quote:

---

Further, we find that the relatively slow speed of M2Z's proposed broadband service does not support its Section 7 claim that is proposing to provide a "new" technology or service. In its application, M2Z proposes to provide "a robust level of broadband service..., with asymmetric engineered data rates of at least 384kbps down[stream] and 128 kbps up[stream]." It touts this service as faster than dial up Internet access and as meeting "the Commission's definition of high speed broadband." While M2Z asserts that its proposal constitutes an "innovative service ... using new technologies" under Section 7 of the Act, we note that the transmission speeds proposed by M2Z are unremarkable compared to other broadband services currently being deployed. Indeed, we are currently considering whether to revise the definition of broadband service to increase the minimum threshold for reporting broadband speed information, and to establish a system whereby the "speed tiers" would be automatically adjusted upwards over time to reflect technological advances. For all these reasons, we conclude that M2Z's proposed service does not exemplify a "new technology or service" contemplated by Section 7, and thus that its application does not fall within the scope of that section. Moreover, in light of the relatively slow speed proposed and the evolving nature of broadband internet access service, the grant of such an application would not serve the public interest.

---