fashion to all Americans. The comments in that proceeding provided the FCC with data CPUC’s and analysis to inform its decision on whether to require both types of service, and on how and what to measure to determine quality and reliability of service, in addition to speed. The CPUC shared results from the CalSPEED mobile broadband testing program, which showed that in California, mobile broadband service was NOT routinely available in “high quality” enough places to conclude that mobile technology provided reliable broadband service throughout the state. Citing to the comments, among others, the FCC found in its 2015 CPUC’s that due to data quality issues and other concerns, we are Broadband Progress Report “mobile unable to incorporate mobile in our 706 (b) finding. In the next [Broadband Progress] Report, however, we anticipate having more reliable mobile broadband deployment data.” In its Eleventh 706 Report NOI, that resulted in the the FCC 2016 Broadband Progress Report, asked whether telecommunications should include access to mobile “advanced capability” broadband service as well as fixed broadband service, what basic criteria the FCC should use in defining advanced telecommunications capability, including speed, latency, and service consistency, and the development of specific benchmarks to judge whether the criteria have been met. In its comments in that proceeding, the CPUC recommended that the FCC defer adding mobile broadband to the definition of Telecommunications at that time, pending “Advanced Capability” the gathering and analysis of more data. The FCC incorporated the input and found that CPUC’s current record is insufficient to set an appropriate speed benchmark for mobile “the service.” DISCUSSION AND RECOMMENDATIONS: Evaluating Mobile and Fixed Broadband Availability In this NOI, the FCC asks whether to focus this Section 706 on whether of Inquiry some form advanced telecommunications capability, be it fixed mobile, is being deployed to all or Americans in a reasonable and timely fashion. Alternatively, the FCC asks whether it should evaluate deployment based on the presence of both fixed mobile services. and Staff recommends the CPUC share the findings it made in the Competition OII D.16-12-025. There, the CPUC made the following statement: In defining whether residential and mobile broadband are separate and complementary markets, or substitutable for one another and therefore part of the same market, we apply a similar analysis as that described above with regard to the substitutability of voice services. Here, however, we arrive at a different result: while mobile voice service generally substitutes for landline voice
fashion to all Americans. The CPUC’s comments in that proceeding provided the FCC with data and analysis to inform its decision on whether to require both types of service, and on how and what to measure to determine quality and reliability of service, in addition to speed. The CPUC shared results from the CalSPEED mobile broadband testing program, which showed that in California, “high quality” mobile broadband service was NOT routinely available in enough places to conclude that mobile technology provided reliable broadband service throughout the state. Citing to the CPUC’s comments, among others, the FCC found in its 2015 Broadband Progress Report that due to “mobile data quality issues and other concerns, we are unable to incorporate mobile in our 706 (b) finding. In the next [Broadband Progress] Report, however, we anticipate having more reliable mobile broadband deployment data.” In its Eleventh 706 Report NOI, that resulted in the 2016 Broadband Progress Report, the FCC asked whether “advanced telecommunications capability” should include access to mobile broadband service as well as fixed broadband service, what basic criteria the FCC should use in defining advanced telecommunications capability, including speed, latency, and service consistency, and the development of specific benchmarks to judge whether the criteria have been met. In its comments in that proceeding, the CPUC recommended that the FCC defer adding mobile broadband to the definition of “Advanced Telecommunications Capability” at that time, pending the gathering and analysis of more data. The FCC incorporated the CPUC’s input and found that “the current record is insufficient to set an appropriate speed benchmark for mobile service.” DISCUSSION AND RECOMMENDATIONS: Evaluating Mobile and Fixed Broadband Availability In this NOI, the FCC asks whether to focus this Section 706 Inquiry on whether some form of advanced telecommunications capability, be it fixed or mobile, is being deployed to all Americans in a reasonable and timely fashion. Alternatively, the FCC asks whether it should evaluate deployment based on the presence of both fixed and mobile services. Staff recommends the CPUC share the findings it made in the Competition OII D.16-12-025. There, the CPUC made the following statement: In defining whether residential and mobile broadband are separate and complementary markets, or substitutable for one another and therefore part of the same market, we apply a similar analysis as that described above with regard to the substitutability of voice services. Here, however, we arrive at a different result: while mobile voice service generally substitutes for landline voice
196538139.docx