DISSENTING STATEMENT OF
COMMISSIONER MICHAEL O’RIELLY
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, GN Docket No. 15-191.
I strongly oppose the notion that broadband is not being deployed in a reasonable and timely 
fashion, as outlined in the law.  Regardless of whether the standard is 25/3, 10/1, or some other 
combination of technologies and metrics designed to abuse section 706 and generate regulation, the report 
continues to show steady progress in connecting unserved Americans.  In fact, even at the artificially high 
and prematurely adopted 25/3 standard, called “table stakes” by some, the number of unserved Americans 
has dropped from approximately 55 million (17 percent of the population) to approximately 34 million 
Americans (10 percent of the population) in just one year.  The report even concedes that the data are 
“notably better” than last year.  But apparently no amount of progress will ever be good enough for a 
Commission that is bent on regulating broadband at all cost.  
Indeed, the fact that so much progress has been made puts the FCC in an awkward spot.  Last 
January, the Commission expressed concern that the number of unserved Americans had dropped by only 
three percentage points.  Given that it has dropped by another seven, the FCC had to sound a new alarm.  
Now the Commission is “not satisfied” that the number of unserved is “nearly the population of 
Canada”—as if that is a useful measure of broadband deployment in the United States.  If the number 
drops to 24 million next year, will we be reminded that that is the population of Australia?  The mock 
outrage and phony comparisons only serve to highlight that the actual data in the report don’t matter and 
the politically-driven findings are a sham.
To divert attention from the substantial progress made on fixed broadband, the report includes a 
lengthy discussion on mobile broadband.  As I predicted, the Commission now finds that the availability 
of advanced telecommunications capability requires access to both fixed and mobile service.  The idea 
that we would need to see close to 100 percent availability of each service in order to reach a positive 
finding is ludicrous.  This siloed way of thinking is outdated and simply does not comport with usage 
trends.  The report is quite certain that fixed and mobile broadband aren’t substitutes, which is a 
completely erroneous conclusion, given that it hasn’t even defined mobile broadband service yet.  But it 
also runs completely counter to the generational preferences and views on substitutability noted in this 
very report.  This is just another avenue to preordain next year’s negative finding.
In addition, I have serious concerns with the analysis regarding broadband deployment to schools.  
The connectivity goals established for the E-Rate program were just that—goals.  They were not intended 
to be used as benchmarks to be measured and acted on here.  I have already heard reports that schools are 
making purchasing decisions based on the goals—driving up demand on the consumer-supported 
universal service fund—regardless of whether their actual usage warrants purchasing additional capacity.  
By pretending the E-Rate goals are benchmarks, as done here, the Commission gives schools a further 
push to overspend, wasting scarce universal service dollars without actually helping the children.  
I also continue to object to the inclusion of privacy and security as barriers to deployment.  The 
Commission has no authority to regulate in these areas, and should not be examining them here.  I remain 
concerned that this line of thinking ultimately could result in the FCC creating duplicative and potentially 
conflicting burdens on broadband providers, leading to cost increases for consumers.  
In sum, the task before us is to consider whether deployment in the United States is reasonable 
and timely, and the objective, empirical answer to that is a resounding yes.  In fact, it is more than 
reasonable considering the unnecessary burdens that the Commission has continued to heap upon 
broadband providers in the meantime.  While there is more work to be done—particularly in the rural and 
remote areas of the country that I’ve been spending a great deal of time on—I do not agree with the 
analysis or negative finding and I must dissent.