[Federal Register Volume 76, Number 39 (Monday, February 28, 2011)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 10827-10852]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2011-4393]
=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION
47 CFR Parts 1, 20, and 43
[WCB: WC Docket Nos. 07-38, 09-190, 10-132, 11-10; FCC 11-14]
Modernizing the FCC Form 477 Data Program
AGENCY: Federal Communications Commission.
ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: In this document, the Commission considers whether and how to
reform the Form 477 data program, which serves as the Commission's
primary tool for collecting broadband and local telephone data. The
Commission
[[Page 10828]]
believes it is time to consider whether modifying the Form 477 will
improve the Commission's ability to carry out its duties under the
Communications Act of 1934, as amended (the Act), and is an important
part of the Commission's larger initiative to modernize and streamline
how the Commission collects, uses, and disseminates data.
DATES: Comments are due on or before March 30, 2011, and reply comments
are due on or before April 14, 2011. Written comments on the Paperwork
Reduction Act proposed or modified information collection requirements
must be submitted by the public, Office of Management and Budget (OMB),
and other interested parties on or before April 29, 2011.
ADDRESSES: You may submit comments, identified by WC Docket No.11-10,
by any of the following methods:
Federal eRulemaking Portal: http://www.regulations.gov.
Follow the instructions for submitting comments.
Federal Communications Commission's Web Site: http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/ecfs2/. Follow the instructions for submitting
comments.
People with Disabilities: Contact the FCC to request
reasonable accommodations (accessible format documents, sign language
interpreters, CART, etc.) by e-mail: [email protected] or phone: (202)
418-0530 or TTY: (202) 418-0432.
For detailed instructions for submitting comments and additional
information on the rulemaking process, see the SUPPLEMENTARY
INFORMATION section of this document. In addition to filing comments
with the Secretary, a copy of any comments on the Paperwork Reduction
Act information collection requirements contained herein should be
submitted to the Federal Communications Commission via e-mail to
[email protected] and to Nicholas A. Fraser, Office of Management and Budget,
via e-mail to [email protected] or via fax at 202-395-
5167.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Jeremy Miller at (202) 418-1507,
Wireline Competition Bureau, Industry Analysis and Technology Division.
For additional information concerning the Paperwork Reduction Act
information collection requirements contained in this document, send an
e-mail to [email protected] or contact Judith Boley Herman at 202-418-0214.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: This is a synopsis of the Commission's
Notice of Proposed Rulemaking in WC Docket Nos. 07-38, 09-190, 10-132
and 11-10, adopted and released on February 8, 2011. The complete text
of this document is available for inspection and copying during normal
business hours in the FCC Reference Information Center, Portals II, 445
12th Street, SW., Room CY-A257, Washington, DC 20554. The document may
also be purchased from the Commission's duplicating contractor, Best
Copy and Printing, Inc., 445 12th Street, SW., Room CY-B402,
Washington, DC 20554, telephone (800) 378-3160 or (202) 863-2893,
facsimile (202) 863-2898, or via the Internet at http://www.bcpiweb.com. It is also available on the Commission's Web site at
http://www.fcc.gov.
Pursuant to Sec. Sec. 1.415 and 1.419 of the Commission's rules,
47 CFR 1.415, 1.419, interested parties may file comments and reply
comments on or before the dates indicated on the first page of this
document. Comments may be filed using: (1) The Commission's Electronic
Comment Filing System (ECFS), (2) the Federal Government's eRulemaking
Portal, or (3) by filing paper copies. See Electronic Filing of
Documents in Rulemaking Proceedings, 63 FR 24121, May 1, 1998.
Electronic Filers: Comments may be filed electronically
using the Internet by accessing the ECFS: http://www.fcc.gov/cgb/ecfs/
or the Federal eRulemaking Portal: http://www.regulations.gov. Filers
should follow the instructions provided on the Web site for submitting
comments.
[cir] For ECFS filers, if multiple docket or rulemaking numbers
appear in the caption of this proceeding, filers must transmit one
electronic copy of the comments for each docket or rulemaking number
referenced in the caption. In completing the transmittal screen, filers
should include their full name, U.S. Postal Service mailing address,
and the applicable docket or rulemaking number. Parties may also submit
an electronic comment by Internet e-mail. To get filing instructions,
filers should send an e-mail to [email protected], and include the following
words in the body of the message, ``get form.'' A sample form and
directions will be sent in response.
[cir] Paper Filers: Parties who choose to file by paper must file
an original and four copies of each filing. If more than one docket or
rulemaking number appears in the caption of this proceeding, filers
must submit two additional copies for each additional docket or
rulemaking number.
Filings can be sent by hand or messenger delivery, by commercial
overnight courier, or by first-class or overnight U.S. Postal Service
mail (although we continue to experience delays in receiving U.S.
Postal Service mail). All filings must be addressed to the Commission's
Secretary, Office of the Secretary, Federal Communications Commission.
[cir] The Commission's contractor will receive hand-delivered or
messenger-delivered paper filings for the Commission's Secretary at 236
Massachusetts Avenue, NE., Suite 110, Washington, DC 20002. The filing
hours at this location are 8 a.m. to 7 p.m. All hand deliveries must be
held together with rubber bands or fasteners. Any envelopes must be
disposed of before entering the building.
[cir] Commercial overnight mail (other than U.S. Postal Service
Express Mail and Priority Mail) must be sent to 9300 East Hampton
Drive, Capitol Heights, MD 20743.
[cir] U.S. Postal Service first-class, Express, and Priority mail
should be addressed to 445 12th Street, SW., Washington, DC 20554.
People with Disabilities: To request materials in accessible
formats for people with disabilities (Braille, large print, electronic
files, audio format), send an e-mail to [email protected] or call the
Consumer & Governmental Affairs Bureau at (202) 418-0530 (voice) or
(202) 418-0432 (TTY). Contact the FCC to request reasonable
accommodations for filing comments (accessible format documents, sign
language interpreters, CART, etc.) by e-mail: [email protected]; phone:
(202) 418-0530 or (202) 418-0432 (TTY).
In addition, one copy of each pleading must be sent to each of the
following:
[cir] The Commission's duplicating contractor, Best Copy and
Printing, Inc., 445 12th Street, SW., Room CY-B402, Washington, DC
20554; Web site: http://www.bcpiweb.com; phone: 1-800-378-3160; and
[cir] Jeremy Miller, Competition Policy Division, Industry Analysis
and Technology Division, 445 12th Street, SW., Room 5-B145, Washington,
DC 20554; e-mail: [email protected] or telephone number (202) 418-
1507.
Filings and comments are also available for public inspection and
copying during regular business hours at the FCC Reference Information
Center, Portals II, 445 12th Street, SW., Room CY-A257, Washington, DC,
20554. Copies may also be purchased from the Commission's duplicating
contractor, BCPI, 445 12th Street, SW., Room CY-B402, Washington, DC
20554. Customers may contact BCPI through its Web site: http://www.bcpiweb.com, by e-mail at [email protected], by telephone at (202)
488-5300 or (800) 378-3160 (voice), (202) 488-5562 (TTY), or by
facsimile at (202) 488-5563.
[[Page 10829]]
Comments and reply comments must include a short and concise
summary of the substantive arguments raised in the pleading. Comments
and reply comments must also comply with Sec. 1.49 and all other
applicable sections of the Commission's rules. We direct all interested
parties to include the name of the filing party and the date of the
filing on each page of their comments and reply comments. All parties
are encouraged to utilize a table of contents, regardless of the length
of their submission. We also strongly encourage parties to track the
organization set forth in the NPRM in order to facilitate our internal
review process.
Initial Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 Analysis
This document proposes new or revised information collection
requirements. The reporting requirements, if any, that might be adopted
pursuant to this NPRM are too speculative at this time to request
comment from the OMB or interested parties under section 3507(d) of the
Paperwork Reduction Act, 44 U.S.C. 3507(d). Therefore, if the
Commission determines that reporting is required, it will seek comment
from the OMB and interested parties prior to any such requirements
taking effect. Nevertheless, interested parties are encouraged to
comment on whether any new or revised information collection is
necessary, and if so, how the Commission might minimize the burden of
any such collection. In addition, pursuant to the Small Business
Paperwork Relief Act of 2002, we will seek specific comment on how we
might ``further reduce the information collection burden for small
business concerns with fewer than 25 employees.'' Nevertheless,
interested parties are encouraged to comment on whether any new or
revised information collection is necessary, and if so, how the
Commission might minimize the burden of any such collection.
Synopsis of the Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking
I. Introduction
1. In this Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (NPRM), we seek comment on
whether and how to reform the Form 477 data program to improve the
Commission's ability to carry out its statutory duties, while
streamlining and minimizing the overall costs of the program, including
the burdens imposed on service providers. This NPRM is an important
part of our larger Data Innovation Initiative to modernize and
streamline how we collect, use, and disseminate data, and to ensure
that all of the data we collect is useful for supporting informed
policymaking, promoting competition, and protecting consumers. We are
focused on giving careful consideration to the benefits and burdens of
our data collections, and eliminating unnecessary collections where
possible. For example, the Initiative already has identified over
twenty data collections across the entire Commission that may be
outdated and ripe for elimination, as well as a number of statutory
reporting obligations that may have outlived their usefulness.
Similarly, for each type of data discussed in this NPRM, we will
consider the burdens and benefits of any proposed changes. Our goal is
to ensure that the Commission has the data it needs, while minimizing
the overall burdens of data collection.
2. Established in 2000, Form 477 is the Commission's primary tool
for collecting data about broadband and local telephone networks and
services. The form requires providers of broadband service, local
telephone service, interconnected Voice over Internet Protocol (VoIP)
service, and mobile telephone service to report the number of
subscribers they have in their respective service areas. But the
Commission has in the past noted shortcomings of the data collected
using Form 477, and after more than a decade of rapid innovation in the
market for broadband and telephone services, and consistent with the
Government Accountability Office's (GAO) recent finding that the
Commission's broadband data collection fails to collect key data
required to inform policy decisions and generally needs improvement, we
believe it may be time to modify Form 477 to better serve the needs of
the Commission, Congress, service providers, and consumers. In fact,
since the last modification of Form 477, Congress directed the FCC to
collect additional information to supplement its analysis of broadband
deployment and availability. As we have noted before, Form 477 collects
data that are ``a critical precursor'' to the Commission's ability to
fulfill its statutory duties, and provides the Commission with ``a set
of data of uniform quality and reliability'' superior to other publicly
available information sources. Form 477 also enables us to fulfill our
obligation to reduce government regulation wherever possible, by
providing ``a factual basis to evaluate the nature and impact of our
existing regulation and, in particular, to identify areas where
competition has developed sufficiently to justify deregulation.''
II. Background
A. Form 477 Data Program
3. Development of FCC Form 477. The Commission initiated the Form
477 data program in May 2000 to ``materially improve its ability to
develop, evaluate, and revise policy'' for broadband and telephone
services, and ``to provide valuable benchmarks for Congress, the
Commission, other policy makers, and consumers.'' The Commission
designed the program as a standardized collection, with separate
sections on subscriptions to broadband services, local telephone
service competition, and mobile telephony services.
4. In establishing the Form 477 framework for broadband data, the
Commission anticipated that a ``regular and consistent survey of
broadband deployment'' would substantially assist it in fulfilling its
statutory duty under Section 706 of the Telecommunications Act to
report to Congress on broadband deployment and availability, and to
encourage the deployment of broadband to all Americans. To that end,
the initial Form 477 collected broadband subscribership data.
Specifically, the form collected data from facilities-based providers
on the numbers of connections to the Internet in service to consumers
in each State, and whether such connections used the provider's own
facilities, unbundled network elements (UNEs), special-access lines or
other leased lines, or wireless channels. The Commission established
200 kilobits per second (kbps) as the minimum transfer-speed threshold
for the connections it would track, and required providers to identify
the technology used to provide the connections, the percentage of
connections offered to residential customers and small businesses, and
each ZIP code in which the providers had at least one connection in
service.
5. The initial Form 477 likewise collected subscribership data for
local telephone service, including data from incumbent local exchange
carriers (LECs) and competitive LECs on the number of voice-grade
equivalent lines and fixed wireless channels in service for the
provision of local exchange or exchange access service to end-user
customers and for resale. The original Form 477 required LECs to report
the five-digit ZIP codes in which customers served, by reported lines
and wireless channels. Mobile telephony providers were required to
report their total subscribers by State, and the percentage
[[Page 10830]]
of customers billed directly by the reporting provider.
6. The initial Form 477 program did not require small providers to
file reports. Specifically, broadband service providers with fewer than
250 connections in service in a State were not required to file the
form. LECs with fewer than 10,000 voice-grade equivalent lines or
wireless channels in service, and mobile telephony providers with fewer
than 10,000 subscribers were similarly not required to file.
7. Revisions to Form 477. The Commission has twice modified Form
477. First, in 2004, the Commission revised the Form 477 program to
require submissions from all facilities-based providers of broadband
connections, in order to capture a more comprehensive picture of
broadband deployment in rural areas. Further, the Commission required
filers to report the percentage of their connections that fell into
five speed tiers. The Commission also required all wired and fixed
wireless providers to report the technologies used to provide service
in the ZIP codes in which at least one connection was in service. The
Commission acknowledged that mobile broadband service differs in some
respects from fixed broadband service, and required filers reporting
mobile wireless broadband subscribers to list the ZIP codes that ``best
represent the filers' mobile wireless broadband coverage areas.''
8. The Commission next refined the Form 477 data program in 2008,
establishing the framework that is currently in place. The Commission
decided to collect more granular subscription and speed data, and to
improve the quality of data on mobile wireless broadband services. All
wireline and terrestrial-fixed wireless broadband service providers
must now report the numbers of subscribers at the census-tract level,
broken down by technology and more disaggregated speed tiers; and the
percentage of subscribers that are residential. Incumbent LECs must
continue to report the percentage of their service areas where DSL
connections are available to residential premises, and cable system
operators must do the same with regard to cable modem service
availability. Providers of terrestrial mobile wireless broadband
services must continue to submit their broadband subscriber totals on a
State-by-State basis, rather than at the census-tract level, and must
report on the census tracts that ``best represent'' their broadband
service footprint for each speed tier in which they offer service.
9. The 2008 Broadband Data Gathering Order and Further NPRM, 73 FR
37911, July 2, 2008, also required providers of interconnected VoIP
services to report the number of subscribers in each State, the number
of subscribers who purchase the service in conjunction with the
purchase of a broadband connection and, of those, the types of
connections purchased. Interconnected VoIP providers also must report
the percentage of subscribers who can use the service over any
broadband connection.
10. 2008 Further NPRM. The Commission sought comment in 2008 on
further revisions to Form 477, including whether and how to institute a
national broadband availability mapping program. The Commission
tentatively concluded that it ``should collect information that
providers use to respond to prospective customers to determine on an
address-by-address basis whether service is available.'' The Commission
sought comment on standardized collection formats; whether it should
collect information on pricing and actual speeds of broadband services;
how generally to maintain the confidentiality of broadband data;
whether the Commission should conduct and publish periodic consumer
surveys on broadband services; and whether it should require LECs and
interconnected VoIP providers to report the number of subscribers in
geographic units below the State level, either by ZIP code or census
tract.
B. Other Developments Relating to Data Collection
11. Since the adoption of the 2008 Broadband Data Gathering Order
and Further NPRM, 73 FR 37911, July 2, 2008, a number of legislative
and regulatory developments have affected the obligations of the
Commission and other government agencies to collect data related to
telephone and broadband services.
1. Broadband Data Improvement Act
12. On October 10, 2008, Congress enacted the Broadband Data
Improvement Act (BDIA), expressly finding that ``[i]mproving Federal
data on the deployment and adoption of broadband service will assist in
the development of broadband technology across all regions of the
nation.'' The BDIA imposed several new obligations on the Commission
and other Federal agencies.
a. Revisions to Section 706 Reporting Requirements
13. The BDIA amended Section 706 of the Telecommunications Act of
1996 to improve the quality and quantity of data the Commission
collects on the deployment and adoption of broadband services. First,
the BDIA requires the Commission to publish its Section 706 reports
``annually'' instead of ``regularly,'' as previously required. Second,
the BDIA requires the Commission to compile ``demographic information
for unserved areas'' as part of the annual Section 706 inquiry.
Specifically, the BDIA requires that the Commission ``compile a list of
geographical areas not served by any provider of advanced
telecommunications capability.'' If Census Bureau data are available,
the Commission must ``determine, for each such unserved area--(1) The
population; (2) the population density; and (3) the average per capita
income.''
14. The BDIA also requires the Commission to perform an
international comparison in its annual broadband deployment report
conducted pursuant to Section 706 of the Telecommunications Act.
Specifically, Section 1303 of Title 47 now requires the Commission to
``include information comparing the extent of broadband service
capability (including data transmission speeds and price for broadband
service capability) in a total of 75 communities in at least 25
countries abroad for each of the data rate benchmarks for broadband
service utilized by the Commission to reflect different speed tiers.''
b. The GAO's Report on Broadband Metrics and Standards
15. In addition, the BDIA required the GAO's Comptroller General to
conduct a study and issue a report on broadband metrics and standards
by October 10, 2009. That report evaluated the ``broadband metrics that
may be used by industry and the Federal Government [including the
Commission] to provide users with more accurate information about the
cost and capability of their broadband connection[s], and to better
compare the deployment and penetration of broadband in the United
States with other countries.''
16. The GAO found that current measures of broadband performance
``have limitations,'' that ``views were mixed on potential
alternatives, and ongoing [broadband data collection] efforts need
improvement.'' Further, stakeholders reported to the GAO that the data
collected by the FCC Form 477 ``[do] not include information on
availability, price, or actual delivered speeds, which limits the
ability to make comparisons across the country and inform policy or
investment decisions.''
2. Recovery Act
17. In February 2009, Congress enacted the American Recovery and
[[Page 10831]]
Reinvestment Act (ARRA), which directed the Commission to develop a
national broadband plan to ensure that all people of the United States
have access to broadband. The ARRA also directed the National
Telecommunications and Information Administration (NTIA) to develop and
maintain a comprehensive nationwide and publicly available map of
broadband service capability and availability.
a. National Broadband Plan
18. Section 6001(k) of the ARRA instructed the Commission to submit
to Congress a national broadband plan that would analyze mechanisms for
ensuring broadband access by all people of the United States, provide a
detailed strategy for achieving affordability and maximum usage, and
include a plan for use of broadband to advance national purposes such
as education, health care, energy, and public safety. The resulting
National Broadband Plan, published on March 16, 2010, noted the
necessity for ``continuous collection and analysis of detailed data on
competitive behavior,'' and stressed the need for the Commission to
conduct ``more thorough data collection to monitor and benchmark
competitive behavior.'' In particular, recommendation 4.2 of the Plan
suggested that the Commission ``revise Form 477 to collect data
relevant to broadband availability, adoption and competition.''
b. NTIA's Broadband Inventory Map
19. In order to comply with requirements under the BDIA and the
ARRA, NTIA in July 2009 established a State Broadband Data and
Development Grant Program (SBDD). Through this program, NTIA has
awarded grants, funded through 2015, to certain State-designated
entities to fund the collection of data from broadband providers. The
data collected by NTIA as part of the SBDD program will help populate a
national broadband inventory map, which will be made public in February
of this year. In accordance with the ARRA, this map will allow
consumers to determine broadband ``availability'' through a Web site
that is ``interactive and searchable.''
3. The Commission's Data Innovation Initiative
20. On June 29, 2010, the Commission launched the Data Innovation
Initiative, designed to modernize and streamline how the Commission
collects, uses, and disseminates data. As part of the Initiative, the
Wireline Competition, Wireless Telecommunications, and Media Bureaus
released public notices seeking input on which existing data
collections should be eliminated or improved, and which new ones should
be added. Review of the resulting record, along with staff work in the
three Bureaus, has identified over twenty data collections that may be
outdated and ripe for elimination, as well as a number of statutory
reporting obligations that may have outlived their usefulness. We will
initiate proceedings to consider elimination of those data collections
that are completely within our purview. Recognizing that data
collection is essential to fulfill the Commission's central statutory
obligations, including advancing universal service, protecting
consumers, promoting competition, and ensuring public safety, we also
look forward to working with Congress to eliminate any outdated
statutory reporting obligations that they choose to relieve us of.
4. 2010 Biennial Review
21. The Commission also is conducting its 2010 biennial review of
telecommunications regulations, pursuant to Section 11 of the
Communications Act of 1934, as amended. This section requires the
Commission (1) to review biennially its regulations ``that apply to the
operations or activities of any provider of telecommunications
service,'' and (2) to ``determine whether any such regulation is no
longer necessary in the public interest as the result of meaningful
economic competition between providers of such service.'' The
Commission is directed to repeal or modify any regulations that it
finds are no longer in the public interest.
III. Purposes for Which the Commission Must Obtain Data
22. The Commission must collect timely and reliable information to
carry out its statutory duties. In the eleven years that have passed
since the Commission established the Form 477 data program, commenters
in a number of proceedings have suggested that the broadband and
telephone subscription data we currently collect are insufficient to
allow the Commission to fulfill its statutory responsibilities.
Telecommunications markets are now in a period of transition to a world
in which fixed and mobile broadband networks give consumers access to
not only voice communications capability but a myriad of other
applications and services. Commission data shows that there are now
more than 274 million mobile telephony subscriptions in the United
States, and interconnected VoIP subscriptions increased by more than
20% during 2009 while traditional PSTN switched access lines decreased
by 6%.
23. The National Broadband Plan recommended that the Commission
closely observe this transition from legacy circuit-switched networks
to all IP, broadband networks to ensure that legacy regulations and
services do not impede the transition to a modern and efficient use of
resources, that businesses can plan for and adjust to new standards,
and, perhaps most importantly, that consumers do not lose access to
statutorily required ``adequate facilities at reasonable charges.''
Commenters in the National Broadband Plan suggested that the Commission
collect data, or seek comment on the need to collect data, on a variety
of issues related to this transition, including public safety, service
quality, customer satisfaction, and price. Below, we identify a number
of important purposes for which the Commission and commenters have
noted that we may require more robust data, and seek comment on the
data needed to fulfill those purposes.
A. Ensuring Universal Service
24. Section 254 of the Act, which governs administration of
universal service programs, requires the Commission to base its
universal service policies on certain principles, including that
``[q]uality services'' be ``available at just, reasonable, and
affordable rates,'' and that ``[c]onsumers in all regions of the
Nation, including low-income consumers and those in rural, insular, and
high cost areas, should have access to telecommunications and
information services * * * that are reasonably comparable to those
services provided in urban areas and that are available at rates that
are reasonably comparable to rates charged for similar services in
urban areas.'' A key goal set forth in the National Broadband Plan is
to reform the Universal Service Fund (USF) to ``accelerate the
deployment of broadband to unserved areas,'' and the Commission's
unanimously adopted Joint Statement on Broadband calls for the USF to
be reformed ``to increase accountability and efficiency, encourage
targeted investment in broadband infrastructure, and emphasize the
importance of broadband to the future of these programs.''
25. We seek comment on the data needed to ensure universal service.
Numerous stakeholders have asserted that the Commission must collect
deployment, price, and service quality data to effectively fulfill its
obligations under Section 254 and to modernize the USF to focus on
broadband. For example, Verizon has stated that the
[[Page 10832]]
Commission must have reliable data to identify areas that are truly
unserved by broadband to implement USF reform. The National Broadband
Plan noted that ``[a]cross the four USF programs, there is a lack of
adequate data to make critical policy decisions regarding how to better
utilize funding to promote universal service objectives.'' The
Commission itself has noted the importance of having reliable data to
measure the performance of the USF and to protect against waste, fraud,
and abuse. Would data on deployment, price, service quality, and
subscription be required to assess whether the performance goals
proposed for the USF high-cost program and Connect America Fund in the
NPRM released today are being achieved? Would voice and broadband
pricing data be necessary to develop possible rate benchmarks for voice
and/or broadband service in order to determine if services are
``affordable'' and ``reasonably comparable to rates in urban areas''?
Would determining whether particular areas of the country--including
rural, insular, and high-cost areas--should be exempt from aspects of
the USF reform program or afforded different treatment require
deployment, subscription, price and service quality data?
B. Ensuring Public Safety
26. The Communications Act charges the Commission with ensuring
that ``wire and radio communications service with adequate facilities
at reasonable charges'' are available for the purpose of, inter alia,
``promoting safety of life and property through the use of wire and
radio communications.'' Congress has further tasked the Commission with
a key role in guaranteeing that Americans have access to emergency
services via 911. The Commission must be able to monitor the
performance of both legacy circuit-switched networks and broadband
networks to ensure that consumers can access emergency services as
service providers transition from one technology to the other. As noted
in the National Broadband Plan, ``[a] more reliable [broadband] network
would also benefit homeland security, public safety, businesses and
consumers, who are increasingly dependent on their broadband
communications, including their mobile phones.''
27. We seek comment on what data the Commission needs to fulfill
these goals. Would mobile service deployment data, for example, allow
the Commission to identify areas where consumers lack access to 911
service, such as rural highways or remote worksites? Would service
quality data enable the Commission to identify networks that limit
consumers' access to emergency services as a result of excessive
downtime? Could customer complaint data likewise serve as an indicator
that networks are insufficiently reliable to ensure that consumers can
depend on them in an emergency?
C. Promoting Telephone and Broadband Competition
28. Promoting competition is a core purpose of the
Telecommunications Act of 1996, as amended, and as the National
Broadband Plan noted, ``[c]ompetition is crucial for promoting consumer
welfare and spurring innovation and investment in broadband access
networks,'' and ``provides consumers the benefits of choice, better
service and lower prices.'' Others have noted the importance of
competition to consumer welfare. In addition, vibrant competition in a
market can reduce or eliminate the need for regulation. For example,
competition, properly demonstrated, can be the basis for forbearance
from regulations under Section 10 of the Act. As the Commission
previously has found in the context of its Section 10 analysis,
``competition is the most effective means of ensuring that * * *
charges, practices, classifications, and regulations * * * are just and
reasonable, and not unjustly or unreasonably discriminatory.'' The
Commission also is required to annually present its findings regarding
the state of competition in the mobile services marketplace pursuant to
Congress's instruction in Section 332(c)(1)(C) of the Act.
29. Despite the importance of assessing competition in order to
fulfill the Commission's statutory responsibilities, the Commission
does not always have sufficient information about voice and broadband
services sufficient to assess competition accurately. For example, the
Commission has recognized that a lack of comprehensive data on
telephone and broadband services has, in certain situations,
compromised the rigor of its analysis in proceedings seeking the
transfer of Title III licenses and Section 214 authorizations.
Similarly, in a decision regarding whether to grant forbearance from
network unbundling and other regulations pursuant to Section 10 of the
Act, the Commission was unable to make a definitive finding regarding
market share in the telephony market when the primary cable operator
did not voluntarily file reliable data.
30. The National Broadband Plan also noted that statements from a
number of commenters--including officials from the Department of
Justice and the Federal Trade Commission--demonstrate that ``additional
data are needed to more rigorously evaluate broadband competition.''
The Plan concluded that to ensure that the right policies are put in
place so that the broadband ecosystem benefits from meaningful
competition as it evolves, it is ``important to have an ongoing, data-
driven evaluation of the state of competition.'' The National Broadband
Plan therefore recommended that the Commission ``revise Form 477 to
collect data relevant to broadband availability, adoption and
competition.'' Numerous commenters have made similar observations and
recommendations.
31. It is important to note that although more robust deployment
and subscription data may give the Commission a view of the potential
for competition in an area, the National Broadband Plan and a number of
commenters have explained that such data alone would not necessarily
reveal the actual extent of competition or the level of benefit that
consumers enjoy from any competition that exists, and that price and
service quality data could fill these gaps. We seek comment on the need
for price and service quality data as well as deployment and
subscription data to satisfy relevant statutory goals.
D. Promoting Broadband Deployment and Availability
32. As discussed above, Section 706(b) of the Telecommunications
Act of 1996, as amended, directs the Commission to annually ``initiate
a notice of inquiry concerning the availability of advanced
telecommunications capability to all Americans'' and ``determine
whether advanced telecommunications capability is being deployed to all
Americans in a reasonable and timely fashion.'' The Commission has
noted that information about broadband deployment and availability
throughout the nation is essential to fulfill its obligations under
Section 706, including the requirement to compile information about
demographic information for unserved areas.
33. We seek comment on whether the Commission has data sufficient
to effectively fulfill this purpose. The Commission has observed that
the data it has collected to date have allowed only limited assessments
of broadband deployment and availability. For example, the Commission
has used information about the existence of at least one subscriber in
a ZIP code or census tract as a proxy for both deployment and
availability. But the
[[Page 10833]]
Commission and commenters have noted that subscription data,
particularly when collected above the household level, is an imperfect
proxy for network deployment or capability. For example, deployment is
overstated when households subscribe in one part of an area (such as a
census tract) but service is not offered to households in other parts
of the same area, while deployment is understated if no household in an
area has chosen to subscribe to any service offering provided by a
network, and capability is understated if no household has opted for
the highest speed offering.
34. We also note that the Commission has long identified broadband
availability as a broader concept than broadband deployment. A number
of commenters have suggested that the Commission collect other types of
data beyond the Form 477 subscribership data to fulfill its obligations
under Section 706, including information on where infrastructure has
been deployed, the price of broadband services, and service quality.
Would the use of such data sources in conjunction with subscription
data provide additional insights into broadband adoption in the United
States? If infrastructure data were collected, how could the Commission
ensure that sensitive information on critical infrastructure is
appropriately shielded and protected?
E. Other Statutory Obligations
35. We seek comment on other statutory obligations and Commission
efforts that may require the Commission to reform the 477 data program.
In addition, we seek comment on whether the subscription data currently
collected via Form 477 and the Commission's other data collection
programs are sufficient for such obligations, or whether the Commission
should collect additional types of data. Commenters who advocate the
collection of additional data should explain how collecting specific
types of data would result in concrete benefits for consumers, service
providers, and other stakeholders, and explain whether the benefits
would outweigh the burdens.
IV. Revisions to the FCC Form 477 Data Program
36. In the preceding section, we discussed specific statutory
obligations of the Commission that, to be performed effectively, may
require the collection of better data. We turn now to discussion of
what specific data may be necessary to discharge these statutory
responsibilities, and whether and (where relevant) how we should
collect each type of data using Form 477. After reviewing input from
outside parties, we believe that there are five categories of data that
may be necessary to meet the Congressional mandates described in the
prior section: deployment, pricing, and service quality and customer
satisfaction data, which provide measures of supply; subscription data,
which provides a measure of consumer demand; and ownership and contact
information, which serves multiple statutory purposes. While collecting
other categories of data, such as the location of last- and middle-mile
infrastructure, could prove useful to the Commission, Form 477 may not
be the most appropriate tool for collecting such data. We seek comment
on whether there are other types of data necessary for the Commission
to complete its mandates that should be collected using Form 477.
37. We recognize that data collections place burdens--and
potentially significant burdens--on those required to file, and we
actively seek to balance the benefits of data collected against those
burdens. We seek comment on whether each of the types of data noted
below is necessary for the Commission to fulfill its statutory
mandates. Those who suggest that the Commission does not need
particular data should specify how the Commission can meet its
obligations without such data. For data that the Commission should
collect, we seek comment on whether the Commission should gather the
data through an OMB-approved data collection or whether there are other
sources. For example, are there commercial data sources that would
allow the Commission to meet its obligations? Alternatively, would it
be practical for Commission staff to collect data from public sources
(e.g., from service providers' Web sites)? Those advocating the use of
commercial or publicly available data should discuss any limitations
associated with such sources, the resources the Commission would need
to devote to the collection method proposed (e.g., direct costs, staff
time), and the impact such a collection method would have on other
Commission efforts. Where a data collection is necessary, we seek
comment on ways that the Commission can minimize the burden for filers,
for example, in the design of the collection or in tools the Commission
can provide. Commenters who cite the burden of an OMB-approved
collection should quantify the burden they expect and explain their
quantification methodology. We seek comment on issues specific to
reducing the burden of each collection as they are discussed in the
following sections.
A. General Considerations
1. Streamlining Collection
38. To reduce production burdens, commenters urge the Commission to
ensure that the FCC Form 477 collection process is as ``streamlined as
possible,'' and we agree that streamlining the process where
appropriate must be a top priority for the Commission. For example,
providers request that the Form 477 interface be redesigned to allow
parties to file data on multiple States as a single file. We seek
comment on these proposals, and on other steps the Commission can take
to streamline the Form 477 data program.
39. Reporting entities already maintain subscriber databases that
include address-level information; thus, providing subscribership
information at the address level could simplify reporting. At the same
time, collection of address-level deployment and availability
information would allow the Commission to make policy decisions based
on a more granular and accurate understanding of the marketplace. We
note that some providers have explicitly requested that they be allowed
to submit subscribership data at the address level to reduce their
reporting burden. We seek comment whether it would be less burdensome
for providers to submit address-level data with respect to the
deployment and availability of services. We also seek comment on other
ways that the Commission can ease the burden on small- and medium-sized
providers.
40. In addition, we seek comment on the extent to which
technological tools can reduce the burden of producing information. For
example, the Commission now makes available a Census Block Conversions
application programming interface (API) that returns a U.S. Census
Bureau Census Block number given a passed latitude and longitude. The
API also returns the State and county name associated with a block.
Among other benefits, we expect that this API will assist providers in
assigning subscribers to census-defined geographic areas. What other
tools are available to reduce the burdens providers face in complying
with our data reporting programs? Are there other tools that the
Commission itself should develop?
2. Use of Third-Party and Publicly Available Data
41. We seek comment on whether and how the Commission can obtain
reliable data from third parties and publicly
[[Page 10834]]
available sources. The Commission in 2007 sought comment on the
``availability of commercial sources of broadband deployment data or
data-processing programs that could augment or otherwise add value to
our use of Form 477 data, or reduce the associated costs and other
burdens imposed on reporting providers.'' The Commission declined to
use any such sources in the 2008 Broadband Data Gathering Order and
Further NPRM, 73 FR 37911, July 2, 2008. We note that the Commission
currently relies on some third-party data that may be considered
authoritative, and seek comment on what other data could be obtained by
the Commission from third parties. We also seek comment on whether
there are new sources of data that could serve Commission goals.
42. We note that there are limitations associated with third-party
data sources. Commercial data sources rarely rely on a census of all
data sources of a particular type and more often rely on sampling. The
bias associated with sampling, or the use of proprietary methods to
create or extrapolate from a sample, could limit the applicability of
commercial data. Further, commercial data often include restrictions to
data rights that could limit the Commission's ability to publish
underlying data or resulting analysis. We seek comment on these
potential shortcomings of commercial data, whether there are ways to
mitigate them, and the balance between these limitations and the burden
that could be avoided by the use of commercial data. The Commission
could also cull some information from public sources, such as company
Web sites. We note that such data may be unreliable or insufficiently
detailed, and seek comment on the extent to which the Commission can
base policy on such data. To the extent commenters advocate for the use
of commercial or third-party data for a specific collection, we ask
that they quantify the resources the Commission would have to devote to
procure or process those data. How should the Commission balance the
costs of purchasing data or collecting data itself from public sources
against the burdens that Form 477 data collection may impose on service
providers?
3. Who Must Report
43. Four classes of entities currently file FCC Form 477:
facilities-based providers of broadband connections to end user
locations; providers of wired or fixed wireless local exchange
telephone service; providers of interconnected VoIP service; and
providers of mobile telephony services. Some entities may fill out only
certain portions of the form.
44. Some of the proposals identified below would have the
Commission collect from all providers of voice and broadband services
data that may have in the past been collected only from a subset of
providers. For example, some of the service quality data some have
suggested we should collect from all broadband providers formerly were
collected only from price cap carriers. We seek comment on whether
there are classes of providers that should be exempted from reporting
elements of any proposed data collection. For example, small broadband
providers may find it relatively more burdensome to comply with certain
data reporting obligations than larger carriers. Any proposals to
exempt certain providers should include the legal and policy grounds
and the policy implications for such an exemption.
45. We also seek comment on whether additional classes of entities
should be required to file FCC Form 477. For example, should we revise
our definition of ``interconnected VoIP'' for the purposes of this
collection to include services that permit users to receive calls that
originate on the public switched telephone network or to terminate
calls to the public switched telephone network? Proposals to require
additional classes of entities to file should discuss the Commission's
authority to do so.
4. Frequency of Reporting
46. The Commission previously has decided that it can best balance
its need for timely information with its desire to minimize the
reporting burden on respondents by requiring providers to report data
on a semi-annual basis. One commenter has asked the Commission to
require quarterly collections ``to keep pace with rapidly evolving
Internet technology and allow regulators to plan and adjust policies.''
Another commenter asks that the Commission synchronize the filing
deadlines for FCC Form 477 with those for the NTIA's SBDD. We seek
comment on whether FCC Form 477 should be filed more or less
frequently.
B. Specific Categories of Data
47. Commenters have identified five categories of data that may
help the Commission more effectively carry out its statutory
obligations: deployment, price, subscription, service quality and
customer satisfaction, and ownership and contact information. We seek
comment on whether and how the Commission should collect such data, and
the Commission's authority to do so.
48. Those commenting on how to collect data should be as specific
as possible. Establishing detailed data reporting requirements is an
inherently difficult task. Particular elements of a dataset may be
simple to describe conceptually, but difficult to specify as a
practical matter. Conversely, a data element may be easily specified,
but difficult to explain in plain language. To the extent commenters
propose that we collect specific data elements, we ask that commenters
both discuss the concept and provide an actual specification of each
data element. To the extent particular proposals are offered, are there
different data elements that might better achieve our goals, including
minimizing production burdens on filers and processing burdens on the
Commission?
1. Deployment
49. As discussed above, numerous stakeholders have urged the
Commission to obtain data that would allow it to understand where
providers have deployed networks capable of delivering a given service.
We seek comment on whether deployment data are necessary to fulfill
several of the purposes discussed above: ensuring universal service by
tracking the expansion of broadband networks, identifying areas that
lack access to fixed or mobile broadband and assisting the Commission
in targeting support to areas that most need it; monitoring telephone
and broadband competition by providing insight into the service areas
of potential competitors regardless of the technology used; and
promoting broadband deployment and availability by providing reliable
information about broadband deployment nationwide. In this section, we
seek comment on how the Commission might obtain deployment data for
voice and broadband services.
a. Voice Network Deployment
(i) Fixed
50. The Commission currently does not collect data on fixed voice
network deployment. And although the national telephone subscription
rate has remained high over the last decade, a number of commenters
have informed the Commission that residents in some areas of the
country--particularly rural, insular, high-cost, and Tribal areas--do
not have access to basic fixed telephone service. Other commenters
assert that State carrier of last resort obligations are sufficient to
ensure that fixed voice networks are ubiquitously deployed. We
[[Page 10835]]
seek comment on whether the Commission should collect fixed voice
network deployment data. If such a collection is warranted, should it
be limited to areas in which network deployment has historically been a
concern, such as rural, insular, high-cost, and Tribal areas? What
geographic area (e.g., census block or address-level) would be
appropriate for reporting such data?
(ii) Mobile
51. The Commission currently licenses a dataset from a commercial
source, American Roamer, for data on mobile network deployment.
American Roamer provides coverage boundary maps for mobile voice and
broadband networks based on information provided to them by mobile
wireless network operators. The Commission previously has noted that
analysis based on this data ``likely overstates the coverage actually
experienced by consumers, because American Roamer reports advertised
coverage as reported to it by many mobile wireless service providers,
each of which uses a different definition of coverage. The data do not
expressly account for factors such as signal strength, bit rate, or in-
building coverage, and they may convey a false sense of consistency
across geographic areas and service providers. Nonetheless, the
analysis is useful because it provides a quantitative baseline that can
be compared across network types, technologies, and carriers, over
time.''
52. We seek comment on whether it is appropriate to continue
relying on American Roamer's mobile telephony deployment data. Are
alternative datasets available, and if so, how do they compare to the
data available to and currently purchased by the Commission? Are such
datasets available only as off-the-shelf products, or would it be
possible to acquire datasets tailored to the Commission's
specifications? For such datasets, what are the likely costs, and how
timely is the data? Should the Commission require carriers to submit
mobile telephony deployment data, notwithstanding the availability of
some data from third parties? If so, what data submissions should be
required? Should the Commission collect data that are based on a
standardized definition of coverage or a range of signal strengths that
would reflect a likely consumer experience? We also seek comment on
whether the Commission should collect data on the spectrum bands used
for mobile voice network deployment in specific geographic areas, which
would help the Commission to fulfill its spectrum management
responsibilities under Title III of the Act. How burdensome would the
collection of mobile telephony deployment data be for providers? What
are the benefits of obtaining such information?
b. Broadband Network Deployment
(i) SBDD Data
53. The national broadband inventory map under development by the
NTIA is an important step toward collecting more robust data about
broadband deployment and availability. The GAO's report noted that
stakeholders ``generally agreed'' that this national broadband map
``would address some gaps and provide detailed data on availability,
subscribership, and actual delivered speeds,'' but there were concerns
that the data collection mechanism used--which depends on voluntary
reporting by providers to State entities whose methods may vary from
State to State--could ``result in inconsistent data and limit the
effectiveness of the effort.''
54. Broadband deployment data collected via Form 477 could address
these consistency concerns and provide an ongoing source of data at the
conclusion of the SBDD program. Verizon, Sprint, T-Mobile, and NCTA
suggest that the Commission consider the extent to which it is
necessary to collect broadband deployment data through Form 477 once
NTIA's national broadband inventory map is online and the data become
available to the Commission. We seek comment on this suggestion. On
what data would the Commission rely at the conclusion of the SBDD
program, and how would the Commission reliably analyze trends in
broadband deployment if there are gaps in data collected by the SBDD
program?
(ii) Data Collection by the Commission
55. We seek comment on a number of issues raised by commenters who
recommend that the Commission collect data on broadband network
deployment.
56. Geographic Area. Parties have proposed varying levels of
geographic specificity the Commission should require when collecting
deployment information. Currently, the Commission collects subscription
data--which it uses as a proxy for deployment--for fixed broadband
providers at the census tract level. In the 2008 Broadband Data
Gathering Order and Further NPRM, 73 FR 37911, July 2, 2008, the
Commission tentatively concluded that it should measure deployment on
an address-by-address basis, which would provide the most granular and
accurate information. A number of commenters in prior proceedings,
particularly State regulatory agencies, have expressed support for
collection of broadband deployment data at the address level. These
commenters note that address-by-address data would yield the most
useful data for the Commission about where broadband is deployed. Some
smaller providers also state that reporting at the subscriber address
level would ease the burden of reporting. Other commenters, however,
have suggested that reporting address-level deployment information
would be unduly burdensome for providers, particularly for small- and
medium-sized providers that do not maintain such data. We seek comment
on the benefits and burdens of requiring address-level deployment data.
In addition, we seek comment on how to account for areas where networks
are deployed, but there are no homes or businesses with addresses
(e.g., uninhabited highways with mobile network coverage). At least one
State (California) already requires address-level reporting for the
construction of its broadband map. We seek comment on this and similar
State agency initiatives and request any empirical evidence of the
burdens and impact of compliance.
57. Some commenters in prior proceedings have suggested that the
Commission collect deployment data at the census block level. The
California Public Utility Commission (PUC) notes that reporting by
census block would yield an average of 22 households, whereas a census
tract yields an average of 1,628 households. Census block-level
reporting could provide a balance between being more granular than
census tract-level reporting and avoiding any privacy issues associated
with address-by-address reporting. Commenters have also noted that the
utilization of a Census geography facilitates the application and
analysis of Census demographic data, such as income, race, age, and
household size and composition. We seek comment on whether the burdens
imposed by collecting census block-level data are significantly greater
than those associated with collecting census tract-level data. Would
the burdens imposed by collecting census block-level data be
substantially greater than requiring address-level reporting? Are there
particular benefits to using census-block level reporting? What were
the costs and benefits of initiatives that have used census block-level
reporting? What alternative reporting methods could the Commission use
to ease the burden on carriers that might find census block-level data
to be unduly burdensome,
[[Page 10836]]
while still collecting comparable and useful data?
58. NTIA's broadband mapping effort sought deployment data for a
smaller geographic area than a census block for census blocks larger
than two square miles. We seek comment on the benefits and costs of
this approach. What unit of measurement should the Commission utilize
for larger census blocks if the Commission does not use address-by-
address reporting?
59. Speed. The National Broadband Plan noted the importance of
speed data to consumers and policymakers, and stakeholders generally
acknowledge its usefulness. The Commission currently collects
information about advertised broadband speeds in its Form 477
collection. The National Broadband Plan noted, however, that consumers
and policymakers would benefit from data on actual speeds. The
Commission has sought information about how best to measure actual
broadband speeds. Recognizing the difficulty of measuring actual
speeds, a number of stakeholders have nonetheless urged the Commission
to require providers to report actual speeds. Some have suggested that
the Commission require providers to report a statistical sampling of
average speeds. Others have suggested requiring providers to report
data contention ratios (the ratio of the potential maximum demand to
the actual bandwidth available). Broadband providers and their industry
associations have argued that actual speeds are affected by a wide
variety of factors, many beyond the providers' control, and that
measuring speed will be ``almost impossible.'' We seek comment on
whether the Commission should collect data on contention ratios or some
other measure of network congestion. We further seek comment on whether
the Commission should continue to collect data only on advertised
speeds, or whether, for example, providers should provide information
about actual speeds by geographic area, or speeds that extend beyond
the access network (e.g., end-to-end speeds that reflect an end user's
typical Internet performance). We also seek comment on how to best
measure the actual speeds of services that can be provided over a
network. The Commission has undertaken a program to measure such speeds
directly for a sample of end users of fixed broadband, and is
considering a similar program for mobile broadband. We seek comment on
whether an approach like this one, a similar approach with more
measurements, or some other method is appropriate. Comments on
measurements of actual speed should identify the part or parts of the
network where speed should be measured. What starting and ending points
are most relevant for consumers, providers, and the Commission?
60. The Commission currently collects speed data in eight tiers of
advertised download speeds and nine tiers of advertised upload speeds,
leading to 72 possible combinations. The SBDD established nine tiers of
advertised download speeds and 11 tiers of advertised upload speeds,
for 99 possible combinations. We seek comment on whether the FCC and
NTIA should conform their speed tiers. Further, while there is value in
having speed data broken out at a granular level, relevant speeds are
likely to evolve over time, and having 72 or 99 speed-tier combinations
may be unnecessarily complex. However, we note that there are benefits
to maintaining some continuity in this area to enable tracking data on
particular speed-tier combinations over time. Further, measuring the
same speed tiers for both business and residential customers may not be
appropriate, as they often have different needs for speed. When
collecting speed data, should the Commission reduce the number of speed
tiers reported by providers? Should we add a tier specifically tied to
any speed benchmark that may be required to receive USF or Connect
America Fund (CAF) funding? Should any future increase in that
potential benchmark result in the addition of a speed tier for that new
speed? An alternative approach would be to define tiers by pairs of
upstream and downstream speeds. Such an approach would greatly reduce
the number of tiers but would lock-in pairings of downstream and
upstream speeds. We seek comment on these approaches, including comment
on the number of speed tiers and breakpoints.
61. Mobile Issues. Mobile broadband presents additional challenges
with respect to geography. We seek comment on whether a mobile service
should be treated differently from a fixed service for reporting
purposes. For mobile service, a billing address can provide a
subscriber's home location but does not reflect the entire coverage
area where a mobile broadband network is available; nor would a billing
address necessarily be reflective of the primary usage area of the
subscriber, particularly in the case of family plans and for
businesses. As discussed above, American Roamer produces mobile voice
and broadband coverage maps, which the Commission has used to estimate
mobile broadband deployment at the census block level. However, these
coverage maps have certain drawbacks, including that the data do not
account for factors such as signal strength variations. Should the
Commission collect some measure of signal strength beyond a simple
``signal/no signal'' flag? For example, would a ``good/better/best''
measure for each geographic area be appropriate, or would reported
advertised speeds accurately reflect the impact of signal strength? How
should reporting account for the variability of signal strength and
capacity in a network that includes mobile users? We seek comment on
whether billing address, census blocks, or another geographic area
should be used to collect data on mobile broadband network coverage
areas, separate from the maps obtained from American Roamer. In
addition, Sprint has stated it has maps that would allow for the
identification of service availability at the street address level, and
has suggested that the Commission request such data on a trial basis
from providers that currently produce such maps. We seek comment on
conducting such a trial.
62. One carrier argues that mobile wireless providers should not be
required to report speed data because of the difficulty of measuring
factors that can affect mobile data transfer rates. We seek comment on
whether we should collect data on mobile connection speed, and whether
fixed and mobile services should be treated differently when reporting
speed data. In addition we seek comment on the extent to which data
from the Commission's mobile broadband speed test could be meaningful
in evaluating mobile data transfer rates.
63. Spectrum Issues. We seek comment throughout this NPRM on
several issues concerning spectrum usage data, which would help the
Commission to fulfill its spectrum management responsibilities under
Title III of the Act. How can the Commission best collect such
information? Possible methods include requiring providers to indicate
the band, radio service code, or call sign used to provide service.
64. Satellite Issues. We seek comment on how best to collect
deployment data about satellite-based services. At least one satellite
provider has pointed out the near-ubiquity of satellite signals. Should
the Commission exempt satellite broadband providers from reporting
deployment information, or require only that satellite providers report
areas where terrain or other impediments are likely to block line of
sight to the satellite?
65. Anchor Institutions. Anchor institutions such as schools,
libraries, or
[[Page 10837]]
hospitals often require broadband offerings with quality of service
guarantees not required by at least some retail customers, and Section
254 of the Act places particular emphasis on educational providers,
libraries, and health care providers for rural areas. We seek comment
on whether to treat anchor institutions like other businesses or
whether they should be treated as a different category for the purposes
of measuring deployment.
2. Price
66. We seek comment on whether price data are necessary to fulfill
several of the purposes discussed above, including ensuring universal
service by determining whether rural consumers are paying affordable
and reasonably comparable rates to those in urban areas; monitoring
telephone and broadband competition (e.g., in forbearance proceedings)
by providing data regarding the effect, if any, of competition on
pricing or by determining whether nominally competitive providers in
fact have comparable offerings in the market; reporting a comparison of
U.S. and international prices for broadband service capability; and
promoting broadband deployment and availability.
67. The Commission previously has considered whether to use Form
477 to collect price information. In the 1999 First Section 706 Report,
for example, the Commission sought suggestions on how to measure market
demand through ``indicia [such] as prices [and] willingness to pay.''
In the 2008 Broadband Data Gathering Order and Further NPRM, 73 FR
37911, July 2, 2008, the Commission sought comment on whether to
require providers to report the monthly price charged for stand-alone
broadband service.
68. Some commenters have argued that broadband providers should not
be required to submit price information because prices are competitive;
bundled offerings, temporary discounts, different pricing plans, and
other service attributes make comparing pricing complex; the production
of pricing data is too burdensome; and requiring the production of
price data would impose Title II burdens on broadband providers.
69. Others, however, have urged the Commission to require broadband
and voice providers to report price information to assess competition,
determine whether prices are reasonably comparable in different
demographic areas, inform our USF distribution mechanism, and to assess
why consumers may not be purchasing broadband where it is available.
Such commenters have emphasized the need for the Commission to collect
the actual price of broadband services to, for example, allow consumers
to compare service prices. Proposals on how to collect price data have
varied widely, however, in substance and level of detail. For example,
some State regulators have urged the Commission to collect price
information for stand-alone and bundled services, and not to consider
promotional prices or short term deals. Some have urged the Commission
to collect a measure of ``price per megabit per second.'' Others have
urged the Commission to collect ``information from commercial carriers
regarding their tier pricing, credit and deposit requirements across
various communities.'' Commenters also have proposed a variety of
geographic areas for reporting price, and a variety of reporting
periods.
70. We seek comment on the Commission's legal authority to collect
price data, whether we should use Form 477 to collect price data, and
if so, how we should collect and analyze such data. We acknowledge that
there are a number of challenges associated with any approach to
collecting price information. We therefore seek detailed comment on the
strengths and weaknesses of the approaches we describe below, and on
other possible approaches.
71. Price data can be collected in many different ways. For
example, the Commission could collect retail prices charged by
providers for basic voice and broadband offerings. Given the complexity
and variety of bundles and discounts, the Commission could instead
define a basket of services and collect, or require providers to post
publicly, the price of that basket. Alternatively, the Commission could
collect information about all available prices and packages, or seek to
determine effective prices that end users pay.
72. Another approach would be to have providers report the total
revenue associated with all offerings (including voice, video (i.e.,
pay television), and broadband Internet access services), and identify
the attributes associated with that revenue, such as the types of
services provided (e.g., voice, video, and broadband) and key
descriptors of those services (e.g., basic video, extended video, very
high speed Internet access). The Commission could then determine the
average effective price for each attribute in a given area by
performing statistical analysis on aggregate revenue and attribute data
across areas large enough to generate a significant number of
measurements. We seek comment on whether such an approach would yield
meaningful results for the purposes outlined above. We also seek
comment on how this approach might be specified. For example, how many
and what attributes would be needed to support a useful analysis? Given
that resolving the price for more attributes will require more
measurements of total revenue, how should the number and selection of
attributes be balanced against the geographic size of the measurement,
given that a sufficiently large sample size for a larger number of
attributes will require more measurements and a larger geographic area?
Should revenue be inclusive or exclusive of taxes and fees? Should
revenue be reported separately for business and residential customers?
73. We note that the Commission has sought comment on the need for
price data to set benchmarks in the context of our intercarrier
compensation and universal service proceedings. Would any of these
approaches provide data suitable for the establishment of such
benchmarks, or are more appropriate data available from other sources?
74. If the Commission collects price data, over what geographic
area should prices be collected? As discussed in Section V.C below,
ECPA may limit the Commission's ability to require providers to report
price data from service providers at the household or address level.
Should the Commission collect price data at the census block level?
Could the Commission collect data using, for example, street segments
as the collection geographic area? If so, would it need to guard
against collecting single home street segments? How could it do so?
What impact would different geographic-level collections have on the
value of the data produced? Would collecting data at a more granular
level that is consistent with the restrictions imposed by ECPA (e.g.,
at the street-segment level) materially improve the quality of the
analysis and justify the added complexity of the collection?
75. Were we to collect pricing data for mobile services, how should
prices for mobile services be assigned to a geographic area? Assigning
a fixed service subscriber to a single census block is a relatively
simple process that providers currently use to provide subscribership
data at the census-tract level. Assigning price data for mobile
services to a geographic area, however, is less straightforward,
particularly in light of the billing address issues related to mobile
addressed above. Should providers of mobile services use the billing
address as the customer's location, and report data for that customer
in the corresponding census
[[Page 10838]]
block? For those that suggest mobile services do not have any inherent
location, how should the Commission evaluate substitution of fixed
service by mobile? How should the Commission account for various types
of pre-paid and family plans that are common in mobile services?
76. The impact of a given price will be very different for
consumers, businesses, and anchor institutions. The impact of those
prices could vary significantly within those groups as well. For
example, schools and libraries may seek a broadband service similar to
a community hospital, but may have less funding. Should the Commission
specify narrower customer classes (e.g., small, medium, and large
business) when collecting price data? How would any such customer
classes be defined?
3. Subscription
77. We seek comment on whether subscription data, which the
Commission currently collects, are necessary to fulfill several of the
purposes discussed above: monitoring telephone and broadband
competition by providing a measure of competition's outcome: how many
customers subscribe to different providers' services in each area;
promoting broadband deployment and availability; ensuring public safety
by providing a measure of what networks and providers are relied on by
how many customers in each area; monitoring the effects of PSTN-to-IP
conversion by providing insight into how many customers are reliant on
each type of network technology in each area; and ensuring that
affordable voice and broadband services are available to all Americans.
78. No commenter has asked the Commission to cease collecting
subscription data for wireline services. Are there types of
subscription data the Commission need not continue to collect? For
example, should the Commission continue to require providers to report
the percentage of their local exchange telephone service lines for
which they are the presubscribed interstate long distance carrier or
that are provided over UNE-Platform? One provider has urged the
Commission to cease collecting subscription data from wireless service
providers, and instead to ``seek broadband and telephony data based on
coverage areas'' like those provided by American Roamer, because
coverage areas more accurately indicate where mobile subscribers have
access to wireless service than do subscriber billing addresses or area
codes. We seek comment on this proposal. Would data collected by
coverage area be sufficient to achieve the outcomes discussed in
Section III above?
a. Issues Applicable to Both Voice and Broadband Subscription
79. Mobile issues. Should the Commission modify its data collection
practices with respect to mobile voice or mobile broadband subscribers?
For example, if most providers treat each line, telephone number, or
device as a separate subscription, to what extent does over-counting
result from individuals owning or using more than one device? We also
ask that providers comment on the way in which family plans are
counted. Is one family plan a subscription, or is each line within the
plan counted as a separate subscriber? In addition, certain challenges
can arise in collecting data on prepaid subscribers, particularly
subscribers to traditional pay-as-you-go prepaid plans. For instance,
the address or location of such subscribers is typically unknown, and
these subscribers may frequently stop using one device and start using
another without the first device being counted as a disconnect. We seek
comment on the best way to account for pre-paid plan subscribers given
these challenges. In addition, should we collect data on the number of
mobile voice and mobile broadband subscriptions by spectrum band, by
customer class (i.e., residential and business), and by technology?
Should we require that mobile voice and mobile broadband providers
distinguish which subscribers are voice-only, broadband-only, or both
voice and broadband? How should we account for mobile data services for
non-traditional devices, such as data-only e-readers, machine-to-
machine communications, telemetry systems, and others? Are there other
ways for the Commission to access this information? How would any
proposed changes help us to produce our annual report on mobile
wireless competition?
80. Geographic Area. Form 477 currently collects voice telephony
subscription data at the State level and broadband subscription data at
the census tract level. We seek comment on whether voice and broadband
subscription data should be collected at the same level of geographic
specificity. Are there differences in the need for such data that would
justify continuing to use different levels of specificity? We also seek
comment on whether the Commission should require entities to report
deployment and subscription levels at the same level of geographic
specificity.
81. As discussed above, commenters in prior proceedings have
advocated more granular subscribership data for broadband services.
Commenters have also suggested that policymakers need more granular
data about voice services, particularly in order to address competition
issues. Should voice and broadband subscription data be reported at the
address level, the census block level or some other level? Is it
important for voice and broadband subscription data to be reported at
the same geographic level, regardless of which one? As discussed below,
the Electronic Communications Privacy Act may be implicated should the
Commission collect address-level subscription data from service
providers. However, some smaller providers have specifically requested
that the Commission allow them to provide address-level data because
that ``would reduce reporting burdens on small businesses serving high-
cost rural areas.'' Therefore, we seek comment on the propriety of
allowing production of such data at the request of a provider, the
benefits and drawbacks to having some, but not all subscribership data
at that level of granularity, and whether such collections would
violate ECPA.
82. Data on mobile wireless broadband subscribers are currently
collected at the State level, while mobile broadband availability is
reported at the census tract level. We seek comment on whether we
should treat fixed and mobile services differently. How should we
account for users of resold or prepaid mobile broadband services, where
the address of the end user may be unknown?
83. Residential and Business Subscription Breakdown. Form 477
currently requires that providers report subscriptions separately for
residential and business customers. We recognize that this distinction
may be imprecise, particularly for mobile plans where lines used
primarily for business may be paid for by an individual, or vice versa.
We seek comment on whether there are better ways to distinguish
residential and business customer classes, for data and voice services.
For example, should we require providers to treat all fixed broadband
connections with a service-level agreement as ``business'' and all
those without one as ``residential?''
b. Voice Subscription Data
84. To the extent the Commission continues to collect subscription
data, we seek comment on whether we should modify the way in which we
collect that data.
85. Fixed. Should the Commission modify its data collection
practices with respect to fixed voice services? For example, should the
Commission distinguish among services sold as
[[Page 10839]]
stand-alone offerings and services that are bundled with a subscription
to broadband, video, or mobile services? The Commission currently
collects data on the proportion of subscribers that have the filing
carrier as their presubscribed interexchange carrier (PIC). Should the
Commission collect information on what type of interexchange service
plans these subscribers purchase (e.g., per minute, bundles of minutes,
or unlimited local and long distance)?
86. Form 477 currently collects limited data on the extent of
facilities-based competition for fixed voice services. Should the
Commission distinguish among the types of loops provided under
unbundled network element (UNE) arrangements? For example, should the
Commission collect data on the number of DS0, DS1, and DS3 loops
provided to unaffiliated telecommunications carriers under a UNE loop
arrangement? The Commission does not currently collect information for
voice services that are provided using special access or other high
capacity services/facilities that have not been channelized. Should the
Commission collect information on voice services provided in this
manner?
87. Interconnected VoIP. Should the Commission modify its
requirements concerning interconnected VoIP? For example, should the
Commission distinguish among stand-alone, facilities-based
interconnected VoIP; stand-alone over-the-top interconnected VoIP; and
interconnected VoIP that is bundled with a broadband subscription?
Should Form 477 distinguish ``nomadic'' from ``fixed'' interconnected
VoIP (i.e., distinguish whether an interconnected VoIP service can be
used from one or multiple fixed locations)? Should the Commission begin
collecting data on VoIP services that do not meet the definition of
interconnected VoIP (e.g., services that can make calls to or receive
calls from the PSTN)?
c. Broadband Subscription Data
88. Currently, Form 477 collects data on broadband subscribership
at 72 speed tiers for each census tract in the nation. As with
deployment data, we seek comment on whether we should reduce the number
of speed tiers at which providers report. Should the speed tiers used
for deployment and subscription data be the same? Should providers of
fixed and mobile broadband services provide the number of subscribers
by technology? We also seek comment on whether wireless broadband
providers should include information about the spectrum band(s) they
use to provide service.
4. Service Quality and Customer Satisfaction
89. We seek comment on whether service quality and customer
satisfaction data are necessary to fulfill several of the purposes
discussed above: reducing waste, fraud, and abuse and increasing
accountability in our universal service programs by ensuring that
recipients of government support provide services to their customers
that are reliable and of comparable quality to those not provided with
government support; ensuring public safety by ensuring that networks
remain a reliable means of contacting public safety organizations;
monitoring telephone and broadband competition by ensuring that service
providers with overlapping footprints provide comparable levels of
service; promoting broadband deployment and availability; protecting
consumers by ensuring that end users have information about network
performance; and tracking the effects of the conversion from PSTN to IP
services by providing insight into the performance levels of both
networks.
a. Issues Applicable to Both Voice and Broadband
90. Who Should Report. The Commission previously has collected
voice service quality and customer satisfaction data from a small
subset of the total number of carriers. We seek comment on whether and
how such data should be collected from a larger universe of voice and
broadband providers.
91. What Data Should Be Collected. If we do collect such data, we
seek comment on what aspects of service quality and customer
satisfaction are relevant to the purposes described above or otherwise
identified by commenters. The Commission could collect, for example,
data regarding the number of trouble reports or complaints that
customers make regarding network performance or degradation; complaints
regarding service provider customer care and billing; installation and
repair intervals; and general customer satisfaction. The Commission has
conducted surveys that include questions on customer satisfaction. To
what extent could data from these surveys and others like it be used to
address concerns about service quality, particularly with respect to
individual carriers in particular geographic areas? In addition, the
Commission could collect direct measures of network performance, such
as network downtime and number of customers affected; call blocking;
prevalence of dropped calls; and speed, latency, and jitter.
92. To what extent should the Commission specify common metrics for
voice and broadband services. For example, should the Commission
collect data on gross churn as a measure of customer dissatisfaction?
Should the Commission collect data from all providers on the number of
complaints made to providers and to State public utility commissions?
Should data for residential customers include the time interval for
installation and service commitments, the percent of time those
commitments are met, and the out-of-service repair interval? How could
the Commission ensure that such metrics were comparable for all
reporting entities?
93. Geographic Area. We seek comment on over what geographic areas
would be appropriate to collect service quality and customer
satisfaction data. Given the role States play in regulating some voice
services, we seek comment on whether collecting data by provider by
State is appropriate. However, some provider networks may cross State
boundaries, suggesting that market- or carrier-level information would
be more appropriate. It may also be the case that different aspects of
the proposed service quality collection will be most meaningful when
measured in different geographic areas (e.g., wireline voice by State;
but cable information by system), which suggests that the collection
should be made over a smaller geographic area to allow for different
levels of aggregation. To the extent commenters suggest the Commission
collect data, we ask that they specify the appropriate geographic area
for these data, and the relative burden that reporting for different
geographic areas might impose.
b. Voice
94. The Commission in 1990 established ARMIS Reports 43-05 and 43-
06 in order to monitor whether the implementation of price caps would
lead to carriers lowering service quality. In 2008, the Commission
granted certain incumbent LECs conditional forbearance from ``the
current partial and uneven'' collection of those reports. The
Commission noted, however, ``the possibility that service quality and
customer satisfaction data * * * might be useful to consumers to help
them make informed choices in a competitive market, but only if
available from the entire relevant industry,'' and tentatively
concluded that the Commission should collect this type of information
from ``facilities-based providers of broadband and/or
telecommunications.'' Some urge
[[Page 10840]]
the Commission to adopt this tentative conclusion, while others object,
arguing that forbearance was justified and the metrics set forth in
those reports are irrelevant and outdated.
95. CWA proposes that the Commission require all providers of voice
telecommunications services to file all of the data previously
submitted on ARMIS Reports 43-05 and 43-06, and to expand service
quality measurements to include answer times for live representatives
responding to customer inquiries. We note, however, that all parts of
the ARMIS 43-05 and 43-06 collections may not be helpful to fulfillment
of the policy objectives discussed in Section III. For example, the
California PUC offers a more limited proposal, that the Commission
collect data formerly reported on four of the six tables of ARMIS
Report 43-05.
96. We seek comment on whether the Commission should use Form 477
to collect service quality and customer satisfaction data for voice
networks. Should the Commission collect some or all of the service
quality metrics formerly collected through ARMIS, or other measures of
voice quality? Should we collect metrics from switched and
interconnected VoIP providers, over both fixed and mobile networks? Are
there other metrics for service quality and customer satisfaction that
would be more appropriate and less burdensome for reporting entities?
Should metrics vary depending on the technology over which service is
provided?
c. Broadband
97. Several commenters have suggested that the Commission collect
service quality and customer service data from broadband providers. In
contrast, most broadband providers that commented objected to adopting
any service quality data requirements. We seek comment on whether Form
477 should be revised to collect service quality and customer
satisfaction data from broadband providers, and the authority under
which such a collection would be conducted.
98. The metrics set forth in ARMIS Reports 43-05 and 43-06 were not
designed with broadband networks in mind, and therefore might not be
the best tools for collecting relevant data. To the extent that the
Commission decides to extend customer service measurement to broadband
services, we seek comment on what metrics should be used to assess
broadband network service quality and customer satisfaction. How would
the Commission measure network downtime? Should downtime reports
include specific locations of outages and the number of customer-hours
relating to the outage? Should the Commission collect packet loss,
latency, and jitter data? How can it do so in a meaningful way; and
over what geographic area would such a collection have meaning? Should
the Commission collect data on mobile and fixed traffic volume and
network congestion, and if so, how should those metrics be specified?
Over what geographic area is such a collection meaningful, and what
measure of traffic is most meaningful?
99. We note that the recently adopted Open Internet Order requires
broadband providers to publicly disclose the network management
practices and performance characteristics of their broadband Internet
access services. Are these disclosures adequate to satisfy any need the
Commission may have for service quality data? If Form 477 were used to
collect information regarding network management practices or
performance characteristics, would the benefits outweigh the burdens?
5. Ownership and Contact Information
100. We seek comment on whether ownership and contact information
are necessary to fulfill one or more of the purposes discussed above,
including reducing waste, fraud, and abuse and increasing
accountability in our universal service programs by simplifying the
process of determining the total amount of public support received by
each recipient regardless of corporate structure; ensuring public
safety by providing a means for Commission staff to contact network
operations centers rapidly in the event of an emergency; and monitoring
telephone and broadband competition by revealing whether service
providers with overlapping service footprints are in fact under common
ownership or control.
101. Currently, we permit Form 477 filers to consolidate data for
multiple operations within a State on a single submission. We also
permit filers to determine the organizational level at which they
submit their filings. For example, a parent or holding company may file
on behalf of its subsidiaries or the subsidiaries may file their own
Form 477. This provides filers with significant flexibility in how they
submit data on Form 477, but may not provide the Commission with a
sufficiently detailed picture of the markets for which data are
reported.
102. We seek comment on whether we should revise the Form 477 to
collect additional ownership information and related data. Would
additional ownership information help inform the Commission's overall
understanding of the broadband ecosystem? In particular, would
additional or different ownership data help us understand the
interrelationships among the data on services and thereby improve our
ability to evaluate markets and report to the public? Given the
importance of broadband competition, would the benefit to the
Commission of understanding the relationships between companies that
appear to be providing competitive services in a particular area
outweigh any burden of producing such information?
103. We also seek comment on the most effective and least
burdensome means of collecting additional ownership data. One option
could be to require filers to report data such as that collected on FCC
Form 602 for wireless carriers, which collects all of a filer's
``disclosable interest holders.'' Would such an approach be necessary
to enable us to evaluate ultimate ownership of, and common control
among, filers, or would a more limited dataset be sufficient? Should we
require the submission of data on any branding used in the marketing or
provision of service? If we require the submission of additional
ownership information, should we also collect other reporting
identifiers the filers use in making submissions to the Commission,
such as the Physical System ID (PSID) used by the Media Bureau for
cable systems? These and other measures might allow the Commission more
easily to evaluate the actual number of providers offering services in
a given area and to report non-confidential information about carriers
by the names by which most consumers know them. Are there are ancillary
data that would be helpful to include on consumer-facing resources,
such as the national broadband inventory map? Would it be useful, for
example, to make available a provider's Web site address and other non-
confidential data? Should entities that file report their FCC
Registration Number (FRN) and Universal Service Administrative Company
Study Area Code (SAC)?
104. We also seek comment on revising Form 477 to collect contact
information for use in emergency situations. The Commission maintains a
voluntary reporting system, the Disaster Information Reporting System
(DIRS) that facilitates contact with carriers in emergencies. The
Commission also maintains a number of databases that include contact
information for other purposes. There is, however, no structured,
mandatory collection of contact information in place specifically for
use in emergencies affecting telephone or broadband networks. As a
[[Page 10841]]
mandatory, recurring filing by providers of telephone and broadband
service, Form 477 may be a particularly effective vehicle for
collecting emergency-contacts data that are comprehensive and current,
with a relatively small burden on filers. We seek comment on whether we
should revise Form 477 to collect data of this type and, if so, what
data would best facilitate emergency communications with providers.
Would a telephone number and e-mail address for each provider's Network
Operations Center or equivalent be sufficient? Would the current six-
month cycle for filing Form 477 be frequent enough to ensure that
information was current? Are there any additional steps the Commission
should take to collect data of this type?
6. Other Data
105. Stakeholders have periodically suggested that the Commission
collect other types of data via Form 477. MMTC, for example, suggests
that the Commission collect via Form 477 ``socioeconomic data,''
``social metrics,'' data to assess socially and economically
disadvantaged businesses and minority or woman-owned business entities,
and data on hardware and software availability in underserved areas.
What other data should the Commission collect via Form 477 in support
of the purposes identified in Section III above? Commenters should
explain the purpose for which the Commission would collect such data,
the legal authority for the collection, and the extent to which the
benefits outweigh the burdens of collecting it.
106. We also note that there are some alternate geographic areas
relevant to Commission analysis that cannot be re-created by
aggregating even the smallest census geographies. Such alternate areas
include, for example, wire centers or study areas. Information about
what alternate areas are associated with each reported geography (i.e.,
the geography reported with one or more of the possible collections
described above) would assist in any analysis related to those areas.
We seek comment on the burden to provide information about these
alternate geographic areas on those reporting data.
V. Legal Issues
A. Authority
107. The Commission has previously noted it must collect data on
the provision of voice and broadband services to fulfill numerous
statutory obligations. For example, the Telecommunications Act of 1996
required the Commission to open all telecommunications markets to
competition, and to assess the availability of broadband services. The
Form 477 program collects data that are ``a critical precursor'' to the
Commission's ability to fulfill these directives. Form 477 also enables
us to fulfill our obligation to reduce government regulation wherever
possible, by providing ``a factual basis to evaluate the nature and
impact of our existing regulation and, in particular, to identify areas
where competition has developed sufficiently to justify deregulation.''
Many other statutory obligations cannot be implemented without the
collection of data about the deployment and adoption of communications
technologies and the state of relevant marketplaces. For example, the
BDIA requires the Commission to collect comparative data reflecting the
extent of broadband service capability in other countries, and data for
the United States, to inform its annual consideration of whether
broadband is being deployed to all Americans on a reasonable and timely
basis. We believe our authority to collect the proposed additional data
derives from these statutory obligations, as well as additional grants
of authority in the Act, including those in Sections 4(i), 4(k), 218
and 403. We invite comment on this conclusion.
B. Disclosure
108. The Commission has always recognized that the Form 477
broadband and local telephone service data it collects can be of
significant value not only to the Commission, but also to the States
and to the public. In establishing and administering the Form 477
collection, however, the Commission has also been cognizant of the
potential sensitivity of the data collected and has limited their
disclosure.
109. We note that the Commission is reviewing its data
dissemination practices in connection with the Data Innovation
Initiative. How can we best provide stakeholders with useful data while
protecting filers' legitimate confidentiality interests? Should the
Commission retain the simple check box on the FCC Form 477 that filers
can use to request confidential treatment for all data submitted on
that form? Are there classes of information that should always be
considered public, and, therefore, not be granted confidential
treatment? For example, given that SBDD data will be public, are there
any reasons to accord confidential treatment to deployment data
collected by the Commission? Are there circumstances where data
submitted to the Commission should be held confidential, but
aggregations of those data be made public, as is currently the case
with subscription information? Once deemed confidential, should data
always be confidential, or does the passage of time diminish the
commercial sensitivity of certain types of data? When data are given
confidential treatment, should the Commission establish a program to
allow researchers access to those data under certain conditions? How
would such a program be administered?
C. Privacy
110. We seek comment on any privacy concerns that may arise from
the reporting of address-level data. We note that the privacy-based
limitations on the government's access to customer information in Title
II of ECPA, and the privacy provisions of the Cable Act, may be
implicated by collection of address-level subscribership data. We
therefore seek comment on ways the Commission could alleviate any
privacy concerns while complying with all applicable laws.
111. We also seek comment on whether the Commission could establish
a registry or database through which consumers could themselves share
data with the Commission or choose to have their providers share data
with the Commission. What would be the benefits and drawbacks of such a
registry, and how could it be set up both to get useful data and to
minimize the burden on consumers and reporting entities? Should
consumers provide information directly to the Commission, or through
reporting entities that must gain consumer consent? If the latter, what
steps could the Commission take to ensure that consumers have provided
consent? How could the Commission address any other privacy issues, and
any other legal impediments to the creation and maintenance of such a
registry?
112. We note that the presence or absence of a network at a
particular address does not provide any subscriber-specific
information. We seek comment, however, on whether any privacy concerns
would arise if providers were required to report deployment data at the
address level.
VI. Other Issues
A. Tribal Lands
113. The National Broadband Plan identifies the importance of
improving data on Tribal lands, and recommends that the Commission
``identify methods for collecting and reporting broadband information
that is specific to Tribal lands, working with Tribes to ensure
[[Page 10842]]
that any information collected is accurate and useful.'' The
Commission's rules identify Federally recognized Tribal lands and
define them for particular purposes, such as the eligibility and
delivery requirements for universal service support programs. The
Commission's definition of Tribal lands identifies the boundaries of
land holdings of Federally recognized American Indian Tribal and Alaska
Native Village government entities. We acknowledge that American Indian
and Alaska Native areas defined as ``Native Home Lands'' by the U.S.
Census Bureau for census taking purposes encompass areas both within
and beyond areas defined as Tribal Lands in the Commission's rules.
Tribal leaders have asked that we consider disaggregating our analysis
of the Census Bureau's ``Native Home Land'' areas, in part to allow for
a more accurate assessment of broadband deployment in the Tribal Lands
areas defined under the Commission's rules. In the Seventh Broadband
Deployment NOI, we sought comment on how to more accurately report data
concerning the lands of Federally recognized American Indians Tribes
and Alaska Native Villages, as well as Native Hawaiian Home Lands.
Native Hawaiian Home Lands may also be able to be more accurately
analyzed, as they are located exclusively within the State of Hawaii.
114. We seek comment on our analysis of broadband deployment and
availability on Federally recognized Tribal lands and how we could
improve and refine this analysis. We also seek comment on analysis of
broadband deployment and availability on Native Hawaiian Home Lands. We
note that sources of such data may presently exist within the U.S.
Department of Commerce, U.S. Department of the Interior, and from
Tribal Government entities. We seek comment on whether there are other
sources of data that would help the Commission better understand and
analyze the nature of broadband deployment and availability on Tribal
Lands and Native Hawaiian Home Lands.
B. International Data
115. As discussed above, the BDIA requires the Commission to
include an international comparison in its annual broadband deployment
report. The International Bureau has released its first International
Broadband Data Report, which presented data and information on
international broadband service capability, advertised prices or
broadband services, community-level data, and information about the
broadband market and broadband regulations in various nations.
116. To conduct a rigorous comparison of the factors that affect
broadband deployment in the U.S. and abroad, it is necessary to have
comparable, detailed, and geographically disaggregated data. We
therefore seek comment on how and whether revisions to the Form 477
program would facilitate comparing the U.S. broadband market to other
countries. To what extent would revisions facilitate comparisons
between the U.S. and other countries on the basis of a population's
income (and variations in income), education (and variations in
education), computer literacy, residential computer ownership,
household size, and other factors? Should the Form 477 program be
modified to collect data on the costs of deploying broadband, including
as a function of population density at a geographically disaggregated
level? Should the program be modified to collect data on alternative
broadband technologies more prevalent in other countries? Should the
program allow for or enable an assessment of the number of providers
that offer alternative forms of broadband and the advertised and actual
speeds that providers offer in local geographic areas? Are there
modifications to the subscription data we currently collect that would
make those data more suitable for international comparisons? Where U.S.
providers offer multiple service packages, should the Commission
collect data about the speeds and other service characteristics of
these packages? Would information on actual data usage be useful, as
well as data on the applications that residential consumers use, such
as VoIP services? Finally, would the collection of pricing data
facilitate comparisons with offerings in other countries?
VII. Procedural Matters
A. Ex Parte Presentations
117. This proceeding shall be treated as a ``permit-but-disclose''
proceeding in accordance with the Commission's ex parte rules. Persons
making oral ex parte presentations are reminded that memoranda
summarizing the presentations must contain summaries of the substance
of the presentations and not merely a listing of the subjects
discussed. More than a one or two sentence description of the views and
arguments presented is generally required. Other requirements
pertaining to oral and written presentations are set forth in Sec.
1.1206(b) of the Commission's rules.
B. Comment Filing Procedures
118. Pursuant to Sec. Sec. 1.415 and 1.419 of the Commission's
rules, interested parties may file comments and reply comments
regarding the NPRM on or before the dates indicated on the first page
of this document. All filings should refer to WC Docket No. 10-191.
Comments may be filed using: (1) The Commission's Electronic Comment
Filing System (ECFS); (2) the Federal Government's e-Rulemaking Portal;
or (3) by filing paper copies.
119. Electronic Filers: Comments may be filed electronically using
the Internet by accessing the ECFS: http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/ecfs/ or
the Federal e-Rulemaking Portal: http://www.regulations.gov.
120. Paper Filers: Parties who choose to file by paper must file an
original and four copies of each filing. If more than one docket or
rulemaking number appears in the caption of this proceeding, filers
must submit two additional copies for each additional docket or
rulemaking number.
121. Filings can be sent by hand or messenger delivery, by
commercial overnight courier, or by first-class or overnight U.S.
Postal Service mail. All filings must be addressed to the Commission's
Secretary, Office of the Secretary, Federal Communications Commission.
122. Effective December 28, 2009, all hand-delivered or messenger-
delivered paper filings for the Commission's Secretary must be
delivered to FCC Headquarters at 445 12th St., SW., Room TW-A325,
Washington, DC 20554. All hand deliveries must be held together with
rubber bands or fasteners. Any envelopes must be disposed of before
entering the building. Commercial overnight mail (other than U.S.
Postal Service Express Mail and Priority Mail) must be sent to 9300
East Hampton Drive, Capitol Heights, MD 20743. U.S. Postal Service
first-class, Express, and Priority mail must be addressed to 445 12th
Street, SW., Washington, DC 20554.
123. People with Disabilities: To request materials in accessible
formats for people with disabilities (Braille, large print, electronic
files, audio format), send an e-mail to [email protected] or call the
Consumer and Governmental Affairs Bureau at 202-418-0530 (voice), 202-
418-0432 (tty).
124. For further information about this rulemaking proceeding,
please contact Jeremy Miller, Industry Analysis and Technology
Division, Wireline Competition Bureau at (202) 418-0940.
125. Documents in WC Docket No. 11-10 will be available for public
[[Page 10843]]
inspection and copying during business hours at the FCC Reference
Information Center, Portals II, 445 12th Street, SW, Room CY-A257,
Washington, DC 20554. The documents may also be purchased from BCPI,
telephone (202) 488-5300, facsimile (202) 488-5563, TTY (202) 488-5562,
e-mail [email protected].
VIII. Ordering Clauses
126. Accordingly, it is ordered that, pursuant to Sections 1-5, 10,
11, 201-205, 211, 214, 215, 218-220, 251-271, 301, 303, 304, 307, 309,
316, 332, 403, 409, 502, and 503 of the Communications Act of 1934, as
amended, 47 U.S.C. 151-155, 161, 201-205, 211, 214, 215, 218-220, 251-
271, 301, 303, 304, 307, 309, 316, 332, 403, 409, 502, and 503, Section
706 of the Telecommunications Act of 1996, as amended, 47 U.S.C. 1302,
and Section 102 of the Broadband Data Improvement Act, 47 U.S.C. 1303,
this Notice, with all attachments, is adopted.
127. It is further ordered that the Commission's Consumer and
Governmental Affairs Bureau, Reference Information Center, shall send a
copy of this NPRM, including the Initial Regulatory Flexibility
Analysis, to the Chief Counsel for Advocacy of the Small Business
Administration.
Initial Regulatory Flexibility Analysis
128. As required by the Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980, as
amended (RFA), the Commission has prepared this Initial Regulatory
Flexibility Analysis (IRFA) of the possible significant economic impact
on a substantial number of small entities from the policies and rules
proposed in this Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (NPRM). The Commission
requests written public comment on this IRFA. Comments must be
identified as responses to the IRFA and must be filed by the deadlines
for comments on the NPRM provided on the first page of the NPRM. The
Commission will send a copy of the NPRM, including this IRFA, to the
Chief Counsel for Advocacy of the Small Business Administration (SBA).
In addition, the NPRM and IRFA (or summaries thereof) will be published
in the Federal Register.
A. Need for, and Objectives of, the Proposed Rules
129. In the Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, the Commission considers
whether and how to reform the Form 477 data program, which serves as
the Commission's primary tool for collecting broadband and local
telephone data. After more than a decade of rapid innovation in the
market for broadband and telephone services, the Commission believes it
is time to consider whether modifying Form 477 will better serve the
current and future needs of the Commission, Congress, consumers, and
other stakeholders. Such reform seeks to improve the Commission's
ability to carry out its duties under the Communications Act of 1934,
as amended (the Act), and is an important part of the Commission's
larger initiative to modernize and streamline how the Commission
collects, uses, and disseminates data. Specifically, the Commission
seeks comment on five categories of data that may be necessary to
collect: (1) Deployment, (2) subscription, (3) price, (4) service
quality, and (5) ownership and contact information. The Commission also
seeks comment on whether there are other types of data necessary for
the Commission to complete its mandates.
130. For these categories of data, the Commission identifies the
purposes for which data may be needed, and seeks comment on the
specifics of certain approaches to collecting data. For example, the
Commission seeks comment on whether the Commission should use Form 477
to collect price data, which could help accomplish several purposes,
including modernizing the universal service program to support
broadband.
131. In addition, the Commission also seeks comment on whether
service quality and customer satisfaction data may be necessary for
several purposes, including increasing accountability in the
Commission's universal service programs, ensuring public safety,
promoting broadband deployment, and protecting consumers. The
Commission then identifies certain metrics that could be collected,
such as data regarding the number of trouble reports that customers
make regarding network performance, and seeks comment.
132. The Commission also seeks comment on collecting ownership and
contact information in order to reduce waste, fraud, and abuse in
universal service programs and for other purposes.
133. The Commission also seeks comment on the extent to which
technological tools and use of commercial and publicly available data
can reduce the burden of producing information. The Commission also
seeks comment on how to streamline the process in collecting the data
it needs to inform its policymaking processes while minimizing the
production burden on providers and the processing burden on the
Commission.
B. Legal Basis
134. The legal basis for any action that may be taken pursuant to
the Notice of Proposed Rulemaking is contained in Sections 1-5, 10, 11,
201-205, 211, 214, 215, 218-220, 251-271, 301, 303, 304, 307, 309, 316,
332, 403, 409, 502, and 503 of the Communications Act of 1934, as
amended, 47 U.S.C. 151-155, 161, 201-205, 211, 214, 215, 218-220, 251-
271, 301, 303, 304, 307, 309, 316, 332, 403, 409, 502, and 503, Section
706 of the Telecommunications Act of 1996, as amended, 47 U.S.C. 1302,
and Section 102 of the Broadband Data Improvement Act, 47 U.S.C. 1303.
C. Description and Estimate of the Number of Small Entities to Which
the Rules Will Apply
135. The RFA directs agencies to provide a description of, and,
where feasible, an estimate of, the number of small entities that may
be affected by the rules adopted herein. The RFA generally defines the
term ``small entity'' as having the same meaning as the terms ``small
business,'' ``small organization,'' and ``small governmental
jurisdiction.'' In addition, the term ``small business'' has the same
meaning as the term ``small business concern'' under the Small Business
Act. A ``small business concern'' is one which: (1) Is independently
owned and operated; (2) is not dominant in its field of operation; and
(3) satisfies any additional criteria established by the Small Business
Administration (SBA).
1. Wireline Providers
136. Incumbent Local Exchange Carriers (Incumbent LECs). Neither
the Commission nor the SBA has developed a small business size standard
specifically for incumbent local exchange services. The appropriate
size standard under SBA rules is for the category Wired
Telecommunications Carriers. Under that size standard, such a business
is small if it has 1,500 or fewer employees. Census Bureau data for
2007, which now supersede data from the 2002 Census, show that there
were 3,188 firms in this category that operated for the entire year. Of
this total, 3,144 had employment of 999 or fewer, and 44 firms had had
employment of 1,000 or more. According to Commission data, 1,307
carriers reported that they were incumbent local exchange service
providers. Of these 1,307 carriers, an estimated 1,006 have 1,500 or
fewer employees and 301 have more than 1,500 employees. Consequently,
the Commission estimates that most providers of local exchange service
are
[[Page 10844]]
small entities that may be affected by the rules and policies proposed
in the NPRM. Thus under this category and the associated small business
size standard, the majority of these incumbent local exchange service
providers can be considered small providers.
137. Competitive Local Exchange Carriers (Competitive LECs),
Competitive Access Providers (CAPs), Shared-Tenant Service Providers,
and Other Local Service Providers. Neither the Commission nor the SBA
has developed a small business size standard specifically for these
service providers. The appropriate size standard under SBA rules is for
the category Wired Telecommunications Carriers. Under that size
standard, such a business is small if it has 1,500 or fewer employees.
Census Bureau data for 2007, which now supersede data from the 2002
Census, show that there were 3,188 firms in this category that operated
for the entire year. Of this total, 3,144 had employment of 999 or
fewer, and 44 firms had had employment of 1,000 employees or more. Thus
under this category and the associated small business size standard,
the majority of these Competitive LECs, CAPs, Shared-Tenant Service
Providers, and Other Local Service Providers can be considered small
entities. According to Commission data, 1,442 carriers reported that
they were engaged in the provision of either competitive local exchange
services or competitive access provider services. Of these 1,442
carriers, an estimated 1,256 have 1,500 or fewer employees and 186 have
more than 1,500 employees. In addition, 17 carriers have reported that
they are Shared-Tenant Service Providers, and all 17 are estimated to
have 1,500 or fewer employees. In addition, 72 carriers have reported
that they are Other Local Service Providers. Of the 72, seventy have
1,500 or fewer employees and two have more than 1,500 employees.
Consequently, the Commission estimates that most providers of
competitive local exchange service, competitive access providers,
Shared-Tenant Service Providers, and Other Local Service Providers are
small entities that may be affected by rules adopted pursuant to the
NPRM.
138. Interexchange Carriers. Neither the Commission nor the SBA has
developed a small business size standard specifically for providers of
interexchange services. The appropriate size standard under SBA rules
is for the category Wired Telecommunications Carriers. Under that size
standard, such a business is small if it has 1,500 or fewer employees.
Census Bureau data for 2007, which now supersede data from the 2002
Census, show that there were 3,188 firms in this category that operated
for the entire year. Of this total, 3,144 had employment of 999 or
fewer, and 44 firms had had employment of 1,000 employees or more. Thus
under this category and the associated small business size standard,
the majority of these Interexchange carriers can be considered small
entities. According to Commission data, 359 companies reported that
their primary telecommunications service activity was the provision of
interexchange services. Of these 359 companies, an estimated 317 have
1,500 or fewer employees and 42 have more than 1,500 employees.
Consequently, the Commission estimates that the majority of
interexchange service providers are small entities that may be affected
by rules adopted pursuant to the NPRM.
139. Operator Service Providers (OSPs). Neither the Commission nor
the SBA has developed a small business size standard specifically for
operator service providers. The appropriate size standard under SBA
rules is for the category Wired Telecommunications Carriers. Under that
size standard, such a business is small if it has 1,500 or fewer
employees. Under that size standard, such a business is small if it has
1,500 or fewer employees a Census Bureau data for 2007, which now
supersede data from the 2002 Census, show that there were 3,188 firms
in this category that operated for the entire year. Of this total,
3,144 had employment of 999 or fewer, and 44 firms had had employment
of 1,000 employees or more. Thus under this category and the associated
small business size standard, the majority of these Interexchange
carriers can be considered small entities. According to Commission
data, 33 carriers have reported that they are engaged in the provision
of operator services. Of these, an estimated 31 have 1,500 or fewer
employees and 2 have more than 1,500 employees. Consequently, the
Commission estimates that the majority of OSPs are small entities that
may be affected by our proposed action.
140. Local Resellers. The SBA has developed a small business size
standard for the category of Telecommunications Resellers. Under that
size standard, such a business is small if it has 1,500 or fewer
employees. Census data for 2007 show that 1,523 firms provided resale
services during that year. Of that number, 1,522 operated with fewer
than 1,000 employees and one operated with more than 1,000. Thus under
this category and the associated small business size standard, the
majority of these local resellers can be considered small entities.
According to Commission data, 213 carriers have reported that they are
engaged in the provision of local resale services. Of these, an
estimated 211 have 1,500 or fewer employees and two have more than
1,500 employees. Consequently, the Commission estimates that the
majority of local resellers are small entities that may be affected by
rules adopted pursuant to the Notice.
141. Toll Resellers. The SBA has developed a small business size
standard for the category of Telecommunications Resellers. Under that
size standard, such a business is small if it has 1,500 or fewer
employees. Census data for 2007 show that 1,523 firms provided resale
services during that year. Of that number, 1,522 operated with fewer
than 1,000 employees and one operated with more than 1,000. Thus under
this category and the associated small business size standard, the
majority of these resellers can be considered small entities. According
to Commission data, 881 carriers have reported that they are engaged in
the provision of toll resale services. Of these, an estimated 857 have
1,500 or fewer employees and 24 have more than 1,500 employees.
Consequently, the Commission estimates that the majority of toll
resellers are small entities that may be affected by our action.
142. Payphone Service Providers (PSPs). Neither the Commission nor
the SBA has developed a small business size standard specifically for
payphone services providers. The appropriate size standard under SBA
rules is for the category Wired Telecommunications Carriers. Under that
size standard, such a business is small if it has 1,500 or fewer
employees. Census Bureau data for 2007, which now supersede data from
the 2002 Census, show that there were 3,188 firms in this category that
operated for the entire year. Of this total, 3,144 had employment of
999 or fewer, and 44 firms had had employment of 1,000 employees or
more. Thus under this category and the associated small business size
standard, the majority of these PSPs can be considered small entities.
According to Commission data, 657 carriers have reported that they are
engaged in the provision of payphone services. Of these, an estimated
653 have 1,500 or fewer employees and four have more than 1,500
employees. Consequently, the Commission estimates that the majority of
payphone service providers
[[Page 10845]]
are small entities that may be affected by our action.
143. Prepaid Calling Card Providers. Neither the Commission nor the
SBA has developed a small business size standard specifically for
prepaid calling card providers. The appropriate size standard under SBA
rules is for the category Telecommunications Resellers. Under that size
standard, such a business is small if it has 1,500 or fewer employees.
Census data for 2007 show that 1,523 firms provided resale services
during that year. Of that number, 1,522 operated with fewer than 1,000
employees and one operated with more than 1,000. Thus under this
category and the associated small business size standard, the majority
of these prepaid calling card providers can be considered small
entities. According to Commission data, 193 carriers have reported that
they are engaged in the provision of prepaid calling cards. Of these,
an estimated all 193 have 1,500 or fewer employees and none have more
than 1,500 employees. Consequently, the Commission estimates that the
majority of prepaid calling card providers are small entities that may
be affected by rules adopted pursuant to the Notice.
144. 800 and 800-Like Service Subscribers. Neither the Commission
nor the SBA has developed a small business size standard specifically
for 800 and 800-like service (``toll free'') subscribers. The
appropriate size standard under SBA rules is for the category
Telecommunications Resellers. Under that size standard, such a business
is small if it has 1,500 or fewer employees. Census data for 2007 show
that 1,523 firms provided resale services during that year. Of that
number, 1,522 operated with fewer than 1,000 employees and one operated
with more than 1,000. Thus under this category and the associated small
business size standard, the majority of resellers in this
classification can be considered small entities. To focus specifically
on the number of subscribers than on those firms which make
subscription service available, the most reliable source of information
regarding the number of these service subscribers appears to be data
the Commission collects on the 800, 888, 877, and 866 numbers in use.
According to our data, at of September 2009, the number of 800 numbers
assigned was 7,860,000; the number of 888 numbers assigned was
5,888,687; the number of 877 numbers assigned was 4,721,866; and the
number of 866 numbers assigned was 7,867,736. The Commission does not
have data specifying the number of these subscribers that are not
independently owned and operated or have more than 1,500 employees, and
thus are unable at this time to estimate with greater precision the
number of toll free subscribers that would qualify as small businesses
under the SBA size standard. Consequently, the Commission estimates
that there are 7,860.000 or fewer small entity 800 subscribers;
5,888,687 or fewer small entity 888 subscribers; 4,721,866 or fewer
small entity 877 subscribers; and 7,867,736 or fewer small entity 866
subscribers.
2. Wireless Carriers and Service Providers
145. Below, for those services subject to auctions, the Commission
notes that, as a general matter, the number of winning bidders that
qualify as small businesses at the close of an auction does not
necessarily represent the number of small businesses currently in
service. Also, the Commission does not generally track subsequent
business size unless, in the context of assignments or transfers,
unjust enrichment issues are implicated.
146. Wireless Telecommunications Carriers (except Satellite). Since
2007, the Census Bureau has placed wireless firms within this new,
broad, economic census category. Prior to that time, such firms were
within the now-superseded categories of ``Paging'' and ``Cellular and
Other Wireless Telecommunications.'' Under the present and prior
categories, the SBA has deemed a wireless business to be small if it
has 1,500 or fewer employees. For the category of Wireless
Telecommunications Carriers (except Satellite), Census data for 2007,
which supersede data contained in the 2002 Census, show that there were
1,383 firms that operated that year. Of those 1,383, 1,368 had fewer
than 100 employees, and 15 firms had more than 100 employees. Thus
under this category and the associated small business size standard,
the majority of firms can be considered small. Similarly, according to
Commission data, 413 carriers reported that they were engaged in the
provision of wireless telephony, including cellular service, Personal
Communications Service (PCS), and Specialized Mobile Radio (SMR)
Telephony services. Of these, an estimated 261 have 1,500 or fewer
employees and 152 have more than 1,500 employees. Consequently, the
Commission estimates that approximately half or more of these firms can
be considered small. Thus, using available data, we estimate that the
majority of wireless firms can be considered small.
147. Wireless Communications Services. This service can be used for
fixed, mobile, radiolocation, and digital audio broadcasting satellite
uses. The Commission defined ``small business'' for the wireless
communications services (WCS) auction as an entity with average gross
revenues of $40 million for each of the three preceding years, and a
``very small business'' as an entity with average gross revenues of $15
million for each of the three preceding years. The SBA has approved
these definitions. The Commission auctioned geographic area licenses in
the WCS service. In the auction, which commenced on April 15, 1997 and
closed on April 25, 1997, seven bidders won 31 licenses that qualified
as very small business entities, and one bidder won one license that
qualified as a small business entity.
148. Common Carrier Paging. The SBA considers paging to be a
wireless telecommunications service and classifies it under the
industry classification Wireless Telecommunications Carriers (except
satellite). Under that classification, the applicable size standard is
that a business is small if it has 1,500 or fewer employees. For the
general category of Wireless Telecommunications Carriers (except
Satellite), Census data for 2007, which supersede data contained in the
2002 Census, show that there were 1,383 firms that operated that year.
Of those 1,383, 1,368 had fewer than 100 employees, and 15 firms had
more than 100 employees. Thus under this category and the associated
small business size standard, the majority of firms can be considered
small. The 2007 census also contains data for the specific category of
``Paging'' ``that is classified under the seven-number NAICs code
5172101. According to Commission data, 291 carriers have reported that
they are engaged in Paging or Messaging Service. Of these, an estimated
289 have 1,500 or fewer employees, and 2 have more than 1,500
employees. Consequently, the Commission estimates that the majority of
paging providers are small entities that may be affected by our action.
In addition, in the Paging Third Report and Order, the Commission
developed a small business size standard for ``small businesses'' and
``very small businesses'' for purposes of determining their eligibility
for special provisions such as bidding credits and installment
payments. A ``small business'' is an entity that, together with its
affiliates and controlling principals, has average gross revenues not
exceeding $15 million for the preceding three years. Additionally, a
``very small business'' is an entity that, together with its affiliates
and controlling principals, has average
[[Page 10846]]
gross revenues that are not more than $3 million for the preceding
three years. The SBA has approved these small business size standards.
An auction of Metropolitan Economic Area licenses commenced on February
24, 2000, and closed on March 2, 2000. Of the 985 licenses auctioned,
440 were sold. Fifty-seven companies claiming small business status
won.
149. Wireless Telephony. Wireless telephony includes cellular,
personal communications services, and specialized mobile radio
telephony carriers. As noted, the SBA has developed a small business
size standard for Wireless Telecommunications Carriers (except
Satellite). Under the SBA small business size standard, a business is
small if it has 1,500 or fewer employees. Census data for 2007, which
supersede data contained in the 2002 Census, show that there were 1,383
firms that operated that year. Of those 1,383, 1,368 had fewer than 100
employees, and 15 firms had more than 100 employees. Thus under this
category and the associated small business size standard, the majority
of firms can be considered small According to Trends in Telephone
Service data, 434 carriers reported that they were engaged in wireless
telephony. Of these, an estimated 222 have 1,500 or fewer employees and
212 have more than 1,500 employees. Therefore, approximately half of
these entities can be considered small. Similarly, according to
Commission data, 413 carriers reported that they were engaged in the
provision of wireless telephony, including cellular service, Personal
Communications Service (PCS), and Specialized Mobile Radio (SMR)
Telephony services. Of these, an estimated 261 have 1,500 or fewer
employees and 152 have more than 1,500 employees. Consequently, the
Commission estimates that approximately half or more of these firms can
be considered small. Thus, using available data, we estimate that the
majority of wireless firms can be considered small.
150. Broadband Personal Communications Service. The broadband
personal communications services (PCS) spectrum is divided into six
frequency blocks designated A through F, and the Commission has held
auctions for each block. The Commission initially defined a ``small
business'' for C- and F-Block licenses as an entity that has average
gross revenues of $40 million or less in the three previous calendar
years. For F-Block licenses, an additional small business size standard
for ``very small business'' was added and is defined as an entity that,
together with its affiliates, has average gross revenues of not more
than $15 million for the preceding three calendar years. These small
business size standards, in the context of broadband PCS auctions, have
been approved by the SBA. No small businesses within the SBA-approved
small business size standards bid successfully for licenses in Blocks A
and B. There were 90 winning bidders that claimed small business status
in the first two C-Block auctions. A total of 93 bidders that claimed
small business status won approximately 40 percent of the 1,479
licenses in the first auction for the D, E, and F Blocks. On April 15,
1999, the Commission completed the reauction of 347 C-, D-, E-, and F-
Block licenses in Auction No. 22. Of the 57 winning bidders in that
auction, 48 claimed small business status and won 277 licenses.
151. On January 26, 2001, the Commission completed the auction of
422 C and F Block Broadband PCS licenses in Auction No. 35. Of the 35
winning bidders in that auction, 29 claimed small business status.
Subsequent events concerning Auction 35, including judicial and agency
determinations, resulted in a total of 163 C and F Block licenses being
available for grant. On February 15, 2005, the Commission completed an
auction of 242 C-, D-, E-, and F-Block licenses in Auction No. 58. Of
the 24 winning bidders in that auction, 16 claimed small business
status and won 156 licenses. On May 21, 2007, the Commission completed
an auction of 33 licenses in the A, C, and F Blocks in Auction No. 71.
Of the 12 winning bidders in that auction, five claimed small business
status and won 18 licenses. On August 20, 2008, the Commission
completed the auction of 20 C-, D-, E-, and F-Block Broadband PCS
licenses in Auction No. 78. Of the eight winning bidders for Broadband
PCS licenses in that auction, six claimed small business status and won
14 licenses.
152. Narrowband Personal Communications Services. To date, two
auctions of narrowband personal communications services (PCS) licenses
have been conducted. For purposes of the two auctions that have already
been held, ``small businesses'' were entities with average gross
revenues for the prior three calendar years of $40 million or less.
Through these auctions, the Commission has awarded a total of 41
licenses, out of which 11 were obtained by small businesses. To ensure
meaningful participation of small business entities in future auctions,
the Commission has adopted a two-tiered small business size standard in
the Narrowband PCS Second Report and Order. A ``small business'' is an
entity that, together with affiliates and controlling interests, has
average gross revenues for the three preceding years of not more than
$40 million. A ``very small business'' is an entity that, together with
affiliates and controlling interests, has average gross revenues for
the three preceding years of not more than $15 million. The SBA has
approved these small business size standards.
153. 220 MHz Radio Service--Phase I Licensees. The 220 MHz service
has both Phase I and Phase II licenses. Phase I licensing was conducted
by lotteries in 1992 and 1993. There are approximately 1,515 such non-
nationwide licensees and four nationwide licensees currently authorized
to operate in the 220 MHz band. The Commission has not developed a
small business size standard for small entities specifically applicable
to such incumbent 220 MHz Phase I licensees. To estimate the number of
such licensees that are small businesses, the Commission applies the
small business size standard under the SBA rules applicable. The SBA
has deemed a wireless business to be small if it has 1,500 or fewer
employees. For this service, the SBA uses the category of Wireless
Telecommunications Carriers (except Satellite). Census data for 2007,
which supersede data contained in the 2002 Census, show that there were
1,383 firms that operated that year. Of those 1,383, 1,368 had fewer
than 100 employees, and 15 firms had more than 100 employees. Thus
under this category and the associated small business size standard,
the majority of firms can be considered small.
154. 220 MHz Radio Service--Phase II Licensees. The 220 MHz service
has both Phase I and Phase II licenses. The Phase II 220 MHz service is
a new service, and is subject to spectrum auctions. In the 220 MHz
Third Report and Order, the Commission adopted a small business size
standard for ``small'' and ``very small'' businesses for purposes of
determining their eligibility for special provisions such as bidding
credits and installment payments. This small business size standard
indicates that a ``small business'' is an entity that, together with
its affiliates and controlling principals, has average gross revenues
not exceeding $15 million for the preceding three years. A ``very small
business'' is an entity that, together with its affiliates and
controlling principals, has average gross revenues that do not exceed
$3 million for the preceding three years. The SBA has approved these
small business size standards.
[[Page 10847]]
Auctions of Phase II licenses commenced on September 15, 1998, and
closed on October 22, 1998. In the first auction, 908 licenses were
auctioned in three different-sized geographic areas: Three nationwide
licenses, 30 Regional Economic Area Group (EAG) Licenses, and 875
Economic Area (EA) Licenses. Of the 908 licenses auctioned, 693 were
sold. Thirty-nine small businesses won licenses in the first 220 MHz
auction. The second auction included 225 licenses: 216 EA licenses and
9 EAG licenses. Fourteen companies claiming small business status won
158 licenses.
155. 800 MHz and 900 MHz Specialized Mobile Radio Licenses. The
Commission awards small business bidding credits in auctions for
Specialized Mobile Radio (``SMR'') geographic area licenses in the 800
MHz and 900 MHz bands to entities that had revenues of no more than $15
million in each of the three previous calendar years. The Commission
awards very small business bidding credits to entities that had
revenues of no more than $3 million in each of the three previous
calendar years. The SBA has approved these small business size
standards for the 800 MHz and 900 MHz SMR Services. The Commission has
held auctions for geographic area licenses in the 800 MHz and 900 MHz
bands. The 900 MHz SMR auction was completed in 1996. Sixty bidders
claiming that they qualified as small businesses under the $15 million
size standard won 263 geographic area licenses in the 900 MHz SMR band.
The 800 MHz SMR auction for the upper 200 channels was conducted in
1997. Ten bidders claiming that they qualified as small businesses
under the $15 million size standard won 38 geographic area licenses for
the upper 200 channels in the 800 MHz SMR band. A second auction for
the 800 MHz band was conducted in 2002 and included 23 BEA licenses.
One bidder claiming small business status won five licenses.
156. The auction of the 1,053 800 MHz SMR geographic area licenses
for the General Category channels was conducted in 2000. Eleven bidders
won 108 geographic area licenses for the General Category channels in
the 800 MHz SMR band qualified as small businesses under the $15
million size standard. In an auction completed in 2000, a total of
2,800 Economic Area licenses in the lower 80 channels of the 800 MHz
SMR service were awarded. Of the 22 winning bidders, 19 claimed small
business status and won 129 licenses. Thus, combining all three
auctions, 40 winning bidders for geographic licenses in the 800 MHz SMR
band claimed status as small business.
157. In addition, there are numerous incumbent site-by-site SMR
licensees and licensees with extended implementation authorizations in
the 800 and 900 MHz bands. We do not know how many firms provide 800
MHz or 900 MHz geographic area SMR pursuant to extended implementation
authorizations, nor how many of these providers have annual revenues of
no more than $15 million. One firm has over $15 million in revenues. In
addition, we do not know how many of these firms have 1,500 or fewer
employees. We assume, for purposes of this analysis, that all of the
remaining existing extended implementation authorizations are held by
small entities, as that small business size standard is approved by the
SBA.
158. 700 MHz Guard Band Licensees. In 2000, in the 700 MHz Guard
Band Order, the Commission adopted size standards for ``small
businesses'' and ``very small businesses'' for purposes of determining
their eligibility for special provisions such as bidding credits and
installment payments. A small business in this service is an entity
that, together with its affiliates and controlling principals, has
average gross revenues not exceeding $40 million for the preceding
three years. Additionally, a very small business is an entity that,
together with its affiliates and controlling principals, has average
gross revenues that are not more than $15 million for the preceding
three years. SBA approval of these definitions is not required. An
auction of 52 Major Economic Area licenses commenced on September 6,
2000, and closed on September 21, 2000. Of the 104 licenses auctioned,
96 licenses were sold to nine bidders. Five of these bidders were small
businesses that won a total of 26 licenses. A second auction of 700 MHz
Guard Band licenses commenced on February 13, 2001, and closed on
February 21, 2001. All eight of the licenses auctioned were sold to
three bidders. One of these bidders was a small business that won a
total of two licenses.
159. Air-Ground Radiotelephone Service. The Commission has
previously used the SBA's small business size standard applicable to
Wireless Telecommunications Carriers (except Satellite), i.e., an
entity employing no more than 1,500 persons. There are approximately
100 licensees in the Air-Ground Radiotelephone Service, and under that
definition, the Commission estimates that almost all of them qualify as
small entities under the SBA definition. For purposes of assigning Air-
Ground Radiotelephone Service licenses through competitive bidding, the
Commission has defined ``small business'' as an entity that, together
with controlling interests and affiliates, has average annual gross
revenues for the preceding three years not exceeding $40 million. A
``very small business'' is defined as an entity that, together with
controlling interests and affiliates, has average annual gross revenues
for the preceding three years not exceeding $15 million. These
definitions were approved by the SBA. In May 2006, the Commission
completed an auction of nationwide commercial Air-Ground Radiotelephone
Service licenses in the 800 MHz band (Auction No. 65). On June 2, 2006,
the auction closed with two winning bidders winning two Air-Ground
Radiotelephone Services licenses. Neither of the winning bidders
claimed small business status.
160. Rural Radiotelephone Service. The Commission has not adopted a
size standard for small businesses specific to the Rural Radiotelephone
Service. A significant subset of the Rural Radiotelephone Service is
the Basic Exchange Telephone Radio System (BETRS). The Commission uses
the SBA's small business size standard applicable to ``Cellular and
Other Wireless Telecommunications,'' i.e., an entity employing no more
than 1,500 persons. There are approximately 1,000 licensees in the
Rural Radiotelephone Service, and the Commission estimates that there
are 1,000 or fewer small entity licensees in the Rural Radiotelephone
Service that may be affected by the rules and policies adopted herein.
161. Aviation and Marine Radio Services. Small businesses in the
aviation and marine radio services use a very high frequency (VHF)
marine or aircraft radio and, as appropriate, an emergency position-
indicating radio beacon (and/or radar) or an emergency locator
transmitter. The Commission has not developed a small business size
standard specifically applicable to these small businesses. For
purposes of this analysis, the Commission uses the SBA small business
size standard for the category Wireless Telecommunications Carriers
(except satellite),'' which is 1,500 or fewer employees. Census data
for 2007, which supersede data contained in the 2002 Census, show that
there were 1,383 firms that operated that year. Of those 1,383, 1,368
had fewer than 100 employees, and 15 firms had more than 100 employees.
Thus under this category and the associated small business size
standard, the majority of firms can be considered small. Additionally,
the Commission notes that most applicants for recreational licenses
[[Page 10848]]
in this category of wireless service are individuals. Approximately
581,000 ship station licensees and 131,000 aircraft station licensees
operate domestically and are not subject to the radio carriage
requirements of any statute or treaty. For purposes of our evaluations
in this analysis, the Commission estimates that there are up to
approximately 712,000 licensees that are small businesses (or
individuals) under the SBA standard. In addition, between December 3,
1998 and December 14, 1998, the Commission held an auction of 42 VHF
Public Coast licenses in the 157.1875-157.4500 MHz (ship transmit) and
161.775-162.0125 MHz (coast transmit) bands. For purposes of the
auction, the Commission defined a ``small'' business as an entity that,
together with controlling interests and affiliates, has average gross
revenues for the preceding three years not to exceed $15 million
dollars. In addition, a ``very small'' business is one that, together
with controlling interests and affiliates, has average gross revenues
for the preceding three years not to exceed $3 million dollars. There
are approximately 10,672 licensees in the Marine Coast Service, and the
Commission estimates that almost all of them qualify as ``small''
businesses under the above special small business size standards.
162. Fixed Microwave Services. Microwave services include common
carrier, private-operational fixed, and broadcast auxiliary radio
services. They also include the Local Multipoint Distribution Service
(LMDS), the Digital Electronic Message Service (DEMS), and the 24 GHz
Service, where licensees can choose between common carrier and non-
common carrier status. The Commission has not yet defined a small
business with respect to microwave services. For purposes of the IRFA,
the Commission will use the SBA's definition applicable to Wireless
Telecommunications Carriers (except satellite)--i.e., an entity with no
more than 1,500 persons is considered small. For the category of
Wireless Telecommunications Carriers (except Satellite), Census data
for 2007, which supersede data contained in the 2002 Census, show that
there were 1,383 firms that operated that year. Of those 1,383, 1,368
had fewer than 100 employees, and 15 firms had more than 100 employees.
Thus under this category and the associated small business size
standard, the majority of firms can be considered small. The Commission
notes that the number of firms does not necessarily track the number of
licensees. The Commission estimates that virtually all of the Fixed
Microwave licensees (excluding broadcast auxiliary licensees) would
qualify as small entities under the SBA definition.
163. Offshore Radiotelephone Service. This service operates on
several UHF television broadcast channels that are not used for
television broadcasting in the coastal areas of States bordering the
Gulf of Mexico. There are presently approximately 55 licensees in this
service. The Commission is unable to estimate at this time the number
of licensees that would qualify as small under the SBA's small business
size standard for the category of Wireless Telecommunications Carriers
(except Satellite). Under that standard. Under that SBA small business
size standard, a business is small if it has 1,500 or fewer employees.
Census data for 2007, which supersede data contained in the 2002
Census, show that there were 1,383 firms that operated that year. Of
those 1,383, 1,368 had fewer than 100 employees, and 15 firms had more
than 100 employees. Thus under this category and the associated small
business size standard, the majority of firms can be considered small.
164. 32.39 GHz Service. The Commission created a special small
business size standard for 39 GHz licenses--an entity that has average
gross revenues of $40 million or less in the three previous calendar
years. An additional size standard for ``very small business'' is: an
entity that, together with affiliates, has average gross revenues of
not more than $15 million for the preceding three calendar years. The
SBA has approved these small business size standards. The auction of
the 2,173 39 GHz licenses began on April 12, 2000 and closed on May 8,
2000. The 18 bidders who claimed small business status won 849
licenses. Consequently, the Commission estimates that 18 or fewer 39
GHz licensees are small entities that may be affected by our action.
165. Wireless Cable Systems. Broadband Radio Service and
Educational Broadband Service. Broadband Radio Service systems,
previously referred to as Multipoint Distribution Service (MDS) and
Multichannel Multipoint Distribution Service (MMDS) systems, and
``wireless cable,'' transmit video programming to subscribers and
provide two-way high speed data operations using the microwave
frequencies of the Broadband Radio Service (BRS) and Educational
Broadband Service (EBS) (previously referred to as the Instructional
Television Fixed Service (ITFS)). In connection with the 1996 BRS
auction, the Commission established a small business size standard as
an entity that had annual average gross revenues of no more than $40
million in the previous three calendar years. The BRS auctions resulted
in 67 successful bidders obtaining licensing opportunities for 493
Basic Trading Areas (BTAs). Of the 67 auction winners, 61 met the
definition of a small business. BRS also includes licensees of stations
authorized prior to the auction. At this time, we estimate that of the
61 small business BRS auction winners, 48 remain small business
licensees. In addition to the 48 small businesses that hold BTA
authorizations, there are approximately 392 incumbent BRS licensees
that are considered small entities. After adding the number of small
business auction licensees to the number of incumbent licensees not
already counted, we find that there are currently approximately 440 BRS
licensees that are defined as small businesses under either the SBA or
the Commission's rules. In 2009, the Commission conducted Auction 86,
the sale of 78 licenses in the BRS areas. The Commission offered three
levels of bidding credits: (i) A bidder with attributed average annual
gross revenues that exceed $15 million and do not exceed $40 million
for the preceding three years (small business) will receive a 15
percent discount on its winning bid; (ii) a bidder with attributed
average annual gross revenues that exceed $3 million and do not exceed
$15 million for the preceding three years (very small business) will
receive a 25 percent discount on its winning bid; and (iii) a bidder
with attributed average annual gross revenues that do not exceed $3
million for the preceding three years (entrepreneur) will receive a 35
percent discount on its winning bid. Auction 86 concluded in 2009 with
the sale of 61 licenses. Of the ten winning bidders, two bidders that
claimed small business status won 4 licenses; one bidder that claimed
very small business status won three licenses; and two bidders that
claimed entrepreneur status won six licenses.
166. In addition, the SBA's Cable Television Distribution Services
small business size standard is applicable to EBS. There are presently
2,032 EBS licensees. All but 100 of these licenses are held by
educational institutions. Educational institutions are included in this
analysis as small entities. Thus, we estimate that at least 1,932
licensees are small businesses. Since 2007, Cable Television
Distribution Services have been defined within the broad economic
census category of Wired
[[Page 10849]]
Telecommunications Carriers; that category is defined as follows:
``This industry comprises establishments primarily engaged in operating
and/or providing access to transmission facilities and infrastructure
that they own and/or lease for the transmission of voice, data, text,
sound, and video using wired telecommunications networks. Transmission
facilities may be based on a single technology or a combination of
technologies.'' For these services, the Commission uses the SBA small
business size standard for the category ``Wireless Telecommunications
Carriers (except satellite),'' which is 1,500 or fewer employees. To
gauge small business prevalence for these cable services we must,
however, use the most current census data. Census data for 2007, which
supersede data contained in the 2002 Census, show that there were 1,383
firms that operated that year. Of those 1,383, 1,368 had fewer than 100
employees, and 15 firms had more than 100 employees. Thus under this
category and the associated small business size standard, the majority
of firms can be considered small. The Commission notes that the Census'
use the classifications ``firms'' does not track the number of
``licenses.''
167. In the 1998 and 1999 LMDS auctions, the Commission defined a
small business as an entity that has annual average gross revenues of
less than $40 million in the previous three calendar years. Moreover,
the Commission added an additional classification for a ``very small
business,'' which was defined as an entity that had annual average
gross revenues of less than $15 million in the previous three calendar
years. These definitions of ``small business'' and ``very small
business'' in the context of the LMDS auctions have been approved by
the SBA. In the first LMDS auction, 104 bidders won 864 licenses. Of
the 104 auction winners, 93 claimed status as small or very small
businesses. In the LMDS re-auction, 40 bidders won 161 licenses. Based
on this information, the Commission believes that the number of small
LMDS licenses will include the 93 winning bidders in the first auction
and the 40 winning bidders in the re-auction, for a total of 133 small
entity LMDS providers as defined by the SBA and the Commission's
auction rules.
168. 218-219 MHz Service. The first auction of 218-219 MHz spectrum
resulted in 170 entities winning licenses for 594 Metropolitan
Statistical Area (MSA) licenses. Of the 594 licenses, 557 were won by
entities qualifying as a small business. For that auction, the small
business size standard was an entity that, together with its
affiliates, has no more than a $6 million net worth and, after Federal
income taxes (excluding any carry over losses), has no more than $2
million in annual profits each year for the previous two years. In the
218-219 MHz Report and Order and Memorandum Opinion and Order, the
Commission established a small business size standard for a ``small
business'' as an entity that, together with its affiliates and persons
or entities that hold interests in such an entity and their affiliates,
has average annual gross revenues not to exceed $15 million for the
preceding three years. A ``very small business'' is defined as an
entity that, together with its affiliates and persons or entities that
hold interests in such an entity and its affiliates, has average annual
gross revenues not to exceed $3 million for the preceding three years.
These size standards will be used in future auctions of 218-219 MHz
spectrum.
169. 24 GHz--Incumbent Licensees. This analysis may affect
incumbent licensees who were relocated to the 24 GHz band from the 18
GHz band, and applicants who wish to provide services in the 24 GHz
band. For this service, the Commission uses the SBA small business size
standard for the category ``Wireless Telecommunications Carriers
(except satellite),'' which is 1,500 or fewer employees. To gauge small
business prevalence for these cable services we must, however, use the
most current census data. Census data for 2007, which supersede data
contained in the 2002 Census, show that there were 1,383 firms that
operated that year. Of those 1,383, 1,368 had fewer than 100 employees,
and 15 firms had more than 100 employees. Thus under this category and
the associated small business size standard, the majority of firms can
be considered small. The Commission notes that the Census' use of the
classifications'' firms'' does not track the number of ``licenses''.
The Commission believes that there are only two licensees in the 24 GHz
band that were relocated from the 18 GHz band, Teligent and TRW, Inc.
It is our understanding that Teligent and its related companies have
less than 1,500 employees, though this may change in the future. TRW is
not a small entity. Thus, only one incumbent licensee in the 24 GHz
band is a small business entity.
170. 24 GHz--Future Licensees. With respect to new applicants in
the 24 GHz band, the small business size standard for ``small
business'' is an entity that, together with controlling interests and
affiliates, has average annual gross revenues for the three preceding
years not in excess of $15 million. ``Very small business'' in the 24
GHz band is an entity that, together with controlling interests and
affiliates, has average gross revenues not exceeding $3 million for the
preceding three years. The SBA has approved these small business size
standards. These size standards will apply to the future auction, if
held.
3. Satellite Service Providers
171. Satellite Telecommunications Providers. Two economic census
categories address the satellite industry. The first category has a
small business size standard of $15 million or less in average annual
receipts, under SBA rules. The second has a size standard of $25
million or less in annual receipts.
172. The category of Satellite Telecommunications ``comprises
establishments primarily engaged in providing telecommunications
services to other establishments in the telecommunications and
broadcasting industries by forwarding and receiving communications
signals via a system of satellites or reselling satellite
telecommunications.'' Census Bureau data for 2007 show that 512
Satellite Telecommunications firms that operated for that entire year.
Of this total, 464 firms had annual receipts of under $10 million, and
18 firms had receipts of $10 million to $24,999,999. Consequently, the
Commission estimates that the majority of Satellite Telecommunications
firms are small entities that might be affected by our action.
173. The second category, i.e. ``All Other Telecommunications''
comprises ``establishments primarily engaged in providing specialized
telecommunications services, such as satellite tracking, communications
telemetry, and radar station operation. This industry also includes
establishments primarily engaged in providing satellite terminal
stations and associated facilities connected with one or more
terrestrial systems and capable of transmitting telecommunications to,
and receiving telecommunications from, satellite systems.
Establishments providing Internet services or voice over Internet
protocol (VoIP) services via client-supplied telecommunications
connections are also included in this industry.'' For this category,
Census Bureau data for 2007 show that there were a total of 2,383 firms
that operated for the entire year. Of this total, 2,347 firms had
annual receipts of under $25 million and 12 firms had annual receipts
of $25 million to $49,999,999. Consequently, the Commission estimates
that the majority of All Other Telecommunications firms are small
[[Page 10850]]
entities that might be affected by our action.
4. Cable and OVS Operators
174. Because Section 706 requires us to monitor the deployment of
broadband regardless of technology or transmission media employed, the
Commission anticipates that some broadband service providers may not
provide telephone service. Accordingly, the Commission describes below
other types of firms that may provide broadband services, including
cable companies, MDS providers, and utilities, among others.
175. Cable and Other Program Distributors. Since 2007, these
services have been defined within the broad economic census category of
Wired Telecommunications Carriers; that category is defined as follows:
``This industry comprises establishments primarily engaged in operating
and/or providing access to transmission facilities and infrastructure
that they own and/or lease for the transmission of voice, data, text,
sound, and video using wired telecommunications networks. Transmission
facilities may be based on a single technology or a combination of
technologies.'' The SBA has developed a small business size standard
for this category, which is: All such firms having 1,500 or fewer
employees. Census data for 2007, which supersede data contained in the
2002 Census, show that there were 1,383 firms that operated that year.
Of those 1,383, 1,368 had fewer than 100 employees, and 15 firms had
more than 100 employees. Thus under this category and the associated
small business size standard, the majority of such firms can be
considered small.
176. Cable Companies and Systems. The Commission has also developed
its own small business size standards, for the purpose of cable rate
regulation. Under the Commission's rules, a ``small cable company'' is
one serving 400,000 or fewer subscribers, nationwide. Industry data
indicate that, of 1,076 cable operators nationwide, all but eleven are
small under this size standard. In addition, under the Commission's
rules, a ``small system'' is a cable system serving 15,000 or fewer
subscribers. Industry data indicate that, of 7,208 systems nationwide,
6,139 systems have under 10,000 subscribers, and an additional 379
systems have 10,000-19,999 subscribers. Thus, under this second size
standard, most cable systems are small.
177. Cable System Operators. The Communications Act of 1934, as
amended, also contains a size standard for small cable system
operators, which is ``a cable operator that, directly or through an
affiliate, serves in the aggregate fewer than 1 percent of all
subscribers in the United States and is not affiliated with any entity
or entities whose gross annual revenues in the aggregate exceed
$250,000,000.'' The Commission has determined that an operator serving
fewer than 677,000 subscribers shall be deemed a small operator, if its
annual revenues, when combined with the total annual revenues of all
its affiliates, do not exceed $250 million in the aggregate. Industry
data indicate that, of 1,076 cable operators nationwide, all but ten
are small under this size standard. We note that the Commission neither
requests nor collects information on whether cable system operators are
affiliated with entities whose gross annual revenues exceed $250
million, and therefore we are unable to estimate more accurately the
number of cable system operators that would qualify as small under this
size standard.
178. Open Video Services. Open Video Service (OVS) systems provide
subscription services. The open video system (``OVS'') framework was
established in 1996, and is one of four statutorily recognized options
for the provision of video programming services by local exchange
carriers. The OVS framework provides opportunities for the distribution
of video programming other than through cable systems. Because OVS
operators provide subscription services, OVS falls within the SBA small
business size standard covering cable services, which is ``Wired
Telecommunications Carriers.'' The SBA has developed a small business
size standard for this category, which is: all such firms having 1,500
or fewer employees. To gauge small business prevalence for the OVS
service, the Commission relies on data currently available from the
U.S. Census for the year 2007. According to that source, there were
3,188 firms that in 2007 were Wired Telecommunications Carriers. Of
these, 3,144 operated with less than 1,000 employees, and 44 operated
with more than 1,000 employees. However, as to the latter 44 there is
no data available that shows how many operated with more than 1,500
employees. Based on this data, the majority of these firms can be
considered small. In addition, we note that the Commission has
certified some OVS operators, with some now providing service.
Broadband service providers (``BSPs'') are currently the only
significant holders of OVS certifications or local OVS franchises. The
Commission does not have financial or employment information regarding
the entities authorized to provide OVS, some of which may not yet be
operational. Thus, at least some of the OVS operators may qualify as
small entities. The Commission further notes that it has certified
approximately 45 OVS operators to serve 75 areas, and some of these are
currently providing service. Affiliates of Residential Communications
Network, Inc. (RCN) received approval to operate OVS systems in New
York City, Boston, Washington, DC, and other areas. RCN has sufficient
revenues to assure that they do not qualify as a small business entity.
Little financial information is available for the other entities that
are authorized to provide OVS and are not yet operational. Given that
some entities authorized to provide OVS service have not yet begun to
generate revenues, the Commission concludes that up to 44 OVS operators
(those remaining) might qualify as small businesses that may be
affected by the rules and policies adopted herein.
5. Electric Power Generation, Transmission and Distribution
179. Electric Power Generators, Transmitters, and Distributors. The
Census Bureau defines an industry group comprised of ``establishments,
primarily engaged in generating, transmitting, and/or distributing
electric power. Establishments in this industry group may perform one
or more of the following activities: (1) Operate generation facilities
that produce electric energy; (2) operate transmission systems that
convey the electricity from the generation facility to the distribution
system; and (3) operate distribution systems that convey electric power
received from the generation facility or the transmission system to the
final consumer.'' The SBA has developed a small business size standard
for firms in this category: ``A firm is small if, including its
affiliates, it is primarily engaged in the generation, transmission,
and/or distribution of electric energy for sale and its total electric
output for the preceding fiscal year did not exceed 4 million megawatt
hours.'' According to Census Bureau data for 2007, there were 1,525
firms in this category that operated for the entire year. Census data
do not track electric output and we have not determined how many of
these firms fit the SBA size standard for small, with no more than 4
million megawatt hours of electric output. Consequently, we estimate
that 1,525 or fewer firms may be considered small under the SBA small
business size standard.
[[Page 10851]]
6. Internet Service Providers, Web Portals and Other Information
Services
180. In 2007, the SBA recognized two new small business, economic
census categories. They are (1) Internet Publishing and Broadcasting
and Web Search Portals, and (2) All Other Information Services.
181. Internet Service Providers. The 2007 Economic Census places
these firms, whose services might include voice over Internet protocol
(VoIP), in either of two categories, depending on whether the service
is provided over the provider's own telecommunications facilities
(e.g., cable and DSL ISPs), or over client-supplied telecommunications
connections (e.g., dial-up ISPs). The former are within the category of
Wired Telecommunications Carriers, which has an SBA small business size
standard of 1,500 or fewer employees. These are also labeled
``broadband.'' The latter are within the category of All Other
Telecommunications, which has a size standard of annual receipts of $25
million or less. These are labeled non-broadband.
182. The most current Economic Census data for all such firms are
2007 data, which are detailed specifically for ISPs within the
categories above. For the first category, the data show that 396 firms
operated for the entire year, of which 159 had nine or fewer employees.
For the second category, the data show that 1,682 firms operated for
the entire year. Of those, 1,675 had annual receipts below $25 million
per year, and an additional two had receipts of between $25 million and
$49,999,999. Consequently, we estimate that the majority of ISP firms
are small entities.
183. Internet Publishing and Broadcasting and Web Search Portals.
This industry comprises establishments primarily engaged in (1)
publishing and/or broadcasting content on the Internet exclusively or
(2) operating Web sites that use a search engine to generate and
maintain extensive databases of Internet addresses and content in an
easily searchable format (and known as Web search portals). The
publishing and broadcasting establishments in this industry do not
provide traditional (non-Internet) versions of the content that they
publish or broadcast. They provide textual, audio, and/or video content
of general or specific interest on the Internet exclusively.
Establishments known as Web search portals often provide additional
Internet services, such as e-mail, connections to other Web sites,
auctions, news, and other limited content, and serve as a home base for
Internet users. The SBA has developed a small business size standard
for this category; that size standard is 500 employees. Less than 500
employees is considered small. According to Census Bureau data for
2007, there were 2,705 firms that provided one or more of these
services for that entire year. Of these, 2,682 operated with less than
500 employees and 13 operated with 500 to 999 employees. Consequently,
we estimate that the majority of these firms are small entities that
may be affected by our action.
184. Data Processing, Hosting, and Related Services. This industry
comprises establishments primarily engaged in providing infrastructure
for hosting or data processing services. These establishments may
provide specialized hosting activities, such as Web hosting, streaming
services or application hosting; provide application service
provisioning; or may provide general time-share mainframe facilities to
clients. Data processing establishments provide complete processing and
specialized reports from data supplied by clients or provide automated
data processing and data entry services. The SBA has developed a small
business size standard for this category; that size standard is $25
million or less in average annual receipts. According to Census Bureau
data for 2007, there were 8,060 firms in this category that operated
for the entire year. Of these, 6,726 had annual receipts of under $25
million, and 155 had receipts between $25 million and $49,999,999
million. Consequently, we estimate that the majority of these firms are
small entities that may be affected by our action.
185. All Other Information Services. ``This industry comprises
establishments primarily engaged in providing other information
services (except new syndicates and libraries and archives).'' Our
action pertains to interconnected VoIP services, which could be
provided by entities that provide other services such as e-mail, online
gaming, Web browsing, video conferencing, instant messaging, and other,
similar IP-enabled services. The SBA has developed a small business
size standard for this category; that size standard is $7.0 million or
less in average annual receipts. According to Census Bureau data for
2007, there were 367 firms in this category that operated for the
entire year. Of these, 334 had annual receipts of under $5 million, and
an additional 11 firms had receipts of between $5 million and
$9,999,999. Consequently, we estimate that the majority of these firms
are small entities that may be affected by our action.
D. Description of Projected Reporting, Recordkeeping, and Other
Compliance Requirements for Small Entities
186. In the Notice, the Commission proposes additional or modified
information collections that would impose further reporting and
recordkeeping requirements on current Form 477 filers, including small
entities. Specifically, the NPRM invites comment on whether and how the
Commission could collect data on the following additional or modified
categories of data: (1) Deployment, (2) subscription, (3) price, (4)
service quality, and (5) ownership and contact information. The
Commission also seeks comment on whether to collect ``other data'' such
as socioeconomic and social metrics data to assess socially and
economically disadvantaged parties. The Commission seeks further
comment on the extent to which technological tools and use of
commercial and publicly available data can reduce the burden of
producing information. The Commission also seeks comment on how to
streamline the process in collecting the data the Commission needs to
inform its policymaking processes while minimizing the production
burden on providers and the processing burden on the Commission. The
Commission invites comments on the merits and methodologies of such
data collections to include suggestions and discussions of other
alternatives not specifically discussed in the NPRM that would meet the
objectives of the NPRM but would impose lesser burdens on smaller
entities.
187. Based on these questions, the Commission anticipates that a
record will be developed concerning actual burden and alternative ways
in which the Commission could lessen the burden on small entities of
obtaining improved data about broadband deployment and availability
throughout the nation.
E. Steps Taken To Minimize the Significant Economic Impact on Small
Entities, and Significant Alternatives Considered
188. The RFA requires an agency to describe any significant
alternatives that it has considered in reaching its proposed approach,
which may include (among others) the following four alternatives: (1)
The establishment of differing compliance or reporting requirements or
timetables that take into account the resources available to small
entities; (2) the clarification, consolidation, or simplification of
compliance or reporting requirements under the rule for small entities;
(3) the
[[Page 10852]]
use of performance, rather than design, standards; and (4) an exemption
from coverage of the rule, or any part thereof, for small entities.
189. In particular, the Commission seeks comment on whether it
would be less burdensome for providers to submit address-level data
with respect to the deployment and availability of services. The
Commission also seeks comment on other ways that the Commission can
ease the burden on small- and medium-sized providers.
190. Based on these questions, and the alternatives the Commission
has discussed, the Commission anticipates that the record will be
developed concerning alternative ways in which the Commission could
lessen the burden on small entities of obtaining improved data about
broadband. The Commission welcomes proposals of alternatives from any
of the approaches as described in Section A, supra.
F. Federal Rules That May Duplicate, Overlap, or Conflict With the
Proposed Rules
191. None.
Federal Communications Commission.
Marlene H. Dortch,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2011-4393 Filed 2-25-11; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6712-01-P