Order Code RL33542
Broadband Internet Regulation and Access:
Background and Issues
Updated May 29, 2007
Angele A. Gilroy
Specialist in Telecommunications
Resources, Science, and Industry Division
Lennard G. Kruger
Specialist in Science and Technology
Resources, Science, and Industry Division

---

Broadband Internet Regulation and Access:
Background and Issues
Summary
Broadband or high-speed Internet access is provided by a series of technologies
that give users the ability to send and receive data at volumes and speeds far greater
than current Internet access over traditional telephone lines. In addition to offering
speed, broadband access provides a continuous, “always on” connection and the
ability to both receive (download) and transmit (upload) data at high speeds.
Broadband access, along with the content and services it might enable, has the
potential to transform the Internet: both what it offers and how it is used. It is
possible that many of the future applications that will best exploit the technological
capabilities of broadband have yet to be developed. There are multiple transmission
media or technologies that can be used to provide broadband access. These include
cable, an enhanced telephone service called digital subscriber line (DSL), satellite,
mobile wireless, fixed wireless (including “wi-fi” and “Wi-Max”), broadband over
powerlines (BPL), fiber-to-the-home (FTTH), and others. While many (though not
all) offices and businesses now have Internet broadband access, a remaining
challenge is providing broadband over “the last mile” to consumers in their homes.
Currently, a number of competing telecommunications companies are developing,
deploying, and marketing specific technologies and services that provide residential
broadband access.
From a public policy perspective, the goals are to ensure that broadband
deployment is timely and contributes to the nation’s economic growth, that industry
competes fairly, and that service is provided to all sectors and geographical locations
of American society. The federal government — through Congress and the Federal
Communications Commission (FCC) — is seeking to ensure fair competition among
the players so that broadband will be available and affordable in a timely manner to
all Americans who want it.
Some areas of the nation — particularly rural and low-income communities —
continue to lack full access to high-speed broadband Internet service. In order to
address this problem, the 110th Congress is examining a wide range of issues
including the scope and effect of federal broadband financial assistance programs
(including universal service and the broadband programs at the U.S. Department of
Agriculture’s Rural Utilities Service), and the impact of telecommunications
regulation and new technologies on broadband deployment. To date, legislative
measures to address the reform and expansion of scope of the universal service fund
(S. 101, S. 609, S. 711, H.R. 42, H.R. 278, H.R. 2054), net neutrality (S. 215), and
broadband financial assistance and data collection (H.R. 1818, H.R. 2035, H.R.
2174, S. 541, S. 761, S. 1032, S. 1190, S. 1264, S. 1439, S. 1492) have been
introduced. One facet of the debate over broadband services focuses on whether
present laws and subsequent regulatory policies are needed to ensure the
development of competition and its subsequent consumer benefits, or conversely,
whether such laws and regulations are overly burdensome and discourage needed
investment in and deployment of broadband services.
This report which will be updated as events warrant.

---

Contents
Most Recent Developments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1
Background and Analysis . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1
What Is Broadband and Why Is It Important? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1
Broadband Technologies . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2
Cable . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2
Digital Subscriber Line (DSL) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2
Wireless . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
Fiber . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
Satellite . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
Status of Broadband Deployment . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
Access to Broadband and the “Digital Divide” . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
FCC Activities . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
Administration Activities . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
Enacted Legislation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
Regulation and Broadband: Convergence and the Changing Marketplace . . 9
Activities in the 109th Congress . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
Activities in the 110th Congress . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13

---

Broadband Internet Regulation and Access:
Background and Issues
Most Recent Developments
The 110th Congress continues to examine a range of telecommunications issues
including the scope and effect of federal broadband financial assistance programs
(including universal service and the broadband programs at the U.S. Department of
Agriculture’s Rural Utilities Service), and the impact of telecommunications
regulation and new technologies on broadband deployment. The Senate Commerce
Committee held a hearing on universal service reform and a wide range of issues
were discussed during FCC oversight hearings held by both the Senate Commerce
Committee and the House Telecommunications and the Internet Subcommittee.
Additional broadband hearings have been held by the House Energy and Commerce
Committee, the House Agriculture Committee, the House Small Business
Committee, and the Senate Commerce Committee. Legislative measures to address
the reform and expansion of scope of the universal service fund, net neutrality, and
broadband financial assistance have been introduced.
Background and Analysis
Broadband or high-speed Internet access is provided by a series of technologies
that give users the ability to send and receive data at volumes and speeds far greater
than current Internet access over traditional telephone lines. Currently, a number of
telecommunications companies are developing, installing, and marketing specific
technologies and services to provide broadband access to the home. Meanwhile, the
federal government — through Congress and the Federal Communications
Commission (FCC) — is seeking to ensure fair competition among the players so
that broadband will be available and affordable in a timely manner to all Americans
who want it.
What Is Broadband and Why Is It Important?
Traditionally, Internet users have accessed the Internet through the same
telephone line that can be used for traditional voice communication. A personal
computer equipped with a modem is used to hook into an Internet dial-up connection
provided (for a fee) by an Internet service provider (ISP) of choice. The modem
converts analog signals (voice) into digital signals that enable the transmission of
“bits” of data.
The faster the data transmission rate, the easier one can download files, hop
from Web page to Web page, or view video. The highest speed modem used with a

---

CRS-2
traditional telephone line, known as a 56K modem, offers a maximum data
transmission rate of about 45,000 bits per second (bps). However, as the content on
the World Wide Web becomes more sophisticated, the limitations of relatively low
data transmission rates (called “narrowband”) such as 56K become apparent. For
example, using a 56K modem connection to download a 10-minute video or a large
software file can be a lengthy and frustrating exercise. By using a broadband high-
speed Internet connection, with data transmission rates many times faster than a 56K
modem, users can view video, make telephone calls, or download software and other
data-rich files in a matter of seconds. In addition to offering speed, broadband access
provides a continuous “always on” connection (no need to “dial-up”) and a “two-
way” capability — that is, the ability to both receive (download) and transmit
(upload) data at high speeds.
Broadband access, along with the content and services it might enable, has the
potential to transform the Internet — both what it offers and how it is used. For
example, a two-way high speed connection could be used for interactive applications
such as online classrooms, showrooms, or health clinics, where teacher and student
(or customer and salesperson, doctor and patient) can see and hear each other through
their computers. An “always on” connection could be used to monitor home security,
home automation, or even patient health remotely through the Web. The high speed
and high volume that broadband offers could also be used for bundled service where,
for example, cable television, video on demand, voice, data, and other services are
all offered over a single line. In truth, it is possible that many of the applications that
will best exploit the technological capabilities of broadband, while also capturing the
imagination of consumers, have yet to be developed.
Broadband Technologies
There are multiple transmission media or technologies that can be used to
provide broadband access. These include cable modem, an enhanced telephone
service called digital subscriber line (DSL), satellite technology, fiber, terrestrial (or
fixed) wireless technologies, and others. Cable and DSL are currently the most
widely used technologies for providing broadband access. Both require the
modification of an existing physical infrastructure that is already connected to the
home (i.e., cable television and telephone lines). Each technology has its respective
advantages and disadvantages, and competes with each other based on performance,
price, quality of service, geography, user friendliness, and other factors. The
following sections summarize cable, DSL, and other broadband technologies.
Cable. The same cable network that currently provides television service to
consumers is being modified to provide broadband access. Because cable networks
are shared by users, access speeds can decrease during peak usage hours, when
bandwidth is being shared by many customers at the same time. Network sharing has
also led to security concerns and fears that hackers might be able to eavesdrop on a
neighbor’s Internet connection. The cable industry is developing “next generation”
technology which will significantly extend downloading and uploading speeds.
Digital Subscriber Line (DSL). DSL is a modem technology that converts
existing copper telephone lines into two-way high speed data conduits. Speeds can
depend on the condition of the telephone wire and the distance between the home and

---

CRS-3
the telephone company’s central office (i.e., the building that houses telephone
switching equipment). Because DSL uses frequencies much higher than those used
for voice communication, both voice and data can be sent over the same telephone
line. Thus, customers can talk on their telephone while they are online, and voice
service will continue even if the DSL service goes down. Like cable broadband
technology, a DSL line is “always on” with no dial-up required. Unlike cable,
however, DSL has the advantage of being unshared between the customer and the
central office. Thus, data transmission speeds will not necessarily decrease during
periods of heavy local Internet use. A disadvantage relative to cable is that DSL
deployment is constrained by the distance between the subscriber and the central
office. DSL technology over a copper wire only works within 18,000 feet (about
three miles) of a central office facility. However, DSL providers are deploying
technology to further increase deployment range. One option is to install “remote
terminals” which can serve areas farther than three miles from the central office.
Wireless. Terrestrial or fixed wireless systems transmit data over the airwaves
from towers or antennas to a receiver. Mobile wireless broadband services (also
referred to as third generation or “3G”) allow consumers to get broadband access
over cell phones, PDAs, or wireless modem cards connected to a laptop.1 The FCC
is planning to auction frequencies currently occupied by broadcast channels 52-69.
These and other frequencies in the 700 MHZ band are possible candidates for
wireless broadband applications. A number of wireless technologies, corresponding
to different parts of the electromagnetic spectrum, also have potential. These include
the upperbands (above 24GHz), the lowerbands (multipoint distribution service or
MDS, below 3 GHz), broadband personal communications services (PCS), wireless
communications service (2.3 GHz), and unlicenced spectrum. Unlicensed spectrum
is being increasingly used to provide high-speed short-distance wireless access
(popularly called “wi-fi”) to local area networks, particularly in urban areas where
wired broadband connections already exist. A new and developing wireless
broadband technology (called “WiMax”) has the capability to transmit signals over
much larger areas.
Fiber. Another broadband technology is optical fiber to the home (FTTH).
Optical fiber cable, already used by businesses as high speed links for long distance
voice and data traffic, has tremendous data capacity, with transmission speeds
dramatically higher than what is offered by cable modem or DSL broadband
technology. While the high cost of installing optical fiber in or near users’ homes has
been a major barrier to the deployment of FTTH, both Verizon and AT&T (formerly
SBC) are rolling out fiber-based architectures that will offer consumers voice, video,
and high-speed data (sometimes referred to as a “triple play”). Some public utilities
are also exploring or beginning to offer broadband access via fiber inside their
existing conduits. Additionally, some companies are investigating the feasibility of
transmitting data over power lines, which are already ubiquitous in people’s homes.2
1 For further information, see CRS Report RS20993, Wireless Technology and Spectrum
Demand: Advanced Wireless Services, by Linda K. Moore.
2 For further information, see CRS Report RL32421, Broadband Over Power Lines:
Regulatory and Policy Issues, by Patricia Moloney Figliola.

---

CRS-4

Satellite. Satellite broadband Internet service is currently being offered by
three providers: Hughes Network Systems (DirecWay), Starband (Spacenet Inc.) and
WildBlue. Like cable, satellite is a shared medium, meaning that privacy may be
compromised and performance speeds may vary depending upon the volume of
simultaneous use. Another disadvantage of Internet -over-satellite is its susceptibility
to disruption in bad weather. On the other hand, the big advantage of satellite is its
universal availability. Whereas cable or DSL is not available to some parts of the
United States, satellite connections can be accessed by anyone with a satellite dish
facing the southern sky. This makes satellite Internet access a possible solution for
rural or remote areas not served by other technologies.
Status of Broadband Deployment
Broadband technologies are currently being deployed by the private sector
throughout the United States. According to the latest FCC data on the deployment
of high-speed Internet connections (released January 2007), as of June 30, 2006
there were 64.6 million high speed lines connecting homes and businesses to the
Internet in the United States, a growth rate of 26% during the first half of 2006. Of
the 64.6 million high speed lines reported by the FCC, 50.3 million serve residential
users.3 As of June 30, 2006, the FCC found at least one high-speed subscriber in
99% of all zip codes in the United States. While the broadband adoption rate stands
at 28% of U.S. households4, broadband availability is much higher. The FCC
estimates that “roughly 20 percent of consumers with access to advanced
telecommunications capability do subscribe to such services.” According to the
FCC, possible reasons for the gap between broadband availability and subscribership
include the lack of computers in some homes, price of broadband service, lack of
content, and the availability of broadband at work.5
According to the International Telecommunications Union, the U.S. ranks 16th
worldwide in broadband penetration (subscriptions per 100 inhabitants as of
December 2005).6 Similarly, data from the Organization for Economic Cooperation
and Development (OECD) found the U.S. ranking 15th among OECD nations in
broadband access per 100 inhabitants as of December 2006.7 By contrast, in 2001
3 FCC, High-Speed Services for Internet Access: Status as of June 30, 2006, January 2007.
Available at [http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-270128A1.pdf]
4 U.S. Government Accountability Office, Broadband Deployment is Extensive throughout
the United States, but It Is Difficult to Assess the Extent of Deployment Gaps in Rural Areas,
GAO-06-426, May 2006, p. 3.
5 Federal Communications Commission, Fourth Report to Congress, “Availability of
Advanced Telecommunications Capability in the United States,” GN Docket No. 04-54,
FCC 04-208, September 9, 2004, p. 38. Available at
[http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-04-208A1.pdf]
6 International Telecommunications Union, Economies by broadband penetration, 2005.
Available at [http://www.itu.int/ITU-D/ict/statistics/at_glance/top20_broad_2005.html]
7 OECD, OECD Broadband Statistics, December 2006. Available at
[http://www.oecd.org/sti/ict/broadband]

---

CRS-5
an OECD study found the U.S. ranking 4th in broadband subscribership per 100
inhabitants (after Korea, Sweden, and Canada).8
Access to Broadband and the “Digital Divide”9
While the number of new broadband subscribers continues to grow, the rate of
broadband deployment in urban and high income areas appears to be outpacing
deployment in rural and low-income areas. According to the latest FCC data on the
deployment of high-speed Internet connections (released January 2007), high-speed
subscribers were reported in 99% of the most densely populated zip codes, as
opposed to 89% of zip codes with the lowest population densities. Similarly, for zip
codes ranked by median family income, high-speed subscribers were reported present
in 99% of the top one-tenth of zip codes, as compared to 91% of the bottom one-
tenth of zip codes.10

Some policymakers assert that disparities in broadband access across American
society could have adverse consequences on those left behind. Many believe that
advanced Internet applications — voice over the Internet protocol (VoIP) or high
quality video, for example — and the resulting ability for businesses and consumers
to engage in e-commerce, may increasingly depend on high speed broadband
connections to the Internet. Thus, some say, communities and individuals without
access to broadband could be at risk to the extent that e-commerce becomes a critical
factor in determining future economic development and prosperity.
FCC Activities.
The Telecommunications Act of 1996 (P.L. 104-104)
addressed the issue of whether the federal government should intervene to prevent
a “digital divide” in broadband access. Section 706 requires the FCC to determine
whether “advanced telecommunications capability [i.e., broadband or high-speed
access] is being deployed to all Americans in a reasonable and timely fashion.” If
this is not the case, the act directs the FCC to “take immediate action to accelerate
deployment of such capability by removing barriers to infrastructure investment and
by promoting competition in the telecommunications market.”

On September 9, 2004, the FCC adopted and released its Fourth Report
pursuant to Section 706. Like the previous three reports, the FCC concluded that
“the overall goal of section 706 is being met, and that advanced telecommunications
capability is indeed being deployed on a reasonable and timely basis to all
8 OECD, Directorate for Science, Technology and Industry, The Development of Broadband
Access in OECD Countries, October 29, 2001, 63 pages. For a comparison of government
broadband policies, also see OECD, Directorate for Science, Technology and Industry,
Broadband Infrastructure Deployment: The Role of Government Assistance, May 22, 2002,
42 pages.
9 For more information on broadband and the digital divide, see CRS Report RL30719,
Broadband Internet Access and the Digital Divide: Federal Assistance Programs, by
Lennard G. Kruger and Angele A. Gilroy.
10 FCC, High-Speed Services for Internet Access: Status as of June 30, 2006, January 2007,
p. 4. Available at [http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-270128A1.pdf].

---

CRS-6
Americans.”11 While the FCC is currently implementing or actively considering some
regulatory activities related to broadband,12 no major regulatory intervention pursuant
to Section 706 of the Telecommunications Act of 1996 has been deemed necessary
by the FCC at this time.
The FCC noted the future promise of emerging multiple advanced broadband
networks which can complement one another:
For example, in urban and suburban areas, wireless broadband services may “fill
in the gaps” in wireline broadband coverage, while wireless and satellite services
may bring high-speed broadband to remote areas where wireline deployment may
be costly. Having multiple advanced networks will also promote competition in
price, features, and quality-of-service among broadband-access providers.13
Two FCC Commissioners (Michael Copps and Jonathan Adelstein) dissented
from the Fourth Report conclusion that broadband deployment is reasonable and
timely. They argued that the relatively poor world ranking of United States
broadband penetration indicates that deployment is insufficient, that the FCC’s
continuing definition of broadband as 200 kilobits per second is outdated and is not
comparable to the much higher speeds available to consumers in other countries, and
that the use of zip code data (measuring the presence of at least one broadband
subscriber within a zip code area) does not sufficiently characterize the availability
of broadband across geographic areas.14
The Government Accountability Office (GAO) has also cited concerns about the
FCC’s zip code level data. Of particular concern is that the FCC will report
broadband service in a zip code even if a company reports service to only one
subscriber, which in turn can lead to some observers overstating of broadband
deployment. According to GAO, “the data may not provide a highly accurate
depiction of local deployment of broadband infrastructures for residential service,
especially in rural areas.”15
On April 16, 2007, the FCC announced a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking which
seeks comment on a number of broadband data collection issues, including how to
develop a more accurate picture of broadband deployment; gathering information on
price, other factors determining consumer uptake of broadband, and international
comparisons; how to improve data on wireless broadband; how to collect information
11 Fourth Report, p. 8.
12 See Appendix C of the Fourth Report, “List of Broadband-Related Proceedings at the
Commission,” pp. 54-56.
13 Ibid., p. 9.
14 Ibid., p. 5, 7.
15 U.S. Government Accountability Office, Broadband Deployment is Extensive throughout
the United States, but It Is Difficult to Assess the Extent of Deployment Gaps in Rural Areas,
GAO-06-426, May 2006, p. 3.

---

CRS-7
on subscribership to voice over Internet Protocol service (VoIP); and whether to
modify collection of speed tier information.16
Also on April 16, 2007, the FCC announced a Notice of Inquiry beginning its
fifth inquiry under Section706 of the Telecommunications Act of 1996. Under this
inquiry, the FCC will collect information on various market, investment, and
technological trends relevant to the question of whether advanced
telecommunications services is being made available to all Americans.17
Administration Activities. The National Telecommunications and
Information Administration (NTIA) at the Department of Commerce (DOC) has been
tasked with developing the Bush Administration’s broadband policy.18 Statements
from Administration officials indicated that much of the policy would focus on
removing regulatory roadblocks to investment in broadband deployment.19 On June
13, 2002, in a speech at the 21st Century High Tech Forum, President Bush declared
that the nation must be aggressive about the expansion of broadband, and cited
ongoing activities at the FCC as important in eliminating hurdles and barriers to get
broadband implemented. President Bush made similar remarks citing the economic
importance of broadband deployment at the August 13, 2002 economic forum in
Waco, Texas. Subsequently, a more formal Administration broadband policy was
unveiled in March and April of 2004. On March 26, 2004, President Bush endorsed
the goal of universal broadband access by 2007.20 Then on April 26, 2004, President
Bush announced a broadband initiative which advocates permanently prohibiting all
broadband taxes, making spectrum available for wireless broadband, creating
technical standards for broadband over power lines, and simplifying rights-of-way
processes on federal lands for broadband providers.21
16 Federal Communications Commission, Notice Proposed Rulemaking, “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, FCC 07-17, released April 16, 2007, 56 p.
17 Federal Communications Commission, Notice 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,” GN Docket No. 07-45, FCC 07-21, released April 17,
2007, 21 p.
18 See speech by Nancy Victory, Assistant Secretary for Communications and Information,
before the National Summit on Broadband Deployment, October 25, 2001,
[http://www.ntia.doc.gov/ntiahome/speeches/2001/broadband_102501.htm].
19 Address by Nancy Victory, NTIA Administrator, before the Alliance for Public
T e c h n o l o g y B r o a d b a n d S y m p o s i u m , F e b r u a r y 8 , 2 0 0 2 ,
[http://www.ntia.doc.gov/ntiahome/speeches/2002/apt_020802.htm].
20 Allen, Mike, “Bush Sets Internet Access Goal,” Washington Post, March 27, 2004.
21 See White House, A New Generation of American Innovation, April 2004. Available at
[http://www.whitehouse.gov/infocus/technology/economic_policy200404/innovation.pdf].

---

CRS-8
The Bush Administration has also emphasized the importance of encouraging
demand for broadband services. On September 23, 2002, the DOC’s Office of
Technology Policy released a report, Understanding Broadband Demand: A Review
of Critical Issues,22 which argues that national governments can accelerate broadband
demand by taking a number of steps, including protecting intellectual property,
supporting business investment, developing e-government applications, promoting
efficient radio spectrum management, and others. Similarly, the President’s Council
of Advisors on Science & Technology (PCAST) was tasked with studying “demand-
side” broadband issues and suggesting policies to stimulate broadband deployment
and economic recovery. The PCAST report, Building Out Broadband, released in
December 2002, concludes that while government should not intervene in the
telecommunications marketplace, it should apply existing policies and work with the
private sector to promote broadband applications and usage. Specific initiatives
include increasing e-government broadband applications (including homeland
security); promoting telework, distance learning, and telemedicine; pursuing
broadband-friendly spectrum policies; and ensuring access to public rights of way for
broadband infrastructure.23
Enacted Legislation. Some policymakers in Congress have asserted that the
federal government should play a more active role to avoid a “digital divide” in
broadband access, and that legislation is necessary to ensure fair competition and
timely broadband deployment. The Farm Security and Rural Investment Act of 2002
— signed into law on May 13, 2002 as P.L. 107-171 — contained a provision
(Section 6103) authorizing the Secretary of Agriculture to make loans and loan
guarantees to eligible entities for facilities and equipment providing broadband
service in rural communities. Authorization of the Rural Broadband Access Loan
and Loan Guarantee Program runs through FY2007. The 110th Congress will likely
consider reauthorization of the RUS broadband program as part of the farm bill.24
Congress has also enacted legislation intended to make radiofrequency spectrum
available for wireless broadband applications. For example, the 108th Congress
enacted The Commercial Spectrum Enhancement Act (Title II of P.L. 108-494),
which seeks to make more spectrum available for wireless broadband and other
services by facilitating the reallocation of spectrum from government to commercial
users. In the 109th Congress, the Title III of the Deficit Reduction Act of 2005 (P.L.
109-171) set a hard deadline for the digital television transition, thereby reclaiming
analog television spectrum to be auctioned for commercial applications such as
wireless broadband.
22 Available at [http://www.technology.gov/reports/TechPolicy/Broadband_020921.pdf].
23 President’s Council of Advisors on Science and Technology, Office of Science and
Technology Policy, Building Out Broadband, December 2002, 14 p. Available at
[http://www.ostp.gov/PCAST/FINAL%20Broadband%20Report%20With%20Letters.pdf].
24 For more information on the RUS broadband programs, see CRS Report RL33816,
Broadband Loan and Grant Programs in the USDA’s Rural Utilities Service, by Lennard
G. Kruger.

---

CRS-9
Regulation and Broadband: Convergence and the Changing
Marketplace
Rapid technological advances and the resulting convergence of
telecommunications providers and markets has prompted the reexamination of the
existing telecommunications industry regulatory framework. The
“Telecommunications Act of 1996,” (P.L.104-104) redefined and recast the 1934
Communications Act to address the emergence of competition in what were
previously considered to be monopolistic markets. Despite its relatively recent
enactment, however, a consensus has been growing that the modifications brought
about by the implementation of the 1996 Act are not sufficient to address the
Nation’s changing telecommunications environment. Technological changes such as
the advancement of Internet technology to supply data, voice, and video as well as
the growing convergence in the telecommunications sector, have, according to many
policymakers, made it necessary to consider another “rewrite” or revision of the laws
governing these markets.
The regulatory debate focuses on a number of issues including the extent to
which existing regulations should be applied to traditional providers as they enter
new markets where they do not hold market power, the extent to which existing
regulations should be imposed on new entrants as they compete with traditional
providers in the same markets, and the appropriate regulatory framework to be
imposed on new and/or converging technologies that are not easily classified under
the present framework.25
The regulatory treatment of broadband technologies continues to hold a major
focus in the policy debate. A major facet of the debate centers on whether present
laws and regulations are needed to ensure the development of competition and its
subsequent consumer benefits, or, conversely, whether such laws and policies are
overly burdensome and discourage needed investment and deployment of such
services. What if any role regulators should play to ensure the Internet remains open
to all, often referred to as “open access” requirements or “net neutrality,” is also a
major and contentious part of the dialogue.26 In addition to the debate over economic
regulation, concern over how and to what extent “social regulations” such as
emergency 911 access, disability access, and law enforcement regulations, should be
applied to new and converging technologies continues to be debated. The continued
growth and expressed interest in municipal broadband networks has also focused
debate on what the appropriate role of the government sector should be and whether
it should be competing with the private sector.
How traditional policy goals, such as the advancement of universal service
mandates, should be revised to accommodate the changing marketplace has also
come under scrutiny. For example, issues such as who should receive and who
25 For further information see CRS Report RL32949, Communications Act Revisions:
Selected Issues for Consideration, Angele A. Gilroy, coordinator.
26 For further information on the net neutrality debate, see CRS Report RS22444, Net
Neutrality: Background and Issues, by Angele A. Gilroy.

---

CRS-10
should contribute to universal service funds and whether the definition of universal
service objectives should be expanded to include new technologies such as
broadband continue to be debated.27
Activities in the 109th Congress
In the 109th Congress, debate over broadband policy primarily centered on H.R.
5252 — the Communications Opportunity, Promotion, and Enhancement Act
(COPE) in the House, and the Advanced Telecommunications and Opportunity
Reform Act (ATOR) in the Senate. H.R. 5252 addressed a number of issues,
including the extent to which legacy regulations should be applied to traditional
providers as they enter new markets, the extent to which legacy regulations should
be imposed on new entrants as they compete with traditional providers in their
markets, the treatment of new and converging technologies, and the emergence of
municipal broadband networks and Internet access. H.R. 5252, as amended, passed
( 321-101) the House, was significantly amended and passed (15-7) by the Senate
Commerce Committee, but did not reach the Senate floor for consideration.
H.R. 5252 (COPE). House Commerce Committee Chairman Barton, on March
27, 2006, released a draft telecommunications reform proposal that was the subject
of a Committee hearing on March 30, 2006. The then unnumbered measure, passed
(27-4) the subcommittee, with amendment, on April 5, 2006, and passed (42-12) the
full Committee with amendment, on April 26, 2006. The measure, titled “The
Communications Opportunity, Promotion, and Enhancement Act of 2006” (COPE),
was referred to the House Committee on Energy and Commerce and formally
introduced as H.R. 5252. A sequential referral request, by House Judiciary Chairman
Sensenbrenner, which was subsequently denied, delayed floor consideration. The
House passed (321-101) an amended version of H.R. 5252 on June 8, 2006. In
addition to a manager’s amendment clarifying franchising provisions, five additional
amendments were passed. The other amendments: established a complaint process
to resolve fee disputes between a local franchise authority and a cable operator;
increased the income discrimination penalty for a cable operator from $500,000 to
$750,000; allowed a cable franchising authority to issue an order requiring
compliance with FCC revised consumer protection rules; preserved FCC authority
to require VOIP providers to contribute to the federal universal service fund, when
they connect directly or indirectly to the public switched network and compensate
network owners for use of their network; and clarified that language in HR5252
giving the FCC the exclusive authority to adjudicate network neutrality does not
remove antitrust authority over net neutrality complaints. Two amendments did not
pass. The first, an amendment, sponsored by Representative Markey, to strengthen
net neutrality provisions failed by a vote of 152-269. The second, to reduce, from 1
percent to 0.5 percent, the fee paid to local franchise authorities relating to PEG/iNet
support by women-owned, small business and socially and economically
disadvantaged firms was withdrawn.
27 For further information on the Universal Service Fund see CRS Report RL33979,
Universal Service Fund: Background and Options for Reform, by Angele A. Gilroy.

---

CRS-11
H.R. 5252, as passed by the House, contained in its 6 titles, provisions that
would establish a national cable franchising process; clarify the FCC’s authority to
enforce its network neutrality principles; address VoIP 911 interconnection and E911
requirements; and bar states from prohibiting municipalities from providing their
own broadband networks. More specifically, Title I establishes a national process,
through the FCC, for new entrants to offer pay TV services and opens it up to
incumbent cable providers, once they face local competition. An operator of a
national franchise is prohibited from discriminating in the provision of service to any
group of residential subscribers based on the income of that group. National
consumer protection rules are established with a local authority/FCC complaint
procedure. Additional provisions in Title I preserve the local five percent franchise
fee cap, preserve and support PEG channel and I-Nets or Institutional Networks ( a
one percent gross revenue fee is established to ensure financial support), and preserve
rights-of-way requirements. The bill also contains provisions to assist small and rural
carriers in the provision of video service by allowing video operators to share a
headend transmission facility.
Title II clarifies the FCC’s authority to enforce its August 2005 network
neutrality principles in complaint proceedings, but prohibits the FCC from engaging
in related-rulemaking. Fines up to $500,000 per violation are established and the
FCC is required to resolve complaints within 90 days. The FCC is also directed to
conduct and submit to the House Energy and Commerce and Senate Commerce
Committees, within 180 days of enactment, a study, to evaluate “.... whether the
objectives of the (FCC’s) broadband policy statement and the principles incorporated
therein are being achieved.”
The remaining four titles dealt with a wide range of telecommunications issues.
Title III of the bill contains provisions to establish 911 and E-911 requirements for
VoIP services that connect to the public switched network and represent a
replacement telephone service. Additional provisions provide access to the nation’s
911 infrastructure and requires the FCC to appoint a 911 number administrator. Title
IV contains provisions that bar states from prohibiting municipalities from providing
their own broadband networks (that is telecommunications, information, or cable
services), but also requires that they do not discriminate in favor of, or bestow any
advantages to, such entities as compared with other providers of such services. The
FCC is tasked with submitting within one year of enactment, a report to Congress,
on the status of the provision of such services by municipalities. Titles V and VI
contain provisions that ensue consumers can buy stand-alone broadband service; call
for an FCC study to examine the possible interference associated with the
deployment of broadband over power lines; and further the development of “seamless
mobility.”
S. 2686 (HR5252/ATOR). The Senate Commerce Committee held a series of
hearings on a wide range of telecommunications issues in preparation for developing
comprehensive telecommunications legislation. Senate Commerce Committee
Chairman Stevens introduced, on May 1, 2006, a comprehensive (135 page)
telecommunications bill, S. 2686. The major provisions of that measure dealt with
a wide range of topics, including universal service reform; streamlining of the video
franchising process; requiring the FCC to report annually to Congress on the net
neutrality issue; interoperability of public safety communications systems;

---

CRS-12
interconnection; and municipal broadband ownership. The bill also contains a
number of provisions relating to broadcast issues such as the digital television
transition, the reinstating of the FCC’s “broadcast flag” rules, access to sports
programming, and use of unlicensed “white space.” Additional provisions relating
to protecting children from child pornography and amending the FCC’s “sunshine
rules” are also included.
Although Senator Inouye, the ranking minority member of the Committee,
signed on as a bill co-sponsor, he stated that S. 2686 needed considerable
amendment to gain his support. He circulated a draft proposal containing provisions
addressing video franchising, Internet access, broadband deployment, and universal
service, for consideration that addressed his concerns. The lack of a strong net
neutrality provision was one of the issues he specifically singled out for attention. S.
2686 provisions relating to streamlining the video franchising process, universal
service fund reform, and net neutrality were the major focus of Commerce
Committee hearing held on May 18, and May 25,2006. The Commerce Committee
issued a revised draft of the bill which was the subject of a hearing held on June 13,
2006.
After a lengthy and intense markup the Senate Commerce Committee approved
(15-7) on June 28, 2006 the newly titled “Advanced Telecommunications and
Opportunity Reform Act,” which technically is an amended version in the nature of
a substitute for H.R. 5252. In addition to a new bill name and number the three-day
markup led to the approval of a significant manager’s amendment containing a new
title and 70 amendments resulting in the passage of a 200-plus page omnibus
telecommunications measure. S. 2686, which was referred to as “the Senate
Committee passed version of H.R. 5252,” contains 11 titles covering a wide range
of telecommunications issues including video franchise reform, net neutrality,
universal service reform, municipal broadband, broadcast flag, the digital television
transition, interoperability, the illegal transmission of child pornography, and FCC
reform. The issue of net neutrality proved to be major point of contention during the
markup. Despite the addition of a new title (Title IX) establishing an “Internet
Consumer Bill of Rights” net neutrality advocates continued to press for a net
neutrality non-discrimination provision. A nondiscrimination amendment offered
during markup was defeated by an 11-11 vote. The lack of a cable franchise build-out
provision, federal preemption of state authority over wireless services, as well as
provisions added during markup to exempt, for three years, wireless providers
from”new and discriminatory” taxes and make permanent the Internet tax
moratorium also resulted in concern. While Senator Steven’s continued to express
confidence that the Senate version of H.R. 5252 would come to the floor for a vote,
the 109th Congress ended without full Senate consideration of the measure.
Both the Senate and House Judiciary Committees also examined issues related
to telecommunications reform. The House Judiciary’s Telecommunications and
Antitrust Task Force held a hearing on April 25, 2006, to examine competition issues
relating to Internet access and “net neutrality.” House Judiciary Committee
Chairman Sensenbrenner and Representative Conyers, the ranking minority member,
stated, in a letter sent to then House Speaker Hastert, that the Judiciary Committee
had oversight over market conditions, consolidations and antitrust protections in the
telecommunications sector, and asked for a sequential referral of H.R. 5252. That

---

CRS-13
request was denied. However, Chairman Sensenbrenner, Representative Conyers and
others introduced a bipartisan bill (H.R. 5417) focusing on Internet access from an
antitrust perspective, that passed (20-13) the Judiciary Committee, with amendment,
on May 25, 2006. A request to the House Rules Committee to have the bill
considered as an amendment during House floor action on H.R. 5252 was denied.
The Senate Judiciary Committee held a June 14, 2006 hearing to examine
communications laws in the context of ensuring competition and innovation.
Activities in the 110th Congress
The 110th Congress continues to examine a range of telecommunications issues,
including the scope and effect of federal broadband financial assistance programs
(specifically the universal service program and broadband programs at the U.S.
Department of Agriculture’s Rural Utilities Service), and the impact of
telecommunications regulation and new technologies on broadband deployment. To
what degree such issues will become a focal point for legislative activity has yet to
be determined. However, the Senate Commerce Committee has held a hearing on
universal service reform and a range of issues were discussed in FCC oversight
hearings held by both the Senate Commerce Committee and the House
Telecommunications and the Internet Subcommittee. Additionally, hearings held by
the House Energy and Commerce Committee, the House Agriculture Committee, the
House Small Business Committee, and the Senate Commerce Committee have
focused on issues such as the adequacy of broadband data collected by the FCC, the
status of broadband deployment in the U.S. compared to other industrialized nations,
and broadband deployment in rural areas and the adequacy of broadband assistance
programs such as the rural broadband loan and grant programs at USDA.
Legislative measures to address the reform and expansion of scope of the
universal service fund (S. 101, S. 609, S. 711, H.R. 42, H.R. 278, H.R. 2054), net
neutrality (S. 215), and broadband financial assistance and data collection (H.R.
1818, H.R. 2035, H.R. 2174, S. 541, S. 761, S. 1032, S. 1190, S. 1264, S. 1439, S.
1492) have been introduced. The following provides a listing of broadband-related
legislation introduced into the 110th Congress.
H.R. 42 (Velazquez)
Serving Everyone with Reliable, Vital Internet, Communications and Education
Act of 2007. Directs the FCC to expand assistance provided by the Lifeline
Assistance Program and the Link Up Program to include broadband service.
Introduced January 4, 2007; referred to Committee on Energy and Commerce.
H.R. 278 (Cubin)
Amends Section 254 of the Communications Act of 1934 to provide that funds
received as universal service contributions and the universal service support
programs established pursuant to that section are not subject to certain provisions of
title 31, United States Code, commonly known as the Antideficiency Act. Introduced
January 5, 2007; referred to Committee on Energy and Commerce.
H.R. 1818 (Matsui)
Broadband Deployment Acceleration Act of 2007. Amends the Internal
Revenue Code of 1986 to provide for the expensing of broadband Internet access

---

CRS-14
expenditures. Introduced March 29, 2007; referred to Committee on Ways and
Means.
H.R. 2035 (Herseth Sandlin)
Rural Broadband Improvement Act. Amends the Rural Electrification Act of
1936 to modify the broadband loan program at the Rural Utilities Service by
narrowing the definition of “eligible rural community” and by limiting loans awarded
to applicants proposing to serve areas that already have a broadband provider.
Introduced April 25, 2007; referred to Committee on Agriculture and to Committee
on Energy and Commerce.
H.R. 2054 (Boucher)
Universal Reform Act of 2007. Targets universal service support specifically
to eligible telecommunications carriers in high-cost geographic areas to ensure that
communications services and high-speed broadband services are made available
throughout all of the States of the United States in a fair and equitable manner.
Introduced April 26, 2007; referred to Committee on Energy and Commerce.
H.R. 2174 (Salazar)
Rural Broadband Initiative Act of 2007. Establishes an Office of Rural
Broadband Initiatives within the Department of Agriculture which will administer all
rural broadband grant and loan programs previously administered by the Rural
Utilities Service. Also establishes a National Rural Broadband Innovation Fund
which would fund experimental and pilot rural broadband projects and applications.
Introduced May 3, 2007; referred to Committee on Agriculture and to Committee on
Energy and Commerce.
S. 101 (Stevens)
Universal Service for Americans Act (“USA Act”). Directs the FCC to
establish Broadband for Unserved Area Areas Program to be funded by the Universal
Service Fund. Requires communications carriers to submit detailed broadband
deployment data to the FCC. Introduced January 4, 2007; referred to Committee on
Commerce, Science, and Transportation.
S. 215 (Dorgan)
Amend the Communications Act of 1934 to ensure net neutrality. Introduced
January 9, 2007; referred to Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation.
S. 541 (Feingold)
Rural Opportunities Act of 2007. Directs the FCC to collect more detailed
broadband deployment data and to periodically revise its definition of broadband
above 200 kbps. Directs the Secretary of Agriculture to report on the adoption or
planned adoption of the recommendations contained in the September 2005 audit
report by the Inspector General of the United States Department of Agriculture.
Introduced February 8, 2007; referred to Committee on Agriculture, Nutrition and
Forestry.
S. 609 (Rockefeller)
A bill to amend Section 254 of the Communications Act of 1934 to provide that
funds received as universal service contributions and the universal service support

---

CRS-15
programs established pursuant to that section are not subject to certain provisions of
Title 31, United States Code, commonly known as the Antideficiency Act. Introduced
February 15, 2007; referred to the Committee on Commerce, Science, and
Transportation.
S. 711 (Smith)
Universal Service for the 21st Century Act. Expands the contribution base for
universal service and establishes a separate account within the universal service fund
to support the deployment of broadband service in unserved areas. Introduced
February 28, 2007; referred to Committee on Commerce, Science, and
Transportation.
S. 761 (Reid)
America COMPETES Act. Authorizes the National Science Foundation (NSF)
to provide grants for basic research in advanced information and communications
technologies. Areas of research include affordable broadband access, including
wireless technologies. Also directs NSF to develop a plan that describes the current
status of broadband access for scientific research purposes. Introduced March 5,
2007; placed on Senate Legislative Calendar.
S. 1032 (Clinton)
Rural Broadband Initiative Act of 2007. Establishes an Office of Rural
Broadband Initiatives within the Department of Agriculture which will administer all
rural broadband grant and loan programs previously administered by the Rural
Utilities Service. Also establishes a National Rural Broadband Innovation Fund
which would fund experimental and pilot rural broadband projects and applications.
Introduced March 29, 2007; referred to Committee on Agriculture, Nutrition, and
Forestry.
S. 1190 (Durbin)
Connect the Nation Act. Establishes a State Broadband Data and Development
Grant Program within the Department of Commerce to help states develop and
implement statewide initiatives to identify and track the availability and adoption of
broadband services within each state. Authorizes $40 million for each of fiscal years
2008 through 2012. Introduced April 24, 2007; referred to Committee on
Commerce, Science, and Transportation.
S.Res. 191 (Rockefeller)
Establishing a national goal for the universal deployment of next-generation
broadband networks by 2015, and calling upon Congress and the President to develop
a strategy, enact legislation, and adopt policies to accomplish this objective.
Introduced May 8, 2007; referred to Committee on Commerce, Science, and
Transportation.
S. 1264 (Coleman)
Rural Renaissance Act. Creates a Rural Renaissance Corporation which would
fund qualified projects including projects to expand broadband technology in rural
areas. Introduced May 2, 2007; referred to Committee on Finance.

---

CRS-16
S. 1439 (Roberts)
Rural Broadband Improvement Act of 2007. Reauthorizes the broadband and
broadband loan guarantee program under Title VI of the Rural Electrification Acct
of 1936. Introduced May 21, 2007; referred to Committee on Agriculture, Nutrition,
and Forestry.
S. 1492 (Inouye)
Broadband Data Improvement Act. Seeks to improve the quality of federal
broadband data collection and encourage state initiatives that promote broadband
deployment. Directs the FCC to reevaluate its current 200 kbps broadband standard
and to develop a new metric for “second generation broadband” capable of
transmitting high definition video content. Directs broadband providers to report to
the FCC connections within nine digit (zip+4) zip code areas. Directs the FCC to
conduct its Section 706 inquiry into the status of broadband deployment on an annual
basis. Directs the Census Bureau to collect residential broadband data. Directs GAO
to develop broadband metrics involving connection cost and capability information
that could be used to improve the process of comparing U.S. broadband deployment
with other countries. Directs the Small Business Administration to conduct a study
evaluating the impact of broadband speed and cost on small businesses. Authorizes
$40 million for each of fiscal years 2008 through 2012 to establish a State Broadband
Data and Development Grant Program within the Department of Commerce to help
states develop and implement statewide initiatives to identify and track the
availability and adoption of broadband services within each state. Introduced May
24, 2007; referred to Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation.
crsphpgw

---