[Federal Register Volume 76, Number 111 (Thursday, June 9, 2011)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 33686-33699]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2011-14311]



[[Page 33686]]

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

FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION

47 CFR Part 4

[PS Docket No. 11-82; FCC 11-74]


Proposed Extension of Part 4 of the Commission's Rules Regarding 
Outage Reporting to Interconnected Voice Over Internet Protocol Service 
Providers and Broadband Internet Service Providers

AGENCY: Federal Communications Commission.

ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking.

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

SUMMARY: The purpose of this document is to seek comment on a proposal 
to extend the Commission's communications outage reporting requirements 
to interconnected Voice over Internet Protocol (VoIP) service providers 
and broadband Internet Service Providers (ISPs). This action will help 
ensure that our current and future 9-1-1 systems are as reliable and 
resilient as possible and assist our Nation's preparedness for man-made 
or natural disasters, such as Hurricane Katrina.

DATES: Submit comments on or before August 8, 2011. Submit reply 
comments on or before October 7, 2011. Written comments on the 
Paperwork Reduction Act proposed information collection requirements 
must be submitted by the public, Office of Management and Budget (OMB), 
and other interested parties on or before August 8, 2011.

ADDRESSES: You may submit comments, identified by PS Docket No. 11-82, 
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://www.fcc.gov/cgb/ecfs/. Follow the instructions for submitting comments 
on the Commission's Electronic Comment Filing System (ECFS).
     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.

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 detailed 
instructions for submitting comments and additional information on the 
rulemaking process, see the SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION section of this 
document.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Gregory Intoccia, Public Safety and 
Homeland Security Bureau, at (202) 418-1300, Federal Communications 
Commission, 445 12th Street, SW., Washington, DC 20554; or via the 
Internet to [email protected].
    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 
or [email protected].

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. Introduction

    1. Broadband technologies delivering communications services to end 
users have changed behaviors and revolutionized expectations in 
American life and are fast becoming substitutes for communications 
services provided by older, legacy communications technologies. In 
2010, 28 percent of the more than 89 million residential telephone 
subscriptions were provided by interconnected VoIP providers. Broadband 
networks now carry a substantial volume of 9-1-1 traffic. They are also 
a significant form of communications in times of crisis. Communications 
outages to broadband facilities threaten the public's ability to summon 
in emergency situations. The National Security and Emergency 
Preparedness posture of the United States depends on the availability 
of broadband communications during times of emergencies, and it is one 
of the core responsibilities of the Commission. In 2010 alone, there 
were a number of significant outages to broadband networks and services 
in various parts of the Nation.
    2. The resilience of the broadband communications infrastructure 
directly impacts the emergency preparedness and readiness posture of 
the United States. Outages to broadband networks can have a significant 
impact on emergency services, consumers, businesses, and governments. 
The most practical, effective way to maintain emergency preparedness 
and readiness is to work continuously to minimize the incidence of 
routine outages.
    3. Since 2005, the Commission has required providers of 
interconnected VoIP services to supply 9-1-1 emergency calling 
capabilities to their customers as a mandatory feature of the service. 
``Interconnected'' VoIP services allow a user generally to receive 
calls from and make calls to the legacy telephone network. Under the 
Commission's rules, interconnected VoIP providers must deliver all 9-1-
1 calls to the local emergency call center; deliver the customer's 
call-back number and location information where the emergency call 
center is capable of receiving it; and inform their customers of the 
capabilities and limitations of their VoIP 9-1-1 service. By 
Presidential Directives and Executive Orders the FCC has been assigned 
a critical role in the Nation's emergency preparedness and response 
efforts. Presidential Directives and Executive Orders and their 
implementing documents charge the FCC with ensuring the resiliency and 
reliability of the Nation's commercial and public safety communications 
infrastructure.
    4. The Commission has many years of experience working with 
communications providers to improve communications resiliency and 
emergency readiness. The Commission's current outage reporting rules, 
applicable to legacy communications systems, allows the Commission 
staff to collect and analyze key outage data that has helped to reduce 
outages. With the percent of VoIP-only households and businesses 
increasing, it is essential for safety reasons that we extend outage 
reporting to VoIP.
    5. The Commission's existing approach includes the analysis and 
response to information received during an emergency. During Hurricane 
Katrina, the Commission's outage reporting data was the Federal 
government's primary and best source of information about the condition 
of critical communications infrastructure in the disaster area. Using 
this information the Commission was able to contact affected reporting 
providers to establish an ad hoc data-driven working group to help 
manage the crisis.
    6. Currently, only providers of legacy circuit-switched voice and/
or paging communications over wireline, wireless, cable, and satellite 
communications services must report communications outages. Commission 
analysis of industry-wide outage reports has led to improvements in the 
engineering, provisioning, and deployment of communications 
infrastructure and services. The Commission has been able to share its 
analysis with members of industry, providing an understanding of 
recurring problems nationwide that an individual provider cannot know 
by itself. This process has also made communications networks more 
robust

[[Page 33687]]

to the effects of natural or man-made disasters, thereby improving our 
Nation's readiness posture. Reducing the number of communications 
outages greatly improves the resiliency of the communications critical 
infrastructure to withstand disruptions that would otherwise jeopardize 
the Nation's ability to communicate during emergency events, including 
to the Nation's 9-1-1 system.
    7. In this proceeding, we seek to extend these benefits to the 
broadband communications networks frequently used for emergency 
response today. We propose to extend the Commission's Part 4 
communications outage reporting requirements to include both 
interconnected VoIP service providers and broadband ISPs. This change 
would allow the Commission, and other Federal agencies, to track and 
analyze information on outages affecting broadband networks. The 
availability of this information would also help the Commission 
determine the extent of the problem nationwide, identify recurring 
problems, determine whether action can be taken immediately to help 
providers recover or prevent future outages, and ensure to the extent 
possible that broadband networks are prepared for disasters. Our 
proposed action will allow the Commission to use the same successful 
process it currently uses with wireline and wireless providers to 
refine best practices to prepare broadband communications networks 
better for emergency situations.
    8. In this Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (NPRM), with respect to 
both interconnected VoIP service and broadband Internet service we seek 
comment on reporting thresholds based on circumstances specific to each 
different type of service or technology. Because requiring 
interconnected VoIP service providers and broadband ISPs to report 
outages may impose a burden on them, we welcome comments quantifying 
this burden and recommendations to mitigate it. We believe that the 
type of information that would be collected for outage reporting is 
already collected by providers for their own internal use, and that 
reporting the information on a confidential basis to the Commission 
would create a minimal burden.
    9. We encourage comments on the thresholds or circumstances that 
should be included to improve our ability to address communication 
system vulnerabilities and to help prevent future outages through the 
development and refinement of best practices. We encourage interested 
parties to address these issues in the contexts of interconnected VoIP 
service and broadband Internet service. We also encourage commenters to 
address how the proposed information collection would facilitate best 
practices development and increased network security, reliability and 
resiliency throughout the United States and its Territories. We also 
seek comment on sources of authority.
    10. This document contains proposed information collection 
requirements. The Commission, as part of its continuing effort to 
reduce paperwork burdens, invites the general public and the Office of 
Management and Budget (OMB) to comment on the information collection 
requirements contained in this document, as required by the Paperwork 
Reduction Act of 1995, Public Law 104-13. Public and agency comments 
are due August 8, 2011. Comments should address: (a) Whether the 
proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper 
performance of the functions of the Commission, including whether the 
information shall have practical utility; (b) the accuracy of the 
Commission's burden estimates; (c) ways to enhance the quality, 
utility, and clarity of the information collected; (d) ways to minimize 
the burden of the collection of information on the respondents, 
including the use of automated collection techniques or other forms of 
information technology; and (e) ways to further reduce the information 
collection burden on small business concerns with fewer than 25 
employees. In addition, pursuant to the Small Business Paperwork Relief 
Act of 2002, Public Law 107-198, see 44 U.S.C. 3506(c)(4), we seek 
specific comment on how we might further reduce the information 
collection burden for small business concerns with fewer than 25 
employees.

II. Background

    11. In this section, we review the key prior Commission policies 
and results of those policies leading up to the present rules and the 
current proposal for extending the Commission's outage reporting 
requirements to interconnected VoIP service providers and broadband 
Internet service providers. In its initial 1992 Initial Outage 
Reporting Order, released on February 27, 1992 and published in the 
Federal Register at 57 FR 7883, March 5, 1992, the Commission 
established network outage reporting requirements for wireline 
providers. In 2004, in the Second Outage Reporting Order, released on 
August 19, 2004 and published in the Federal Register at 69 FR 70316, 
Dec. 3, 2004, the Commission extended outage reporting requirements to 
include providers of wireless (including paging), cable, and satellite 
communications.
    12. The Commission uses outage information submitted pursuant to 
Part 4 of its rules to, among other things, address communication 
system vulnerabilities and help prevent future outages. The Commission 
staff accomplishes this objective by using statistically meaningful 
trends in data as well as associated technical analysis to gather 
communications providers together in coordinated efforts to improve 
security, reliability and resiliency. Where necessary, the Commission 
also recommends policy changes to address persistent problems. The 
Commission works with each individual reporting service provider to 
monitor and address specific communications vulnerabilities identified 
in outage reports.
    13. As a result of reporting pursuant to the Commission's Part 4 
outage reporting rules, positive results have been achieved. For 
example, the frequency of wireline outages, which had spiked in 2008, 
has dramatically decreased since the issue was identified through the 
Commission's ongoing analyses of monthly wireline outages. Estimated 
lost 9-1-1 calls due to wireline outages were reduced by more than 50 
percent from peak when the Commission worked with the Network 
Reliability Steering Committee (NRSC) to reduce wireline outages. As a 
result of the conclusions drawn and the additional work of the NRSC, 
providers were able to take corrective action. These reductions 
occurred because of the Commission's analysis of outage reporting data 
and the sharing of data among Commission and industry network experts. 
Thus the Commission's existing outage reporting has increased the 
resiliency of the communications infrastructure and increased the 
availability of public safety communication services.
    14. On March 16, 2010, the Commission delivered to Congress the 
National Broadband Plan, which recommended that the Commission extend 
its Part 4 outage reporting rules to broadband ISPs and interconnected 
VoIP service providers as ``the lack of data limits our understanding 
of network operations and of how to prevent future outages.''
    15. In July 2010, the Public Safety and Homeland Security Bureau 
released a Public Notice in which it sought comment on a variety of 
issues related to whether, and if so how, the Commission should extend 
coverage of its Part 4 rules to apply to broadband ISPs and 
interconnected VoIP service

[[Page 33688]]

providers. The Bureau considered this information in preparing this 
NPRM.

III. Extending Outage Reporting Requirements

A. Interconnected VoIP Service Providers

    16. Interconnected VoIP services increasingly are viewed by 
consumers as a substitute for traditional telephone service. This is 
also reflected in our 9-1-1 emergency call system today, where we 
estimate that approximately 28 percent of residential wireline 9-1-1 
calls are made using VoIP service. In keeping with increased public 
reliance on interconnected VoIP services, we propose to extend our 
outage reporting rules to interconnected VoIP service providers. In 
2010, there were 29 million interconnected residential and business 
VoIP subscriptions in the United States. Between June 2009 and June 
2010, interconnected residential and business VoIP subscriptions 
increased from 24 million to 29 million and retail switched access 
lines decreased from 133 million to 122 million. Unlike wireline 
service, currently the Commission has no mechanism to identify outages 
of VoIP service that impact end users and cannot address the cause of 
9-1-1 outages relating to VoIP service. Applying outage reporting 
requirements to these services brings the reporting requirements into 
line with existing E9-1-1 obligations.
    17. We propose to apply our outage reporting requirements to both 
facilities-based and non-facilities-based interconnected VoIP service 
providers. Both groups are subject to our E9-1-1 obligation. A 
reporting requirement that extends only to facilities-based 
interconnected VoIP service providers would not result in reporting of 
all significant VoIP service outages experienced by end users and may 
put in jeopardy the ability to receive 9-1-1 calls. Our current rules 
require communications providers to report on service outages that 
affect their customers even if they do not own or operate the 
facilities that failed. We seek comment on this proposal.
    18. Currently, under the Commission's Part 4 outage reporting 
rules, an ``outage'' is defined to include ``a significant degradation 
in the ability of an end user to establish and maintain a channel of 
communications as a result of failure or degradation in the performance 
of a communications provider's network.'' Our rules tailor the 
definition of a reportable significant degradation to communications 
over cable, telephony carrier tandem, satellite, System Signaling 7 
(``SS7''), wireless, or wireline facilities. Broadband networks operate 
differently than legacy networks, so the impact of outages is likely to 
be different. We seek comment on the definition of ``outage'' as 
applicable to these providers. We believe that a complete loss of the 
ability to complete calls should be included. We seek comment on 
whether there should also be a threshold based on lost or delayed 
packets. Should the Commission use a concept such as ``loss of 
generally-useful availability or connectivity'' and if so, how should 
we define it? Should we adopt the metrics used by the Internet 
Engineering Task Force (IETF), such as packet loss, round-trip latency, 
and jitter? The Commission recognizes that wireless and satellite 
networks include specific latency challenges not found in wireline-only 
networks. Should the thresholds be altered to address the unique 
architectural characteristics and challenges of wireless, satellite, 
cable, and wireline systems used by interconnected VoIP service 
providers? If the thresholds need to be altered, what values should be 
used to represent the loss of generally-useful availability and 
connectivity? How should the concept itself be revised to provide more 
useful information for analysis purposes? What voice quality-related 
network metrics are routinely reported to operations support systems in 
carrier-operated VoIP architectures? Do the Real-time Transport Control 
Protocol (RTCP) round-trip and Session Initiation Protocol (SIP) Event 
Package for Voice Quality Reporting provide guidance for suitable 
metrics that are already being collected for purposes other than outage 
reporting? How should the number of potentially affected users be 
counted for interconnected VoIP service providers? Can the number of 
assigned telephone numbers for non-mobile VoIP service users be used in 
a manner similar to what is used for wireline service providers? We 
recognize the difficulty of distinguishing precisely when a VoIP end 
system cannot place a call as opposed to when it is simply temporarily 
disconnected from the network due to user choice or home network 
failure. Can statistical measures that compare typical to current 
device registration counts (e.g., number of active SIP registration 
entries) be used to detect and measure large-scale outages?
    19. For wireless service providers, the current rules require the 
service provider to estimate the simultaneous call capacity lost and 
then multiply the result by a concentration ratio of eight (to convert 
the number of users affected to the number of potentially affected 
users). Should a similar construct be used for mobile VoIP service 
users? Is there a direct estimate of the number of potentially affected 
users that would be preferable? For both wireline and wireless service 
providers, should the failure of core routers, network servers, SIP 
proxy servers, Serving General Packet Radio Service (GPRS) and Gateway 
GPRS support nodes, call session control function (CSCF), home 
subscriber servers (HSS), root name servers, provider-operated Domain 
Name System (DNS) servers, Dynamic Host Control Protocol (DHCP) 
servers, Call Agents, Session Border Controllers, Signaling Gateways, 
or some other type of communications equipment be reportable similar to 
the current reporting requirement for Mobile Switching Center failures? 
Should special considerations be given to services provided via VoIP to 
PSAPs? How should outages that are observable by end users as 
performance degradations (e.g., increased latency and/or jitter) be 
addressed? How should we account for those differences in our outage 
reporting rules? Should the same or a different standard apply to 
interconnected VoIP service providers who provide service to end users 
with wireless applications?
    20. Based on how interconnected VoIP service is typically 
configured and provided, we propose that a significant degradation of 
interconnected VoIP service exists and must be reported when an 
interconnected VoIP service provider has experienced an outage or 
service degradation for at least 30 minutes: (a) On any major facility 
(e.g., Call Agent, Session Border Controller, Signaling Gateway, CSCF, 
HSS) that it owns, operates, leases, or otherwise utilizes; (b) 
potentially affecting generally useful availability and connectivity of 
at least 900,000 user minutes (e.g., average packet loss of greater 
than one percent for 30,000 users for 30 minutes); or (c) otherwise 
potentially affecting special offices, or special facilities, including 
9-1-1 PSAPs. We seek comment on whether the proposed reporting 
thresholds are appropriate. Should some other analogous threshold be 
considered for interconnected VoIP service providers? Should the 
thresholds be equally applied to redundant facilities?

B. Broadband Internet Service Providers

    21. Interconnected VoIP services ride over broadband networks. If 
the underlying communications network fails, the VoIP service, 
including its Commission-mandated 9-1-1

[[Page 33689]]

capabilities, will fail as well. Thus we propose to extend our outage 
reporting rules to include broadband ISPs, a term which includes 
broadband Internet access service providers and broadband backbone 
ISPs. While there is increasing evidence that major outages are 
occurring on these providers' facilities, and those outages may disable 
9-1-1 and other service capabilities, currently there are no Commission 
requirements to report such outages. The Commission accordingly is 
unable to analyze underlying causes, support the development of best 
practices that would lead to better overall network performance. We 
seek comment on all aspects of this proposal.
    22. We seek comment on whether both facilities-based and non-
facilities based broadband ISPs should be required to report outages 
that meet a certain threshold. Inclusion of both of these types of 
providers we believe would ensure outage reporting covers Internet 
consumers and businesses that purchase Internet access through less 
traditional access arrangements (e.g., prepaid Internet access cards).
    23. Some broadband ISPs provide Internet access directly connecting 
to end users, while others provide the connectivity and related 
services needed to establish and maintain end-to-end IP communications 
among independently-operated networks. While we identify two broad 
categories of broadband ISPs, we seek comment on whether there are 
other categories of ISPs the Commission should consider for outage 
reporting purposes.
    24. A broadband Internet access service provider aggregates end-
user communications, usually within a specific geographic region. For 
this proceeding, we propose to define a ``broadband Internet access 
service provider'' as a provider of mass-market retail service by wire 
or radio that is able to support interconnected VoIP service as defined 
in our E11 rules. Alternatively, we could define a ``broadband Internet 
access service provider'' as a provider of mass-market retail service 
by wire or radio that provides the capability to transmit data to and 
receive data from all or substantially all Internet endpoints, 
including any capabilities that are incidental to and enable the 
operation of the communications service, but excluding dial-up Internet 
access service. This term would also encompass providers of any service 
that the Commission finds to be providing a functional equivalent of 
the service described in the previous sentence. We seek comment on this 
alternative approach and any other alternative definitions.
    25. We propose to define a ``broadband backbone ISP'' to be one 
that provides long-haul transmission for one or more broadband Internet 
access service providers (e.g., typically connecting traffic among 
major cities). We seek comment on this proposed definition.
    26. We distinguish between broadband Internet access service 
providers and broadband backbone ISPs because of the different roles 
that they perform. Often a single organization may fulfill both types 
of broadband ISP roles, providing roles as broadband Internet access 
service provider and as broadband backbone ISP. We seek comment on the 
definitions that we should use for purposes of outage reporting.
    27. Broadband Internet Access Service Providers. Broadband Internet 
access service providers aggregate end-user communications, usually 
within a specific geographic region. Examples of broadband Internet 
access service providers are local exchange carriers that provide end-
user traffic access to the Internet, and cable system operators that 
aggregate the traffic of residential end users using cable modem 
technology and offer access to the Internet.
    28. Broadband Internet access service providers are the conduit for 
delivering broadband services to the American public and business 
community. When outages occur that severely degrade the delivery of the 
broadband services, end users are negatively affected, which can 
include 9-1-1 services. Without a reporting requirement, however, it is 
nearly impossible to determine the extent, the effect, and the 
consequences of broadband outages.
    29. Broadband Internet access service providers continue to show 
significant growth in subscribership. Between 1999 and 2009, the number 
of fixed-location business and residential connections grew at an 
annual compound rate of 42 percent, increasing from 2 million to 81 
million connections. This growth reflects the American public's 
increasing reliance on broadband Internet access service to conduct 
important daily communications.
    30. We therefore propose to extend the outage reporting 
requirements in Part 4 of our rules to broadband Internet access 
service providers. Consistent with the current definition of ``outage'' 
in Part 4 of the Commission's rules, which places emphasis on a 
``significant degradation'' of communications, we propose that an 
outage in the context of broadband Internet access service provider be 
defined as ``the loss to the end user of generally-useful availability 
and Internet connectivity.''
    31. Should we measure ``generally-useful availability and 
connectivity'' of broadband Internet service as it relates to a 
broadband Internet access service provider as the operational state in 
which the transmission from the end user to the broadband ISP Point of 
Presence (PoP) is operating as designed for normal use, the logical 
functions and relay systems required from ISPs are operating as 
designed for normal use, and the end user is not prevented by the 
broadband Internet access service provider from establishing 
communications with any destination device on the global Internet that 
has an assigned Internet Protocol address?
    32. We seek comment on whether for broadband Internet access 
service providers the ``loss of generally-useful availability and 
connectivity'' can be measured using the metrics defined by the IETF, 
such as packet loss, round-trip latency, or jitter from the source to 
the destination host? Are there additional metrics that should be used 
to trigger outage reporting? There are differences in the various 
architectures of different types of communications systems employed by 
broadband Internet access service providers that may affect the 
delivery of Internet services. We seek comment on the applicability of 
the IETF metrics and their values for these types of service providers. 
Based on an examination of commercial practices, and considering the 
apparent lack of standardized values for the metrics presented here, we 
believe that the appropriate values should be packet loss of one 
percent or more, round-trip latency of 100 ms or more, or jitter of 4 
ms or more from the source to the destination host in order to trigger 
outage reporting. Are these values appropriate for all types of 
broadband Internet access service providers? Are there more appropriate 
values? What are they and why are they better? How should the number of 
potentially affected users be counted for broadband Internet access 
service providers? For non-mobile users, can the number of IP addresses 
be used as a direct estimate of the number of potentially affected non-
mobile users? In the cases where Dynamic Host Configuration Protocol 
(DHCP) is used to assign IP addresses by Internet access service 
providers, how does its use affect the estimate of the number of 
potentially affected users given the dynamic re-use of IP addresses? 
Should there be a multiplier introduced to improve the estimate? For 
wireless service providers, the current rules require the service 
provider to

[[Page 33690]]

estimate the simultaneous call capacity lost and then multiply the 
result by a concentration ratio of eight (to convert the number of 
users affected to the number of potentially affected users). Should a 
similar construct be used for non-mobile broadband access users? Is 
there a direct estimate of the number of potentially affected users 
that would be preferable? We also understand that performance 
degradations on control elements in ISP networks can result in Internet 
service that is neither generally useful nor available to end users. We 
seek comment on what thresholds should be set to measure outages of 
this nature. We seek comment on whether these outage definitions are 
appropriate, and how these user-centric metrics might be aggregated 
into a more meaningful metric that can be the basis for reporting.
    33. Should we require a broadband Internet access service provider 
to submit reports in cases similar to the current reporting 
requirements for voice service providers? We seek comment on requiring 
a report when the provider has experienced an outage or service 
degradation for at least 30 minutes: (a) On any major facility (e.g., 
authoritative DNS server, DHCP server, HSS) that it owns, operates, 
leases, or otherwise utilizes; (b) potentially affecting generally-
useful availability and connectivity of at least 900,000 user minutes 
(e.g., average packet loss of greater than one percent for 30,000 users 
for 30 minutes); or (c) that affects any special offices and 
facilities, including major military installations, key government 
facilities, nuclear power plants, airports, and Public Safety Answering 
Points (PSAPs). Are there other special facilities for which outage 
reporting would be appropriate? Should a different standard apply to 
broadband access providers that provide service to end users with 
wireless applications? How should potentially affected mobile users be 
counted?
    34. Broadband Backbone ISPs. A broadband backbone ISP interconnects 
a broadband Internet access service provider to other broadband 
Internet access service providers. Broadband backbone ISPs also connect 
to each other through network access points (NAPs) or private peering 
arrangements. Broadband backbone ISPs route all traffic incoming from 
broadband Internet access service providers and provide the 
infrastructure needed for Internet connectivity between the broadband 
Internet access service providers.
    35. Based on the role that they serve, we believe it possible that 
an outage suffered by a broadband backbone ISP could cause greater 
impact, as measured by the number of affected users, than a similar 
outage experienced by an access ISP. Such outages could severely impact 
the ability of users to reach 9-1-1 during an emergency. We therefore 
propose to require that broadband backbone ISPs report outages whenever 
the broadband backbone ISP experiences an outage or service degradation 
affecting other ISPs or end users. Reporting of these types of service 
disruptions would serve as a foundation for the development of network 
best practices to guard against future disruptions of this magnitude 
that have the potential to compromise public safety and have a 
widespread negative effect on consumers.
    36. We seek comment on what threshold of disruption should 
constitute a reportable broadband backbone ISP service outage. 
Consistent with the current definition of ``outage'' in Part 4 of our 
rules that places emphasis on a ``significant degradation'' of 
communications, we propose that an outage in the context of a broadband 
backbone ISP be defined as the loss of ``generally-useful availability 
and Internet connectivity.''
    37. Should we define ``generally-useful availability and Internet 
connectivity'' of broadband Internet service as it relates to a 
broadband backbone ISP as: (a) The operational state in which the 
transmission between ISP PoPs is operating as designed for normal use; 
(b) the logical functions and relay systems required from ISPs are 
operating as designed for normal use; and/or (c) the connected access 
ISP networks are not prevented from establishing communications with 
any destination device on the global Internet that has an assigned 
Internet Protocol address. Can the ``loss of generally-useful 
availability and connectivity'' for broadband backbone ISPs be measured 
using the metrics defined by the IETF, including packet loss, round-
trip latency, or jitter as measured from source to destination PoP? Are 
there additional metrics that should be used to trigger outage 
reporting? We seek comment on these metrics and the values in this 
proposal. Based on commercial practices, and considering the lack of 
standardized values for the metrics presented here, we believe that the 
appropriate values should be packet loss of one percent or more, round-
trip latency of 100 ms or more, or jitter of 4 ms or more as measured 
from source to destination PoP in order to trigger outage reporting. 
Are these values appropriate for all types of broadband backbone ISPs? 
Are there more appropriate values? What are they and why are they 
better?
    38. Due to the Nation's growing dependence on ISPs to deliver 
critical IP communication services, we seek comment on requiring a 
broadband backbone ISP to submit outage reports when it experiences an 
outage or service degradation for at least 30 minutes: (a) On any major 
facility (e.g., PoP, Exchange Point, core router, root name server, 
ISP-operated DNS server, or DHCP server) that it owns, operates, 
leases, or otherwise utilizes; (b) potentially affecting generally-
useful availability and connectivity for any Internet PoP-to-Internet 
PoP (PoP-to-PoP) pair for which they lease, own or operate at least one 
of the PoPs where the ``loss of generally useful availability and 
connectivity'' is defined as: (1) An average packet loss of one percent 
or greater; (2) average round-trip delay of 100 ms or greater; or (3) 
average jitter of 4 ms or greater with measurements taken in each of at 
least six consecutive five-minute intervals as measured from source to 
destination PoP. We also seek comment on the proposed packet loss, 
latency, and jitter threshold values. Should the failure of routers, 
network servers, or some other type of communications equipment be 
reportable? Should failure of a PoP, core router, root name server, or 
authoritative DNS server be included in the list of such equipment?

C. Application of Part 4 Rules to Service Using New Wireless 
Technologies

    39. In the 2004 Second Outage Reporting Order, the Commission 
extended its outage reporting requirements beyond wireline providers to 
include wireless providers. In the decision, the Commission enumerated 
several types of licensees providing wireless service that would be 
covered by the Part 4 outage reporting obligations. Since that time, 
licensing in additional spectrum bands, e.g., Advanced Wireless 
Services (AWS) and 700 MHz licensing, has become available for wireless 
services. The 2004 Second Outage Reporting Order suggests that the 
Commission intended to extend the scope of outage reporting to include 
all non-wireline providers, including new technologies developed after 
the adoption of the 2004 Second Outage Reporting Order. We seek comment 
on whether we should amend our rules to clarify and reflect this 
meaning. For instance, should our rules be amended to state that the 
requirement also applies to new services using spectrum bands or new 
wireless technologies that come into being after the adoption of the 
rule? With respect

[[Page 33691]]

to AWS and 700 MHz licensees, are the current Part 4 outage reporting 
rules adequate to cover outage reporting obligations by these providers 
(e.g., reporting thresholds, and nature of information to be 
submitted)? Should the rules be amended so as to exclude AWS and 700 
MHz providers from reporting requirements because the services that 
they provide have not reached sufficiently high levels such that outage 
reporting would be desirable? For AWS and 700 MHz providers, what are 
their respective usage levels such that an outage would have a 
significantly large impact on telecommunications networks and users so 
as to warrant collecting such data?

IV. Mandatory Reporting and Other Alternatives

    40. For the Commission to obtain as complete a picture of service 
outages from interconnected VoIP service providers and broadband ISPs, 
and to allow the Commission to assist in facilitating a resolution of 
outages and preventing future outages, we propose that the outage 
reporting described herein be mandatory, just as it is today for 
services covered under our Part 4 rules. Because of the importance of 
the reliability and resiliency of broadband communications for the 
Nation's 9-1-1 system and overall emergency response, we believe 
mandatory reporting is appropriate. We note that a voluntary outage 
reporting trial was attempted, without success, prior to the imposition 
of our original Part 4 rules. Hence, mandatory outage reporting was 
adopted to ensure timely, accurate reporting.
    41. We note that Japan requires outage reporting from broadband 
communications providers. We seek comment on what role the Japanese 
outage reporting requirements played in restoring communications during 
the recent earthquake-related events. We seek comment also on current 
proposals in other countries to require outage reporting by broadband 
communications providers and, specifically, how those proposals are 
tailored to ensure valuable data is collected while imposing the least 
amount of burden on reporting providers.
    42. We seek comment on whether mandatory reporting is necessary to 
obtain a comprehensive view of outages experienced by customers that 
may impact 9-1-1 and other services. Alternatively, if we were to adopt 
a voluntary reporting scheme, how could the Commission be confident 
that it is not missing important information? What other regulatory 
alternatives should the Commission consider for interconnected VoIP 
service provider and broadband ISP outage reporting? What aspects of 
the information that providers share, as part of their voluntary 
ongoing public-private coordination, should we adopt?

V. Reporting Process

    43. Under our Part 4 rules, communications providers are required 
to submit a Notification within two hours of discovering a reportable 
outage. An Initial Report is due within 72 hours after discovering the 
outage, and a Final Report is due within 30 days after discovering the 
outage. Final Reports must be submitted by a person authorized by the 
provider to submit such reports to the Commission and to bind the 
provider legally to the truth, completeness, and accuracy of the 
information contained in the report. The Final Communications Outage 
Report must contain all potentially significant information known about 
the outage after a good faith effort has been made to obtain it, 
including any information that was not contained in, or that has 
changed from that provided in, the Initial Report. We propose to follow 
the same reporting process for the reporting of outages experienced by 
interconnected VoIP service providers and broadband ISPs. We seek 
comment on this proposal.
    44. We currently provide an electronic reporting template to 
facilitate outage reporting by those types of providers currently 
subject to our Part 4 rules. We believe that this approach to 
collecting data has ensured that the Commission learns of major outages 
in a timely fashion and, at the same time, minimizes the amount of time 
and effort required to comply with the reporting requirements. We 
propose to utilize a very similar electronic reporting template to 
collect outage reports from interconnected VoIP service providers and 
broadband ISPs. We seek comment on this proposal.
    45. We believe this process is reasonable in light of the 
significant benefits conferred by the ability to analyze and address 
network outages. In addition, we believe that interconnected VoIP 
service providers and broadband ISPs are currently collecting in the 
ordinary course of their business much of the information, and perhaps 
even a broader range of information, than we propose be reported. 
Therefore, we believe that, in the usual case, complying with our 
proposed reporting requirements would not result in an undue 
administrative burden. We seek comment on the reasonableness of the 
reporting process proposed herein, and we request comment on relevant 
types of outage information already being collected by interconnected 
VoIP service providers and broadband ISPs so that we could align our 
metrics with what is already available to them.
    46. We seek comment on whether collecting and reporting as proposed 
would be no more burdensome for interconnected VoIP service providers 
and broadband ISPs than current Part 4 reporting requirements are for 
traditional providers. Is the burden greater on smaller VoIP service 
providers and smaller broadband ISPs? If so, to what degree? Are there 
alternative ways to accomplish the aims of this proceeding in a less 
burdensome manner? For example, what alternatives processes, if any, 
could be followed which would enable the Commission to collect the 
types of data specified in this proceeding without requiring a direct 
interface between the Commission and VoIP service providers and 
broadband ISPs? Analysis of outage reports by both Commission staff and 
reporting providers has led to a significant reduction in the frequency 
and scope of outages on the providers' networks. Is the burden of 
reporting outweighed by the benefits from the ability to analyze 
reported outages to help prevent future outages and assist better 
responses to actual outages?

VI. Sharing of Information and Confidentiality

    47. Data collected pursuant to the Commission's outage reporting 
requirements is presumptively confidential. Currently, to the extent 
that the Commission shares the outage information it receives, sharing 
is done on a presumptively confidential basis pursuant to the 
procedures in Part 0 of our rules for sharing information not generally 
available for inspection. We seek comment on whether the outage 
information collected from broadband ISPs and interconnected VoIP 
service providers should also be treated as presumptively confidential. 
We seek comment on publicly reporting aggregated information across 
companies, e.g., total number of incidents by root cause categories. 
Also, we seek comment on whether the Commission should share the 
information with other Federal agencies on a presumptively confidential 
basis.

VII. Legal Authority

    48. We believe the Commission has authority under the 
Communications Act to promulgate the reporting rules proposed here. In 
section 615a-1 of the Communications Act, Congress imposed a ``duty'' 
on ``each IP-enabled voice

[[Page 33692]]

service [interconnected VoIP] provider to provide 9-1-1 service and 
enhanced 9-1-1 service to its subscribers in accordance with the 
requirements of the Federal Communications Commission.'' The Commission 
has express statutory authority to adopt rules implementing that 
requirement. We seek comment on this interpretation.
    49. In addition, we believe that the Commission has authority to 
ensure both that interconnected VoIP providers fulfill their duty to 
provide 9-1-1 services and to address obstacles, such as failures in 
underlying communications networks, to their doing so. Under the 
definition of ancillary authority recently adopted by the U.S. Court of 
Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit, the Commission may 
exercise ancillary authority when ``(1) The Commission's general 
jurisdictional grant under Title I [of the Communications Act] covers 
the regulated subject and (2) the regulations are reasonably ancillary 
to the Commission's effective performance of its statutorily mandated 
responsibilities.'' Both prongs are met here with respect to 
interconnected VoIP providers. The provision of interconnected VoIP is 
``communication by wire or radio'' within the general jurisdictional 
grant of section 2 of the Act. Second, as explained above, collecting 
outage information from interconnected VoIP providers as proposed in 
this Notice is ``reasonably ancillary'' to ensuring that interconnected 
VoIP providers are able to satisfy their 9-1-1 obligations under the 
Act as implemented in our Part 9 rules, and to enable the Commission to 
assist in improving the reliability of these mandated services. We seek 
comment on this analysis.
    50. We believe that the Commission has authority, under the test 
stated by the DC Circuit, to collect outage information from broadband 
Internet service providers. We believe that broadband services fall 
within the Commission's general jurisdictional grant as ``communication 
by wire or radio.'' The network outage reporting proposals for 
broadband Internet service providers are reasonably ancillary to 
ensuring that interconnected VoIP providers are able to satisfy their 
9-1-1 duties under the Act. This is because Interconnected VoIP 
services by definition depend on broadband networks. If a broadband 
network fails, interconnected VoIP traffic--including calls to 9-1-1--
cannot travel over that network. A broadband failure would potentially 
prevent interconnected VoIP providers from satisfying their duty under 
the Act and our rules to provide 9-1-1 services. For these reasons, and 
as authorized by section 4(i) of the Communications Act of 1934, as 
amended, 47 U.S.C. 154(i), we believe we have ancillary authority to 
collect outage information from broadband Internet service providers. 
We seek comment on this analysis. We also ask commenters to address 
other potentially relevant sources of authority, or to otherwise 
explain why they believe that the Commission has no legal authority to 
extend outage reporting requirements in the manner proposed.

VIII. Procedural Matters

A. Ex Parte Rules--Permit-But-Disclose

    51. This is a permit-but-disclose notice and comment rulemaking 
proceeding. Ex parte presentations are permitted, except during the 
Sunshine Agenda period, provided they are disclosed pursuant to the 
Commission's rules.

B. Comment Period and Procedures

    52. 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 (1998).
    53. 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. All comments shall be filed in PS Docket No. 07-114 and WC 
Docket No. 05-196. 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.
    54. 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. All filings must be addressed to the Commission's 
Secretary, Office of the Secretary, Federal Communications Commission. 
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. The filing hours 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. 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.
    55. 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), 202-
418-0432 (tty).
    56. The public may view the documents filed in this proceeding 
during regular business hours in the FCC Reference Information Center, 
Federal Communications Commission, 445 12th Street, SW., Room CY-A257, 
Washington, DC 20554, and on the Commission's Internet Home Page: 
http://www.fcc.gov. Copies of comments and reply comments are also 
available through the Commission's duplicating contractor: Best Copy 
and Printing, Inc., 445 12th Street, SW., Room CY-B402, Washington, DC 
20554, 1-800-378-3160.

C. Initial Regulatory Flexibility Analysis

    57. As required by the Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980 (RFA), 
the Commission has prepared an Initial Regulatory Flexibility Analysis 
(IRFA) of the possible significant economic impact on small entities of 
the policies and rules proposed in the NPRM. We request written public 
comment on the IRFA analysis. Comments must be filed by the same dates 
as listed in the first page of this document, and must have a separate 
and distinct heading designating them as responses to the IRFA. The 
Commission's Consumer and Governmental Affairs Bureau, Reference 
Information Center, will send a copy of this NPRM, including the IRFA, 
to the

[[Page 33693]]

Chief Counsel for Advocacy of the Small Business Administration.
Need for, and Objectives of, the Proposed Rules
    58. In 2005, the Commission adopted rules requiring providers of 
interconnected Voice over Internet Protocol (VoIP) service to supply 
E9-1-1 capabilities to their customers as a standard feature from 
wherever the customer is using the service. In 2008, Congress enacted 
the New and Emerging Technologies 9-1-1 Improvement Act of 2008 that 
amended the 9-1-1 Act to codify the Commission's E9-1-1 rules for 
interconnected VoIP providers. Interconnected VoIP service providers 
generally must transmit all 9-1-1 calls, including Automatic Number 
Identification (ANI) and the caller's Registered Location for each 
call, to the PSAP, designated statewide default answering point, or 
appropriate local emergency authority. Currently, however, the 
Commission's outage reporting rules covering legacy circuit-switched 
voice and/or paging communications over wireline, wireless, cable and 
satellite communications services do not also cover interconnected VoIP 
service providers or the broadband Internet Service Providers (ISPs) on 
whose networks interconnected VoIP services are carried. As a result, 
the Commission currently cannot monitor the reliability and 
availability of 9-1-1 and E9-1-1 communications that depend on these 
systems.
    59. With the objective of ensuring reliability of related networks 
and services, the NPRM proposes to extend the Commission's mandatory 
outage reporting rules under Part 4 of its rules to cover 
interconnected VoIP service providers and ``broadband Internet service 
providers'' meaning ``broadband Internet access service providers'' and 
``broadband backbone Internet service providers.'' Under the proposal, 
mandatory reporting to the Commission would be required when certain 
threshold conditions are present that are specific to the technology of 
each category of service provider.
    60. The proposed reporting to the Commission would use the 
Commission-approved Web-based outage reporting templates. The proposed 
reporting process for outages experienced by interconnected VoIP 
service providers and broadband ISPs would follow the existing 
reporting process for legacy communications providers, such as wireline 
communications providers.
    61. The Commission traditionally has addressed reliability issues 
by helping to develop and promote best practices that address 
vulnerabilities in the communications network, and by measuring the 
effectiveness of best practices through outage reporting. Under the 
Commission's current rules, the outage reporting process has been 
effective in improving the reliability, resiliency and security of the 
legacy services. Collaborating with providers and industry bodies, the 
Commission staff has been able to achieve dramatic reductions in 
outages affecting legacy services. The aim of extending outage 
reporting process to cover interconnected VoIP service providers and 
broadband ISPs is to achieve a similar result: Improve the reliability, 
resiliency and security of their services.
Legal Basis
    62. Authority: The legal basis for any action that may be taken 
pursuant to this NPRM is contained in sections 1, 2, 4(i)-(k), 4(o), 
218, 219, 230, 256, 301, 302(a), 303(f), 303(g), 303(j), 303(r), 403, 
615a-1, 621(b)(3), 621(d), 1302(a), and 1302(b) of the Communications 
Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. 151, 152, 154(i)-(k), 154(o), 218, 
219, 230, 256, 301, 302(a), 303(f), 303(g), 303(j), 303(r), 403, 615a-
1, 621(b)(3), 621(d), 1302(a), and 1302(b), and section 1704 of the 
Omnibus Consolidated and Emergency Supplemental Appropriations Act of 
1998, 44 U.S.C. 3504.
Description and Estimate of the Number of Small Entities to Which the 
Proposed Rules Would Apply
    63. 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 proposed 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).
    64. Total Small Entities. Our action may affect small entities that 
are not easily categorized. We therefore describe three comprehensive, 
statutory small entity size standards. First, nationwide, there are a 
total of approximately 27.5 million small businesses, according to the 
SBA. In addition, a ``small organization'' is generally ``any not-for-
profit enterprise which is independently owned and operated and is not 
dominant in its field.'' Nationwide, as of 2007, there were 
approximately 1,621,315 small organizations. Finally, the term ``small 
governmental jurisdiction'' is defined generally as ``governments of 
cities, towns, townships, villages, school districts, or special 
districts, with a population of less than fifty thousand.'' Census 
Bureau data for 2011 indicate that there were 89,476 local governmental 
jurisdictions in the United States. We estimate that, of this total, as 
many as 88,506 entities may qualify as ``small governmental 
jurisdictions.'' Thus, we estimate that most governmental jurisdictions 
are small.
    65. Interconnected VoIP and Broadband ISPs. The 2007 Economic 
Census places these firms, the services of which 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, or over client-supplied 
telecommunications connections. 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.
    66. The most current Economic Census data for all such firms are 
2007 data. For the first category, the data show that 396 firms 
operated for the entire year, of which only 2 operated with more than 
1,000 employees. For the second category, the data show that 2,383 
firms operated for the entire year. Of those, only 37 had annual 
receipts of more than $25,499,999 per year. We estimate that the 
majority of ISP firms are small entities. To ensure that this IRFA 
describes the universe of small entities that our action might affect, 
we discuss below several different types of entities that might be 
currently providing interconnected VoIP service, Internet access 
service, or broadband backbone Internet service.
    67. Wireline Providers: 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

[[Page 33694]]

for 2007 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 employment of 1,000 employees or more. 
Thus under this category and the associated small business size 
standard, the majority of these incumbent local exchange service 
providers can be considered small.
    68. The Commission has included small incumbent LECs in this 
present RFA analysis. A ``small business'' under the RFA is one that, 
inter alia, meets the pertinent small business size standard and ``is 
not dominant in its field of operation.'' The SBA's Office of Advocacy 
contends that small incumbent LECs are not dominant in their field of 
operation because any such dominance is not ``national'' in scope. The 
Commission has therefore included small incumbent LECs in this RFA 
analysis.
    69. Wireline Providers: 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 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 employment of 1,000 employees or more. Thus 
under this category and the associated small business size standard, 
the Commission estimates that the majority of interexchange carriers 
are small entities that may be affected by our proposed action.
    70. 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. 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 operator service providers 
are small entities that may be affected by our proposed action.
    71. Wireless Providers--Fixed and Mobile. To the extent the 
wireless services listed below are used by wireless firms for fixed and 
mobile broadband Internet access services, the NPRM's proposed rules 
may have an impact on those small businesses as set forth above and 
further below. For those services subject to auctions, we note that, as 
a general matter, the number of winning bidders that claim to qualify 
as small businesses at the close of an auction does not necessarily 
represent the number of small businesses currently in service.
    72. Wireless Providers--Fixed and Mobile Wireless: 
Telecommunications Carriers (except Satellite). Since 2007, the Census 
Bureau has placed wireless firms within this new, broad, economic 
census category. 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. 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. 
Using available data, we estimate that the majority of wireless firms 
can be considered small.
    73. Wireless Providers--Fixed and Mobile: 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 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.
    74. Wireless Providers--Fixed and Mobile: 1670-1675 MHz Services. 
This service can be used for fixed and mobile uses, except aeronautical 
mobile. An auction for one license in the 1670-1675 MHz band commenced 
on April 30, 2003 and closed the same day. One license was awarded. The 
winning bidder was not a small entity.
    75. Wireless Providers--Fixed and Mobile: Wireless Telephony. 
Wireless telephony includes cellular, personal communications services, 
and specialized mobile radio telephony carriers. 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. A total of 413 
carriers reported that they were engaged in wireless telephony. Of 
these, an estimated 261 have 1,500 or fewer employees and 152 have more 
than 1,500 employees. Therefore, more than half of these entities can 
be considered small.
    76. Wireless Providers--Fixed and Mobile: 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 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 
re-auction 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.

[[Page 33695]]

    77. 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.
    78. Wireless Providers--Fixed and Mobile: Specialized Mobile Radio 
Licenses. The Commission awards ``small entity'' bidding credits in 
auctions for Specialized Mobile Radio (SMR) geographic area licenses in 
the 800 MHz and 900 MHz bands to firms that had revenues of no more 
than $15 million in each of the three previous calendar years. The 
Commission awards ``very small entity'' bidding credits to firms 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 900 MHz Service. The Commission has held auctions for 
geographic area licenses in the 800 MHz and 900 MHz bands. The 900 MHz 
SMR auction began on December 5, 1995, and closed on April 15, 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 
began on October 28, 1997, and was completed on December 8, 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 held on January 10, 2002 and closed on January 17, 2002 and 
included 23 BEA licenses. One bidder claiming small business status won 
five licenses.
    79. The auction of the 1,053 800 MHz SMR geographic area licenses 
for the General Category channels began on August 16, 2000, and was 
completed on September 1, 2000. Eleven bidders won 108 geographic area 
licenses for the General Category channels in the 800 MHz SMR band and 
qualified as small businesses under the $15 million size standard. In 
an auction completed on December 5, 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 four auctions, 41 winning 
bidders for geographic licenses in the 800 MHz SMR band claimed status 
as small businesses.
    80. There are numerous incumbent site-by-site SMR licenses 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 service pursuant to extended implementation 
authorizations, nor how many of these providers have annual revenues of 
no more than $15 million. In addition, we do not know how many of these 
firms have 1,500 or fewer employees, which is the SBA-determined size 
standard. We assume that all of the remaining extended implementation 
authorizations are held by small entities, as defined by the SBA.
    81. Wireless Providers--Fixed and Mobile: Lower 700 MHz Band 
Licenses. The Commission previously adopted criteria for defining three 
groups of small businesses for purposes of determining their 
eligibility for special provisions such as bidding credits. The 
Commission defined a ``small business'' as an entity that, together 
with its affiliates and controlling principals, has average gross 
revenues not exceeding $40 million for the preceding three years. A 
``very small business'' is defined as 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. 
Additionally, the lower 700 MHz Service had a third category of small 
business status for Metropolitan/Rural Service Area (MSA/RSA) 
licenses-- ``entrepreneur''--which is defined as an entity that, 
together with its affiliates and controlling principals, has average 
gross revenues that are not more than $3 million for the preceding 
three years. The SBA approved these small size standards. An auction of 
740 licenses (one license in each of the 734 MSAs/RSAs and one license 
in each of the six Economic Area Groupings (EAGs)) commenced on August 
27, 2002, and closed on September 18, 2002. Of the 740 licenses 
available for auction, 484 licenses were won by 102 winning bidders. 
Seventy-two of the winning bidders claimed small business, very small 
business or entrepreneur status and won a total of 329 licenses. A 
second auction commenced on May 28, 2003, closed on June 13, 2003, and 
included 256 licenses: 5 EAG licenses and 476 Cellular Market Area 
licenses. Seventeen winning bidders claimed small or very small 
business status and won 60 licenses, and nine winning bidders claimed 
entrepreneur status and won 154 licenses. On July 26, 2005, the 
Commission completed an auction of 5 licenses in the Lower 700 MHz band 
(Auction No. 60). There were three winning bidders for five licenses. 
All three winning bidders claimed small business status.
    82. In 2007, the Commission reexamined its rules governing the 700 
MHz band in the 700 MHz Second Report and Order. An auction of 700 MHz 
licenses commenced January 24, 2008 and closed on March 18, 2008, which 
included 176 Economic Area licenses in the A Block, 734 Cellular Market 
Area licenses in the B Block, and 176 EA licenses in the E Block. 
Twenty winning bidders, claiming small business status (those with 
attributable average annual gross revenues that exceed $15 million and 
do not exceed $40 million for the preceding three years) won 49 
licenses. Thirty-three winning bidders claiming very small business 
status (those with attributable average annual gross revenues that do 
not exceed $15 million for the preceding three years) won 325 licenses.
    83. Wireless Providers--Fixed and Mobile: Upper 700 MHz Band 
Licenses. In the 700 MHz Second Report and Order, the Commission 
revised its rules regarding Upper 700 MHz licenses. On January 24, 
2008, the Commission commenced Auction 73 in which several licenses in 
the Upper 700 MHz band were available for licensing: 12 Regional 
Economic Area Grouping licenses in the C Block, and one nationwide 
license in the D Block. The auction concluded on March 18, 2008, with 3 
winning bidders claiming very small business status (those with 
attributable average annual gross revenues that do not exceed $15 
million for the preceding three years) and winning five licenses.
    84. Wireless Providers--Fixed and Mobile: 700 MHz Guard Band 
Licensees. In 2000, in the 700 MHz Guard Band

[[Page 33696]]

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.
    85. Wireless Providers--Fixed and Mobile: 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 fewer than 10 licensees in the Air-Ground 
Radiotelephone Service, and under that definition, we estimate 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.
    86. Wireless Providers--Fixed and Mobile: AWS Services (1710-1755 
MHz and 2110-2155 MHz bands (AWS-1); 1915-1920 MHz, 1995-2000 MHz, 
2020-2025 MHz and 2175-2180 MHz bands (AWS-2); 2155-2175 MHz band (AWS-
3)). For the AWS-1 bands, the Commission has defined a ``small 
business'' as an entity with average annual gross revenues for the 
preceding three years not exceeding $40 million, and a ``very small 
business'' as an entity with average annual gross revenues for the 
preceding three years not exceeding $15 million. In 2006, the 
Commission conducted its first auction of AWS-1 licenses. In that 
initial AWS-1 auction, 31 winning bidders identified themselves as very 
small businesses. Twenty-six of the winning bidders identified 
themselves as small businesses. In a subsequent 2008 auction, the 
Commission offered 35 AWS-1 licenses. Four winning bidders identified 
themselves as very small businesses, and three of the winning bidders 
identified themselves as a small business. For AWS-2 and AWS-3, 
although we do not know for certain which entities are likely to apply 
for these frequencies, we note that the AWS-1 bands are comparable to 
those used for cellular service and personal communications service. 
The Commission has not yet adopted size standards for the AWS-2 or AWS-
3 bands but has proposed to treat both AWS-2 and AWS-3 similarly to 
broadband PCS service and AWS-1 service due to the comparable capital 
requirements and other factors, such as issues involved in relocating 
incumbents and developing markets, technologies, and services.
    87. Wireless Providers--Fixed and Mobile: 3650-3700 MHz band. In 
March 2005, the Commission released a Report and Order and Memorandum 
Opinion and Order that provides for nationwide, non-exclusive licensing 
of terrestrial operations, utilizing contention-based technologies, in 
the 3650 MHz band (i.e., 3650-3700 MHz). As of April 2010, more than 
1270 licenses have been granted and more than 7433 sites have been 
registered. The Commission has not developed a definition of small 
entities applicable to 3650-3700 MHz band nationwide, non-exclusive 
licensees. However, we estimate that the majority of these licensees 
are Internet Access Service Providers (ISPs) and that most of those 
licensees are small businesses.
    88. Wireless Providers--Fixed and Mobile: 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.
    89. Wireless Providers--Fixed and Mobile: Local Multipoint 
Distribution Service. Local Multipoint Distribution Service (LMDS) is a 
fixed broadband point-to-multipoint microwave service that provides for 
two-way video telecommunications. 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 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

[[Page 33697]]

LMDS providers as defined by the SBA and the Commission's auction 
rules.
    90. Wireless Providers--Fixed and Mobile: 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.
    91. 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 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. To gauge small business prevalence for 
these cable services we must, however, use the most current census data 
that are based on the previous category of Cable and Other Program 
Distribution and its associated size standard; that size standard was: 
All such firms having $13.5 million or less in annual receipts. 
According to Census Bureau data for 2002, there were a total of 1,191 
firms in this previous category that operated for the entire year. Of 
this total, 1,087 firms had annual receipts of under $10 million, and 
43 firms had receipts of $10 million or more but less than $25 million. 
Thus, the majority of these firms can be considered small.
    92. Satellite Service 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.
    93. Satellite Service Providers: Satellite Telecommunications 
Providers. 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.
    94. Satellite Service Providers: All Other Telecommunications. The 
second category of Satellite Service Providers, 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, 
2,346 firms had annual receipts of under $25 million and 37 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 entities that might be affected by our action.
    95. Cable Service Providers. Because Section 706 requires us to 
monitor the deployment of broadband regardless of technology or 
transmission media employed, we anticipate that some broadband service 
providers may not provide telephone service. Therefore, we describe 
below other types of firms that may provide broadband services, 
including cable companies, MDS providers, and utilities, among others.
    96. Cable Service Providers: Wired Telecommunications Carriers. The 
2007 North American Industry Classification System (``NAICS'') defines 
``Wired Telecommunications Carriers'' 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

[[Page 33698]]

telecommunications networks. Transmission facilities may be based on a 
single technology or a combination of technologies. Establishments in 
this industry use the wired telecommunications network facilities that 
they operate to provide a variety of services, such as wired telephony 
services, including VoIP services; wired (cable) audio and video 
programming distribution; and wired broadband Internet services. By 
exception, establishments providing satellite television distribution 
services using facilities and infrastructure that they operate are 
included in this industry.'' The SBA has developed a small business 
size standard for wireline firms within the broad economic census 
category, ``Wired Telecommunications Carriers.'' Under this category, 
the SBA deems a wireline business to be small if it has 1,500 or fewer 
employees. Census data for 2007, which supersede data from the 2002 
Census, show that 3,188 firms operated n 2007 as Wired 
Telecommunications Carriers. 3,144 had 1,000 or fewer employees, while 
44 operated with more than 1,000 employees.
    97. Cable Service Providers: 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 all but ten cable operators 
nationwide 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 6,101 systems 
nationwide, 4,410 systems have under 10,000 subscribers, and an 
additional 258 systems have 10,000-19,999 subscribers. Thus, under this 
standard, most cable systems are small.
    98. Cable Service Providers: 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. 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.
Description of Projected Reporting, Recordkeeping, and Other Compliance 
Requirements for Small Entities
    99. The rules proposed in this NPRM would require broadband 
backbone Internet service providers to report those outages that: (1) 
Last at least 30 minutes, and (2) meet or exceed a proposed specified 
technical threshold. The rules proposed also would require 
interconnected VoIP service providers and broadband Internet access 
service providers to report those outages that: (1) last at least 30 
minutes, (2) meet or exceed a proposed specified technical threshold, 
and (3) affect at least 900,000 user minutes. Under the Commission's 
current outage reporting rules, which apply only to legacy circuit-
switched voice and/or paging communications over wireline, wireless, 
cable, and satellite communications services, about 11,000 outage 
reports per year from all reporting sources combined are filed with the 
Commission. As a result of the proposed rules, we anticipate that fewer 
than 2,000 additional outage reports would be filed annually. We 
estimate that if the proposed rules are adopted, the total number of 
reports from all outage reporting sources filed, pursuant to the 
current and proposed rules, combined would be fewer than 13,000 
annually. Occasionally, the proposed outage reporting requirements 
could require the use of professional skills, including legal and 
engineering expertise. We believe that in the usual case, the only 
burden associated with the proposed reporting requirements contained in 
this NPRM would be the time required to complete the initial and final 
reports. We anticipate that electronic filing, through the type of 
template that we are proposing, should minimize the amount of time and 
effort that will be required to comply with the rules that we propose 
in this proceeding.
    100. We expect that the outage reporting and analysis that would 
follow could lead to the development and refinement of best practices. 
There may be additional thresholds that should also be included to 
improve the process of developing and improving best practices. We 
encourage interested parties to address these issues in the context of 
the applicable technologies and to develop their comments in the 
context of the ways in which the proposed information collection would 
facilitate best practices development and increased communications 
security, reliability and resiliency throughout the United States and 
its Territories.
Steps Taken to Minimize Significant Economic Impact on Small Entities, 
and Significant Alternatives Considered
    101. The RFA requires an agency to describe any significant 
alternatives that it has considered in reaching its proposed approach, 
which may include 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 use of performance, rather than design, standards; and (4) an 
exemption from coverage of the rule, or any part thereof, for small 
entities.
    102. Over the past decade, the proportion of communications 
services provided over a broadband platform has increased 
substantially, and our Nation increasingly relies on broadband-based 
services not only for day-to-day consumer use but also for Homeland 
Defense and National Security. Over the past three years, the number of 
outages reported each year has remained relatively steady at about 
11,000. We believe that the proposed outage reporting requirements are 
the minimum necessary to assure that we receive adequate information to 
perform our statutory responsibilities with respect to 9-1-1 services 
and ensure the reliability of communications and critical 
infrastructures. Also, we believe that the magnitude of the outages 
needed to trigger the proposed reporting requirements are sufficiently 
high as to make it unlikely that small businesses would be impacted 
significantly by the proposed rules. We also believe the choice of 
performance-based, as opposed to design-based, degradation 
characteristics and the corresponding thresholds chosen to trigger the 
outage reporting will not unduly burden smaller entities. We have also 
carefully considered the notion of a waiver for small entities from 
coverage of the proposed rules, but declined to propose one, as a 
waiver of this type would unduly frustrate the purpose of the proposed 
requirements and run counter to the objectives of the NPRM. We believe 
that the proposed requirement

[[Page 33699]]

that outage reports be filed electronically would significantly reduce 
the burdens and costs currently associated with manual filing 
processes.
    103. The proposed rules in the NPRM are generally consistent with 
current industry practices, so the costs of compliance should be small. 
We believe that the costs of the reporting rules that we propose in the 
NPRM are outweighed by the expected benefits of being able to ensure 
communications reliability that we fully expect would result due to 
learning about the reasons that outages are occurring, which would take 
place as a consequence of the proposed requirements' reporting. We have 
excluded from the proposed requirements any type of competitively 
sensitive information, information that would compromise network 
security, and information that would undermine the efficacy of 
reasonable network management practices. We anticipate that the record 
will suggest alternative ways in which the Commission could increase 
the overall benefits for, and lessen the overall burdens on, small 
entities.
    104. We ask parties to include comments on possible alternatives 
that could satisfy the aims of the proceeding in a less costly, less 
burdensome, and/or more effective manner, and to comment on the sources 
of legal authority for the proposal assuming the Commission were to 
decide to adopt the proposal. We also seek comments on an analysis of 
the costs, burdens, and benefits of the various proposed rules set 
forth in this proceeding. We ask commenters to address particularly the 
following concerns: What are the costs, burdens, and benefits 
associated with any proposed rule? Entities, especially small 
businesses and small entities, more generally, are encouraged to 
quantify the costs and benefits of the proposed reporting requirements. 
How could any proposed rule be tailored to impose the least cost and 
the least amount of burden on those affected? What potential regulatory 
approaches would maximize the potential benefits to society? To the 
extent feasible, what explicit performance objectives should the 
Commission specify? How can the Commission best identify alternatives 
to regulation, including fees, permits, or other non-regulatory 
approaches?
    105. Comments are sought on all aspects of this proposal, including 
the proposed extension of such requirements, the definitions and 
proposed reporting thresholds, and the proposed reporting process that 
would follow essentially the same approach that currently applies to 
outage reporting on legacy services. Parties should include in their 
comments whether the proposed rules would satisfy the Commission's 
intended aims, described herein, and would promote the reliability, 
resiliency and security of interconnected VoIP, broadband Internet 
access, and broadband backbone Internet services that support 9-1-1 
communications. Commenters are asked to address our tentative 
conclusions that: Expanding Part 4 outage reporting requirements to 
interconnected VoIP service providers and broadband ISPs would allow 
the Commission to analyze outages of the services that they provide; 
would provide an important tool for network operators to prevent future 
outages; and would help to ensure the reliability of critical 
communications networks and services.
    106. We welcome comments on: the proposal itself; whether it would 
achieve the intended objectives; whether there are performance 
objectives not mentioned that we should address; whether better 
alternatives exist that would accomplish the proceeding's objectives; 
the legal authority to take the contemplated actions described herein; 
and the costs, burdens and benefits of our proposal.
Federal Rules that May Duplicate, Overlap, or Conflict With the 
Proposed Rule
    107. None.
D. Initial Paperwork Reduction Analysis
    108. This document does not contain proposed information 
collection(s) subject to the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (PRA), 
Public Law 104-13. In addition, therefore, it does not contain any new 
or modified ``information collection burden for small business concerns 
with fewer than 25 employees,'' pursuant to the Small Business 
Paperwork Relief Act of 2002.

Federal Communications Commission.
Marlene H. Dortch,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2011-14311 Filed 6-8-11; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6712-01-P