[Federal Register Volume 61, Number 167 (Tuesday, August 27, 1996)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 44026-44031]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 96-21796]


=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION

47 CFR Part 20

[CC Docket No. 94-54: FCC 96-284]


Provision of Roaming Services by Commercial Mobile Radio Service 
Providers

AGENCY: Federal Communications Commission.

ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

SUMMARY: The Commission adopts a Second Report and Order and Third 
Notice of Proposed Rulemaking regarding the offering of roaming 
services by commercial mobile radio service providers. The Second 
Report and Order portion of this decision is summarized elsewhere in 
this issue of the Federal Register. The Third Notice of Proposed 
Rulemaking (Third NPRM) seeks comment on whether the Commission should 
adopt rules governing cellular, broadband personal communications 
services and certain specialized mobile radio (covered SMR)

[[Page 44027]]

carriers' obligations to provide automatic roaming service, and on a 
range of related issues. The action is taken to promote competition in 
commercial mobile radio services, thus securing lower prices and high 
quality services for consumers while encouraging the rapid deployment 
of new telecommunications technologies.

DATES: Comments are due on or before October 4, 1996, and reply 
comments are due on or before November 22, 1996.

ADDRESSES: Federal Communications Commission, Washington, DC 20554.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Jeffrey Steinberg, Wireless 
Telecommunications Bureau, (202) 418-1310.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: This is a synopsis of the Third Notice of 
Proposed Rulemaking segment of the Second Report and Order and Third 
Notice of Proposed Rulemaking in CC Docket No. 94-54, FCC 96-284, 
adopted June 27, 1996, and released August 13, 1996. The Second Report 
and Order portion of this decision is summarized elsewhere in this 
edition of the Federal Register. The complete text of this decision is 
available for inspection and copying during normal business hours in 
the FCC Reference Center (Room 239), 1919 M Street, NW., Washington, 
DC, and also may be purchased from the Commission's copy contractor, 
International Transcription Service, (202) 857-3800, 2100 M Street, 
NW., Suite 140, Washington, DC 20037.

Synopsis of Third Notice of Proposed Rulemaking

    1. In this Third Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (Third NPRM), the 
Commission continues its examination of issues concerning the offering 
of roaming services by commercial mobile radio service (CMRS) 
providers. ``Roaming'' occurs when the subscriber of one CMRS provider 
utilizes the facilities of another CMRS provider with which the 
subscriber has no direct pre-existing service or financial relationship 
to place an outgoing call, to receive an incoming call, or to continue 
an in-progress call. Typically, although not always, roaming occurs 
when the subscriber is physically located outside the service area of 
the provider to which he or she subscribes. Under Sec. 22.901 of the 
Commission's rules, cellular system licensees ``must provide cellular 
mobile radiotelephone service upon request to all cellular subscribers 
in good standing, including roamers, while such subscribers are located 
within any portion of the authorized cellular geographic service area * 
* * where facilities have been constructed and service to subscribers 
has commenced.''
    2. Roaming service can be provided through a variety of technical 
and contractual arrangements. The most rudimentary form of roaming is 
manual roaming. Manual roaming is the only form of roaming that is 
available when there is no pre-existing contractual relationship 
between a subscriber, or her home system, and the system on which she 
wants to roam. In order to make or receive a call, a manual roamer must 
establish such a relationship. Automatic roaming, by contrast, means 
that the roaming subscriber is able to originate or terminate a call 
without taking any action other than turning on her telephone. This 
form of roaming requires a contractual agreement between the home and 
roamed-on systems.
    3. This proceeding was initiated in a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking 
and Notice of Inquiry, which may be found at 59 FR 35664, July 13, 
1994. A Second Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (Second NPRM) concerning 
roaming was released more than one year ago (60 FR 20949, April 28, 
1995). At that point, the Commission's initial broadband PCS auctions 
had just been conducted and licenses were not yet issued. The business 
plans of companies entering the market for broadband PCS services were 
in their formative stages. No dual band or dual mode phones were yet 
available, and no broadband PCS provider had experience trying to 
negotiate a roaming agreement. The comments received in response to the 
Second NPRM largely reflected the nascent nature of the market's 
development. Based on this record, the Commission promulgated rules 
governing manual roaming in the Second Report and Order, which is 
summarized elsewhere in this issue of the Federal Register. However, 
the record yielded by these comments was inconclusive with respect to 
automatic roaming issues.
    4. The record established by the comments submitted to date, while 
not providing a basis for the Commission to adopt automatic roaming 
rules, does persuade the Commission of the need to seek up-to-date 
information on events of the past year concerning automatic roaming 
issues. In general, the record raises the question whether, during the 
broadband PCS buildout period, market conditions may create economic 
incentives for certain CMRS carriers to discriminate unreasonably in 
the provision of roaming, or to otherwise engage in unjust or 
unreasonable practices with regard to roaming. Given the importance 
that the Commission attaches to ensuring the widespread availability of 
roaming, and the inconclusiveness of the current record, the Commission 
requests additional comment on whether it would serve the public 
interest to adopt rules governing the provision of automatic roaming 
service by CMRS providers to other CMRS providers.
    5. The Commission's consideration of automatic roaming issues is 
framed by three general questions. First, is there a need for 
Commission action? Second, if the Commission is persuaded that 
regulation would serve the public interest, what specific action should 
be taken? Third, what are the disadvantages of such action, especially 
as to network costs and additional burdens on providers, particularly 
smaller providers?
    6. Commenters disagree on whether incumbent CMRS providers have the 
market power and the economic incentive to deny roaming agreements to 
new entrants. The Commission requests comment on this issue, and also 
on whether the geographic scope of broadband PCS licenses may reduce 
the importance of roaming to ensuring the ability of PCS providers to 
compete. Most roaming appears to occur in adjacent markets. The 
relatively limited geographic scope of cellular service areas prompted 
cellular carriers to compete for customers based on the extent of their 
roaming networks and their roaming rates and features. In contrast, 
broadband PCS license areas are significantly larger than cellular. 
Accordingly, broadband PCS customers can go much further distances 
without roaming. This raises the question of whether broadband PCS 
providers need to be able to offer automatic roaming arrangements in 
order to be able to compete.
    7. In order to determine whether incumbent wireless providers have 
an incentive to, and will, deny roaming agreements to other providers, 
the Commission seeks evidence of the denial of such agreements, or 
unreasonable discrimination in the provision of agreements. 
Additionally, comment is requested on the likelihood of discrimination 
among wireless carriers belonging to partnerships, joint ventures, and 
other alliances among cellular carriers. The Commission further seeks 
comment on whether the geographic extent of a carrier's license 
holdings (in particular, carriers whose cellular and/or PCS holdings 
give them essentially nationwide, facilities-based operating 
``footprints'') affects its incentive to enter into roaming agreements 
with smaller competitors in a way that merits a roaming

[[Page 44028]]

requirement. The Commission seeks comment, too, on whether requiring 
carriers to enter into roaming agreements will affect the value of 
these carriers' nationwide footprints.
    8. The Commission next seeks comment on whether new entrants 
currently have viable options to obtain automatic roaming if incumbent 
cellular providers unreasonably deny such agreements. The Commission 
notes that although the deployment of multiple CMRS networks will, in 
the long run, increase the number of parties with which roaming 
agreements can be obtained in any area, such networks will not be 
widely available during the construction period of broadband PCS. The 
Commission solicits comment on the timing of such construction period. 
AT&T argues that, to the extent this is a problem at all, a PCS carrier 
can obtain roaming service during the buildout period in any market by 
entering into a contractual agreement with a cellular carrier that 
already possesses a roaming agreement in that market. The Commission 
seeks comment on whether AT&T's proposal for new entrants to 
``piggyback'' on existing roaming arrangements is a reasonable means 
for carriers to obtain roaming capability.
    9. To the extent that a basis for Commission action on automatic 
roaming is established, comment is invited on what the nature of that 
action should be. The Commission requests comment on whether, as a 
condition of license, it should require cellular, broadband PCS and 
covered SMR providers which enter into roaming agreements with other 
such providers to make like agreements available to similarly situated 
providers, where technically compatible handsets are being used, under 
nondiscriminatory rates, terms and conditions. The Commission clarifies 
that such a rule would need to recognize that not all carriers are 
similarly situated. Thus, such a rule need not require carriers to 
offer roaming agreements to all other carriers on the same terms and 
conditions, or even to offer roaming service to any carrier at all. The 
Commission seeks comment on the question of whether a covered CMRS 
provider that enters into a roaming agreement with another CMRS 
provider, however, should be required to offer like roaming agreements 
to other similarly situated providers upon reasonable request, without 
unreasonably discriminating on rates, terms, and conditions. The 
Commission seeks information and comment on the cost and burden of such 
a requirement.
    10. In response to suggestions raised in the comments, the 
Commission asks whether a carrier should be able to offer a more 
favorable rate to its affiliates. Similarly, the Commission seeks 
comment on whether a carrier should be able to offer a lower rate to a 
geographically proximate carrier. The Commission also seeks comment on 
whether, as a general matter, it would serve the public interest to 
require carriers to make roaming service available to other carriers 
pursuant to one-way agreements under the same terms and conditions as 
under reciprocal agreements. The Commission invites comment on whether 
carriers should be permitted to refuse to enter into automatic roaming 
agreements with other facilities-based carriers in their markets, and 
on the advantages and disadvantages of a rule that would facilitate 
such ``in-region'' roaming. Comment is further solicited on how in-
region roaming may affect carriers' incentives to build out their 
networks. The Commission also seeks comment on how an exception that 
permits carriers to deny roaming agreements to in-region competitors 
could be administered, given the different geographic scope of 
cellular, broadband PCS and covered SMR licenses and operations.
    11. The Commission, in response to arguments that special rules are 
necessary to protect the right of resellers to enter into roaming 
agreements, does not propose to regulate the prices that carriers may 
charge resellers (or anyone else) for roaming, other than perhaps to 
prohibit discrimination in the prices charged to similarly situated 
carriers. However, the Commission seeks comment on the additional costs 
and burdens that may be imposed on facilities-based carriers if they 
are required to separately enter into agreements with multiple 
resellers. The Commission also seeks comment on what, if any, benefits 
might be generated by enabling resellers to obtain roaming agreements.
    12. One of the principal reasons for the Commission's tentative 
conclusion in the Second NPRM to monitor the development of roaming, 
rather than to propose rules at that time, was its concern that 
technical factors might render compliance with rules unduly costly for 
providers, or that its rules might inadvertently impede technological 
progress. Based on the comments received, the Commission is not 
persuaded that an automatic roaming rule would have such an effect 
unless it required direct interconnection of networks for the 
continuation of calls in progress. While handoff of calls in progress 
is available at this time in some cellular markets, it is much less 
widespread than originating and terminating access. More importantly, 
the record does not indicate that broadband PCS or cellular providers 
need to be able to obtain ``continuation of calls in progress'' roaming 
capability in order to compete. For these reasons, the Commission does 
not propose to require continuation of calls in progress. The 
Commission seeks additional technical information on this subject, and 
requests comment on this analysis.
    13. Comment is also sought on whether and how rules governing 
automatic roaming could be at odds with the Commission's general policy 
of allowing market forces, rather than regulation, to shape the 
development of wireless technologies. The Commission's goal would be to 
make any rule it adopts consistent with such a policy. For example, 
under such a rule, if systems used different technologies or operated 
on different frequencies, the Commission believes the carrier seeking 
to enable its subscribers to roam on another system would have the 
burden of developing and implementing any technology necessary to 
achieve that result. Furthermore, on the basis of the existing record, 
the Commission believes any automatic roaming rule should be 
sufficiently flexible to permit a carrier to change its technology for 
legitimate business reasons without any obligation to make its system 
accessible to roamers using different technologies, to the extent such 
a technology change is otherwise permitted by the Commission's rules. A 
carrier could not, however, introduce features into its system in order 
to obstruct service to roamers from systems using otherwise compatible 
technologies. The Commission seeks comment on this analysis.
    14. Requiring non-discrimination in roaming agreements would, 
theoretically, generate certain benefits. However, there also are 
potential downsides to imposing an automatic roaming requirement. 
First, imposing such a requirement is inconsistent with the 
Commission's general policy of allowing market forces, rather than 
regulation, to shape the development of wireless services. Similarly, 
it could be viewed as at odds with Congress' goal in adopting the 
Telecommunications Act of 1996 of creating a ``pro-competitive, 
deregulatory national policy framework'' for the United States 
telecommunications industry. Does the importance of roaming and the 
potential for discrimination warrant a departure from the Commission's 
general

[[Page 44029]]

competitive, deregulatory approach to wireless?
    15. Second, cellular carriers compete vigorously on the basis of 
their roaming services. If the Commission adopts an automatic roaming 
non-discrimination requirement, will carriers still be able to 
differentiate their roaming services? If they cannot, will this lessen 
competition in the wireless market? Also, what impact will a roaming 
requirement have on the development of new and improved roaming 
features?
    16. Third, the imposition of an automatic roaming requirement could 
be costly and burdensome. There are currently approximately 1,400 
cellular systems; the Commission anticipates that broadband PCS and 
covered SMR providers, once licensed, will expand that number 
appreciably. What network and administrative costs are associated with 
entering into and maintaining roaming agreements among all such 
carriers? Will carriers, particularly smaller carriers, be able to 
absorb these costs or to recover them from their customers or other 
carriers? In this regard, the Commission emphasizes that it is not 
considering requiring carriers to upgrade their networks or implement 
any technology solely to enable roamers on different frequencies or 
with different air interface devices to complete calls on their 
systems. Similarly, the Commission is not considering requiring 
carriers to interconnect their networks to ensure that calls in 
progress can continue.
    17. Some commenters argue that a roaming requirement would unduly 
expose CMRS providers to losses due to fraud, or that fraud cannot be 
controlled without direct interconnection of switches. The Commission 
seeks further comment on these arguments. The Commission notes that 
cellular carriers have exercised various options to protect themselves 
under the existing manual roaming rule, such as requiring manual 
roamers to supply a valid credit card number. The Commission seeks 
comment on whether similar protective measures would be available and 
equally effective if an automatic roaming rule is adopted. The 
Commission also seeks comment on whether carriers could include in 
their agreements with other carriers provisions to suspend roaming 
service in case of fraud, or other appropriate anti-fraud provisions, 
so long as they do so on a nondiscriminatory basis, and whether a 
particular carrier that poses an unusually high risk of fraud could for 
that reason be differently treated with respect to the terms of a 
roaming agreement.
    18. Regarding establishment of a sunset period, the Commission 
agrees with those who contend that roaming regulations should apply 
only for a transitional period. The Commission believes that once 
broadband PCS providers' buildout periods are completed, sufficient 
wireless capacity will be available in the market and, as a result, any 
roaming regulations, whether manual or automatic, likely will become 
superfluous. The Commission further believes that, given the 
availability of sufficient capacity, a carrier would not have either 
the incentive or the ability to unreasonably deny manual roaming to an 
individual subscriber, or to unreasonably refuse to enter into an 
automatic roaming agreement with another CMRS provider, because some 
other carrier in its service area would be willing to do so. The 
Commission anticipates, due to its broadband PCS build-out 
requirement,1 that the market for cellular, broadband PCS and 
covered SMR services will be substantially competitive within five 
years after the Commission completes the initial round of licensing 
broadband PCS providers. The Commission therefore believes that any 
action taken concerning automatic roaming should sunset five years 
after award of the last group of initial licenses for currently 
allocated broadband PCS spectrum. The Commission seeks comment on this 
issue. The Commission also seeks comment on whether, for the same 
reasons, the manual roaming rule adopted in the Second Report and Order 
portion of this decision also should sunset at the expiration of this 
five-year period. The Commission notes that this is the same sunset 
period recently adopted for its resale rule, and that the commencement 
of the five-year period will be announced by Public Notice.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ See 47 CFR 24.203.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    19. Finally, in order to provide automatic roaming and adequately 
protect itself against fraud, a carrier would have to make arrangements 
with a subscriber's home system to verify the validity of the 
subscriber's account. The Second NPRM noted that such arrangements, as 
well as other arrangements that may be necessary for subscribers to use 
special features while roaming, may implicate concerns relating to 
subscriber privacy and carrier control over proprietary information, 
and it requested comment on these issues. Since that time, however, 
Congress has amended the Communications Act by adding a new section 
222, which generally prohibits a carrier that obtains proprietary 
information from another carrier for purposes of providing a 
telecommunications service from using that information for any other 
purpose. The Commission tentatively concludes that the treatment of 
roaming-related access to proprietary information is governed by 
section 222.

Filing Procedures

    20. Pursuant to applicable procedures set forth in Secs. 1.415 and 
1.419 of the Commission's Rules,2 interested parties may file 
comments on or before October 4, 1996, and reply comments on or before 
November 22, 1996. To file formally in this proceeding, you must file 
an original and four copies of all comments, reply comments, and 
supporting comments. If you want each Commissioner to receive a 
personal copy of your comments, you must file an original plus eight 
copies. You should send comments and reply comments to the Office of 
the Secretary, Federal Communications Commission, Washington, DC 20554. 
A copy of each filing also should be sent to International 
Transcription Service (ITS), 2100 M Street, NW., Suite 140, Washington, 
DC 20037, (202) 857-3800, and to Rita McDonald, Federal Communications 
Commission, Wireless Telecommunications Bureau (WTB), Policy Division, 
2025 M Street, NW., Room 5202, Washington, DC 20554. Comments and reply 
comments will be available for public inspection during regular 
business hours in the Reference Center of the Federal Communications 
Commission, 1919 M Street, NW., Room 239, Washington, DC 20054.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \2\ 47 CFR 1.415, 1.419.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    21. Parties are encouraged to submit comments and reply comments on 
diskette. Such diskette submissions would be in addition to and not a 
substitute for the formal filing requirements presented above. Parties 
submitting diskettes should submit them to Rita McDonald of the WTB 
Policy Division. Such a submission should be on a 3.5 inch diskette 
formatted in an IBM compatible form using WordPerfect 5.1 for Windows 
software. The diskette should be submitted in ``read only'' mode, and 
should be clearly labelled with the party's name, the proceeding (CC 
Docket No. 94-54), the type of pleading (comment or reply comment) and 
the date of submission.
    22. This is a non-restricted notice and comment rulemaking 
proceeding. Ex parte presentations are permitted, except during the 
Sunshine Agenda

[[Page 44030]]

period, provided they are disclosed as provided in the Commission's 
Rules.3
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ See generally 47 CFR 1.1202, 1.1203, 1.1206(a).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Initial Regulatory Flexibility Analysis

I. Reason for Action.

    23. This Third Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (Third NPRM) requests 
comment on whether the Commission should promulgate transitional 
regulations governing certain commercial mobile radio service (CMRS) 
providers' obligations to enter into ``automatic'' roaming agreements 
with other carriers. The Commission determines that a further NPRM is 
necessary because the existing record does not sufficiently illuminate 
the costs and benefits of an automatic roaming rule. In particular, at 
the time comments were filed no broadband PCS providers were in 
operation, and most providers were only beginning to formulate their 
business plans. Therefore, the record does not reflect the actual 
experience of broadband PCS providers in attempting to negotiate 
roaming agreements. Although some comments in the record suggest that 
an automatic roaming rule may be necessary to ensure new entrants an 
equal opportunity to compete, other commenters argue that established 
providers do not have an incentive to deny automatic roaming agreements 
or unreasonably discriminate against new entrants.
    24. The Commission also requests comment on whether the manual 
roaming rule adopted in the Second Report and Order portion of this 
decision should sunset five years after the last group of initial 
licenses for currently allotted broadband PCS spectrum is awarded. 
Although the Commission expects that market forces will render a manual 
roaming rule unnecessary once broadband PCS licensees have 
substantially built out their networks, the existing record is 
insufficiently developed to support a decision regarding the 
advantages, disadvantages, and implications of sunsetting the manual 
roaming rule.

II. Objectives of Proposed Rules.

    25. The Commission's principal objective in this Third NPRM is to 
obtain information on the costs and benefits of an automatic roaming 
rule. In particular, the Commission seeks comment on whether it should 
adopt a rule requiring providers that enter into roaming agreements 
with any other provider to make like agreements available to similarly 
situated providers under nondiscriminatory rates, terms, and 
conditions. The Commission also seeks comment on the potential costs of 
an automatic roaming rule, including whether such a rule would 
inadvertently impede technological progress, whether it would interfere 
with free and open competition, whether it would expose providers to 
the risk of losses due to fraud, and what administrative costs would be 
involved. The Commission seeks comment on how any rule should be 
drafted to minimize such costs. An additional objective is to obtain 
information on the advantages, disadvantages, and implications of 
sunsetting the manual roaming rule.

III. Legal Basis for Proposed Rules.

    26. If adopted, any changes to the Commission's roaming rules would 
be authorized under sections 1, 4(i), 4(j), 201, 202, 303(r), 309, 332, 
and 403 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 USC 151, 
154(i), 154(j), 201, 202, 303(r), 309, 332, 403.

IV. Description and Estimate of Small Entities Subject to the Rules.

    27. Pursuant to the Contract with America Advancement Act of 
1996,4 the Commission is required to estimate in its Final 
Regulatory Flexibility Analysis the number of small entities to which a 
rule will apply, provide a description of such entities, and assess the 
impact of the rule on such entities. To assist the Commission in this 
analysis, commenters are requested to provide information regarding how 
many total CMRS entities would be affected by the regulations on which 
the Commission seeks comment in this Third NPRM. In particular, the 
Commission seeks estimates of how many affected entities will be 
considered small businesses.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\  Pub. L. 104-121, 110 Stat. 847 (1996).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    28. The regulations on which the Commission seeks comment, if 
adopted, would apply to providers of cellular, broadband PCS, and 
geographic area 800 MHz and 900 MHz specialized mobile radio services, 
including licensees who have extended implementation authorizations in 
the 800 MHz or 900 MHz SMR services, either by waiver or under 
Sec. 90.629 of the Commission's rules. However, the rules would apply 
to SMR licensees only if they offer real-time, two-way voice service 
that is interconnected with the public switched network.
    29. As explained in the Final Regulatory Flexibility Analysis 
included in the full text of this Second Report and Order and Third 
Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, there are different definitions of 
``small business'' for the various services affected by this 
proceeding. Since the Commission has not defined small business with 
respect to cellular service, we are utilizing the Small Business 
Administration's definition applicable to radiotelephone companies--
i.e., an entity employing fewer than 1,500 persons.5 With respect 
to broadband PCS, the Commission has refined the definition of a small 
business to mean firms that have had average gross revenues of not more 
than $40 million in the preceding three calendar years.6 With 
respect to 800 MHz and 900 MHz SMR services, the Commission has defined 
small businesses as firms that have had average gross revenues of not 
more than $15 million in the preceding three calendar years.7
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ 13 CFR Sec. 121.201, Standard Industrial Classification Code 
4812.
    \6\ See 47 CFR Sec. 24.720(b).
    \7\ See 47 CFR Sec. 90.814(b)(1).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    30. The Commission seeks comment as to whether our use of these 
definitions is appropriate in this context. Additionally, we request 
commenters to identify whether they are small businesses under these 
definitions. For commenters that are a subsidiary of another entity, we 
seek this information for both the subsidiary and the parent 
corporation or entity.

V. Reporting, Recordkeeping, and Other Compliance Requirements.

    31. The proposals under consideration in this Third NPRM would not 
involve any reporting or recordkeeping requirements. The only likely 
compliance requirement would be to refrain from prohibited 
discrimination in offering roaming agreements to other carriers. If a 
sunset of the manual roaming rule is adopted, the effect would be to 
relieve affected providers from compliance requirements after the 
sunset takes effect.

VI. Significant Alternatives Considered and Rejected.

    32. The Commission considered and rejected the alternative of 
adopting an automatic roaming rule without further comment because it 
concluded that the record before it did not establish that an automatic 
roaming rule is necessary, and did not sufficiently develop the costs 
of any such rule. At the same time, the Commission rejected the 
alternative of declining to adopt an automatic roaming rule without 
further inquiry. Some commenters made cogent arguments that established 
providers might have the ability and incentive to disadvantage their 
competitors by

[[Page 44031]]

denying them nondiscriminatory roaming agreements, and the Commission 
believed these arguments should be further explored in light of ongoing 
developments.
    33. The Commission did determine, however, that certain forms of 
regulation should not be proposed in the Third NPRM. In particular, the 
Commission rejected any proposal that would require carriers to adopt 
particular technology or modify their networks so as to offer roaming 
arrangements to any provider. Similarly, the Commission determined not 
to propose regulation of agreements between carriers to hand off calls 
in progress because the record indicated that such arrangements may be 
technically and administratively complex and because there was no 
evidence that access to such arrangements is important to providers' 
ability to compete. The Commission also rejected any alternative that 
would require carriers to do more than refrain from discrimination 
among similarly situated providers. Thus, the Commission does not 
propose to require carriers to offer roaming agreements under any 
particular terms and conditions, or even to offer roaming service to 
any carrier at all.
    34. In addition, the Commission rejected the alternative of 
proposing to apply any automatic roaming rule to CMRS providers other 
than cellular, broadband PCS, and covered SMR carriers because the 
record did not establish that ubiquitous roaming capability is 
important to the competitive success or utility of these services. The 
Commission also rejected the alternative of proposing to continue any 
automatic roaming rule indefinitely because it believes that any 
necessity that may now exist for such a rule would be obviated once 
broadband PCS networks are substantially built out. With respect to 
manual roaming, the Commission requests comment on a sunset for similar 
reasons, but it rejected the alternative of imposing a sunset at this 
time because the existing record does not develop the implications of 
such a sunset.

VII. Federal Rules That Overlap, Duplicate, or Conflict with These 
Proposed Rules.

    35. None.

VIII. IRFA Comments

    36. The Commission requests written public comment on the foregoing 
Initial Regulatory Flexibility Analysis (IRFA). Comments must have a 
separate and distinct heading designating them as responses to the IRFA 
and must be filed by the deadlines specified in paragraph 37 of the 
Second Report and Order and Third Notice of Proposed Rulemaking.

List of Subjects in 47 CFR Part 20

    Communications common carriers.

Federal Communications Commission
William F. Caton,
Acting Secretary.
[FR Doc. 96-21796 Filed 8-26-96; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6712-01-P