade
Chouteau
Daniels
Fallon
Garfield
Golden Valley
Granite
Judith Basin
Liberty
Lincoln
Population2
Households3
Average
Per Capita
Income
(1999)4
Median
Household
Income
(1999)4
Median
Household
Income
(2008)4
13,027
18,947
27,212
15,416
48,087
55,079
20,755
9,887
10,283
19,575
13,645
28,464
4,590
7,869
10,511
5,668
18,194
19,373
7,700
3,762
3,574
7,354
5,522
9,267
$10,749
$15,395
$15,700
$12,563
$17,527
$13,430
$12,757
$14,109
$10,868
$14,548
$14,953
$12,062
$22,229
$28,315
$32,682
$22,945
$35,056
$25,757
$25,918
$28,834
$18,929
$28,256
$26,315
$24,795
$27,493
$33,674
$37,499
$30,752
$39,825
$27,452
$33,145
$33,014
$26,759
$33,002
$31,094
$30,087
28.9
18.9
15.5
25.2
21
35.8
22.6
21
31.6
20.6
21.8
34.5
20.23
44.67
65.50
38.18
81.97
76.08
25.61
23.40
15.20
32.25
29.21
30.96
712.82
1855.42
2530.04
1403.49
3101.53
2675.88
950.23
890.46
528.14
1211.63
1182.22
1007.80
78.55
100.00
75.03
100.00
35.09
17.57
75.58
100.00
100.00
75.72
80.62
52.17
6,491
4,704
1,234
82,026
5,225
1,643
2,716
1,184
1,081
2,821
2,014
1,725
18,971
2,344
1,874
496
33,311
1,960
731
1,078
493
373
1,197
822
663
7,843
$12,101
$16,237
$13,280
$17,566
$14,851
$16,055
$16,014
$13,930
$13,573
$16,636
$14,291
$14,882
$13,923
$25,247
$32,689
$26,313
$32,971
$29,150
$27,306
$29,944
$25,917
$27,308
$27,813
$29,241
$30,284
$26,754
$32,605
$40,104
$34,070
$42,528
$40,588
$34,239
$47,099
$35,585
$33,753
$38,323
$37,033
$35,663
$33,383
24
11.5
11.8
13.6
16.2
12.2
9.6
15.4
20
13.4
15
17.2
20.1
1.54
3.95
0.37
30.40
1.32
1.15
1.68
0.25
0.92
1.63
1.08
1.21
5.25
55.46
157.31
14.86
1234.69
49.34
51.24
66.53
10.57
31.78
69.30
43.98
46.35
217.11
100.00
100.00
100.00
20.12
100.00
100.00
100.00
100.00
100.00
100.00
100.00
100.00
78.48
46
Percent
Living in
Poverty
(2008)5
Household
Density6
Population
Density6
Percent
Rural
Housing7
FCC 10-129
APPENDIX C
Unserved Areas
McCone
Meagher
Mineral
Musselshell
Petroleum
Phillips
Powder River
Prairie
Richland
Roosevelt
Sanders
Sheridan
Sweet Grass
Treasure
Valley
Wheatland
Wibaux
North Carolina
Anson
Bladen
Cleveland
Davidson
Davie
Forsyth
Gaston
Mecklenburg
Population2
Households3
Average
Per Capita
Income
(1999)4
Median
Household
Income
(1999)4
Median
Household
Income
(2008)4
1,676
1,868
3,862
4,498
436
3,904
1,694
1,064
9,270
10,089
11,034
3,283
3,790
637
6,892
2,010
866
686
780
1,583
1,865
185
1,565
674
477
3,734
3,428
4,613
1,398
1,551
269
2,822
743
345
$15,162
$15,019
$15,166
$15,389
$15,986
$15,058
$15,351
$14,422
$16,006
$11,347
$14,593
$16,038
$17,880
$14,392
$16,246
$11,954
$16,121
$29,718
$29,375
$27,143
$25,527
$24,107
$28,702
$28,398
$25,451
$32,110
$24,834
$26,852
$29,518
$32,422
$29,830
$30,979
$24,492
$28,224
$37,576
$30,142
$34,985
$34,318
$31,243
$35,229
$36,933
$33,590
$49,838
$32,671
$30,250
$40,127
$44,424
$38,296
$39,344
$30,486
$37,217
11.7
19.7
17.1
18.1
17
16.1
13
12.8
11.2
25.7
17.6
12.5
10.2
11.4
14.5
19.1
13.5
0.63
0.78
3.17
2.41
0.26
0.76
0.51
0.61
4.45
4.28
3.99
1.96
2.04
0.65
1.40
1.41
0.97
25.95
32.62
129.77
99.91
11.18
30.44
20.43
27.44
179.17
145.51
167.02
83.38
83.61
27.44
57.35
52.21
38.75
100.00
100.00
100.00
100.00
100.00
100.00
100.00
100.00
44.09
46.91
100.00
100.00
100.00
100.00
66.37
100.00
100.00
25,162
32,312
99,015
158,166
40,971
343,028
206,679
890,515
9,172
12,887
38,097
62,443
16,141
139,000
80,164
350,289
$14,853
$14,735
$17,395
$18,703
$21,359
$23,023
$19,225
$27,352
$29,849
$26,877
$35,283
$38,640
$40,174
$42,097
$39,482
$50,579
$34,012
$29,043
$39,049
$44,136
$52,408
$47,318
$46,265
$57,293
23.4
24
17.5
14.5
10.8
14.9
15.1
10.9
47.34
36.93
213.11
286.46
154.50
837.48
580.21
1,692.11
1725.43
1472.86
8199.36
11309.11
6086.86
33935.99
22504.32
66560.15
71.20
89.00
54.73
56.76
77.72
8.83
21.94
3.66
47
Percent
Living in
Poverty
(2008)5
Household
Density6
Population
Density6
Percent
Rural
Housing7
FCC 10-129
APPENDIX C
Unserved Areas
Richmond
Robeson
Rockingham
Rutherford
Scotland
Stokes
Transylvania
Union
Wake
Wayne
Yadkin
North Dakota
Benson
Billings
Bottineau
Burke
Dickey
Divide
Eddy
Foster
Golden Valley
Grant
Griggs
LaMoure
McHenry
McKenzie
Population2
Households3
Average
Per Capita
Income
(1999)4
Median
Household
Income
(1999)4
Median
Household
Income
(2008)4
46,005
129,123
92,282
63,424
36,508
46,171
30,187
193,255
866,410
113,671
37,954
17,698
45,674
37,191
25,384
13,597
18,151
12,730
67,769
334,137
42,669
15,127
$14,485
$13,224
$17,120
$16,270
$15,693
$18,130
$20,767
$21,978
$27,004
$17,010
$18,576
$28,830
$28,202
$33,784
$31,122
$31,010
$38,808
$38,587
$50,638
$54,988
$33,942
$36,660
$30,743
$31,499
$38,267
$36,866
$33,364
$42,958
$42,608
$62,478
$65,487
$39,934
$42,774
23.7
30.4
16.2
16.8
27.6
14.9
12.4
8.6
9.2
18.3
13.8
97.06
136.09
162.92
112.43
114.39
102.18
79.78
303.21
1,041.45
205.71
113.11
3733.91
4813.67
6565.74
4499.80
4260.44
4017.14
3364.17
10632.66
40164.35
7722.00
4508.09
43.27
64.04
56.83
64.45
51.62
80.50
68.62
50.83
11.42
44.48
86.76
6,953
811
6,338
1,820
5,237
1,986
2,388
3,447
1,640
2,415
2,359
3,986
5,168
5,674
2,334
331
2,630
826
2,083
879
988
1,422
647
1,019
1,008
1,642
2,179
2,137
$11,509
$16,186
$16,227
$14,026
$15,846
$16,225
$15,941
$17,928
$14,173
$14,616
$16,131
$17,059
$15,140
$14,732
$26,688
$32,667
$29,853
$25,330
$29,231
$30,089
$28,642
$32,019
$29,967
$23,165
$29,572
$29,707
$27,274
$29,342
$33,194
$44,715
$45,271
$43,693
$41,557
$43,711
$38,119
$44,090
$39,109
$35,062
$40,517
$46,843
$37,710
$44,704
27.9
11.4
11.6
10.4
12.9
11.6
13.1
9
13.2
17.1
10.6
11.3
13.7
14.4
5.04
0.70
3.80
1.65
4.63
1.58
3.79
5.43
1.64
1.46
3.33
3.47
2.76
2.07
169.08
28.71
157.64
74.89
184.19
69.83
156.84
223.91
64.57
61.42
142.30
143.17
116.26
77.95
100.00
100.00
100.00
100.00
100.00
100.00
100.00
100.00
100.00
100.00
100.00
100.00
100.00
100.00
48
Percent
Living in
Poverty
(2008)5
Household
Density6
Population
Density6
Percent
Rural
Housing7
FCC 10-129
APPENDIX C
Unserved Areas
Mercer
Mountrail
Oliver
Pierce
Ransom
Renville
Rolette
Sargent
Sheridan
Sioux
Stutsman
Towner
Wells
Nebraska
Antelope
Arthur
Blaine
Boone
Boyd
Butler
Chase
Dundy
Frontier
Garfield
Grant
Greeley
Population2
Households3
Average
Per Capita
Income
(1999)4
Median
Household
Income
(1999)4
Median
Household
Income
(2008)4
7,854
6,511
1,695
4,091
5,628
2,245
13,657
4,048
1,266
4,232
20,394
2,202
4,191
3,047
2,526
641
1,719
2,239
935
4,551
1,653
538
1,142
8,374
922
1,820
$18,256
$13,422
$16,271
$14,055
$18,219
$16,478
$10,873
$18,689
$13,283
$7,731
$17,706
$17,605
$17,932
$42,269
$27,098
$36,650
$26,524
$37,672
$30,746
$26,232
$37,213
$24,450
$22,483
$33,848
$32,740
$31,894
$63,570
$41,551
$50,353
$36,065
$49,093
$47,264
$32,393
$51,521
$32,549
$29,137
$45,307
$48,023
$40,631
7.2
14
10.2
12.3
9.6
8.8
27.9
7.1
17.9
37.8
11.6
10
12.3
7.51
3.57
2.34
4.02
6.52
2.57
15.13
4.71
1.30
3.87
9.18
2.15
3.30
291.49
138.52
88.60
168.86
259.49
106.88
504.33
192.50
55.39
104.35
376.98
89.97
143.19
68.70
100.00
100.00
38.61
100.00
100.00
100.00
100.00
100.00
100.00
29.73
100.00
100.00
6,679
338
428
5,446
2,090
8,326
3,629
2,002
2,584
1,710
604
2,290
2,658
141
178
2,147
874
3,257
1,484
830
991
735
241
904
$14,601
$15,810
$12,323
$15,831
$13,840
$16,394
$17,490
$15,786
$16,648
$14,368
$14,815
$13,731
$30,114
$27,375
$25,278
$31,444
$26,075
$36,331
$32,351
$27,010
$33,038
$27,407
$34,821
$28,375
$37,307
$35,208
$31,090
$46,764
$31,942
$44,853
$42,821
$34,354
$42,541
$32,772
$37,935
$35,576
13.8
10.4
19.2
9.9
13.5
9.5
10.6
14.3
12.7
13.4
10
13.5
7.79
0.47
0.60
7.93
3.87
14.27
4.06
2.18
2.65
3.00
0.78
4.02
310.17
19.69
25.00
312.72
161.75
558.18
165.85
90.21
101.64
129.02
31.04
158.58
100.00
100.00
100.00
100.00
100.00
69.37
100.00
100.00
100.00
100.00
100.00
100.00
49
Percent
Living in
Poverty
(2008)5
Household
Density6
Population
Density6
Percent
Rural
Housing7
FCC 10-129
APPENDIX C
Unserved Areas
Hamilton
Hayes
Hitchcock
Hooker
Keya Paha
Knox
Logan
Loup
McPherson
Nuckolls
Pawnee
Perkins
Polk
Richardson
Rock
Sheridan
Thayer
Thomas
Thurston
Webster
Wheeler
New Mexico
Catron
De Baca
Guadalupe
Harding
Population2
Households3
Average
Per Capita
Income
(1999)4
Median
Household
Income
(1999)4
Median
Household
Income
(2008)4
9,300
1,005
2,836
736
836
8,498
735
619
514
4,467
2,602
2,884
5,122
8,294
1,508
5,337
5,104
583
7,102
3,508
807
3,471
410
1,178
317
351
3,445
299
245
205
1,962
1,133
1,151
2,046
3,478
648
2,200
2,155
259
2,220
1,475
326
$17,590
$14,099
$14,804
$15,513
$11,860
$13,971
$14,937
$12,427
$13,055
$15,608
$16,687
$17,830
$17,934
$16,460
$14,350
$14,844
$17,043
$15,335
$10,951
$16,802
$14,355
$40,277
$26,667
$28,287
$27,868
$24,911
$27,564
$33,125
$26,250
$25,750
$28,958
$29,000
$34,205
$37,819
$29,884
$25,795
$29,484
$30,740
$27,292
$28,170
$30,026
$26,771
$54,722
$37,207
$37,381
$35,622
$31,122
$34,296
$40,087
$30,938
$37,225
$32,931
$37,158
$44,607
$47,605
$37,937
$33,449
$34,992
$39,355
$34,833
$35,638
$36,927
$33,551
7.4
15.7
13.6
9.3
22.4
15.4
10.5
17.7
12.9
13.2
12.9
10.7
7.8
10.9
17.6
15.6
10.9
13.2
28.2
11.5
18.7
17.11
1.41
3.99
1.02
1.08
7.67
1.29
1.09
0.60
7.76
6.03
3.27
11.67
14.99
1.50
2.19
8.88
0.82
18.03
6.10
1.40
638.35
57.53
165.88
43.92
45.42
310.88
52.42
43.03
23.91
341.02
262.49
130.31
466.13
628.68
64.29
90.13
375.00
36.35
563.83
256.64
56.69
53.43
100.00
100.00
100.00
100.00
100.00
100.00
100.00
100.00
100.00
100.00
100.00
100.00
54.96
100.00
100.00
100.00
100.00
100.00
100.00
100.00
3,405
1,907
4,346
684
1,525
787
1,542
309
$13,951
$14,065
$11,241
$16,240
$23,892
$25,441
$24,783
$26,111
$29,127
$29,340
$27,913
$28,697
20.7
18
23.7
15.2
0.49
0.82
1.43
0.32
22.02
33.84
50.90
14.54
100.00
100.00
56.53
100.00
50
Percent
Living in
Poverty
(2008)5
Household
Density6
Population
Density6
Percent
Rural
Housing7
FCC 10-129
APPENDIX C
Unserved Areas
Hidalgo
Lea
Mora
Rio Arriba
Sierra
Union
Nevada
Esmeralda
Eureka
Humboldt
Lander
Lincoln
Mineral
Nye
Pershing
Storey
White Pine
Ohio
Gallia
Monroe
Oklahoma
Adair
Alfalfa
Beaver
Beckham
Blaine
Population2
Households3
Average
Per Capita
Income
(1999)4
Median
Household
Income
(1999)4
Median
Household
Income
(2008)4
4,910
59,155
5,052
40,692
12,437
3,777
1,781
21,015
1,965
14,833
5,720
1,564
$12,431
$14,184
$12,340
$14,263
$15,023
$14,700
$24,819
$29,799
$24,518
$29,429
$24,152
$28,080
$34,236
$45,813
$28,962
$38,578
$27,580
$34,218
21.3
15.5
23
17.2
23.9
16
1.42
13.47
2.62
6.95
2.98
0.99
51.70
478.37
101.77
253.23
136.83
40.83
56.14
22.11
100.00
60.30
32.02
100.00
677
1,628
17,763
5,086
4,898
4,684
44,375
6,291
4,341
9,199
316
654
6,335
1,857
1,830
2,033
18,184
1,844
1,875
3,291
$18,971
$18,629
$19,539
$16,998
$17,326
$16,952
$17,962
$16,589
$23,642
$18,309
$33,203
$41,417
$47,147
$46,067
$31,979
$32,891
$36,024
$40,670
$45,490
$36,688
$40,299
$55,090
$58,005
$61,938
$44,535
$37,630
$43,463
$53,651
$63,967
$49,209
14.3
10
10.2
9.9
13.9
15.9
15.8
18.1
5.2
13.5
0.19
0.39
1.84
0.93
0.46
1.25
2.45
1.04
16.48
1.04
8.80
15.66
65.66
33.81
17.21
54.12
100.21
30.55
711.64
37.08
100.00
100.00
40.78
37.95
100.00
33.11
57.19
100.00
95.05
46.61
30,912
14,221
12,030
5,649
$15,183
$15,096
$30,191
$30,467
$38,997
$40,089
20.3
15
65.94
31.22
2566.23
1240.07
74.83
97.81
21,811
5,637
5,248
21,136
12,659
7,743
2,025
2,005
7,830
4,404
$11,185
$14,704
$17,905
$14,488
$13,546
$24,881
$30,259
$36,715
$27,402
$28,356
$29,809
$38,916
$48,051
$45,809
$36,983
22.9
17
10.9
15.8
22.6
37.89
6.50
2.89
23.44
13.63
1345.12
233.65
110.52
868.27
474.30
83.06
100.00
100.00
32.06
71.45
51
Percent
Living in
Poverty
(2008)5
Household
Density6
Population
Density6
Percent
Rural
Housing7
FCC 10-129
APPENDIX C
Unserved Areas
Caddo
Carter
Cherokee
Choctaw
Cimarron
Comanche
Cotton
Craig
Custer
Delaware
Dewey
Ellis
Garfield
Garvin
Grady
Grant
Greer
Harmon
Harper
Haskell
Hughes
Jackson
Jefferson
Kingfisher
Kiowa
Latimer
Population2
Households3
Average
Per Capita
Income
(1999)4
Median
Household
Income
(1999)4
Median
Household
Income
(2008)4
29,024
47,979
45,733
14,890
2,556
111,772
6,191
15,132
26,412
40,425
4,389
3,971
58,167
27,247
51,066
4,450
5,713
2,843
3,290
12,152
13,625
25,236
6,219
14,300
9,399
10,561
10,534
18,910
17,451
6,052
1,022
38,811
2,447
5,674
10,262
16,219
1,822
1,729
23,362
10,918
19,421
1,805
2,126
1,089
1,412
4,768
5,145
9,426
2,466
5,385
3,873
3,925
$13,298
$15,511
$13,436
$12,296
$15,744
$15,728
$14,626
$16,539
$15,584
$15,424
$15,806
$16,472
$17,457
$14,856
$15,846
$15,709
$14,053
$13,464
$18,011
$13,775
$12,687
$15,454
$12,899
$18,167
$14,231
$12,842
$27,347
$29,405
$26,536
$22,743
$30,625
$33,867
$27,210
$30,997
$28,524
$27,996
$28,172
$27,951
$33,006
$28,070
$32,625
$28,977
$25,793
$22,365
$33,705
$24,553
$22,621
$30,737
$23,674
$36,676
$26,053
$23,962
$33,111
$39,360
$32,296
$27,774
$35,513
$40,589
$44,923
$38,954
$40,013
$36,518
$40,060
$41,204
$42,893
$38,431
$43,057
$39,584
$32,660
$29,456
$45,072
$34,327
$30,932
$39,249
$29,596
$52,284
$32,075
$34,598
52
Percent
Living in
Poverty
(2008)5
21.3
16.4
25.3
24.7
16.3
18.3
16.8
19.2
18
19.9
12.9
12.4
16.7
15.6
16.3
13.6
23.2
27.5
10.3
20.3
24.3
17.2
22.3
11.8
19.2
17.5
Household
Density6
22.70
58.24
60.89
19.24
1.39
104.52
9.72
19.88
26.77
54.58
4.39
3.23
54.96
33.74
46.38
4.45
8.94
5.29
3.17
21.06
16.89
31.44
8.20
15.84
9.26
14.62
Population
Density6
824.07
2295.53
2323.53
782.02
55.71
3629.37
384.33
745.60
1040.22
2189.87
182.18
140.65
2207.33
1352.07
1763.98
180.44
332.45
202.56
135.92
826.34
637.79
1174.28
324.94
596.33
381.73
543.54
Percent
Rural
Housing7
81.67
53.67
64.04
62.71
100.00
21.06
59.42
59.10
31.52
85.25
100.00
100.00
19.92
66.18
62.86
100.00
47.20
100.00
100.00
78.99
63.00
26.31
100.00
69.74
64.93
73.71
FCC 10-129
APPENDIX C
Unserved Areas
Lincoln
Love
Major
Mayes
McClain
McIntosh
Murray
Muskogee
Noble
Okfuskee
Okmulgee
Ottawa
Pawnee
Payne
Pittsburg
Pontotoc
Pottawatomie
Pushmataha
Roger Mills
Seminole
Stephens
Texas
Tillman
Washington
Washita
Woods
Population2
Households3
Average
Per Capita
Income
(1999)4
Median
Household
Income
(1999)4
Median
Household
Income
(2008)4
32,153
9,155
7,112
39,912
32,365
19,698
12,784
71,278
11,169
11,172
39,219
31,849
16,307
78,280
45,115
36,999
69,616
11,710
3,404
24,200
43,498
20,283
7,899
50,452
11,709
8,422
12,224
3,565
2,881
15,405
12,057
8,196
5,085
27,149
4,431
4,039
15,128
12,499
6,255
30,686
17,631
14,748
26,111
4,729
1,417
9,313
17,614
7,197
3,065
20,807
4,609
3,431
$14,890
$16,648
$17,272
$15,350
$18,158
$16,410
$16,084
$14,828
$17,022
$12,746
$14,065
$14,478
$15,261
$15,983
$15,494
$14,664
$15,972
$12,864
$16,821
$13,956
$16,357
$15,692
$14,270
$20,250
$15,528
$17,487
$31,187
$32,558
$30,949
$31,125
$37,275
$25,964
$30,294
$28,438
$33,968
$24,324
$27,652
$27,507
$31,661
$28,733
$28,679
$26,955
$31,573
$22,127
$30,078
$25,568
$30,709
$35,872
$24,828
$35,816
$29,563
$28,927
$41,053
$41,399
$43,895
$37,044
$52,822
$30,076
$40,268
$34,727
$42,503
$30,527
$37,460
$34,873
$39,489
$39,364
$39,722
$34,465
$42,013
$27,771
$45,159
$31,547
$43,581
$44,775
$31,463
$45,023
$41,971
$38,676
53
Percent
Living in
Poverty
(2008)5
14.2
14.2
9.8
17.3
10
20.8
16.8
19.7
13.7
23.7
20.3
19.6
15.8
18.7
17.2
19.4
16.5
25.8
11.5
22
13
12.2
21.9
13.2
14.9
16.6
Household
Density6
33.57
17.76
7.43
60.83
56.81
31.77
30.57
87.58
15.26
17.88
56.27
67.57
28.64
114.05
34.55
51.41
88.38
8.38
2.98
38.26
49.77
9.96
9.06
121.04
11.67
6.55
Population
Density6
1276.32
691.75
301.08
2347.75
2116.49
1321.87
1215.78
3335.88
605.41
646.48
2170.56
2651.92
1098.45
4471.01
1350.07
2049.34
3314.84
338.46
124.07
1472.37
2015.23
353.31
351.55
4992.01
459.38
266.70
Percent
Rural
Housing7
91.73
100.00
100.00
78.98
81.12
90.41
68.28
35.73
51.81
71.41
46.13
50.49
80.61
31.83
55.91
49.75
48.77
100.00
100.00
62.22
41.41
51.02
51.06
20.01
73.40
39.83
FCC 10-129
APPENDIX C
Unserved Areas
Woodward
Oregon
Grant
Lake
Morrow
Wallowa
Wheeler
Puerto Rico
Adjuntas
Aguada
Aguadilla
Aguas Buenas
Aibonito
Arecibo
Arroyo
Aasco
Barceloneta
Barranquitas
Bayamn
Cabo Rojo
Caguas
Camuy
Canvanas
Carolina
Catao
Cayey
Population2
Households3
Average
Per Capita
Income
(1999)4
Median
Household
Income
(1999)4
Median
Household
Income
(2008)4
19,838
7,625
$16,734
$33,581
$49,087
12.8
15.97
613.75
37.41
6,916
7,239
11,140
6,760
1,319
2,833
3,022
3,834
2,849
553
$16,794
$16,136
$15,802
$17,276
$15,884
$32,560
$29,506
$37,521
$32,129
$28,750
$34,846
$36,215
$50,173
$42,559
$32,231
15.2
17.9
14.2
13.9
16.8
1.53
0.89
5.48
2.15
0.77
62.55
37.14
188.64
90.57
32.27
100.00
61.02
53.86
100.00
100.00
18,338
46,036
67,491
31,601
27,129
102,645
18,954
30,300
23,106
30,544
219,740
53,849
143,176
39,851
47,666
187,438
26,074
47,193
5,666
14,814
23,041
10,059
8,617
35,084
6,107
10,048
7,772
9,143
72,217
19,691
47,868
12,955
14,823
64,077
8,361
15,565
$4,975
$6,100
$6,996
$7,034
$6,579
$7,290
$5,797
$6,613
$6,938
$4,978
$9,234
$8,070
$8,632
$6,380
$5,917
$10,511
$8,369
$7,027
$9,888
$11,384
$11,476
$12,957
$12,725
$12,496
$11,484
$12,620
$11,706
$11,322
$19,861
$13,580
$16,522
$13,168
$13,034
$21,236
$12,852
$13,452
274.97
1,488.54
1,844.48
1,033.89
867.04
814.72
1,260.15
771.51
1,238.50
892.61
4,951.07
765.41
2,440.16
858.38
1,451.14
4,135.14
5,404.08
909.38
8496.17
47900.73
62969.14
32908.97
27539.93
27847.16
40605.20
25585.52
41656.98
26720.53
162716.72
27988.88
81581.97
27903.93
45126.62
141361.92
173295.03
29991.99
42.06
0.00
0.00
5.68
12.40
8.69
4.02
10.24
1.55
4.06
0.00
21.44
0.73
12.65
3.13
0.19
0.00
8.29
54
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
Percent
Living in
Poverty
(2008)5
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
Household
Density6
Population
Density6
Percent
Rural
Housing7
FCC 10-129
APPENDIX C
Unserved Areas
Ceiba
Ciales
Cidra
Coamo
Comero
Corozal
Culebra
Dorado
Fajardo
Florida
Guayama
Guayanilla
Guaynabo
Gurabo
Gunica
Hatillo
Hormigueros
Humacao
Isabela
Jayuya
Juana Daz
Juncos
Lajas
Lares
Las Maras
Las Piedras
Population2
Households3
Average
Per Capita
Income
(1999)4
Median
Household
Income
(1999)4
17,802
20,658
48,548
39,816
19,276
39,000
2,138
36,630
42,270
16,067
45,298
23,686
102,956
43,764
22,824
43,658
17,648
60,809
48,134
18,343
53,223
41,221
28,027
37,961
12,216
39,893
5,667
6,320
15,041
12,455
6,099
11,887
806
11,713
14,679
5,168
14,549
7,378
35,080
14,012
7,585
14,236
6,179
19,874
16,224
5,377
15,745
13,503
9,627
12,133
3,939
12,922
$9,256
$5,634
$7,877
$6,102
$4,972
$5,394
$8,901
$8,765
$7,852
$5,164
$7,326
$5,954
$16,287
$8,819
$5,204
$6,773
$9,024
$7,677
$6,816
$5,156
$5,632
$6,369
$7,691
$4,634
$5,066
$6,427
$16,440
$10,981
$15,557
$12,064
$10,892
$11,786
$17,008
$16,460
$15,410
$11,123
$12,112
$11,361
$26,211
$16,451
$9,721
$12,378
$16,745
$14,345
$11,685
$11,220
$12,892
$13,072
$11,384
$9,685
$9,472
$14,622
55
Median
Household
Income
(2008)4
Percent
Living in
Poverty
(2008)5
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
Household
Density6
612.95
309.96
1,345.07
510.18
678.96
915.74
184.02
1,570.18
1,415.07
1,057.44
696.14
559.14
3,795.29
1,571.92
615.06
1,044.88
1,558.39
1,358.25
869.41
411.38
882.77
1,550.48
466.32
617.63
263.63
1,177.34
Population
Density6
19511.17
9482.88
41673.65
15959.19
21483.58
27911.67
6935.19
50206.76
49141.11
34013.88
22359.33
17417.24
129316.69
50328.04
20440.21
34072.50
54563.51
44390.81
29303.74
12060.26
26115.76
50790.69
16016.97
19741.03
8501.62
38135.16
Percent
Rural
Housing7
5.03
27.77
5.56
20.48
14.79
4.83
100.00
1.70
4.40
19.53
9.60
9.97
0.14
3.66
6.25
6.66
0.64
0.45
3.99
34.00
8.30
1.97
24.87
24.19
65.49
7.17
FCC 10-129
APPENDIX C
Unserved Areas
Loza
Luquillo
Manat
Maricao
Maunabo
Mayagez
Moca
Morovis
Naguabo
Naranjito
Orocovis
Patillas
Peuelas
Ponce
Quebradillas
Rincn
Ro Grande
Sabana Grande
Salinas
San Germn
San Juan
San Lorenzo
San Sebastin
Santa Isabel
Toa Alta
Toa Baja
Population2
Households3
Average
Per Capita
Income
(1999)4
Median
Household
Income
(1999)4
33,778
20,561
49,845
6,310
12,668
92,996
44,891
32,995
24,342
29,901
24,870
19,941
29,575
179,353
28,129
16,615
56,695
27,728
32,241
37,638
422,665
44,842
48,095
22,925
81,959
94,799
9,980
6,824
16,783
1,972
3,988
32,812
14,410
9,682
8,073
8,978
7,415
6,526
8,557
57,432
9,179
5,794
17,827
9,492
10,560
13,005
159,023
14,363
16,249
7,171
24,891
30,704
$5,283
$7,529
$7,502
$5,224
$5,400
$8,003
$5,664
$5,748
$6,960
$5,634
$4,637
$5,950
$5,096
$7,276
$6,209
$6,610
$7,347
$6,164
$6,133
$7,944
$12,437
$6,856
$5,681
$5,903
$8,568
$8,666
$11,200
$13,631
$12,796
$9,243
$11,638
$11,775
$11,271
$12,090
$11,461
$12,484
$9,945
$12,021
$12,194
$12,998
$12,210
$11,460
$15,006
$12,485
$11,391
$13,089
$17,367
$12,226
$10,962
$11,895
$20,134
$18,331
56
Median
Household
Income
(2008)4
Percent
Living in
Poverty
(2008)5
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
Household
Density6
1,737.23
800.11
1,103.65
172.27
602.17
1,197.89
892.70
848.79
470.84
1,101.19
391.71
427.04
666.77
1,563.38
1,241.86
1,163.43
933.61
772.67
465.83
690.49
8,839.48
843.70
682.45
671.53
2,994.79
4,092.87
Population
Density6
51326.25
26554.57
37159.22
5382.46
18956.86
42265.92
28656.14
24906.99
15616.05
33062.78
11678.75
13975.47
19292.65
50062.58
40525.11
40574.59
29357.00
26449.96
15258.03
23858.67
332574.79
27022.89
23056.24
21005.94
90950.65
132563.07
Percent
Rural
Housing7
0.52
5.38
7.11
53.48
7.76
2.29
5.21
7.78
9.61
0.00
27.75
27.68
12.76
3.99
4.51
0.00
12.52
8.18
9.08
6.78
0.00
14.27
11.98
20.56
0.00
0.00
FCC 10-129
APPENDIX C
Unserved Areas
Trujillo Alto
Utuado
Vega Alta
Vega Baja
Vieques
Villalba
Yabucoa
Yauco
South Carolina
Bamberg
Barnwell
Calhoun
Chester
Chesterfield
Clarendon
Darlington
Dillon
Dorchester
Fairfield
Kershaw
Lancaster
Lee
Lexington
Marion
Marlboro
McCormick
Population2
Households3
Average
Per Capita
Income
(1999)4
Median
Household
Income
(1999)4
87,083
34,339
39,723
64,879
9,252
30,367
40,559
48,481
27,772
10,879
12,468
20,725
3,383
8,398
12,617
15,707
$10,936
$5,086
$7,356
$7,279
$6,562
$5,176
$6,125
$6,434
$21,980
$9,948
$13,495
$13,933
$9,331
$11,728
$12,292
$11,924
15,307
22,872
14,583
32,618
42,882
33,149
67,031
30,698
127,133
23,435
58,901
75,913
19,891
248,518
33,843
28,704
10,093
5,609
8,840
5,710
12,330
16,642
12,035
25,713
11,201
45,741
8,750
22,606
28,740
6,815
95,907
12,669
10,417
3,591
$12,584
$15,870
$17,446
$14,709
$14,233
$13,998
$16,283
$13,272
$18,840
$14,911
$18,360
$16,276
$13,896
$21,063
$13,878
$13,385
$14,770
$24,007
$28,591
$32,736
$32,425
$29,483
$27,131
$31,087
$26,630
$43,316
$30,376
$38,804
$34,688
$26,907
$44,659
$26,526
$26,598
$31,577
57
Median
Household
Income
(2008)4
Percent
Living in
Poverty
(2008)5
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
$30,305
$35,460
$38,803
$35,886
$34,492
$32,725
$37,650
$30,935
$60,254
$35,880
$44,446
$39,898
$30,876
$52,515
$30,832
$30,749
$37,676
28
22
17.2
19.7
20.6
25
21.9
23.9
10.1
21.7
13.9
16.9
27.6
10.6
24.1
27.5
19.5
Household
Density6
Population
Density6
Percent
Rural
Housing7
4,197.29
302.68
1,431.46
1,413.74
182.02
856.77
734.06
711.42
133859.02
9589.47
44929.98
45161.57
6656.48
23693.01
22835.65
23049.43
0.00
32.84
3.48
3.38
14.47
16.80
5.49
11.78
38.92
41.71
38.35
56.19
53.70
54.59
119.45
75.83
221.21
34.13
81.10
138.28
48.48
355.41
69.20
59.84
28.07
1426.31
1611.88
1501.82
2123.95
2083.93
1982.01
4582.20
2766.82
7958.64
1274.40
3112.72
5235.12
1660.96
13715.61
2590.55
2171.46
998.72
55.54
84.24
100.00
67.42
72.88
86.77
53.93
64.31
27.73
74.38
62.25
59.57
78.07
33.76
58.38
47.71
100.00
FCC 10-129
APPENDIX C
Unserved Areas
Oconee
Orangeburg
Richland
Saluda
Sumter
York
South Dakota
Aurora
Bennett
Bon Homme
Buffalo
Campbell
Charles Mix
Clark
Corson
Custer
Day
Deuel
Dewey
Douglas
Edmunds
Fall River
Faulk
Gregory
Haakon
Hamlin
Population2
Households3
Average
Per Capita
Income
(1999)4
Median
Household
Income
(1999)4
Median
Household
Income
(2008)4
71,274
90,336
364,001
18,625
104,148
217,448
29,405
33,707
136,251
6,934
37,539
80,703
$18,965
$15,057
$20,794
$16,328
$15,657
$20,536
$36,666
$29,567
$39,961
$35,774
$33,278
$44,539
$42,668
$32,694
$49,653
$40,295
$38,167
$51,636
16.1
23.8
14.3
16.7
19.5
12
113.96
81.67
481.22
41.16
156.52
318.63
4701.75
3047.23
18012.72
1532.45
5641.58
11825.34
72.61
67.39
12.00
84.46
37.83
34.90
2,867
3,393
7,079
2,142
1,352
8,906
3,436
4,136
7,811
5,526
4,276
5,931
2,945
4,034
7,145
2,255
4,084
1,819
5,660
1,101
1,058
2,573
548
545
3,171
1,319
1,266
3,194
2,298
1,765
1,842
1,119
1,532
2,981
869
1,719
717
2,076
$13,887
$10,106
$13,892
$5,213
$14,117
$11,502
$15,597
$8,615
$17,945
$15,856
$15,977
$9,251
$13,827
$16,149
$17,048
$14,660
$13,656
$16,780
$16,982
$29,783
$25,313
$30,644
$12,692
$28,793
$26,060
$30,208
$20,654
$36,303
$30,227
$31,788
$23,272
$28,478
$32,205
$29,631
$30,237
$22,732
$29,894
$33,851
$40,874
$30,560
$40,010
$19,182
$36,665
$31,548
$40,536
$27,591
$42,952
$38,189
$44,641
$31,716
$40,054
$53,372
$35,823
$40,976
$31,030
$39,781
$47,147
11.8
33.8
14.2
37.7
11.6
22.8
12.9
34.9
10.3
13.5
9.4
27.5
13.2
11.3
15
13.4
17.7
11.1
10.7
4.05
2.86
12.57
4.55
1.84
8.11
3.59
1.67
5.01
5.37
6.86
2.58
6.79
3.52
4.11
2.25
4.02
1.00
11.17
155.42
89.23
456.78
116.48
74.04
288.90
137.66
51.20
205.06
223.40
283.11
80.01
258.13
133.77
171.31
86.86
169.20
39.57
409.58
100.00
100.00
100.00
100.00
100.00
100.00
100.00
100.00
100.00
100.00
100.00
100.00
100.00
100.00
51.10
100.00
100.00
100.00
100.00
58
Percent
Living in
Poverty
(2008)5
Household
Density6
Population
Density6
Percent
Rural
Housing7
FCC 10-129
APPENDIX C
Unserved Areas
Hand
Hanson
Harding
Hutchinson
Hyde
Jackson
Jerauld
Jones
Lyman
Marshall
McCook
McPherson
Mellette
Miner
Perkins
Potter
Roberts
Sanborn
Shannon
Sully
Todd
Tripp
Turner
Walworth
Ziebach
Tennessee
Population2
Households3
Average
Per Capita
Income
(1999)4
Median
Household
Income
(1999)4
Median
Household
Income
(2008)4
3,274
3,609
1,145
7,250
1,424
2,711
1,982
1,024
3,811
4,320
5,671
2,480
1,982
2,435
2,900
2,123
9,851
2,447
13,637
1,356
10,167
5,681
8,366
5,238
2,542
1,339
1,297
442
2,870
579
873
852
431
1,362
1,730
2,139
1,058
652
1,030
1,237
891
3,623
947
3,029
542
2,779
2,234
3,332
2,196
746
$18,735
$14,778
$12,794
$15,922
$16,356
$9,981
$16,856
$15,896
$13,862
$15,462
$16,374
$12,748
$10,362
$15,155
$15,734
$17,417
$13,428
$18,301
$6,286
$17,407
$7,714
$13,776
$17,343
$15,492
$7,463
$32,377
$33,049
$25,000
$30,026
$31,103
$23,945
$30,690
$30,288
$28,509
$30,567
$35,396
$22,380
$23,219
$29,519
$27,750
$30,086
$28,322
$33,375
$20,916
$32,500
$20,035
$28,333
$36,059
$27,834
$18,063
$43,150
$51,048
$36,549
$41,976
$39,102
$28,119
$39,198
$36,824
$36,466
$39,006
$45,644
$31,709
$28,866
$39,067
$34,673
$41,305
$36,451
$42,988
$25,867
$46,373
$27,236
$35,875
$48,157
$37,410
$25,592
59
Percent
Living in
Poverty
(2008)5
10.2
7.6
12.3
12.2
13.1
32.4
14.1
14.5
21.6
13.3
8.6
15.4
34.3
11.8
15
10.6
18.1
13.5
46
8.2
40.1
18.5
8
16.1
54.4
Household
Density6
2.28
8.30
0.43
8.92
1.65
1.45
3.74
1.06
2.32
5.16
9.87
2.18
1.52
4.27
1.01
2.45
8.95
4.30
6.51
1.35
7.32
3.52
13.56
7.40
1.30
Population
Density6
93.21
298.30
16.54
353.14
67.31
46.73
160.69
44.40
83.05
206.57
372.36
93.07
49.89
180.61
43.06
102.81
329.01
166.39
144.66
53.83
200.22
138.43
540.13
310.31
38.00
Percent
Rural
Housing7
100.00
100.00
100.00
100.00
100.00
100.00
100.00
100.00
100.00
100.00
100.00
100.00
100.00
100.00
100.00
100.00
100.00
100.00
76.21
100.00
100.00
49.44
100.00
43.19
100.00
FCC 10-129
APPENDIX C
Unserved Areas
Bledsoe
Cannon
Clay
DeKalb
Dyer
Fentress
Gibson
Hancock
Haywood
Houston
Jackson
Lake
Lauderdale
Marshall
Perry
Pickett
Scott
Wayne
Texas
Armstrong
Atascosa
Austin
Bailey
Bandera
Baylor
Blanco
Population2
Households3
Average
Per Capita
Income
(1999)4
Median
Household
Income
(1999)4
Median
Household
Income
(2008)4
13,142
13,804
7,794
18,694
37,600
17,667
49,257
6,693
19,024
8,137
10,847
7,323
26,692
29,731
7,753
4,801
22,039
16,614
4,688
5,377
3,307
7,509
14,902
7,152
19,947
2,734
7,282
3,243
4,416
2,216
9,413
11,428
3,098
2,027
8,576
5,829
$13,889
$16,405
$13,320
$17,217
$16,451
$12,999
$16,320
$11,986
$14,669
$15,614
$15,020
$10,794
$13,682
$17,749
$16,969
$14,681
$12,927
$14,472
$28,982
$32,809
$23,958
$30,359
$32,788
$23,238
$31,105
$19,760
$27,671
$29,968
$26,502
$21,995
$29,751
$38,457
$28,061
$24,673
$24,093
$26,576
$33,640
$40,527
$28,831
$37,016
$39,484
$28,547
$36,782
$23,526
$32,860
$34,131
$31,276
$26,739
$32,679
$41,157
$33,179
$29,422
$28,422
$32,471
23.9
15.3
21.4
19.7
17.7
23.5
17.1
30.8
21.9
19.6
22.4
37.8
23.6
14.4
19
19.8
24.8
20.7
32.34
51.96
33.01
61.38
73.65
35.43
81.73
30.11
35.68
40.64
35.12
44.81
56.74
79.21
18.69
29.47
41.42
22.64
1153.90
2024.12
1400.53
2465.29
2919.17
1434.27
3309.84
1229.92
1365.73
1619.56
1429.74
1356.07
2000.80
3044.67
746.64
1244.31
1611.72
794.18
100.00
100.00
100.00
80.13
41.65
100.00
48.43
100.00
48.02
100.00
100.00
100.00
55.57
61.48
100.00
100.00
82.80
100.00
2,123
43,877
26,851
6,279
20,303
3,737
9,082
800
14,571
9,944
2,225
8,114
1,633
3,573
$17,151
$14,276
$18,140
$12,979
$19,635
$16,384
$19,721
$38,194
$33,081
$38,615
$27,901
$39,013
$24,627
$39,369
$47,097
$41,883
$49,721
$33,331
$48,688
$32,236
$49,446
10
18.2
10.6
17.4
13.2
18
10.6
2.32
35.61
41.15
7.60
25.64
4.29
12.77
87.52
1182.61
1523.71
269.19
1024.89
187.58
502.39
100.00
62.09
65.64
37.29
100.00
50.32
100.00
60
Percent
Living in
Poverty
(2008)5
Household
Density6
Population
Density6
Percent
Rural
Housing7
FCC 10-129
APPENDIX C
Unserved Areas
Borden
Bowie
Brewster
Briscoe
Calhoun
Callahan
Camp
Carson
Cass
Castro
Childress
Clay
Cochran
Coke
Collingsworth
Colorado
Concho
Cooke
Cottle
Crane
Crosby
Dallam
Dawson
DeWitt
Dickens
Dimmit
Population2
Households3
Average
Per Capita
Income
(1999)4
Median
Household
Income
(1999)4
Median
Household
Income
(2008)4
593
92,283
9,331
1,462
20,406
13,533
12,666
6,251
29,284
7,129
7,536
10,888
2,977
3,480
2,985
20,734
3,610
38,407
1,617
4,017
6,192
6,267
13,692
19,596
2,450
9,758
238
34,154
3,867
589
7,347
5,311
4,775
2,381
11,724
2,381
2,436
4,290
1,050
1,385
1,202
7,753
958
14,416
696
1,369
2,206
2,340
4,291
7,083
867
3,140
$18,364
$17,357
$15,183
$14,218
$17,125
$15,204
$16,500
$19,368
$15,777
$14,457
$12,452
$16,361
$13,125
$16,734
$15,318
$16,910
$15,727
$17,889
$16,212
$15,374
$14,445
$13,653
$15,011
$14,780
$13,156
$9,765
$29,205
$33,001
$27,386
$29,917
$35,849
$32,463
$31,164
$40,285
$28,441
$30,619
$27,457
$35,738
$27,525
$29,085
$25,438
$32,425
$31,313
$37,649
$25,446
$32,194
$25,769
$27,946
$28,211
$28,714
$25,898
$21,917
$44,822
$39,531
$34,189
$34,442
$43,123
$41,493
$38,435
$50,493
$36,378
$36,748
$33,634
$48,445
$34,388
$35,848
$31,486
$39,441
$37,505
$49,705
$29,462
$50,114
$33,294
$37,192
$40,590
$40,225
$30,343
$27,895
61
Percent
Living in
Poverty
(2008)5
9
19.3
17.1
15.3
15.7
14.7
17.1
8.5
18.2
19.9
25.4
11
22.3
15
20.4
17.9
25.4
11.9
21.3
10.6
23.6
13.6
21.7
19.3
26.8
33.4
Household
Density6
0.66
103.94
1.51
1.62
39.83
15.06
64.13
6.77
31.24
7.94
10.61
9.92
3.84
3.87
3.25
21.53
3.64
43.96
1.79
5.11
6.88
4.16
15.18
21.55
2.71
7.33
Population
Density6
26.52
3846.72
62.44
65.41
1434.12
591.07
2417.64
257.92
1250.76
265.04
342.92
390.73
135.39
154.11
130.82
805.09
96.67
1650.14
77.28
174.29
245.29
155.50
475.67
779.08
95.84
235.95
Percent
Rural
Housing7
100.00
33.90
36.22
100.00
53.34
75.05
64.23
97.09
81.81
47.44
20.01
74.06
100.00
100.00
100.00
64.20
100.00
58.48
100.00
9.46
100.00
26.88
21.33
59.63
100.00
42.73
FCC 10-129
APPENDIX C
Unserved Areas
Donley
Duval
Eastland
Ector
Edwards
Falls
Fisher
Floyd
Foard
Franklin
Freestone
Frio
Gaines
Garza
Glasscock
Goliad
Gray
Gregg
Hale
Hansford
Hardeman
Hartley
Haskell
Hemphill
Hill
Hockley
Population2
Households3
Average
Per Capita
Income
(1999)4
Median
Household
Income
(1999)4
Median
Household
Income
(2008)4
3,850
12,033
18,186
131,941
1,952
16,900
3,912
6,455
1,361
11,001
18,923
16,163
15,081
4,628
1,212
7,152
22,248
117,528
35,234
5,280
3,984
5,162
5,216
3,472
35,637
22,205
1,564
3,991
7,280
47,718
726
5,930
1,615
2,270
561
4,349
6,977
4,703
4,896
1,602
408
2,723
8,597
45,001
11,503
1,989
1,653
1,482
2,201
1,321
13,489
7,803
$15,958
$11,324
$14,870
$15,031
$12,691
$14,311
$15,120
$14,206
$14,799
$17,563
$16,338
$16,069
$13,088
$12,704
$18,279
$17,126
$16,702
$18,449
$13,655
$17,408
$16,824
$18,067
$14,918
$16,929
$15,514
$15,022
$29,006
$22,416
$26,832
$31,152
$25,298
$26,589
$27,659
$26,851
$25,813
$31,955
$31,283
$24,504
$30,432
$27,206
$35,655
$34,201
$31,368
$35,006
$31,280
$35,438
$28,312
$46,327
$23,690
$35,456
$31,600
$31,085
$35,875
$33,127
$35,258
$46,868
$31,434
$32,844
$34,838
$32,794
$30,176
$39,830
$41,153
$31,072
$40,489
$37,815
$52,364
$45,273
$44,888
$45,792
$35,802
$45,291
$34,007
$54,316
$32,817
$56,489
$38,020
$42,371
62
Percent
Living in
Poverty
(2008)5
17.4
26.5
18.9
15.5
22.2
24.2
15.6
21.9
17.5
15.4
14.5
28.2
17.2
22.1
9
14.2
14.7
14.1
19.1
12
17.6
10.4
22.2
8.7
16.3
17.6
Household
Density6
4.14
6.71
19.64
146.43
0.92
21.97
4.34
6.51
1.93
38.51
21.57
14.27
10.04
5.17
1.35
8.38
23.97
428.89
35.07
5.74
5.73
3.53
5.78
3.82
37.03
24.45
Population
Density6
168.21
222.60
786.12
5295.84
34.24
771.03
179.18
228.80
79.44
1522.45
795.21
415.09
325.91
178.83
45.27
319.07
926.16
16422.07
1145.01
216.29
237.71
101.37
243.75
145.22
1401.67
859.14
Percent
Rural
Housing7
100.00
51.47
64.75
7.86
100.00
63.27
100.00
52.44
100.00
94.84
66.50
29.75
56.51
37.86
100.00
100.00
17.04
19.43
25.81
44.74
41.26
45.11
61.18
100.00
78.51
39.82
FCC 10-129
APPENDIX C
Unserved Areas
Houston
Howard
Hudspeth
Hutchinson
Jackson
Jasper
Jeff Davis
Jim Hogg
Jones
Karnes
Kenedy
Kent
King
Kinney
Kleberg
Knox
La Salle
Lamar
Lamb
Lavaca
Leon
Lipscomb
Live Oak
Loving
Lynn
Madison
Population2
Households3
Average
Per Capita
Income
(1999)4
Median
Household
Income
(1999)4
Median
Household
Income
(2008)4
22,698
32,537
3,137
21,512
14,146
34,374
2,275
5,016
19,197
15,051
388
708
281
3,233
30,739
3,393
5,861
49,286
13,585
18,652
16,859
2,981
11,247
42
5,783
13,382
8,094
11,041
1,032
8,370
5,249
12,979
923
1,725
5,674
4,363
129
289
88
1,250
10,638
1,333
1,819
19,357
4,951
7,437
6,829
1,179
3,861
19
2,089
4,071
$14,525
$15,027
$9,549
$17,317
$16,693
$15,636
$18,846
$12,185
$13,656
$13,603
$17,959
$17,626
$12,321
$15,350
$13,542
$13,443
$9,692
$17,000
$15,169
$16,398
$17,599
$16,328
$15,886
$24,084
$14,090
$14,056
$28,119
$30,805
$21,045
$36,588
$35,254
$30,902
$32,212
$25,833
$29,572
$26,526
$25,000
$30,433
$35,625
$28,320
$29,313
$25,453
$21,857
$31,609
$27,898
$29,132
$30,981
$31,964
$32,057
$40,000
$26,694
$29,418
$33,272
$38,661
$26,625
$49,548
$44,278
$38,264
$42,055
$33,104
$37,797
$33,394
$29,587
$35,804
$44,939
$35,576
$36,659
$31,469
$29,778
$37,104
$35,137
$43,814
$41,212
$46,490
$43,376
$50,221
$35,256
$36,650
63
Percent
Living in
Poverty
(2008)5
26.1
21.2
30.1
11.7
13.4
20.5
12.2
22.8
23.6
27.5
16.4
11.4
12.3
21.5
24.2
21.1
29.1
17.4
21.3
13.1
14.8
12.2
17.8
14.3
19.6
21.8
Household
Density6
18.44
36.04
0.69
24.24
17.05
36.67
1.00
4.42
20.62
20.06
0.27
0.78
0.31
2.37
35.29
4.00
3.94
53.76
13.37
19.23
15.73
3.20
10.85
0.06
6.48
28.49
Population
Density6
657.60
1222.93
22.58
943.20
632.81
1384.54
40.74
151.82
609.42
581.55
8.88
32.06
9.60
91.65
1221.35
157.02
122.20
2111.36
487.23
766.83
637.04
126.48
372.61
2.79
234.22
866.92
Percent
Rural
Housing7
73.86
23.89
100.00
22.86
61.45
79.56
100.00
22.01
78.34
54.08
100.00
100.00
100.00
100.00
18.25
100.00
33.58
43.80
56.96
83.21
100.00
100.00
83.60
100.00
55.52
67.69
FCC 10-129
APPENDIX C
Unserved Areas
Marion
Martin
Maverick
McMullen
Medina
Milam
Mitchell
Moore
Morris
Motley
Navarro
Newton
Nolan
Ochiltree
Panola
Parmer
Pecos
Polk
Potter
Presidio
Real
Red River
Reeves
Roberts
Robertson
Sabine
Population2
Households3
Average
Per Capita
Income
(1999)4
Median
Household
Income
(1999)4
Median
Household
Income
(2008)4
10,544
4,513
52,279
837
44,275
24,892
9,230
20,308
12,915
1,260
49,456
13,752
14,879
9,613
23,084
9,224
16,307
46,144
120,918
7,467
2,875
12,955
11,062
833
15,693
10,062
4,438
1,556
14,472
352
14,529
9,433
2,695
6,873
5,182
524
18,118
5,108
5,809
3,496
8,949
3,046
5,002
16,983
43,402
2,564
1,162
5,264
3,449
343
6,018
4,319
$14,535
$15,647
$8,758
$22,258
$15,210
$16,920
$14,043
$15,214
$15,612
$16,584
$15,266
$13,381
$14,077
$16,707
$15,439
$14,184
$12,212
$15,834
$14,947
$9,558
$14,321
$15,058
$10,811
$20,923
$14,714
$15,821
$25,347
$31,836
$21,232
$32,500
$36,063
$33,186
$25,399
$34,852
$29,011
$28,348
$31,268
$28,500
$26,209
$38,013
$31,909
$30,813
$28,033
$30,495
$29,492
$19,860
$25,118
$27,558
$23,306
$44,792
$28,886
$27,198
$31,510
$43,492
$29,787
$40,033
$44,632
$41,290
$35,837
$43,377
$36,929
$34,551
$40,730
$35,524
$36,026
$51,680
$42,917
$40,346
$37,283
$36,930
$36,988
$27,490
$31,677
$32,902
$31,057
$63,265
$37,219
$33,443
64
Percent
Living in
Poverty
(2008)5
21.6
15.9
26.5
13.6
16.8
16.5
26.2
13.6
17.6
19
18.5
22.3
20.7
12
13.9
14.2
20.5
15.5
22.5
21.3
18.8
18.8
27.5
6.7
20.5
15.6
Household
Density6
27.66
4.93
40.84
0.75
33.35
24.48
10.14
22.57
50.74
1.27
49.08
14.74
16.32
10.48
28.82
10.46
3.42
43.64
132.99
1.94
4.11
12.34
4.20
0.90
18.36
20.52
Population
Density6
1164.17
170.06
1130.57
31.64
1094.27
927.78
296.18
763.98
2035.92
52.96
1798.02
547.63
636.93
380.98
1117.36
345.43
105.00
1606.35
4773.43
66.50
165.95
501.23
130.85
37.09
704.25
881.00
Percent
Rural
Housing7
100.00
49.05
12.25
100.00
59.72
54.66
53.60
18.73
80.77
100.00
50.72
100.00
28.29
17.78
75.72
62.70
40.11
89.16
6.92
53.23
100.00
76.89
24.21
100.00
76.49
100.00
FCC 10-129
APPENDIX C
Unserved Areas
San Augustine
San Jacinto
San Saba
Scurry
Shackelford
Shelby
Sherman
Stephens
Stonewall
Terrell
Terry
Throckmorton
Titus
Tyler
Upshur
Upton
Uvalde
Van Zandt
Victoria
Walker
Ward
Washington
Wheeler
Wilbarger
Willacy
Wilson
Population2
Households3
Average
Per Capita
Income
(1999)4
Median
Household
Income
(1999)4
Median
Household
Income
(2008)4
8,576
24,882
5,881
15,973
3,105
26,529
2,930
9,585
1,440
924
12,135
1,667
29,793
20,470
38,331
3,149
26,461
52,197
86,755
64,212
10,549
32,244
4,772
13,782
20,600
40,398
3,469
9,701
2,177
5,613
1,215
10,143
1,038
3,634
604
377
4,103
688
10,135
7,621
14,441
1,154
8,722
19,770
30,993
19,059
3,851
12,042
1,931
5,206
5,748
13,747
$15,548
$16,144
$15,309
$15,871
$16,341
$15,186
$17,210
$15,475
$16,094
$13,721
$13,860
$17,719
$15,501
$15,367
$16,358
$14,274
$12,557
$16,930
$18,379
$14,508
$14,393
$17,384
$16,083
$16,520
$9,421
$17,253
$27,025
$32,220
$30,104
$31,646
$30,479
$29,112
$33,179
$29,583
$27,935
$24,219
$28,090
$28,277
$32,452
$29,808
$33,347
$28,977
$27,164
$35,029
$38,732
$31,468
$29,386
$36,760
$31,029
$29,500
$22,114
$40,006
$30,306
$40,606
$35,739
$42,565
$43,294
$35,154
$42,684
$38,168
$37,325
$30,359
$32,788
$34,865
$40,295
$36,730
$42,947
$43,137
$33,121
$42,802
$46,104
$38,244
$42,595
$46,210
$43,124
$38,536
$29,079
$54,206
65
Percent
Living in
Poverty
(2008)5
24.2
19.1
21.2
18.3
11.5
23.5
14.2
17.5
16.7
20.3
25
14.3
15.2
20.2
14.5
14.8
23.8
15.5
15.4
23.5
16.4
13.6
12
15.9
30.6
11.1
Household
Density6
16.25
43.60
5.18
17.70
3.40
33.41
3.17
10.71
1.57
0.39
13.64
1.83
72.57
22.18
65.23
2.54
17.00
61.51
98.31
81.54
12.63
52.93
5.22
14.19
34.52
50.06
Population
Density6
657.22
1699.92
191.90
621.90
132.93
1277.27
112.49
406.22
65.74
15.99
461.11
75.36
2468.68
825.73
2457.50
92.91
560.37
2329.55
3511.91
2420.40
460.88
1976.58
211.19
536.14
963.25
1703.49
Percent
Rural
Housing7
100.00
100.00
61.71
28.80
100.00
80.79
100.00
39.79
100.00
100.00
28.13
100.00
54.61
88.15
79.82
100.00
37.27
80.20
25.93
48.18
31.52
58.53
100.00
21.58
54.85
83.88
FCC 10-129
APPENDIX C
Unserved Areas
Winkler
Wood
Young
Zapata
Zavala
Utah
Carbon
Daggett
Duchesne
Emery
Garfield
Grand
Kane
Millard
Piute
Rich
San Juan
Uintah
Wayne
Virginia
Amelia
Appomattox
Bath
Bedford city
Craig
Highland
Population2
Households3
Average
Per Capita
Income
(1999)4
Median
Household
Income
(1999)4
Median
Household
Income
(2008)4
6,675
42,461
17,579
13,847
11,678
2,409
16,843
7,016
4,464
3,422
$13,725
$17,702
$16,710
$10,486
$10,034
$30,591
$32,885
$30,499
$24,635
$16,844
$45,917
$41,529
$39,898
$32,249
$23,083
14.5
14.5
15.2
26.2
33.5
7.94
65.30
19.06
13.89
8.99
286.46
2590.27
760.65
447.82
263.53
18.92
82.45
33.80
42.99
38.18
19,549
938
16,861
10,510
4,658
9,589
6,577
12,082
1,404
2,205
15,055
29,885
2,589
7,120
350
5,372
3,359
1,562
3,893
2,432
3,755
492
734
4,292
9,628
933
$15,325
$15,511
$12,326
$14,243
$13,439
$17,356
$15,455
$13,408
$12,697
$16,267
$10,229
$13,571
$15,392
$34,036
$30,833
$31,298
$39,850
$35,180
$32,387
$34,247
$36,178
$29,625
$39,766
$28,137
$34,518
$32,000
$45,621
$44,963
$51,616
$48,569
$43,312
$38,540
$45,337
$46,823
$36,139
$53,159
$38,827
$57,769
$40,524
13.3
7.9
12.4
12
10.9
14.2
10
12.7
16.7
9
28.1
10.1
13
13.22
1.34
5.21
2.36
0.90
2.60
1.65
1.83
1.85
2.14
1.93
6.68
1.05
481.59
50.17
165.91
75.45
30.19
105.75
60.93
56.98
64.94
71.39
54.88
215.04
37.91
42.48
100.00
78.96
100.00
100.00
28.11
68.83
75.85
100.00
100.00
82.90
53.09
100.00
12,808
14,501
4,544
6,312
5,087
2,426
4,764
5,641
1,848
2,525
2,061
1,073
$18,858
$18,086
$23,092
$15,423
$17,322
$15,976
$40,252
$36,507
$35,013
$28,792
$37,314
$29,732
$49,180
$43,529
$42,446
$36,559
$45,703
$38,088
9.6
13
9.6
18
11.2
12.8
35.90
43.46
8.54
916.38
15.39
5.83
1335.11
1690.40
347.46
36660.94
623.51
258.10
100.00
100.00
100.00
0.00
100.00
100.00
66
Percent
Living in
Poverty
(2008)5
Household
Density6
Population
Density6
Percent
Rural
Housing7
FCC 10-129
APPENDIX C
Unserved Areas
Surry
Virgin Islands
St. Croix Island
St. John Island
St. Thomas Island
Washington
Asotin
Ferry
Wisconsin
Buffalo
Burnett
Crawford
Lafayette
Menominee
Pepin
Trempealeau
Vernon
West Virginia
Calhoun
Clay
Doddridge
Hardy
Pleasants
Webster
Wyoming
Big Horn
Population2
Households3
Average
Per Capita
Income
(1999)4
Median
Household
Income
(1999)4
Median
Household
Income
(2008)4
7,128
2,717
$16,682
$37,558
$52,004
53,234
4,197
51,181
19,455
1,735
19,458
$11,868
$18,012
$14,061
$21,401
$32,482
$26,893
21,420
7,353
8,705
2,850
$17,748
$15,019
$33,524
$30,388
$41,275
$34,948
13,741
16,196
16,885
15,871
4,571
7,357
27,790
29,090
5,496
6,819
6,519
6,112
1,353
2,833
11,088
11,219
$18,123
$17,712
$16,833
$16,811
$10,625
$18,288
$17,681
$15,859
$37,200
$34,218
$34,135
$37,220
$29,440
$37,609
$37,889
$33,178
7,212
10,075
7,201
13,591
7,150
9,394
2,934
3,948
2,774
5,587
2,753
3,892
$11,491
$12,021
$13,507
$15,859
$16,920
$12,284
11,322
4,263
$15,086
67
Percent
Living in
Poverty
(2008)5
Population
Density6
Percent
Rural
Housing7
25.54
973.51
100.00
642.31
213.98
1,638.46
23474.00
8845.81
62290.87
11.98
35.82
3.94
16.3
21.1
33.71
3.34
1370.15
129.31
6.86
100.00
$47,198
$41,276
$41,646
$47,796
$34,042
$49,943
$48,650
$43,402
10
14.1
12
9.2
25.2
9.7
9.6
14.4
20.08
19.71
29.48
25.05
12.77
31.67
37.86
36.60
802.93
830.02
1138.27
964.63
377.88
1219.83
1510.49
1411.39
100.00
100.00
67.77
100.00
100.00
100.00
100.00
84.29
$21,578
$22,120
$26,744
$31,846
$32,736
$21,055
$26,023
$28,342
$32,226
$35,530
$42,474
$26,037
21.3
24.7
21.3
13.9
13.2
27.9
25.70
29.42
22.47
23.30
54.69
16.90
1045.35
1153.06
865.76
957.68
2105.75
700.10
100.00
100.00
100.00
100.00
56.00
100.00
$32,682
$44,304
11.4
3.61
135.88
100.00
NA
NA
NA
11.6
Household
Density6
NA
NA
NA
FCC 10-129
APPENDIX C
Unserved Areas
Crook
Natrona
Sublette
Weston
Population2
Households3
Average
Per Capita
Income
(1999)4
Median
Household
Income
(1999)4
Median
Household
Income
(2008)4
6,457
73,129
8,456
7,022
2,529
29,458
3,388
2,791
$17,379
$18,913
$20,056
$17,366
$35,601
$36,619
$39,044
$32,348
$54,434
$51,486
$72,079
$50,412
Percent
Living in
Poverty
(2008)5
7.5
8.8
4.7
9.2
Household
Density6
2.26
13.69
1.73
2.93
Population
Density6
88.48
551.66
69.39
116.41
Percent
Rural
Housing7
100.00
15.13
100.00
57.04
Technical Notes:
1) We examine a total of 3,230 counties or county equivalent areas, including 3,141 counties in the States and District of Columbia, 78 Municipal areas in Puerto Rico
and 11 Municipal areas in American Samoa, Guam, Northern Mariana Islands and the U.S. Virgin Islands. We exclude two county equivalent areas in the Northern
Mariana Islands (Rose Island Municipality and Northern Mariana Islands Municipality) due to data irregularities. As we work to improve our data, we anticipate that
we will have a more precise identification of unserved areas. See supra Part III.B.2.a. & note 69.
2) We base our analysis on the most recent Census Bureau data available. We rely on Census Bureau 2008 population estimates for 3,140 counties in the 50 States and
the District of Columbia, and 78 Municipalities in Puerto Rico. We rely on Census Bureau 2000 population estimates for a single county in Alaska and the 11
Municipal areas in American Samoa, Guam, Northern Mariana Islands and the U.S. Virginia Islands. See CENSUS BUREAU, POPULATION ESTIMATES DATA SETS,
http://www.census.gov/popest/datasets.html (last visited Mar. 24, 2010).
3) We estimate households for 2008 by assuming that the relationship between household size and population size in each area has not changed between 2000 and 2008.
Specifically, Households2008 = Population2008 /Household Size 2000, where Household Size2000= Population2000/Households2000. For the 12 counties in which we do not
have 2008 population estimates, we use Households based upon the 2000 Census. See, e.g., CENSUS BUREAU, CENSUS 2000 SUMMARY FILE 1 (SF 1) 100-PERCENT
DATA, http://factfinder.census.gov/servlet/DownloadDatasetServlet?_lang=en (last visited Mar. 24, 2010) (2000 Census Data).
4) We report two Income measures, Per Capita Income and Median Household Income. Per Capita Income and Median Household Income in 1999 dollars are reported
for all county or county equivalent areas in the Census 2000 Summary File 3. See, e.g., CENSUS BUREAU, CENSUS 2000 SUMMARY FILE 3,
http://www.census.gov/Press-Release/www/2002/sumfile3.html (last visited Mar. 24, 2010). Median Household Income in 2008 dollars is available for 3,139 county
or county equivalent areas. We do not have Median Household Income in 2008 for one county in Alaska and Hawaii, and all of the U.S. territories. See CENSUS
BUREAU, SMALL AREA INCOME AND POVERTY ESTIMATES: STATE AND COUNTY ESTIMATES FOR 2008,
http://www.census.gov/did/www/saipe/data/statecounty/data/2008.html (last visited Mar. 24, 2010).
5) Proportion of Population Living in Poverty in 2008 is reported by the Census Bureau for 3,139 of the 3,230 county or county equivalent areas. Id.
68
FCC 10-129
6) Household density is defined as the ratio of households to the total land area in the county. Population Density is defined as the ratio of population to the total land
area in the area. These estimates are based upon the most recent Census Bureau data available. See supra Technical Notes 2 and 3.
7) Rural Housing Proportion is defined as the number of housing units categorized as rural by the Census Bureau divided by the total number of housing units in the
county. See 2000 Census Data; supra Technical Note 3.
69
APPENDIX D
Commissions Report on High-Speed Services for Internet Access:
Status as of December 31, 2008
70
FCC 10-129
FCC 10-129
STATEMENT OF
CHAIRMAN JULIUS GENACHOWSKI
Re:
Inquiry Concerning the Deployment of Advanced Telecommunications Capability to All

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

The sixth time is the charm. At lasta section 706 Report where broadband is really broadband,
where zip codes are not surrogates for subscribers, and where the documented failure to connect millions
upon millions of Americans disproves previous FCC findings that broadband is being reasonably and
timely deployed. I am pleased to support the Broadband Deployment Report that we issue today.
Pursuant to section 706 of the Telecommunications Act of 1996, as amended by the Broadband
Data Improvement Actnow section 1302(b) of Title 47 of the United States Codethe Commission is
tasked with determining whether advanced telecommunications capability is being made available to all
Americans in a reasonable and timely fashion. With that statutory mandate, Congress recognized how
critical access to broadband is to the well-being of our country. Last year, Congress and the
Administration reaffirmed the importance of broadband by charging the FCC to develop a national
strategy for deployment and adoption. For all of the challenges this country faceswhether its job
creation, education, energy, climate change and the environment, international competitiveness, health
care or equal opportunitythere is no solution that does not have a broadband component to it.
So while this may technically be the Sixth Report, it isin my opinionthe first really credible
effort by the Commission to deliver a report based on data of the quality and granularity needed to be
truly responsive to Congress. With this Report, we have a much more comprehensive view of where our
country stands when it comes to broadband availability, and we have measures for assessing our progress
nationally and as compared with our global competitors.
By relying on an inadequate and unrefined approach to data collection for the previous five
reports, the Commission seriously defaulted on its statutory responsibility. Going down the same old path
here would have done a further injustice to this countrys reinvigorated commitment to broadband. In
early data collection exercises, the Commission used information from service providers that simply
reported on which zip codes had at least one subscriber to broadband service at a speed of 200 kbps or
higher. I still fail to see how anyone ever viewed this approach as indicative of anything useful. The
false impression left by that approach was that everyone in a zip code was fully connected to high-speed
broadband when all we really knew was that one person or business somewhereperhaps on the very
fringe of a zip codesubscribed to a minimum-speed service. That told us nothing about the extent to
which broadband was available within a zip code or the quality of that service. Even though the majority
of the Commission recognized the limited usefulness of the data in previous reports, it nonetheless
concluded that the information was accurate enough to make a judgment about the state of broadband
deployment for all Americans. As such, it found that the percentage of zip codes with at least one
broadband subscriber97% of the zip codesadequately reflected the percentage of the population with
access to broadband, and found, therefore, that all broadband was being deployed to all Americans in a
reasonable and timely fashion.
Good data is a prerequisite to good policy choices. The five preceding reports lacked such data
and the results were poor policy choices. This is even clearer now than it was at the time of those
reports, given the depth of data we that has been mined as part of the lengthy, fact-driven process that
resulted in the National Broadband Plan, including input collected from the newly-revised FCC Form 477
72
FCC 10-129
requiring providers to report broadband subscribership by Census Tract instead of zip code. The National
Broadband Plan observed that in the United States today there are digital divides when it comes to access
to high-quality, value-laden, affordable broadband, between the haves and have-nots, between those
living in big cities and those living in rural areas or on tribal lands, between the able-bodied and persons
with disabilities. Todays Report sadly confirms the existence of those digital divides. With these datareliant observations, how could the Commission possibly continue to conclude that all is well and good
when it comes to broadband deployment to all Americans? With our heads in the sand for so many years,
is it any surprise other nations catapulted ahead of the United States in the broadband race?
To remedy the negative findings of the Report, the next stepas mandated by statuteis for the
Commission to take immediate action to accelerate deployment of such capability through the removal of
barriers to infrastructure investment and the promotion of competition in the market. Fortunately, through
the recommendations of the National Broadband Plan, we have a sound path available to us. The findings
of todays Report summon us to implement those recommendations and thereby address our statutory
responsibilities. This Commission stands poised to move forward on such a path. As with all great
infrastructure challenges this country has faced, we must move forward in a collaborative effort, where
the Commission and industry, along with consumers, are working together for an America with
ubiquitous, affordable, high-speed, value-laden broadband. While there is no doubt that broadband
deployment and adoption have grown significantly over the last decade, we still have a long way to go to
ensure that all Americans have broadband access.
While I support todays Report as one that is light years ahead of its prior iterations, there is still
room for improvement. We must strive to make future reports even more detailed and thorough,
particularly as broadband mapping information becomes available pursuant to the Broadband Data
Improvement Act. In addition, it is critical that the United States understand, track and compare its
approaches to broadband with those of our global competitors even more deeply than we do here. To that
end, I hope to see a more in-depth global dimension to future reports. I am confident that the course we
start down with todays Report will lead us to just such an outcome.
I commend everyone at the Commissionand they are manywho contributed their expertise
and analysis to the production of this much-improved Report.
73
FCC 10-129
DISSENTING STATEMENT OF
COMMISSIONER ROBERT M. McDOWELL
Re:

Section 706 of the Telecommunications Act of 1996 requires that the FCC determine whether
advanced telecommunications capability is being deployed to all Americans in a reasonable and timely
fashion. In all previous reports dating back to 1999, the FCC has answered yes to that question. In
this Report, however, the answer is no for the first time. This 180 degree reversal is unsettling
considering that since the issuance of the Commissions first Section 706 Report, America has made
impressive improvements in developing and deploying broadband infrastructure and services. In fact,
referencing findings from the National Broadband Plan, this Report even states that 95% of the U.S.
population lives in housing units with access to terrestrial, fixed broadband infrastructure capable of
supporting actual download speeds of at least 4 Mbps. I am concerned that this Report fails to provide
sufficient justification as to why the Commission is reversing course from previous reports.
Instead of focusing on the great strides that America has made in broadband deployment, as the
Act requires, this Report emphasizes subscribership. Collecting granular data, including subscribership
numbers, is important. But, subscribership data does not equate to the availability of broadband,
which is what Congress requires the Commission to assess under Section 706. In many instances the
Report confuses the facts by substituting the terms deployment and subscribership as if they were
synonymous and interchangeable. They are not. Deployment and subscribership are two distinct
concepts with different attributes and areas for improvement. Our task is to focus on Congress explicit
directive to analyze deployment progress for purposes of the Section 706 Report. Today, however, the
majority is sidelining the deployment figure of 95 percent in favor of a seemingly smaller subscribership
number. It is only reasonable to question the rationale behind this confusing pivot.
The plain language of Section 706 was written with a deregulatory bent, but I am concerned that
regulating with a light touch is not what this current Report will be used for in the future. In Section
706(b), Congress stated that [i]f the Commissions determination is negative, it shall take immediate
action to accelerate deployment of such capability by removing barriers to infrastructure investment and
by promoting competition in the telecommunications market. Todays Report concludes that the
Commission will meet this statutory requirement by addressing the National Broadband Plans proposals.
It is unclear where that conclusion will lead, however. As a result of proceedings recently initiated by the
Commission such as the Notice of Inquiry asking whether the Commission should regulate 21st Century
broadband Internet access services under old common carrier rules I question whether this Report will
be used to justify additional regulation, contrary to the Acts goal of removing barriers to infrastructure
investment.
The Commission should focus its resources and energy on connecting the 7 million households
that currently do not have access to high-speed Internet. Although broadband has proliferated across
America faster than any other transformative modern technology, the small percentage of Americans who
do not have access to it deserve our highest priority. Not only does connecting the unserved make for
sound public policy, it is also Congress mandate to us as explicitly called for in the Act. Reforming our
Universal Service subsidy program coupled with opening windows of opportunity for the construction of
new delivery platforms, such as wireless broadband, can be accomplished without contorting data and
74
FCC 10-129
conclusions or laying a predicate for more regulation. Doing the latter only undermines the pursuit of our
Congressional directives.
Therefore, I respectfully dissent.
75
FCC 10-129
STATEMENT OF
COMMISSIONER MIGNON L. CLYBURN
Re:

Access to broadband at home is no longer a convenience, it is a necessity. Without broadband, it

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

The Commissions obligation under section 706 is to evaluate broadband infrastructure

deployment. By every possible metric, wired, wireless, and satellite companies continue to pour billions
of dollars into our nations broadband network. From 2003 to 2009, under a consistent minimal
regulatory framework, broadband providers have invested $27 billion annually in networks and
infrastructure.1 Each year networks go further and faster. The National Broadband Plan found that 95
percent of the U.S. population has access to a 4 Mbps/1 Mbps terrestrial broadband service, and 80
percent have choice of broadband offerings.2
In every prior Section 706 Report, the Commission concluded that broadband deployment was
timely and reasonable. In a striking departure from that decade of consistent Commission findings, the
Commission has changed course by concluding that broadband deployment now is not reasonable and
timely. I cannot support this decision. Broadband infrastructure deployment and investment are a
remarkable and continuing success story, and I am troubled by giving such significant efforts a failing
grade.
The goal encapsulated by section 706 is universal broadband availability. Nowhere in section
706 does it require that goal to be reached definitively in 2010. Rather, the question is whether network
providers continue to make demonstrable progress towards that goal. All evidence suggests that answer
be made in the affirmative. A finding of timely and reasonable need notnor should it bea
congratulatory one. Nor is it a finding that the government has no role to promote broadband deployment
in areas in which market forces will not likely result in deployment. Chairman Kennard explained that a
finding of timely and reasonable does not let[] us off the hook from our oversight role.3 He explained,
[w]e must always be looking for ways to remove barriers to investment and promote competition.4 I
agree, and believe that the same rationale and approach applies equally to this Report. Broadband
deployment continues to be timely and reasonable, but the job is far from complete.
Moreover, I have a number of concerns with the manner in which the Commission reached this
inopportune decision. First, the Report focuses almost exclusively on terrestrial broadband options.
Section 706 is not technology specific, yet this Report limits its findings to terrestrial solutions even when
1
Robert W. Crandall & Hal J. Singer, The Economic Impact of Broadband Investment, at 2 (Feb. 23, 2010)
(available at http://www.broadbandforamerica.com/press-releases/broadband-america-study-shows-importanceinvestment-0) (last visited July 20, 2010).
2
FCC, Omnibus Broadband Initiative (OBI), Connecting America: The National Broadband Plan, GN Docket No.
09-51, at 20 (2010).
3
Inquiry Concerning the Deployment of Advanced Telecommunications Capability to All Americans in a

Telecommunications Act of 1999, Separate Statement of Chairman William E. Kennard, Report, 14 FCC Rcd 2398
(1999).
4
Id.
77
FCC 10-129
discussing relatively low speeds of service easily reached by todays wireless and satellite offerings.5 The
Commission should not make consumer judgments about the viability and utility of satellite and wireless
solutions that provide clear facilities-based competition opportunities. Current technologies may not
allow competition at higher speeds, but satellite broadband, 3G and 4G wireless solutions do provide a
level of connectivity that is broadband to most consumers, as well as the additional functionality of
mobility.
Second, I am troubled by our decision as a regulatory agency to decide a fixed definition of
broadband speed as 4 Mbps downstream, 1 Mbps upstream. It is true that prior Section 706 Reports have
focused on slower first generation broadband services, and a fresh look at broadband speed is
appropriate. I would have preferred a more fulsome evaluation of broadband deployment based on the
five tiers of broadband speeds adopted by the Commission to provide fuller context as to how broadband
services are deployed and used across different speed tiers.6 I share concerns expressed in prior Section
706 Reports that our speed measurements should be designed for data collection and as points of
reference.7 We should not use our broadband speed measurements as an ultimate goal, nor should it
be used to drive the market.8 I also have concerns with the merits of selecting 4 Mbps/1Mbps as the
broadband speed with which to evaluate deployment. The National Broadband Plan reports that more
than half of consumers that could purchase 4 Mbps/1 Mbps broadband have concluded that a slower
offering is more than sufficient for their broadband needs.9 Even if we were to adopt a new higher speed,
greater context as to how 4 Mbps-capable broadband networks have been deployed over time would
greatly inform this analysis. We should not select a new speed and then judge the reasonableness of
deployment based upon a snapshot of current conditions.
Third, the Commission should not adopt National Broadband Plan findings and recommendations
without opportunity for notice and comment as well as Commission deliberation. The Plans findings and
recommendations relied upon in this Report may or may not be the correct ones, but we should not adopt
the 4Mbps/1Mbps speed threshold as the definition of broadband without conducting our own due
diligence. Indeed, the Technical Paper describing the model relied upon by the Plan has only recently
been placed out for comment in the context of universal service reform.10 Regardless of the conclusion
the Commission ultimately reaches in that context, this Report prematurely accepts the Models results
today in concluding deployment is not timely and reasonable.
Lastly, the Commissions finding of nationwide untimely and unreasonable deployment is overly
broad. Our analysis should be significantly more granular to identify particular geographic areas or
communities for which deployment has lagged. A more granular and focused analysis could help target
commercial and community investment going forward and bring public attention to the affected
communities.
5
Sixth Broadband Deployment Report, FCC 10-129, supra, at n.19 (detailing access to terrestrial 768 kbps
services).
6
Local Telephone Competition and Broadband Reporting, Report and Order, 19 FCC Rcd 22340 (2004).
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, Third Report, 17 FCC Rcd 2844, para. 10 (2002).
8
Id.
Sixth Broadband Deployment Report, supra, at n.81.
10
Connect America Fund; A National Broadband Plan for Our Future; High-Cost Universal Service Support,
Notice of Inquiry and Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, 25 FCC Rcd 6657, at App. C (2010).
78
FCC 10-129
The Commission should redouble its effort to promote and create incentives for private
investment in networks and technologies that can drive broadband further and faster throughout the
nation. I am troubled, however, by recent developments at the Commission that appear to be moving us
in the opposite direction. Specifically, I have concerns that the proposals to shift broadband Internet
access services to monopoly-era Title II requirements will undermine the regulatory certainty and stable
foundation that has attracted capital to this sector to date, and will be necessary to fund tomorrows
broadband networks. The Commission should maintain the existing minimal regulatory approach under
Title I and work proactively with carriers and investors to target actions to attract more capital and
resources to support broadband networks, particularly in unserved and underserved communities.
79

FCC 10 129a1

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

FCC 10 129a1

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Federal Communications Commission

GN Docket No. 09-137

GN Docket No. 09-51

SIXTH BROADBAND DEPLOYMENT REPORT

Released: July 20, 2010

Federal Communications Commission

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

Federal Communications Commission

See, e.g., NATIONAL BROADBAND PLAN at xixv.

Federal Communications Commission

47 U.S.C. 1302(d)(1); see also infra Part III.A.

47 U.S.C. 1302(d)(1) (defining advanced telecommunications capability).

Federal Communications Commission

Federal Communications Commission

Federal Communications Commission

STATUS OF BROADBAND DEPLOYMENT

9. Section 706 defines advanced telecommunications capability as high-speed, switched,

See supra note 12.

Federal Communications Commission

NATIONAL BROADBAND PLAN at 17.

Federal Communications Commission

See NATIONAL BROADBAND PLAN at 1617.

Federal Communications Commission

(continued from previous page)

See NATIONAL BROADBAND PLAN at 21.

Federal Communications Commission

Evidence of Broadband Availability

See NATIONAL BROADBAND PLAN at 157 n.7.

See 47 U.S.C 1302(d)(1); NATIONAL BROADBAND PLAN at 1617.

See NATIONAL BROADBAND PLAN at xv, 334.

Federal Communications Commission

(continued from previous page)

NATIONAL BROADBAND PLAN at 4344.

Federal Communications Commission

Federal Communications Commission

Federal Communications Commission

1,024 Counties are Unserved Areas

(continued from previous page)

See supra note 81.

Federal Communications Commission

Unserved Areas Appear to Have Lower Income Levels

Unserved Areas Appear to Be More Rural

See App. B & Technical Notes 6 & 7.

Federal Communications Commission

Subscription Rates Are Lower in Native Homeland Areas101

See supra note 8.

See February 2010 High Speed Report at 2.

Federal Communications Commission

See 2010 BROADBAND CONSUMER SURVEY at 3; 47 U.S.C. 1303(c)(2).

See id. at 24; see also NATIONAL BROADBAND PLAN at 167.

Federal Communications Commission

BROADBAND IS NOT BEING DEPLOYED TO ALL AMERICANS IN A REASONABLE

See supra Part III.B.1 & 2.

Federal Communications Commission

IMMEDIATE ACTION TO ACCELERATE DEPLOYMENT

(continued from previous page)

See 47 U.S.C. 1302(b).

See supra note 26.

Federal Communications Commission

Federal Communications Commission

Federal Communications Commission

Federal Communications Commission

Federal Communications Commission