[Federal Register Volume 81, Number 133 (Tuesday, July 12, 2016)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 45095-45118]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2016-16273]


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

FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION

47 CFR Part 4

[PS Docket No. 15-80, 11-82; FCC 16-63]


Disruptions to Communications

AGENCY: Federal Communications Commission.

ACTION: Proposed rule.

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

SUMMARY: In this document, the Federal Communications Commission 
(Commission) seeks comment on: A proposal to update the Commission's 
outage reporting requirement rules to address broadband network 
disruptions, including packet-based disruptions based on network 
performance degradation; proposed changes to the rules governing 
interconnected voice over Internet protocol (VoIP) outage reporting to 
include disruptions based on network performance degradation, update 
our outage definition to address incidents involving specified network 
components; and modify the reporting process to make it consistent with 
other services; reporting of call failures in the radio access network 
and local access network, and on geography-based reporting of wireless 
outages in rural areas; and, refining the covered critical 
communications at airports subject to the Commission's outage reporting 
requirements.

DATES: Submit comments on or before August 26, 2016, and reply comments 
on or before September 12, 2016.

ADDRESSES: You may submit comments, identified by PS Docket No. 15-80 
and 11-82, by any of the following methods:
     Federal Communications Commission's Web site: http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/ecfs2/. Follow the instructions for submitting 
comments.
     Filings can be sent by hand or messenger delivery, by 
commercial overnight courier, or by first-class or overnight U.S. 
Postal Service mail. See the SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION Section for more 
instructions.
     People with Disabilities: Contact the FCC to request 
reasonable accommodations (accessible format documents, sign language 
interpreters, CART, etc.) by email: [email protected] or phone: 202-418-
0530 or TTY: 202-418-0432.
    For detailed instructions for submitting comments and additional 
information on the rulemaking process, see the SUPPLEMENTARY 
INFORMATION Section of this document.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Brenda D. Villanueva, Attorney 
Advisor, Public Safety and Homeland Security Bureau, (202) 418-7005, or 
[email protected].

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: This is a summary of the Commission's 
Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (FNPRM), FCC 16-63, adopted May 
25, 2016, and released May 26, 2016. The full text of this document is 
available for inspection and copying during normal business hours in 
the FCC Reference Center (Room CY-A257), 445 12th Street SW., 
Washington, DC 20554 or

[[Page 45096]]

via ECFS at http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/ecfs/ ecfs/. The full text may also be 
downloaded at: https://apps.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-16-63A1.pdf.
    Pursuant to sections 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 the Commission's Electronic 
Comment Filing System (ECFS). See Electronic Filing of Documents in 
Rulemaking Proceedings, 63 FR 24121 (1998).
     Electronic Filers: Comments may be filed electronically 
using the Internet by accessing the ECFS: http://apps.fcc.gov/ecfs/.
     Paper Filers: Parties who choose to file by paper must 
file an original and one copy 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 8:00 a.m. to 7:00 p.m. All hand deliveries must be held together 
with rubber bands or fasteners. Any envelopes and boxes 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.
    People with Disabilities: To request materials in accessible 
formats for people with disabilities (braille, large print, electronic 
files, audio format), send an email to [email protected] or call the 
Consumer & Governmental Affairs Bureau at 202-418-0530 (voice), 202-
418-0432 (tty).

Synopsis of Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking

    In this document, the Federal Communication Commission (Commission) 
seeks comment on proposals to modernize its outage reporting rules to 
increase its ability to detect adverse outage trends and facilitate 
industrywide network improvements. The Commission seeks comment on 
whether and how to update its part 4 outage reporting requirements to 
address broadband, an increasingly essential element in our nation's 
communications networks, along with other streamline proposals. This 
action seeks to ensure that the outage reporting system keeps pace with 
technological change and addresses evolving consumer preference impact 
in order to be better equipped to promote the safety of life and 
property through the use of wire and radio communication.
    In a companion document, a Report and Order and Order on 
Reconsideration in PS Docket No. 15-80, and ET Docket No. 04-35, 
respectively, the Commission adopts several proposals in a Notice of 
Proposed Rulemaking in 2015, and resolves several outstanding matters 
related to its adoption of the part 4 rules in a Report and Order in 
2004.

I. Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking

    1. As service providers transition from legacy network facilities 
to IP-based networks, the Commission must continue to safeguard the 
reliability and resiliency of all of these interrelated systems. As we 
have observed before, broadband networks and services increasingly 
characterize the environment for the nation's 9-1-1 and NG911 emergency 
communications and, thus, are central to the nation's emergency 
preparedness, management of crises, and essential public safety-related 
communications. To meet the challenge of assuring broadband networks in 
order to carry out its foundational public safety mission, the 
Commission must maintain visibility into TDM-based networks while 
simultaneously ensuring similar visibility into commercial IP and 
hybrid networks. Our current part 4 rules establish outage reporting 
requirements that are in many ways centered on ``circuit-switched 
telephony'' and circuits that involve a ``serving central office.'' The 
proposals in this FNPRM, among other things, aim to update the part 4 
rules to ensure reliability of broadband networks used to deploy 
critical communications services, used both for emergency and non-
emergency purposes. As discussed below, we believe the part 4 rules can 
likely provide the Commission with the necessary situational awareness 
about these broadband networks by updating them to (1) extend their 
application to broadband Internet access services (BIAS), and (2) 
revising the manner in which they apply to existing and future 
dedicated services to ensure a broadband emphasis. In this FNPRM, we 
propose to use the term ``dedicated service'' to refer to those 
services defined in 2013's Special Access Data Collection 
Implementation Order, i.e., ``service that `transports data between two 
or more designated points, e.g., between an End User's premises and a 
point-of-presence, between the central office of a local exchange 
carrier (LEC) and a point-of-presence, or between two End User 
premises, at a rate of at least 1.5 Mbps in both directions (upstream/
downstream) with prescribed performance requirements that include 
bandwidth, latency, or error-rate guarantees or other parameters that 
define delivery under a Tariff or in a service-level agreement.' 
'').These actions, we believe, will ensure that the Commission's 
ability to monitor communications reliability and resiliency keeps pace 
with technological change and the broadband-based capabilities and uses 
of today's evolving networks.
    2. More specifically, we: (i) Seek comment on proposed reporting 
requirements, metrics, and narrative elements for both BIAS and 
dedicated services outages and disruptions, including for network 
performance degradation; and (ii) propose to amend the Commission's 
existing outage reporting requirements for interconnected VoIP to 
reflect disruptions resulting from network performance degradation. In 
addition, we seek further comment on two proposals raised in the Notice 
and aimed at increasing our awareness of certain outages: (i) Reporting 
call failures in both the wireless and wireline/interconnected VoIP 
access networks; and (ii) reporting outages that affect large 
geographic areas but do not trigger the user-minute threshold because 
of sparse population. We also seek comment on establishing outage 
reporting triggers for certain airport communications assets (``special 
offices and facilities'') designated as TSP Level 3 and Level 4 
facilities. Finally, we seek to determine the most cost-effective 
approaches to accomplish these objectives, and accordingly seek comment 
on potential costs and benefits associated with each proposal in the 
FNPRM. To that end, commenters should provide specific data and 
information, such as actual or estimated dollar figures, and include 
any supporting documents and descriptions

[[Page 45097]]

of how any data was gathered and analyzed.
    3. The nation's transition from legacy (i.e., TDM-based) 
communications platforms to IP for communications services has been 
steadily progressing since the last time the Commission expanded its 
outage reporting requirements to include ``newly emerging forms of 
communication'' in 2004. For one thing, consumers have significantly 
increased their dependence on broadband networks. Beyond consumer 
technologies, important sectors are relying increasingly on 
interconnected VoIP and broadband services. Indeed, in 2016, broadband 
service is a central part of most Americans' lives.
    4. Reliance by enterprise customers on dedicated services also 
continues to increase, reflecting the rapid transition of the nation's 
businesses and governmental institutions to broadband powered 
communications. As we recently observed in the Special Access 
proceedings, such services are ``an important building block for 
creating private or virtual private networks across a wide geographic 
area and enabling the secure and reliable transfer of data between 
locations.'' They can also ``provide dedicated access to the Internet 
and access to innovative broadband services.'' They are used by mobile 
wireless providers to backhaul voice and data traffic from cell sites 
to their mobile telephone switching offices. Branch banks and gas 
stations use such connections for ATMs and credit card readers. 
Businesses, governmental institutions, hospitals and medical offices, 
and even schools and libraries use them to create their own private 
networks and to access other services such as Voice over IP (VoIP), 
Internet access, television, cloud-based hosting services, video 
conferencing, and secure remote access. Carriers buy them as a critical 
input for delivering their own customized, advanced service offerings 
to end users. We believe it is critical that our outage reporting 
rules, long applicable to communications services such as special 
access, continue to provide an appropriate measure of network 
resiliency, reliability and security assurance for today's and 
tomorrow's broadband network services.
    5. The Commission has long recognized the importance of these 
trends for outage reporting. In 2010, the National Broadband Plan 
called on the Commission to extend part 4 outage reporting rules to 
broadband Internet service providers and interconnected VoIP service 
providers, citing a ``lack of data [that] limited our understanding of 
network operations and of how to prevent future outages.'' The 
following year, the Commission proposed to safeguard reliable 911 
service by extending outage reporting rules to broadband Internet 
access service (BIAS) and backbone Internet service as well as 
interconnected VoIP service. In the 2012 Part 4 VoIP Order, the 
Commission adopted rules to extend reporting requirements to 
interconnected VoIP service providers for outages resulting in a 
complete loss of service, but deferred action on the remaining 
proposals. At the time, the Commission indicated that its proposals to 
extend outage reporting obligations to broadband providers ``deserve[d] 
further study.''
    6. Numerous commenters in this and other proceedings have urged the 
Commission to closely monitor changes in network reliability as 911 
networks migrate to IP, and others assert that some communities are 
increasingly dependent upon robust mobile broadband connectivity to 
deliver, in part, public safety services necessary for modern life. As 
federal funds are spent to ensure deployment of broadband, e.g., 
through programs such as the Connect America Fund, we expect recipients 
of these funds to build out networks that serve the public interest 
through reliable access to critical communications, e.g., 911. The U.S. 
Government Accountability Office (GAO) recognized that ``[t]he 
communications sector is transitioning from legacy networks to an all-
Internet Protocol (IP) environment, leading consumer and public safety 
groups, among others, to question how reliably the nation's 
communications networks will function during times of crisis.'' Echoing 
the Broadband Opportunity Council, in its 2015 report GAO questioned 
whether the Commission can currently fulfill its information needs 
through existing efforts to collect comprehensive, nationwide data on 
technology transitions, and recommended that we develop a strategy and 
gather information on the ``IP transition to assess its potential 
effects on public safety and consumers.'' It also noted that this 
``would help [the Commission] address these areas of uncertainty as it 
oversees the IP transition,'' and enable ``data-driven decisions.'' We 
agree and seek comment below on mechanisms to improve the quantity and 
quality of data collected on the impact of increased broadband 
availability and usage.
    7. In the fulfillment of its public safety responsibilities, no 
context is more important for the Commission to research and monitor 
the technology transition than in the deployment of IP-based Next 
Generation 911 (NG911) networks. NENA's i3 architecture has become the 
de facto standard for NG911 network design, in which voice, text, and 
data communications to, from, and between PSAPs operate over an 
Emergency Services IP network (ESINet). The Commission has observed 
that ``new capabilities will enhance the accessibility of 911 to the 
public (e.g., by enabling video and text-to-911 for persons with speech 
and hearing disabilities), and will provide PSAPs with enhanced 
information that will enable emergency responders to assess and respond 
to emergencies more quickly.'' Service providers typically market such 
improvements to 911 as a way to offer better service at lower cost and 
an opportunity to phase out obsolete technologies.
    8. Nevertheless, we acknowledge that ``evolving technology, while 
providing many benefits to PSAPs and the public, also has introduced 
new and different risks.'' For example, 911 service can now be 
disrupted by software malfunctions, database failures, and errors in 
conversion from legacy to IP-based network protocols, and such 
disruptions can occur in unique parts of the IP network that lack 
analogous counterparts in legacy architecture. Moreover, the 
consolidation of critical resources in a small number of databases 
increases the risk of a 911 service failure that affects many PSAPs at 
once, even across state lines or potentially impacting all of a service 
provider's customers nationwide. Given the growing deployment of 
ESINets and the Commission's specific interest in monitoring the 
reliability and resiliency of PSAP connectivity, we believe that it is 
critical for the Commission to have visibility into the networks of all 
providers supporting ESINet service and other critical infrastructure 
to fully understand reliability and resiliency factors associated with 
public safety and critical infrastructure communications.
    9. For both emergency and non-emergency services, broadband is now 
(or rapidly is becoming) the communications sector's essential 
transmission technology and, thus, ``an integral component of the U.S. 
economy, underlying the operations of all businesses, public safety 
organizations, and government.'' These communications sector 
developments, both in NG911 deployment and in the nation's 
communications sector more broadly, illustrate how important it is that 
the Commission's outage reporting requirements evolve at a similar pace 
as the communications sector. As 911 services evolve toward NG911 
combinations of voice, data, and video,

[[Page 45098]]

and as voice and data are exchanged over the same infrastructure, it is 
necessary for the Commission to refocus its lens for outage reporting 
and re-examine its part 4 reporting metrics to ensure that they collect 
the necessary data on the reliability of broadband networks. Access to 
such objective information would ensure that the evolution of critical 
communications services does not pose an obstacle to the Commission's 
established consumer protection, public safety, and national security 
statutory missions.

A. Broadband Network Outage Reporting

1. The Need for Updated Broadband Network Disruption and Outage 
Reporting
    10. Broadband networks now provide an expanding portion of today's 
emergency and non-emergency communications and have technological 
flexibility that allows service providers to offer both old and new 
services over a single architecture. We observe that broadband networks 
come with their own advantages and challenges; particularly, outages 
and service disruptions can occur at both at the physical 
infrastructure and the service levels. We recognize that network outage 
or service disruptions at the application level in which various 
services are provided (e.g., streaming video, video teleconferencing) 
have different performance and network management requirements than 
those at the physical network infrastructure level. Broadband networks 
are just as vulnerable to physical outages and service disruptions as 
the public-switched telephone network (PSTN), but are also susceptible 
to attacks at the application layer, which may not affect the 
underlying physical infrastructure. We seek comment on these 
observations as they relate to our proposed broadband outage reporting 
requirements.
    11. We further observe that broadband networks' interrelated 
architectural makeup renders them more susceptible to large-scale 
service outages. Growing reliance on remote servers and software-
defined control has increased the scale of outages, as compared to 
those in the legacy circuit switched-environment. Through news 
accounts, we have observed recent outage events impacting customers 
across several states. Moreover, broadband networks' architectural 
efficiencies can actually magnify the impact of customer service-
affecting outages that do occur. For example, ``sunny day'' outages--
caused by technical issues rather than by environmental ones--have been 
shown to jeopardize 911 communications services, sometimes across 
several states. Indeed, broadband networks can support centralized 
services, but, if not engineered well, they can harm resiliency 
objectives. We believe that these challenges will likely become more 
pronounced as broadband increasingly comes to define the nation's 
communication networks. This new paradigm of larger, more impactful 
outages suggests that there would be significant value in collecting 
data on outages and disruptions to commercial broadband service 
providers. We seek comment on this view.
    12. Given the potential for broad-scale, highly-disruptive outages 
in the broadband environment--and particularly those impacting 911 
service--the adoption of updated broadband reporting requirements would 
likely provide the Commission with more consistent and reliable data on 
critical communications outages and enable it to perform its mission 
more effectively in light of evolving technologies and service 
offerings. Over the past decade, review and analysis of outage reports 
have enabled the Commission to facilitate and promote systemic 
improvements to reliability, both through industry outreach, the CSRIC, 
and formal policy initiatives. The analysis of trends identified from 
our authoritative outage report repository has proven to be a useful 
tool for the Commission in working with providers to address outages 
and facilitate sector-wide improvements. As NG911 functionality becomes 
centralized within broadband networks, network vulnerabilities specific 
to emergency services will emerge, and the Commission should be well-
informed of such vulnerabilities. We seek comment on this position.
a. Mandatory vs. Voluntary Reporting
    13. In the 2011 Part 4 Notice, the Commission asked whether and how 
outage reporting should to be extended to broadband. At the time 
numerous commenters challenged the idea, with some suggesting that 
mandatory outage reporting is not suitable for broadband packet-
switched networks given built in redundancies, and the complexity of 
tracing disruptions to a single cause.
    14. Where the Commission has required mandatory reporting of 
disruptions to IP communications (such as interconnected VoIP 
communications), 47 CFR 4.3(h), 4.9(g), we have found substantial value 
from that reporting. We believe that the same is true for other IP-
based networks and services that have become such a typical feature of 
our communications networks. Additionally, in the 2012 Part 4 Order, 
the Commission observed that ``the record . . . reflect[ed] a 
willingness on the part of broadband Internet service providers to 
participate in a voluntary process'' to improve the Commission's 
awareness of broadband outages and their impact on public safety. Over 
the past four years, broadband providers have not come forward with 
concrete proposals for such a process or even expressed such an 
interest in voluntary reporting. As with previous attempts at voluntary 
reporting, we are concerned that any voluntary regime for broadband 
outages would be unsuccessful in achieving a level of participation 
necessary to make the program effective. We seek comment on this 
position, and how to apply the lessons learned from our previous 
voluntary outage reporting regime. Finally, as the Commission observed 
in 2011, ``even if incentives did motivate individual market 
participants to optimize their own reliability, they do not necessarily 
optimize systemic reliability.'' We believe that mandatory reporting of 
broadband network outages would motivate such optimization, and, thus, 
would advance the public interest. We seek comment on this view.
    15. For the reasons set out above, we reaffirm our belief that 
mandatory reporting requirements would have a positive effect on the 
reliability and resiliency of broadband networks. Therefore, we 
tentatively conclude that broadband network outage reporting should be 
mandatory. We seek comment on this tentative conclusion and seek 
further comment on the issues first raised generally in the 2011 Part 4 
Notice.
2. Proposed Coverage of Broadband Outages
    16. In proposing updated broadband outage reporting rules, we must 
identify the appropriate set of broadband--and broadband-constituent--
services, facilities, and infrastructure that are reasonably 
appropriate for reporting requirements. In the 2015 Open Internet 
Order, we described the broadband communications environment to include 
a number of different market segments and services, including 
arrangements underlying those services. Among other things, we drew a 
distinction between networks and services deploying broadband 
capabilities provided to consumers, those deploying such capabilities 
to businesses and other enterprises, and those providing Internet 
backbone services. And we specifically excluded from broadband Internet 
access service

[[Page 45099]]

(BIAS) enterprise service offerings such as ``special access services'' 
and their functional equivalents and other non-BIAS services, e.g., 
Internet access, interconnection, backbone service, traffic exchange, 
non-BIAS data services.
    17. In the Business Data Services/Special Access NPRM, including 
its adjunct 2015 Data Collection, we further described the ``special 
access'' or ``dedicated services'' that form critical portions of the 
broadband ecosystem, i.e.,--links that ``enabl[e] secure and reliable 
transfer of data between locations.'' Although such services are 
already addressed in part 4 to some extent, which as noted above 
broadly defines those ``communications services'' subject to these 
rules, our part 4 reporting standards do not ensure that outage 
reporting illuminates broadband issues critical to functionality of 
these services. We believe that the public safety goals to be 
accomplished through Part 4 assurance for today's broadband 
communications world can best be advanced if we extend the scope of our 
rules to BIAS, for the first time, and update and clarify those 
requirements for dedicated services so that we receive broadband-
specific outage information for those services, and that we ensure our 
requirements apply equally and neutrally regardless of technology or 
provider type. We seek comment on this view.
    18. For broadband outage reporting purposes, we believe developing 
reporting metrics that clearly address this functionality to be 
critical to our continued ability to obtain situational awareness with 
respect to reliability of the Nation's most important communications 
services. For the reasons set forth below, we tentatively conclude that 
the public safety goals to be accomplished through Part 4 assurance for 
today's broadband communications world can most reasonably be advanced 
by extending those rules to cover BIAS, and by updating those 
requirements for measuring the reliability of dedicated services. In 
our view, these steps are likely to provide us with most if not all of 
the information reasonably necessary for purposes of our Part 4 
mission, while avoiding the need to subject other service providers 
(such as Internet backbone providers) to these reporting requirements. 
Our proposal will also ensure that our requirements apply equally and 
neutrally regardless of technology or provider type. We seek comment on 
these views. By taking the actions now proposed, we believe we will 
have the ability to ensure greater broadband network reliability, 
resiliency, and security. We believe, thus, that this approach would 
ensure comprehensive outage reporting that, for BIAS and dedicated 
services, would encompass: (i) All customer market segments to 
include--mass market, small business, medium size business, specific 
access services, and enterprise-class (including PSAPs, governmental 
purchasers, carriers, critical infrastructure industries, large 
academic institutional users, etc.); (ii) all providers of such 
services on a technology neutral basis; and (iii) all purchasers (end 
users) of those services without limitation. We seek comment on this 
view.
a. Broadband Internet Access Service (BIAS)
    19. The Commission defines BIAS in 47 CFR 8.2(a) as:

[a] 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 also encompasses any service that the Commission 
finds to be providing a functional equivalent of the service 
described in the previous sentence . . . .

BIAS includes those services offered over facilities leased or owned, 
wireless or wireline, to residences and individuals, small businesses, 
certain schools and libraries and rural health entities. BIAS does not 
include enterprise service offerings, which are typically offered to 
larger organizations through customized or individually-negotiated 
arrangements, or special access (``dedicated'') services. Some NG911 
systems use BIAS to support critical functions like transmission of 
location information, making it of particular interest to the 
Commission as NG911 is rolled out. BIAS is also increasingly integral 
for everyday life; according to the Commission's latest broadband 
subscribership data, over 250,000,000 Americans purchase wireline or 
wireless (or both, typically) BIAS to meet an ever-expanding array of 
their communications needs. These services are essential for work, 
family and community activities, social engagements and leisure, and 
are increasingly vital for emergency services communications whether as 
voice, texting or other data transmission. Given BIAS' ubiquitous 
penetration throughout the American landscape and the multiple 
important emergency and non-emergency uses for which Americans consume 
BIAS, we recognize the same, if not higher, need for assurance through 
outage reporting under part 4 as we have long recognized for other 
communications services. We seek comment on this understanding and 
approach.
    20. Existing part 4 rules define relevant providers to include 
``affiliated and non-affiliated entities that maintain or provide 
communications networks or services used by the provider,'' and require 
reporting of ``all pertinent information on the outage.'' We seek 
specific comment on whether BIAS providers could be used as a central 
reporting point for all broadband network outages, i.e., whether our 
part 4 assurance goals for broadband outage reporting can be 
effectuated through, or should be limited to, an approach in which only 
BIAS providers (as opposed to other entities providing networks or 
services) would be required to report. We ask commenters to address 
BIAS providers' services relationships with other providers (i.e., 
entities that provide IP transport underlying the BIAS offering), and 
particularly whether, and the extent to which they share information 
(formally or informally) relevant to outage reporting. Do providers 
typically discuss or notify each other in the event of disruptions? Do 
or can BIAS providers enter into service level or other agreements that 
contain requirements that enable them to obtain adequate information 
concerning the source of outages that originate with such other 
providers? Should our rules impose an obligation on BIAS providers to 
provide such information in their part 4 reports?
    21. In what way is the Commission's experience with entities that 
``maintain or provide communications networks or services used by the 
provider'' (e.g., for legacy voice communications or interconnected 
VoIP service) instructive in its consideration of these issues 
associated with BIAS outage reporting? Or, are there sufficient 
technical or operational differences between BIAS and entities already 
covered by part 4 as to warrant a new approach? If so, what are those 
differences and how should the Commission approach BIAS outage 
reporting to address those differences in ways that promote effective 
outage reporting? What actions could the Commission take to ensure that 
BIAS providers can obtain sufficient information in the event of a 
service outage about the source and cause of the outage? We also seek 
comment on whether a BIAS-only approach would sufficiently capture 
critical communications, i.e., communications involving critical 
infrastructure, needed for NS/EP, or otherwise associated with public 
safety or emergency preparedness. If it does not, should the

[[Page 45100]]

Commission extend its reporting requirements directly to other entities 
that maintain or provide communications networks or services used by 
the BIAS provider?
b. Dedicated Services
    22. In our Dedicated Services/Special Access proceeding, we have 
closely examined the evolving (in terms of scope, array and use of 
services) and expanding (in terms of participants, including new 
entrants) market for IP- and other data protocol-based packet services 
to enterprises and other segments and purchasers not included within 
the mass market level served by BIAS providers. These dedicated 
services power the fullest range of large data pipe (high capacity) 
services, e.g., circuit-based TDM facilities like DS3s, or data network 
transmission (packet-based) facilities such as ``Ethernet'', and are 
deployed without geographic restraint (i.e., in use for ``last mile'', 
``middle mile'', ``long haul'', etc.). Although DS3s and DS1s, both of 
which are longstanding dedicated services ``warhorses'', have always 
been subject to outage reporting (as have other ``two-way voice and/or 
data communications'', 47 CFR 4.3(b)), our reporting rules may provide 
insufficient clarity as to non-TDM dedicated services such as 
``Ethernet.'' We seek to provide both broadband-specific reporting 
emphasis and scope of covered services clarity in this FNPRM. In the 
past, our rules and reporting emphasis under part 4 have been framed 
mostly by reference to legacy TDM special access circuits, which is 
certainly a segment of the services and infrastructure properly 
classified as ``dedicated services.'' In this FNPRM, we now place 
clearer emphasis on broadband outages through new proposed metrics, 
thresholds and triggers, and also take steps to ensure all dedicated 
services providers--old and new--understand their compliance 
obligations under our rules.
    23. To achieve this clarity and emphasis, we first seek comment on 
the following definition of ``dedicated services'' for outage reporting 
purposes:

    Services that transport data between two or more designated 
points, e.g., between an end user's premises and a point-of-
presence, between the central office of a local exchange carrier 
(LEC) and a point-of-presence, or between two end user premises, at 
a rate of at least 1.5 Mbps in both directions (upstream/downstream) 
with prescribed performance requirements that include bandwidth, 
latency, or error-rate guarantees or other parameters that define 
delivery under a Tariff or in a service-level agreement.

In addition to commenting on this proposed definition for part 4's 
purposes, we ask commenters whether there are any other descriptors 
needed to ensure both the clarity and breadth of the services that 
should be included within dedicated services for part 4 reporting 
assurance purposes.

    24. Dedicated services are important components for creating 
private or virtual private networks across a wide geographic area, and 
for enabling the secure and reliable transfer of data between 
locations, including the provision of dedicated Internet access and 
access to innovative broadband services. Dedicated services, however,

[are] distinctly different from the mass marketed, ``best efforts'' 
[BIAS] provided to residential end users, such as AT&T's U-verse or 
Comcast's XFINITY. Dedicated services typically provide dedicated 
symmetrical transmission speeds with performance guarantees, such as 
guarantees for traffic prioritization, guarantees against certain 
levels of frame latency, loss, and jitter to support real-time IP 
telephony and video applications, or guarantees on service 
availability and resolving outages. As such, dedicated services 
tends to cost substantially more than ``best efforts'' services and 
are offered to businesses, non-profits, and government institutions 
who need to support mission critical applications and have greater 
demands for symmetrical bandwidth, increased reliability, security, 
and service to more than one location.

    25. As with BIAS, we seek comment on the extent to which those who 
provide dedicated services are in a position to inform the Commission 
of the source and cause of reportable outages. We believe that such 
providers are reasonably likely to be well-informed about these 
questions. Dedicated services providers also provision service 
``solutions'' for other communications providers; for example, mobile 
providers use dedicated services to backhaul voice and data traffic.
    26. With respect to negotiated terms and conditions for assurance, 
is it standard industry practice to inform dedicated services customers 
about the nature of any particular outage or performance issue that 
triggers assurance guarantees (i.e., credits)? Does this also extend to 
inform such customers about any non-service impacting outages, 
regardless of the seriousness of the outages, or to inform customers as 
to the provider's overall performance using an established set of 
metrics? For example, are dedicated service customers interested in 
non-service impacting outages whose notification helps inform 
resiliency decisions or helps inform predictive risk mitigation actions 
based on a larger data set of observed failure modes? If so, how are 
such customer needs addressed through contract negotiations or, post-
contract, through course of dealing between parties or by other means 
(e.g., Industry Data Breach Annual Summaries, academic research, etc.)?
    27. We recognize that variation between and among dedicated 
services providers, the services they provide, their customers' service 
needs and profiles, and other factors may indicate differences that we 
should consider with respect to the benefits and burdens of dedicated 
services outage reporting. Accordingly, we seek comment on such 
differences, and particularly their impact on relative costs and 
burdens for outage reporting.
    28. In sum, to ensure the Commission can effectively discharge its 
public safety mandates and mission with respect to the communications 
networks and services upon which America's citizens, businesses and 
governmental organizations rely, we propose that BIAS providers be 
required to report outages pursuant to the Commission's part 4 rules, 
and we propose to update existing outage reporting metrics to reflect 
broadband disruptions involving dedicated services and provide clarity 
as to scope of covered services. We recognize that this approach may 
not capture the full scope of communications services, but we believe, 
at this time, that the costs of extending our outage reporting 
requirements beyond these services may exceed the benefits. We seek 
comment on this view. To the extent commenters believe that there are 
other communications providers that provide broadband-related services 
warranting part 4 outage reporting, we invite commenters to elaborate 
in detail.
3. Proposed Reporting Process for Broadband Providers
    29. Three-part submission process. We seek comment on whether to 
apply the three-part structure used by other reporting entities under 
part 4 to covered broadband service providers. This process would 
require the provider to file a notification to the Commission within 
120 minutes of discovering a reportable outage as further defined in 
Section V.B.; an initial report within 72 hours of discovery of the 
reportable outage; and a final report within 30 days of discovering the 
outage, similar to the process described in 47 CFR 4.9(a), (c)-(f) for 
cable, satellite, SS7, wireless, and wireline providers. Covered 
providers would submit all reports electronically to the Commission and 
include all of the information required by Section 4.11 of the 
Commission's rules. A notification would include: The name of

[[Page 45101]]

the reporting entity; the date and time of the onset of the outage; a 
brief description of the problem, including root cause information and 
whether there were any failures of critical network elements, if known; 
service effects; the geographic area affected by the outage and a 
contact name and telephone number for the Commission's technical staff. 
We note that this notification requirement is distinct from a covered 
911 service provider's obligation to notify PSAPs in the event of an 
outage impacting 911 service, 47 CFR 4.9(h), and we defer discussion of 
those notification requirements to PS Docket Nos. 13-75 and 14-193. The 
initial reports would include the same information, and in addition, 
any other pertinent information then available on the outage, as 
submitted in good faith. Further, the provider's final report would 
include all other pertinent information available on the outage, 
including root cause information where available and anything that was 
not contained in or changed from the initial report.
    30. Reporting requirements concerning critical network elements. 
Pursuant to the requirements of Section 4.11 of our rules, once an 
outage triggers a reporting requirement, there is certain information 
that we expect providers, acting in good faith, to include in their 
reports to the extent such matters are at issue in a given reportable 
event and the provider, through the exercise of reasonable due 
diligence, knows or should know the facts. We believe our concept of 
reportable outages must evolve as new events threaten the reliability 
and resiliency of communications in ways that can expose end users to 
serious risks, to that end we routinely update the NORS data fields to 
reflect changes in technology and seek to do so here. Specifically, we 
expect providers to include information in their reports concerning (1) 
the failure of facilities that might be considered critical network 
elements, and (2) unintended changes to software or firmware or 
unintended modifications to a database to the extent relevant to a 
given outage or service disruption that is otherwise reportable. We 
seek comment on this approach.
    31. We propose to consider a network element ``critical'' if its 
failure would result in the loss of any user functionality that a 
covered broadband provider's service provides to its end users. For 
example, Call Agents, Session Border Controllers, Signaling Gateways, 
Call Session Control Functions (CSCF), and Home Subscriber Server (HSS) 
could be considered ``critical'' network elements. And, we believe that 
information concerning such failures uniquely provides a sharper 
network and service vulnerability focus that would further the 
Commission's public safety and related missions by enhancing the 
Commission's situational awareness and network operating status 
awareness. We seek comment on this assessment. We seek comment on these 
views and on this reporting approach. Additionally, we propose that to 
the extent unintended changes to software or firmware or unintended 
modifications to a database are revealed as part of reportable 
disruptions, we should be apprised of those facts through the outage 
reports providers submit.
    32. As with events involving critical network element failure, we 
propose to modify the NORS interface to support information regarding 
outages and disruptions that are associated with unintended changes to 
software or firmware or unintended modifications to a database. This is 
consistent with our customary practice of updating NORS information 
fields as technologies and services evolve. Thus, if unintended changes 
to software or firmware or unintended modifications to a database 
played a role in causing an otherwise reportable outage, we would 
expect providers' reports to include specific detail about the nature 
of the associated facts. The Commission seeks comment on what 
information would be useful to understand these exploitations. Would it 
be helpful for us to use open fields so that outages can be described 
in terms defined by the provider acknowledging that these may differ 
from provider to provider? We seek comment on this approach. We 
recognize that unintended changes to software and firmware and 
unintended modifications to a database may not always manifest 
themselves in the form of reportable communications ``outages'' as 
traditionally defined by the Commission or as we propose for broadband 
outage reporting. Are there additional data drop-down menu fields we 
should consider beyond those proposed above that would provide 
significant information about broadband outages? Would it be useful to 
establish pre-defined elements in the reporting metrics that would 
provide the Commission with more consistent failure information that 
would improve long-term analysis about unintended changes to software 
and firmware or unintended modifications to a database that would not 
otherwise be reported to the Commission? For example should the 
Commission receive information on distributed denial of service (DDoS) 
attacks in order to support an improved correlation should multiple 
outages involve DDoS as a contributing factor?
    33. Should we expand our definition of Part 4 outages to include 
failures that are software-related or firmware-induced, or unintended 
modifications to a database that otherwise do not trigger hard-down 
outages or performance degradations as described below? For example, 
should a route hijacking that diverts packets to another country, but 
still delivers the packets to the consumer be a reportable outage? If 
so, we seek comment on this position. What process should be followed 
to make the Commission aware of such disruptions? Would such a 
requirement be unnecessary were the Commission to adopt proposed data 
breach reporting requirement proposed in the Broadband Privacy Notice 
of Proposed Rulemaking, WC Docket No. 16-106?
    34. We seek broad comment on updates to our traditional NORS 
reporting processes and expectations when reportable broadband outages 
involving unintended software or firmware changes or unintended 
modifications to a database occur. We ask commenters to address whether 
valid public safety, national security, economic security or other 
reasons support the kind of granular reporting features we now describe 
for broadband, and whether such reasons justify treating broadband 
outage reporting differently from non-broadband outage reporting. Do 
commenters believe that alternative approaches should be explored that 
could ensure that the Commission receives all useful outage and 
disruption causation information in a timely and cost-effective manner?
    35. Also, as discussed below, we propose to adopt the same 
reporting approach for interconnected VoIP providers as we have for 
legacy service providers (i.e., a notification, interim report and 
final report). We seek comment on this proposal. Alternatively, we seek 
comment on whether all reporting (i.e., legacy, broadband and 
interconnected VoIP) should be adjusted to a two-step process. Are 
there other similar steps that we should consider that would ensure 
adequate reporting in reasonable, appropriate time intervals across the 
various technologies at issue for reporting?
    36. We seek comment on other steps the Commission can take to make 
providers' reporting obligations consistent across services or 
otherwise streamline the process. As with other covered providers in 
Sec.  4.9, we seek comment on whether 9-1-1 special facilities are 
served by BIAS and dedicated services providers such that a

[[Page 45102]]

reporting requirement when 9-1-1 special facilities experiences a 
reportable outage or communications disruption would be warranted. 
Similarly, each covered provider in part 4 is required to report 
outages and communications disruptions to special offices and 
facilities (in accordance to Sec.  4.5(a) through (d)). We seek comment 
on whether special offices and facilities are served by BIAS and 
dedicated services providers such that a reporting requirement when 
these experience a reportable outage or communications disruption would 
be warranted. One potential benefit of the transition to more advanced 
communications technologies is the ability to automate processes that 
historically have required a significant amount of manual processing. 
We seek comment on whether there are ways of automating the outage 
reporting process beyond what has been possible or has been attempted 
in the context of legacy communications services. How could such 
automated reporting be accomplished? What are the advantages of such a 
reporting mechanism? What are the disadvantages? What cost savings 
would result from any such automation?
4. Proposed Metrics and Thresholds for Broadband Network Outage 
Reporting
a. ``Hard Down'' Outage Events Metrics and Thresholds
    37. By ``hard down'' outage events, we refer to outages that result 
in loss of service, as opposed to performance degradations discussed 
below. In determining the appropriate metrics and thresholds for our 
broadband outage reporting proposals, we initially sought comment on 
the method for calculating the ``user minutes'' potentially affected by 
a broadband outage. In the 2011 Part 4 Notice, we proposed using 
potentially-affected IP addresses as a proxy for the number of 
potentially affected users. At least one commenter claimed using IP 
addresses would tend to overstate the impact of an outage, and 
advocated using subscriber counts instead. More recently, in response 
to our proposal for major transport facility outage reporting, Comcast 
recommended using a ``bandwidth-based standard'' as a potential 
replacement for our user-minute metric used for major transport 
facility outage reporting. In light of technological advances, we now 
seek to revisit this issue.
    38. We further propose a throughput-based metric and threshold for 
``hard down'' outage events. We propose to define ``throughput'' as the 
amount of information transferred within a system in a given amount of 
time. In light of significant changes in technology and the 
characteristics of broadband networks generally, we believe that it is 
appropriate to tailor our approach with respect to the identification 
of a threshold event for hard-down outages. Since part 4 was first 
enacted, the communications network architecture and elements, and the 
services carried over those networks, have grown more diverse and 
require increased throughput. The Commission currently uses DS3 as the 
unit of throughput with which to calibrate our reporting threshold for 
major transport facility outages. The companion document, Report and 
Order, adopts an updated metric, changing the standard from DS3 to OC3. 
Given the accumulating amount of throughput required to deliver today's 
broadband services, we believe that 1 Gbps would function as a modern-
day equivalent of the DS3 (45 Mbps) unit originally adopted in 2004, we 
now calculate that a gigabit can support nearly 24DS3s or 16,000 DS0s 
(64 Kbps voice or data circuits). This can be seen in the increased 
deployments of residential communications services offering up to 1 
Gbps in download speeds. As such, we tentatively conclude that the 
threshold reporting criterion for outages should be based on the number 
of Gbps minutes affected by the outage because Gb is a common 
denominator used throughout the communications industry as a measure of 
throughput for high bandwidth services. We further propose to introduce 
a broadband metric calibrated with the current 900,000 user minute 
threshold. In today's broadband environment, a typical user requesting 
```advanced telecommunications capability' requires access to actual 
download speeds of at least 25 Mbps.'' Accordingly, we calculate that 
if a facility with throughput totaling 1 Gbps providing individual 
users 25 Mbps of broadband capacity each, experienced a disruption to 
communications resulting in a complete outage, 40 individual users 
would be impacted. We calculate that 1Gbps in throughput total, which 
is converted to 1,000 Mbps, is divided by 25 Mbps as the download speed 
for each user, would result in a total of 40 individual users impacted 
by an outage event. In establishing a gigabit per second user minute 
threshold, we calculate that 900,000 user minutes divided by the 40 
individual users impacted by the outage, results in 22,500 Gbps user 
minutes. The 22,750 Gbps user minute figure was derived from the 
current threshold-reporting criterion of ``900,000 user minutes.'' 
Assuming a 25 Mbps broadband user connection, as stated in the 2015 
Broadband Progress America report, being delivered over a 1 Gbps 
facility, we compute: 1 Gbps divided by 25 Mbps equals 40 broadband 
user connections. Then, 900,000 user minutes divided by the number of 
impacted broadband user connections, 40, equals 22,750 Gbps user 
minutes. This means that an outage event would become reportable when 
it resulted in 1 Gbps of throughput affected in which the event exceeds 
22,500 Gbps user minutes. To determine whether an outage event is 
reportable using this threshold, we multiply the size of the facility 
measured in Gbps, by the duration of the event measured in minutes, and 
this total generates a Gbps user minute number. If this user minute 
number exceeds 22,500, then the outage event is reportable to the 
Commission. So for example, if a 1 Tbps (terabits per second) facility 
experienced a disruption for 45 minutes, we would multiply 1000 by 45 
minutes to get 45,000 Gbps user minutes, and since this figure exceeds 
22,500 Gbps user minutes, the outage event would be reportable. We seek 
comment on the analysis presented, which would establish a reporting 
threshold of an outage of 1 Gbps (gigabit per second) lasting for 30 
minutes or more.
    39. We seek comment on a throughput-based metric and its advantages 
or disadvantages over a user-based metric, for example, a 900,000 user-
minute metric that treats broadband users for measurement purposes as 
those broadband end users that have no service. We also seek comment on 
whether a throughput-based metric would be more appropriate for some 
networks rather others. For instance, would our proposed 1 Gbps 
throughput threshold be appropriate for both BIAS and dedicated 
services? If not, why not? Should we consider a throughput-based metric 
for BIAS networks set at a lower threshold, such as 25 megabits per 
second (Mbps)? Would this result in an unacceptably small number of 
outages reports? How well would a threshold of 1 Gbps or greater 
lasting for 30 minutes or more reflect the geographic scope and impact 
of an outage and the number of subscribers impacted by an outage? Would 
a user-minute based threshold better capture the geographic scope and 
impact of an outage and the number of subscribers impacted? Does using 
a throughput metric in lieu of potentially-affected IP addresses, or 
that of subscriber count, as described below,

[[Page 45103]]

provide better information to the Commission? Would a throughput metric 
be less or more burdensome for providers than a user-based one? If so, 
why? How might the increasing availability of Gbps services affect the 
usefulness of throughput as an outage indicator? Is there a better 
throughput threshold than 1 Gbps or greater lasting for 30 minutes or 
more? If so, what would it be?
    40. In addition, we revisit the 2011 proposal to use potentially-
affected IP addresses as a proxy for the number of potentially affected 
users. If we were to adopt the 2011 proposal, would the metric 
overstate the impact of an outage? If so, by how much would the outage 
impact be overstated? How well could a potentially-affected IP 
addresses threshold effectively communicate the geographic scope and 
impact of an outage and the numbers of subscribers impacted? Would the 
increasing deployment of IPv6 addresses affect the utility or accuracy 
of this proposed metric, and if so, how? Would using subscriber counts 
as a proxy for number of users be a more accurate metric to determine 
the impact of an outage? In what ways do providers measure the number 
of subscribers now? Do providers measure broadband subscribers apart 
from other types of subscribers? If so, why? Which new subscribers 
would be counted under the proposed rules that were not previously 
counted? Should we consider unique subscriber-based metrics for BIAS 
and dedicated services provider? In instances of outage events lasting 
less than 30 minutes, should we consider whether subscriber-based 
metrics should be more indicative of a network outage impacting a large 
metropolitan area or geographic region? What benefit would this add to 
our proposed broadband outage reporting rules? Do current provider 
subscriber counts measure the total number of subscribers served at any 
given time? Are provider subscriber counts verified at the occurrence 
of an outage or disruption? What difficulties, if any, would covered 
broadband providers experience in applying a subscriber-based metric?
b. Performance Degradation Outage Events Metrics and Thresholds
    41. The following section addresses requirements to report outage 
events in cases of significant degradation of communication. We 
tentatively conclude that outage events are reportable when there is a 
loss of ``general useful availability and connectivity,'' even if not a 
total loss of connectivity. We propose a series of metrics and 
thresholds that we believe could identify outage events that 
significantly degrade communications: (1) A combination of packet loss 
and latency metrics and thresholds, and (2) a throughput-based metric 
and threshold. Finally, we seek comment on the appropriate locations 
for significant degradation of communication measurements.
(i) ``Generally Useful Availability and Connectivity''
    42. Consistent with the part 4 definition of an ``outage,'' in 47 
CFR 4.5(a) (defining an ``outage'' as ``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), we again seek comment on 
whether covered broadband providers should be required to report 
disruptions that significantly degrade communications, including losses 
of ``generally useful availability and connectivity'' as measured by 
specific metrics. We propose to define ``generally useful availability 
and connectivity'' to include the availability of functions that are 
part of the service provided (i.e., ``service functionality''). We 
tentatively conclude that outage events experiencing significantly 
degraded communications include those events with a loss of generally 
useful availability and connectivity, and seek comment on this 
tentative conclusion.
    43. In 2011, ATIS stated that losses of ``generally useful 
availability and connectivity'' not resulting in a complete loss of 
service should not be reportable under the part 4 rules, arguing that 
such events are ``more akin to static/noise on legacy communications 
systems or error rates in DS3 lines . . .'' However, the loss of 
``generally useful availability and connectivity'' in the broadband 
context would appear to be more akin to a legacy voice call during 
which the users cannot hear or make themselves understood, tantamount 
to a complete loss of service. This threshold may be even more 
recognizable in a digital context where effective bandwidth minimums 
are well understood. Accordingly, we reintroduce the Commission's 2011 
proposal to require covered broadband providers to report on losses of 
`generally-useful availability and connectivity' to capture analogous 
incidents where customers are effectively unable to use their broadband 
service. We seek comment on this proposal.
    44. We also seek comment on possible alternatives or additional 
metrics of generally-useful availability and connectivity. For 
instance, should the Commission create a reporting metric based on loss 
of network capacity? If so, how should the Commission quantify a loss 
of a network capacity for reporting purposes, and what would be an 
appropriate reporting threshold? Should we consider a metric measuring 
the average relative bandwidth, where providers would compare the 
active bandwidth against the provider's bandwidth advertised or 
offered? Could such a metric be quantified for reporting purposes? If 
so, what would be an appropriate reporting threshold? What other 
metrics should the Commission consider?
(ii) Metrics for Performance Degradation
    45. In addition to the metrics for generally-useful availability 
and connectivity, we seek comment on potential broadband outage 
reporting metrics to measure significant performance degradation in 
communications. In this regard, we propose two sets of proposals. We 
propose a throughput metric and seek comment on the appropriate 
thresholds; or, propose an alternative metric based in a combination of 
three core metrics, throughput, packet loss, and latency, and seek 
comment on the appropriate thresholds. Moreover, we seek comment on the 
extent potential metrics for generally-useful availability and 
connectivity may overlap with the proposed metrics for significant 
performance degradation in communications.
    46. First, given that throughput is widely recognized as a key 
metric for measuring network performance, we propose using a throughput 
metric threshold at 1 Gbps for a network outage or service disruption 
event lasting 30 minutes or more. In addition to the use of a 
throughput metric for hard down outages described above, a throughput 
metric can also determine when a significant degradation occurs in a 
network, as transmission rates decline as network congestion increases. 
In addition to throughput, we seek comment on the utility of two other 
metrics to indicate broadband network performance degradation: Packet 
loss and latency. Can a proposed 1 Gbps event lasting for 30 minutes 
threshold capture instances in which the network suffers an outage or 
experience degradation in network performance? Would it be more 
appropriate to maintain the 900,000 user-minute threshold for 
throughput? If so, why? How would it be determined and calculated to be 
equivalent to a throughput-based metric of 1 Gbps threshold? How would 
maintaining the

[[Page 45104]]

900,000 user-minute threshold capture and account for the complexities 
found in broadband networks and the outages occurring on those 
networks? We also seek comment on whether a throughput threshold for 
performance degradation should require a carrier's average throughput 
to drop a nominal percentage, say 25 percent, below normal levels. How 
would such a threshold be measured and reported should this threshold 
be reached? Would this effectively capture the impact to network 
subscribers and facilities? Is a nominal drop of 25 percent in average 
throughput thresholds indicative of noticeable network performance 
degradation? We seek comment on this approach.
    47. We seek comment on a second proposal looking at these proposed 
core metrics--packet loss, latency, and throughput. To what extent do 
covered broadband providers already collect information on packet loss, 
latency, and throughput? Are any of the metrics better suited than 
others at measuring loss of generally-useful availability and 
connectivity of broadband service? Are there any alternate performance 
metrics that would more effectively capture network outages or 
performance degradation? If so, what are they and do these providers 
already capture these metrics? Are any of the metrics more cost-
effective to monitor than others, and if so, which are they and why?
    48. We further propose to limit the scope of outage filings to 
those events that affect customer communications. We seek comment on 
this approach. In addition to packet loss, latency, and throughput, we 
seek comment on whether there are other metrics and thresholds that 
would be indicative of events impacting customer communications, and 
comment about other appropriate indicators that might better reflect 
when these communication services are disrupted. Are there existing 
measurement efforts regarding network performance and assurance 
conducted by the Commission that would provide better guidance in 
determining reporting thresholds for broadband network outage 
reporting? How are these other performance and assurance measurements 
aligned with our proven public safety and reliability efforts in our 
current part 4 outage reporting efforts? How does the use of these 
network performance metrics complement or conflict with other efforts 
at the Commission? The Commission is providing guidance across a number 
of areas regarding network performance metrics and measurements 
ensuring users receive adequate and expected network performance from 
their service subscriptions.
    49. Alternatively, should we consider adopting more specific, 
absolute thresholds for packet loss, latency, and throughput to measure 
significant performance degradation of communications? In 2011, the 
Commission proposed that service degradation occurs whenever there is a 
noticeable decline in a network's average packet loss; or average 
round-trip latency; or average throughput of 1 Gbps, with all packet 
loss and latency measurements taken in each of at least six consecutive 
five-minute intervals from source to destination host. If absolute 
thresholds are preferable, how would these particular thresholds be 
calculated and determined? Would an absolute threshold still be 
appropriate with current broadband systems? How could the reporting 
thresholds for packet loss, latency, and throughput be set at 
appropriate levels? If any of these thresholds should be adjusted, what 
is an appropriate threshold? Should the requirement to take performance 
measurements in six consecutive five-minute intervals be modified? If 
so, how?
    50. We also seek comment on whether these metrics support a 
consistent reporting standard across all broadband provider groups. The 
Commission recognizes that there may be different metrics for 
performance degradation for different services and that a ``one size 
fits all'' approach to determining appropriate metrics and thresholds 
indicating the health and performance of broadband networks and 
services may not be appropriate depending on underlying quality of 
service and network performance requirements. Are these metrics (packet 
loss, latency, and throughput) appropriate to evaluate performance for 
both BIAS and dedicated services? Alternatively, are these metrics 
unique to either BIAS or dedicated services, but not appropriate for 
both? We also seek comment on whether and how the proposed metrics 
should differentiate mobile broadband from fixed broadband. Are there 
unique attributes of mobile broadband that we should consider for our 
outage reporting purposes? For example, will application of these 
metrics to mobile broadband result in too many instances where, 
although a threshold is passed, there is no major problem with the 
network? Why or why not? Are other network performance metrics more 
suitable for mobile broadband than fixed broadband, and if so, what are 
they?
(iii) Measurement of Performance Degradation
    51. We also seek comment on the end points from which covered 
broadband providers would measure whether there is performance 
degradation. In the case of BIAS providers, we believe that these 
metrics should be measured from customer premises equipment to the 
destination host. For dedicated services providers, we believe that the 
metrics should be measured from the closest network aggregation point 
in the access network (e.g., DSLAM serving DSL subscribers) to the 
closest network facility routing communications traffic or exchanging 
traffic with other networks (e.g., PoP, gateway).
    52. We seek comment on these tentative conclusions, and on whether 
these end-points for measurement are appropriate for their 
corresponding services, as well as the use of the term ``destination 
host'' for all providers. Does ``destination host'' appropriately cover 
the various types of network facilities used by covered broadband 
providers to connect to their customers and/or exchange traffic with 
other networks? Where in a BIAS network should the measurements take 
place to record the measurements most accurately? In a dedicated 
services network? At what level of aggregation should the measurements 
be taken in the BIAS and dedicated services networks? What is the best 
way to determine the measurement clients and servers are correctly 
chosen to accurately measure the proposed metrics? Are there other 
terms that would better describe the point where network traffic is 
routed and aggregated from several endpoints (e.g., network aggregation 
point) for either type of service? For example, should we follow the 
performance metrics established under the Measuring Broadband America 
program or other broadband measurement metrics developed by the 
Commission? We also seek comment on a scenario in which the 
``destination host'' is on another BIAS provider's network. In that 
case, how would the original BIAS provider detect an outage on its 
network path? We seek comment on this scenario and anything else the 
Commission should consider with respect to network end-points.
5. Broadband Reporting Confidentiality and Part 4 Information Sharing
    53. Currently, outage reports filed in NORS are withheld from 
routine public inspection and treated with a presumption of 
confidentiality. We propose to extend this same presumptive 
confidential treatment to

[[Page 45105]]

any reports filed under rules adopted pursuant to this FNPRM, including 
broadband outage reporting filings. We recognize, however, that this 
approach of presumed confidentiality may need to evolve as networks, 
and consumer expectations about transparency, also evolve. Accordingly, 
we seek comment on the value and risk of increased transparency with 
respect to information about, or select elements of NORS reports filed 
under the current part 4 rules and any additional rules adopted 
pursuant to this FNPRM.
    54. As noted in the Report and Order companion document, we believe 
that the proposal of sharing NORS information with state and other 
federal entities requires further investigation, including where state 
law would need to be preempted to facilitate information sharing. The 
Commission currently only shares access to the NORS database with DHS.
    55. To assist the Commission, we direct the Bureau to study these 
issues, and develop proposals for how information could be shared 
appropriately with state entities and federal entities other than DHS. 
Accordingly, we seek comment on the current reporting and information 
sharing practices of broadband and interconnected VoIP providers with 
state governments and other federal agencies. To which agencies and 
States do providers already report? To what extent is reporting 
mandatory? What information on outages or communications disruptions do 
providers report to other federal and state government bodies? What 
triggers the reporting process? What are the strengths and weaknesses 
of any existing reporting and information sharing processes? Could any 
such processes provide an avenue for the Commission to acquire data 
that it would otherwise receive under the proposed rules? If so, how? 
What else should the Commission consider regarding the current 
reporting and information sharing practices of broadband or 
interconnected VoIP providers? Commenters should address the impact of 
any other information sharing activities on the part 4 mandates 
proposed herein, and how these requirements might be tailored to ensure 
compliance without undue imposition on those other information sharing 
activities.
    56. We seek comment on how the Commission can strike the right 
balance between facilitating an optimal information sharing environment 
and protecting proprietary information. Our goal is to foster 
reciprocal sharing of information on broadband network outages with 
federal and state partners, while maintaining confidentiality among 
those partners and of information contained in the outage reports. To 
ensure that the Commission benefits from information that providers 
make available to other federal agencies or state governments, should 
we encourage covered broadband and interconnected VoIP providers to 
provide the Commission with copies of any outage reporting that they 
currently provide to states or other federal agencies, to be treated in 
the same manner (i.e., confidential or non-confidential) as the entity 
receiving the original report? Are there alternative methods toward 
sharing this information? Should we ask our federal and state 
government partners to provide a preferred path toward sharing this 
information? We recognize that other federal and state agencies may 
have different requirements for licensees and FCC regulated entities, 
and we seek comment on the wider regulatory landscape in which 
broadband providers may or may not already be reporting outages. Are 
there special considerations required for the new filings or 
information collected that the Commission has not previously 
accommodated for part 4 providers? If so, what adjustments to our 
original information sharing proposals in the Notice should be made for 
these new NORS filings and information collected?
6. Cost-Benefit Analysis for Broadband Network Outage Reporting
    57. In the 2012 Part 4 Order, the Commission deferred action on 
several broadband outage proposals because they were ``sharply opposed 
by industry on several bases, but especially based on the expected 
costs.'' In this FNPRM, we seek to update the record on the costs of 
implementing broadband outage reporting, and also seek comment on the 
costs of compliance with any additional reporting requirements 
considered herein. We also seek comment on the costs associated with 
any alternative proposals or unintended modifications to proposals set 
out by commenters. Specifically, we invite comment on the incremental 
costs of detecting and collecting information on the outage thresholds 
described above; the costs of filing reports in NORS; and the costs 
associated with any additional reporting or other requirements the 
Commission may adopt to promote network reliability and security. 
Comments in this area should not focus on new equipment but on the cost 
of modifying existing outage detection systems to detect and notify the 
Commission on observed outages meeting reporting thresholds proposed in 
this FNPRM.
a. Costs of Detecting and Reporting Outages
    58. We first consider the costs associated with detecting and 
collecting information on reportable outages under the proposed rules. 
As a general matter, we agree with the 2011 comments of the National 
Association of State Utility Consumers Advocates (NASUCA) and the New 
Jersey Division of Rate Counsel, who observe that VoIP and ``broadband 
[providers] should already be collecting outage-related data in the 
normal course of conducting their businesses and operations.'' We 
believe this to be as true today as it was in 2011 in light of service 
providers' public assurances of network performance and reliability. If 
covered broadband providers already collect internal data to support 
claims of high network reliability through advertising, we anticipate 
that they would be able to provide the Commission with similar 
information at minimal incremental cost. For this reason and others 
discussed below, we do not believe that requiring covered broadband 
providers to submit outage data would create an unreasonable burden.
(i) Outages Defined by Threshold Events
    59. To begin, we note that nearly all providers already have 
mechanisms in place for determining when an outage occurs and when it 
surpasses a certain threshold, and if a provider does not, in today's 
wired world it would not impose significant cost to install such a 
mechanism. In fact, the record reflects that providers routinely 
monitor the operational status of their network as part of the normal 
course of business. Verizon, for instance, explained in 2011 that it 
``has significant visibility into its broadband networks.'' We believe 
that any provider with ``significant visibility'' into its network 
already has the ability to detect network failures or degradations that 
result in a total loss of service for a large number of customers. 
Commenters appear to concede this view. Both ATIS and AT&T proposed 
alternative reporting schemes that would require reporting on total 
losses of broadband service, and AT&T submits that its proposed scheme 
would be ``unambiguous and easy-to-apply.'' CenturyLink likewise admits 
that ``reporting by a broadband Internet access service provider where 
there is a loss of connectivity to the Internet by end-users is 
reasonable.'' Comments like these, along with ubiquitous advertising on 
network reliability and performance generally, suggest that the regime

[[Page 45106]]

described above to report total losses of broadband service would not 
impose significant additional burdens on providers. We seek comment on 
this discussion.
(ii) Outages of ``Generally Useful and Available Connectivity''
    60. In 2011, industry commenters identified data collection costs 
as the most significant cost burden of the proposed rules for 
performance degradation events. However, we note that the proposed 
reporting based on loss of ``generally-useful availability and 
connectivity'' does not concern every degradation in performance an 
individual user experiences, but is instead designed to capture 
incidents in which service is effectively unusable for a large number 
of users or when critical facilities are affected. We seek further 
comment on the extent to which providers already collect performance 
degradation data for internal business purposes. In 2011, covered VoIP 
and broadband providers were already monitoring QoS metrics, like 
packet loss, latency and jitter, to assess network performance for 
certain customers. Today, providers collect network performance 
information as a necessary part of fulfilling their SLA duties for 
particular customers, and more generally, providers have significant 
incentives to track these metrics as part of their network, service, 
and business risk assurance models. In other words, providers' existing 
approaches for network data collection for premium customers likely 
already captures losses of ``generally-useful availability and 
connectivity,'' and we believe similar techniques could be expanded to 
monitor network performance on a broader scale. By building on existing 
provider practices and harnessing technological developments in network 
monitoring, we believe that the proposals for broadband reporting 
requirements described herein would not be unduly costly.
    61. Because providers already routinely collect much of this data, 
we believe that the cost of compliance of additional rules would be 
only the cost of filing additional reports. We seek comment on this 
discussion. If providers do not collect this data, is there similar or 
comparable data that providers already collect, or could collect at 
minimal expense, that would be as cost-effective as data they would 
report under the proposals outlined above? If so, what data, and would 
it provide the Commission with adequate visibility into events that 
cause a loss of generally-useful availability and connectivity for 
significant numbers of broadband users? What would the cost be of this 
comparable data?
    62. We seek comment on whether we should implement a prototype 
phase of two years whereby providers would be given significant 
latitude to determine a qualifying threshold for the ``generally useful 
availability and connectivity'' standard. While mandatory reporting 
would remain, the data collected would positively inform standards in 
this category that would be broadly applicable to the Commission's 
needs in this area yet closer to what the reporting companies use for 
their own operations, thereby reducing potential costs for providers. 
We seek comment on this analysis.
b. Costs of Filing Outage Reports
    63. While we anticipate that the costs of filing reports under the 
proposed rules--i.e., of reformatting and uploading information in the 
NORS database--would not impose an unreasonable burden on covered 
broadband providers, we seek comment on the specific costs. Outage 
reports are currently filed in the Commission's web-based NORS database 
using simple and straightforward ``fill-in-the-blank'' templates. NORS 
currently accepts reports for legacy service outages (wireline, 
wireless, etc.), as well as interconnected VoIP ``hard down'' outages. 
We expect that any reports from covered broadband providers pursuant to 
rules ultimately adopted in this proceeding would adhere to the same 
efficient and streamlined process.
    64. In light of growing overlap in corporate ownership of 
telecommunications network and service offerings, we expect that the 
inclusion of broadband service under part 4 would largely extend 
reporting obligations to providers already familiar with reporting via 
NORS and with internal processes in place for filing reports. We 
recognize that entities without prior experience reporting in NORS, 
either themselves or through affiliates, may incur some startup costs, 
i.e., of establishing a NORS account and training personnel in the use 
of NORS. We seek comment on this analysis and what specific startup 
costs would be.
    65. Furthermore, we believe the overall cost to providers of filing 
disruption reports is a function of the number of reports that are 
filed and the costs of filing each report. Previously, the Commission 
has estimated that the filing of each three-stage outage report (i.e., 
notification, initial report, and final report) requires two hours of 
staff time, compensated at $80 per hour, amounting to a $160 total cost 
for the provider. We believe that this estimate remains valid. 
Moreover, we estimate that adoption of the proposed rules for covered 
broadband providers would result in the filing of 1,083 reports per 
year, based on the likely correlation of broadband Internet access 
service outages with interconnected VoIP outages, in which there were 
750 reports in 2015, and of broadband backbone outages with interoffice 
blocking outages, in which there were 330 reports in 2015. In other 
words, based on 2015 figures, we estimate that there would be 
approximately 750 reportable VoIP outages, added to the 330 reportable 
broadband outages independent of VoIP, results in 1,083 total reports. 
Accordingly, we estimate that adoption of the rules proposed in this 
FNPRM would create $173,280 in reporting costs; calculated by adding 
the number of VoIP and broadband outages in 2015, and multiplying by 
the expected cost of $160. We seek comment on this cost estimate.
c. Benefits of Proposed Network Outage Reporting
    66. On balance, we believe that the proposals of this FNPRM would 
ultimately produce substantial benefits for the public. As noted above, 
the nation is increasingly reliant on broadband communications, and 
disasters, pandemics, and cyber attacks can lead to sudden disruptions 
of normal broadband traffic flows. Adopted prior to widespread adoption 
of broadband, the current part 4 outage reporting rules have played a 
significant role in the Commission's successful efforts to promote 
reliable and resilient communications networks. The Commission's 
receipt of data on broadband service (and expanded interconnected VoIP 
service) disruptions would enable it to adapt this established practice 
to a world in which IP-based networks are increasingly relied on for 
critical communications--including 911 service--as well as for 
financial transactions, health care delivery and management, and the 
operation of our nation's critical infrastructure.
    67. Given the large and rising volume of communications that occur 
over broadband networks--and the overall economic value these 
communications represent--even minor increases in network reliability 
that result from outage reporting could have a significant public 
benefit. We believe that the benefits of the proposed reporting 
requirements will be substantial, as increases in network reliability 
can improve not only business continuity, but also the availability of 
emergency response,

[[Page 45107]]

thereby saving many lives. We therefore expect that, even if only a few 
lives are saved each year, the annual benefit from these proposed 
changes will far exceed the costs they impose on affected parties. We 
have noted throughout this FNPRM that the harm from not requiring 
broadband outage reporting could be substantial, and we believe that 
the benefits of the proposals would far exceed the costs. We seek 
comment on other harms that consumers or providers face currently or 
may face in the future as a result of loss of connectivity that could 
have been avoided if industry outage trends had been spotted earlier 
and addressed more constructively through NORS reporting. We seek 
comment on the total expected benefit of the proposed reporting 
requirements for broadband providers.

B. Interconnected VoIP Outage Reporting

    68. In 2012, the Commission adopted limited outage reporting 
requirements for interconnected VoIP providers. The rules apply to both 
facilities-based and non-facilities-based interconnected VoIP services. 
Since extending outage reporting to interconnected VoIP, however, the 
Commission has not received consistent, timely, or sufficiently 
detailed reporting needed to promote greater interconnected VoIP 
service. This causes us now to raise questions about how to stimulate 
granular and consistent reporting for interconnected VoIP providers 
that aids the Commission in its efforts to ensure reliable, resilient, 
and secure interconnected VoIP service for America's consumers and 
businesses. Accordingly, we propose to modify the existing reporting 
process for interconnected VoIP to hew closer to the process for other 
providers. Lastly, we seek comment on whether there are any differences 
between interconnected VoIP services and other foregoing broadband 
services that weigh in favor of establishing different outage reporting 
rules for the two kinds of service providers.
1. Interconnected VoIP Outage Reporting Process
    69. We propose to amend the reporting process for outages involving 
interconnected VoIP service to harmonize it with the ``legacy'' 
services and the proposed reporting process for broadband outages. 
However, because the current outage reporting rules for interconnected 
VoIP allow a 24-hour notification period and do not require interim 
reports, the Commission rarely learns of interconnected VoIP network 
outages in near real time, and often has to wait almost a month until 
the final report is submitted to get outage event root causes or other 
useful information.
    70. Under the part 4 rules for legacy services, specifically 47 CFR 
4.11, initial reports provide the Commission with timely access to more 
detailed information about an outage than was available to the provider 
at the time of the notification, in many cases confirming the existence 
of an outage that was only tentatively reported at the notification 
stage. However, such initial reports are not required of interconnected 
VoIP providers, and what's more, the 24-hour notification period has 
resulted in notifications being filed well after an outage has 
commenced, in some cases after the outage has concluded. In one recent 
instance, an interconnected VoIP outage that affected close to 1 
million users across nearly a dozen states was first reported to the 
Commission twenty-three hours after its discovery. Consequently, for 
certain interconnected VoIP outages, the Commission must wait until a 
final report is filed--up to thirty days after the notification is 
filed--to receive any information about the underlying cause of an 
interconnected VoIP outage, or even to verify that a reportable outage 
in fact occurred. Providers also do not report information on the 
duration of the outage in the notification, and are currently only 
required to give this information 30 days later in the final report. 
Thus, we believe that the abridged reporting adopted for interconnected 
VoIP ``hard down'' outages creates significant gaps in the Commission's 
visibility into such outages and hinders its ability to take 
appropriate remedial actions.
    71. We recognize that a lack of visibility into underlying 
broadband networks may pose challenges to interconnected VoIP 
providers, in providing information as the cause of the outage. As with 
BIAS and dedicated services providers, we seek comment on whether 
interconnected VoIP providers can, do, or should take steps 
contractually or otherwise to address these problems. At a minimum, we 
believe that providers should make reasonable efforts to learn about 
the causes of any reportable outages and thus to be in a position to 
include such information in their reports, irrespective of whether the 
affected facility is within their control. Moreover, because 
interconnected VoIP services often rely on networks that provide BIAS 
services, we believe that the proposed rules for broadband outage 
reporting discussed supra largely eliminate this concern and 
essentially place interconnected VoIP providers on the equal footing 
with other part 4 entities. Accordingly, we propose to replace the 
existing reporting structure for interconnected VoIP with the three-
report structure used by all other reporting entities, as originally 
proposed in the 2011 Part 4 Notice. Specifically, we propose to tighten 
the timeframe for interconnected VoIP providers to notify the 
Commission of an outage from 24 hours to 120 minutes; to require 
providers to file an initial report with additional information within 
72 hours; and to file a final report within 30 days of the outage that 
includes all pertinent information about the outage, including any 
information available that was not contained in or changed from the 
initial report. All reports would be filed electronically with the 
Commission.
    72. Furthermore, although not independent triggers for part 4 
reporting, we expect providers to include information in their reports 
concerning (1) the failure of facilities that might be considered 
critical network elements (we consider a network element ``critical'' 
if the failure of that network element would result in the loss of any 
user functionality that an interconnected VoIP provider provides to its 
consumers, for example, Call Agents, Session Border Controllers, 
Signaling Gateways, Call Session Control Functions (CSCF), and Home 
Subscriber Server (HSS)), and (2) unintended changes to software or 
firmware or unintended modifications to a database to the extent 
relevant to a given outage or service disruption that is otherwise 
reportable. As described fully in the broadband reporting process 
above, reports should include specific details.
    73. At this time we believe adopting a three-part reporting 
structure for interconnected VoIP outages is appropriate, however, as 
raised for broadband outage reporting above, we seek comment on other 
steps the Commission can take to make providers' reporting obligations 
consistent across services or otherwise streamline the process. We seek 
comment on whether there are ways of automating the outage reporting 
process for interconnected VoIP service providers beyond what has been 
possible or has been attempted in the context of legacy communications 
services. How could such automated reporting be accomplished? What are 
the advantages of such a reporting mechanism? What are the 
disadvantages? What cost savings would result from any such automation? 
Alternatively, we seek comment on maintaining the two-step process for 
interconnected VoIP outages.

[[Page 45108]]

2. Proposed Interconnected VoIP Outage Metrics
a. Outages Defined by Performance Degradation
(i) Metrics for Performance Degradation
    74. We also propose to require interconnected VoIP providers to 
report outages, per 47 CFR 4.5(a), that reflect losses of ``generally 
useful availability and connectivity'' as defined by specific metrics. 
Similar to our proposal for covered broadband providers, we propose to 
base performance degradation on packet loss and latency for any network 
facility used to provide interconnected VoIP service. We also seek 
comment on whether it would be appropriate to adopt a throughput-based 
outage metric for interconnected VoIP outage reporting in addition to 
the throughput metric discussed above with respect to broadband 
providers, i.e., providers would be required to report an outage of 
1Gbps or more of interconnected VoIP service for 30 minutes or more. 
Are the proposed metrics--relating to packet loss, latency and 
throughput--well-suited for interconnected VoIP? Would this approach 
provide better methods for detecting and reporting outages on 
interconnected VoIP networks?
    75. We recognize that adopting performance degradation metrics may 
result in an increased burden on VoIP providers than their legacy voice 
counterparts. We ask whether interconnected VoIP's unique technology 
justifies a departure from a pure ``hard down'' reporting metric 
currently required for interconnected VoIP providers and that of legacy 
counterparts, to the adoption of significant performance degradation 
reporting metrics? Are there throughput-related issues associated with 
interconnected VoIP calling? For example, where the service might be up 
and running, yet be degraded to a point that emergency call information 
exchange is negatively impacted? Or, given interconnected VoIP's 
dependence on broadband connectivity, are there vulnerabilities 
associated with that technology that introduce threat scenarios (i.e., 
attack vectors) that justify the added reporting burden? Are there 
other considerations we should take into account on the question of 
adding a performance degradation element to interconnected VoIP 
providers' obligations under part 4?
    76. As with our current ``hard down'' outage reporting for 
interconnected VoIP, we propose to apply any new rules to both 
facilities-based and non-facilities-based interconnected VoIP. Do 
interconnected VoIP providers have differing standards for network 
performance? Are non-facilities-based interconnected VoIP providers 
able to measure and/or access packet loss, latency, and/or throughput 
measurements? If not, why? How are non-facilities-based interconnected 
VoIP providers able to determine the network performance requirements 
for their service? Should the Commission instead adopt a single metric 
beyond which voice service is so degraded that it is no longer 
functional? If so, what is that metric and how and where is it 
measured? Would multiple metrics be required? If so, what would those 
metrics and how and where would they be measured? We seek comment on 
these proposals. We also seek comment on how the proposed metrics apply 
to mobile VoIP. Will application of these metrics to mobile VoIP result 
in too many instances where, although the threshold is passed, there is 
no major problem with the network? Are there other metrics that are 
better suited for mobile VoIP service? If so, why? Should the 
monitoring period and metrics adopted for interconnected VoIP outage 
reporting be consistent with the monitoring period and metrics adopted 
for broadband outage reporting, or are there differences between the 
two types of services that warrant different monitoring period and 
metrics?
    77. Alternatively, as with our proposed broadband outage reporting, 
we could adopt more specific, absolute thresholds for performance 
degradation, like those proposed in the 2011 Part 4 Notice for 
broadband providers, e.g., service degradation occurs whenever there 
is: (i) An average packet loss of 0.5 percent or greater; or (ii) 
average round-trip latency of 100 ms or greater, with all measurements 
taken in each of at least six consecutive five-minute intervals from 
source to destination host. If absolute thresholds are preferable, are 
these reporting thresholds for packet loss and latency set at 
appropriate levels for interconnected VoIP service? Should the 
Commission adjust any of these thresholds and, if so, what is an 
appropriate threshold? Should the Commission modify the requirement to 
take performance measurements in six consecutive five-minute intervals? 
If so, how?
(ii) Measurement of Performance Degradation
    78. Moreover, we seek comment on the end-points from which 
interconnected VoIP providers will need to measure these metrics. We 
recognize that it is important to consider the methods used to measure 
the proposed metrics and account for the location of the network 
elements within the interconnected VoIP networks. This will help to 
ensure accurate and reliable measurements of the proposed metrics to 
indicate network performance. We propose that these metrics be measured 
from ``source to the destination host.'' The term ``source'' would 
refer to the network elements responsible for the setting up the VoIP 
call (e.g., call manager, user agent, client) while the term 
``destination'' would refer to the endpoints routing and executing the 
call (e.g., VoIP router, softphone). We seek comment on the use of the 
terms ``source'' and ``destination host'' and ask if these terms 
appropriately cover the various types of network facilities (e.g., 
CSCF, HSS, AAA servers, SIP servers, Session Border Controllers, Media 
Gateway Controllers) used by interconnected VoIP providers to connect 
to their customers and/or exchange network traffic with other 
interconnected VoIP networks? Are there other terms that would better 
convey the network elements from which interconnected VoIP providers 
will need to measure the proposed reporting metrics?
b. Benefits and Costs of Proposed Reporting
    79. We seek comment on whether the benefits of this additional 
reporting would outweigh the incremental burden on providers. We 
estimate that the three-part reporting of an outage--including the 
filing of a notification, initial report, and final report--imposes 
only a $300 cost burden on the provider. In 2015, the Commission 
reviewed 750 interconnected VoIP outages. We expect to review an 
additional 750 filings for the same number of outages received in 2015, 
and an additional 75 filings as a result of our performance degradation 
proposal discussed above. Therefore, 750 plus 75 initial reports 
multiplied by 0.75 hours it takes to complete an initial report, 
multiplied by the cost of $80 employee hourly rate, results in $49,500 
added cost. We therefore do not believe that expanding the reporting 
process from two reporting stages to three would significantly increase 
burdens for providers. We seek comment on this tentative conclusion. To 
the extent that commenters disagree, we seek comment on alternative, 
least costly methods. Is there similar or comparable data that 
providers already collect, or could collect at minimal expense given 
current data collection practices, that would be more cost-effective to 
report than the data they would report under the proposed rules? If so, 
what data, and

[[Page 45109]]

would it provide the Commission with adequate visibility into events 
that cause a loss of generally-useful availability and connectivity for 
significant numbers of interconnected VoIP users? What would the cost 
be of this comparable data?
    80. We believe that the benefits of the proposed rules would exceed 
the costs. Absent the rules proposed in this FNPRM, the Commission 
lacks sufficient visibility into the reliability and security of 
interconnected VoIP networks. We believe that relevant data is already 
routinely collected by interconnected VoIP providers (in real time), so 
the cost of compliance would be only the cost of filing additional 
reports where necessary. Moreover, we believe that many of the proposed 
outage reporting triggers for interconnected VoIP, including those 
based on performance degradation, are likely to be covered by outages 
to the underlying broadband networks. Therefore, we do not believe the 
number of additional reports filed annually pursuant to the proposed 
rules for interconnected VoIP to be significant. We seek comment on 
this discussion.

C. Call Failures in Radio Access Networks

    81. In the 2015 Part 4 Notice, we sought comment on the reporting 
of call failures that result from congestion in wireless radio access 
networks (RAN), and in non-wireless (i.e., wireline and VoIP) local 
access networks. We noted that the inability of the access network to 
support excess demand may not be considered reportable as a ``failure 
or degradation'' under our current rules, but the inability of 
consumers to make calls still undermines the reliability of networks. 
Nevertheless, we are concerned about the impact of such events on the 
reliability of 911 service. Because this appears to be predominantly an 
issue with wireless networks, we proposed to amend our part 4 rules to 
require reporting of systemic wireless call failures that results from 
overloading in the RAN.
    82. Requiring reporting of overloading in the access network 
(wireless radio or non-wireless local access) should not be interpreted 
to mean that providers must engineer their networks to account for 
sporadic spikes in calls. Instead, the reports would provide the 
Commission with data to identify any trends in network overloading. 
This could include identifying, for example, a particular network 
equipment that may be more susceptible to failure in mass calling 
events. Moreover, analysis of this data allows the Commission to work 
with industry to address situations where the network consistently 
fails to address ``bursty'' call patterns similar to those generated 
after disaster and wide-scale emergencies. While we recognize the point 
made by several commenters that networks should not be engineered to be 
able to transmit every single call if everyone in an area attempted to 
use the network at once, we believe that it would be in the interest of 
the public for the Commission to receive information on those 
situations, so that we can determine if, when, and where, blocking is 
consistently happening.
    83. Verizon argues that such reporting that would be collecting 
information ``for the sake of it,'' but that point ignores the premise 
behind our outage reporting rules. Although situational awareness is 
one goal of outage reporting, another key objective is to provide data 
to the Commission so that it can detect adverse outage trends and 
facilitate industry-wide network improvements. Moreover, even though we 
continue to believe that outage reporting encourages providers to fix 
problems in their networks, we note that many outage reports do not 
always result in permanent fixes to the network, as the outage may be a 
``one-off'' event. However, as Public Knowledge observes, we will not 
know that such events are indeed ``one-off,'' if the Commission is not 
aware of them in the first place.
    84. Commenters also note that mass calling events are often 
unpredictable and typically short-lived, so they question the value of 
reporting on such events. However, because a mass calling event can be 
the consequence of a widespread disaster, we see significant value in 
collecting information on such events, as these are the incidents where 
reliable, resilient communications are most needed. Indeed, 
understanding failure patterns in moments of network saturation can 
help identify best practices for network management, as well as help 
certain communities realize a need for greater detail in emergency 
management plans. We recognize that reporting on mass calling events 
will not prevent them from occurring in the future, but we believe 
there is substantial value in analyzing such events in hindsight, as 
individual providers are unlikely to be able to see how such an event 
fits into broader industry practices and performance levels. With such 
data, the Commission would be in a better position to work with 
providers to address industry-wide problems and share industry-wide 
mitigation solutions.
    85. With respect to wireless RANs, we propose to consider a cell 
site to be ``out'' whenever a cell tower operates at full capacity 
(i.e., is unable to process any additional calls) for 75 percent of the 
time during a period of at least 30 minutes. If the number of 
potentially-affected wireless user-minutes exceeds 900,000 for the cell 
sites considered ``out,'' the outage would be reportable. Similarly, 
for non-wireless local access networks, we propose to amend our outage 
reporting rules to consider a loop carrier system or remote switch to 
be ``out'' whenever a remote terminal or the group of channels 
connecting a remote switch to a host operates at full capacity (i.e., 
is unable to process any additional calls) for 75 percent of the time 
during a period of at least 30 minutes. If the number of user-minutes 
exceeds 900,000 for the loop carrier systems and remote switches that 
are considered ``out,'' the outage would be reportable.
    86. We seek comment on these proposals. Is 30 minutes an 
appropriate time period to measure call blockages? If not 30 minutes, 
what should be the appropriate interval of measurement for averaging 
purposes? Is 75 percent of that time at full capacity the right 
percentage of time? Alternatively, what percentage of calls blocked 
during that period constitutes congestion of the access network? To the 
extent that commenters oppose our proposal, we encourage them to 
propose an alternative, workable metric that addresses our concern. Is 
there a better way to measure persistent, widespread call failures in 
the RAN or local access network?
    87. With respect to wireless RANs, we seek comment on how providers 
currently measure call failures. Would providers know of, and therefore 
have a way to measure, call attempts when a cell site is fully 
congested and not accepting call origination information? Also, given 
that wireless calls are constantly initiated and terminated within any 
given cell site, could some percentage below full capacity constitute 
congestive RAN failure for purposes of reporting? For congested cell 
sites, should the usual methods for calculating the total number of 
customers affected be used, or should some account be taken of the fact 
that more than the usual number are trying to use the towers during 
these periods?
    88. In the Notice, we estimated that under our proposal for 
reporting of widespread call failures in wireless RANs, providers would 
need to file approximately 420 reports per year, thus increasing their 
annual reporting costs by $67,200. We based this estimate on the 
assumption that wireless networks and interoffice networks are 
engineered to achieve comparably low rates of call

[[Page 45110]]

failure and would have a comparable rate of calls blocked.
    89. We seek further comment on the specific costs to implement some 
type of reporting on call failures in both the RAN and the local access 
network. With regard to the RAN, CCA disagrees with an assumption in 
the Notice that providers are already technically capable of tracking 
call failures at each cell site, asserting that some of its members 
``do not currently collect and preserve this information in an ongoing 
manner.'' We seek more specific information about the data that 
providers already have about call failures and the costs of adding 
equipment to track call failures at cell sites. To what extent do 
providers already track call failures in the RAN and the local access 
network? What other parameters do operators use to determine when new 
towers or equipment must be installed to meet increasing demand? 
Commenters should be specific as to the information that their networks 
can track. Commenters should be specific and realistic in their costs 
estimates as well.
    90. Moreover, we ask if some type of delayed implementation or 
exemption for smaller and/or rural providers would be helpful, 
particularly given that we expect network overloading is less likely to 
be an issue in rural areas. If we were to delay implementation of this 
type of reporting for a certain subset of providers, what would be a 
reasonable amount of time? What definition of smaller and/or rural 
carrier would be most appropriate?

D. Geography-Based Wireless Outage Reporting

    91. In the 2015 Part 4 Notice, we sought comment on a separate and 
additional wireless outage reporting requirement based on the 
geographical scope of an outage, irrespective of the number of users 
potentially affected. Wireless outages that may not meet our 900,000 
user-minute threshold but cover large geographic areas may be important 
because wireless service may be the only option in many areas, 
particularly as the percentage of calls to 911 from wireless devices 
continues to increase. It may be possible that large geographic areas 
are regularly losing service, but we are not aware of them (other than 
by press reports) because they do not meet the 900,000 user-minute 
threshold. Nonetheless, these outages are especially important to areas 
where service (wireless or otherwise) is minimal, and when an outage 
occurs, those in an emergency would have to travel far to make a 911 
call.
    93. We propose to amend the part 4 reporting requirements to 
include wireless outages significantly affecting rural areas. We seek 
comment on this proposal. Specifically, we propose to require a 
wireless provider serving a rural area to file outage reports whenever 
one-third or more of its macro cell sites serving that area are 
disabled such that communications services cannot be handled through 
those sites, or are substantially impaired due to the outage(s) or 
other disruptions affecting those sites. We seek comment on, 
alternatively, requiring such reporting upon the disabling of one-half 
of the macro cell sites in the rural area. In regard to the definition 
of ``rural area,'' while the Communications Act does not include a 
statutory definition of what constitutes a rural area, the Commission 
has used a ``baseline'' definition of rural as a county with a 
population density of 100 persons or fewer per square mile. We propose 
to use this same definition for purposes of determining wireless 
outages affecting predominantly rural areas. We ask, however, whether 
other alternative definitions might be of better use in aiding our 
visibility into rural-specific outages. For example, should we focus on 
areas designated for the Universal Service Mobility Fund support? Are 
there other rural area designation tools or proxies that should be 
considered (e.g., defining areas by rural exchange operating carrier 
designations--OCNs)? We seek comment on these questions and proposals.
    94. Is there a geographic area designation other than ``rural 
area,'' as defined above, that aligns better with the way wireless 
providers measure their own service? For example, is there a subset of 
any licensed service area (e.g., Cellular Market Area) that wireless 
carriers could more easily use to identify outages in predominantly 
rural areas? Or, would the use of zip codes, such as when one hundred 
percent of a zip code is impacted be an appropriate measurement? Also, 
we seek comment on whether an outage of at least one-third, or one-
half, of cell sites within the rural area would indicate an outage that 
would be of a nature that it substantially affects wireless coverage 
for a large geographic area.
    95. We recognize that this issue may become less critical as 
wireless providers begin to comply with the new standardized method, 
adopted in the above Report and Order, for calculating the number of 
potentially affected users during a wireless outage. By using a 
national average to determine the potentially affected users per site, 
will adoption and implementation of this new formula for the number of 
potentially-affected users increase the reporting of outages in low 
population areas? We also seek comment on alternative measurements for 
outages in rural areas. For example, could we adopt a lower user-minute 
threshold for rural areas to increase the reporting of events affecting 
rural communities? For example, would a threshold of 300,000 user-
minutes in rural areas increase our chances of receiving information on 
outages that affect rural communities? Conversely, for example, would 
clear geographic criteria, such as a county-based threshold, for 
wireless outage reporting simplify the M2M rules for automated outage 
reporting and eliminate the need for manual interpretations of 
thresholds?
    96. In the Notice, we estimated that adoption of a geography-based 
outage reporting requirement would result in the filing of an 
additional 1,841 reports per year, thereby increasing reporting costs 
by $294,560 (i.e., 1,841 reports x $160 staff costs per report). To 
reach this estimate, we subtracted the number of additional outage 
reports that would be generated by geography-based reporting from the 
number of reports that would be submitted for outages that meet the 
current 900,000 user-minute threshold. We estimated that geography-
based reporting would generate additional reports in counties where a 
wireless provider has fifteen or fewer cell sites. The number of 
counties with fifteen or fewer cell sites represents 2.7 percent of the 
total number of cell sites nationwide, based on analysis of data 
collected from companies given to the Commission during activations 
from the Disaster Information Reporting System (DIRS) in 2012. Using as 
a guide counties with fifteen or fewer cell sites, we calculated that a 
disruption to communications would be reportable under a geographic 
coverage standard if one or two cell sites in the county are down. 
Based on historical NORS data, we then estimated that each cell site 
has a 22.6 percent chance of experiencing an outage within a given 
year, and using CTIA's estimate that 301,779 cell sites were in 
operation nationwide as of the end of 2012, we tentatively conclude 
that adoption of a geography-based reporting requirement would likely 
result in the filing of 1,841 additional reports per year, creating an 
estimate of $294,560 cost burden.
    97. We seek further comment on the costs of implementing a new 
geography-based outage reporting requirement for wireless carriers. 
Sprint and Verizon argue that carriers would need to develop and deploy 
additional automation tools and monitoring

[[Page 45111]]

mechanisms. We estimate that, based on our proposal here, our estimate 
of 1,841 additional reports per year from the Notice will be the same. 
We seek further comment on a way in which we could capture outages 
affecting large geographic areas without being overly burdensome for 
providers. If, for example, we were to adopt an outage reporting 
requirement when 33 percent of cell sites become disabled within a 
county, would such a calculation require additional tools or monitoring 
mechanisms? We assume carriers would already know when (and why) their 
cell sites become disabled, and would know the number of cell sites per 
county. Therefore, we believe it would be a relatively easy and 
inexpensive calculation for providers to determine if a certain 
threshold of cell sites in a county have become disabled. Is one-third 
(33 percent) the appropriate threshold?
    98. NTCA comments that the burden would be greater on smaller 
carriers, where the failure of one tower may trigger a reporting 
obligation. While we could consider some type of exemption for smaller 
carriers, we believe smaller and rural carriers cover precisely the 
areas targeted by this proposal. Therefore, we do not propose to exempt 
any carriers. We seek comment on this approach.

E. Refining the Definition of ``Critical Communications'' at Airports

    99. Commercial aviation increasingly depends on information systems 
that are not collocated with airport facilities, and that may carry 
critical information. We seek comment on requiring reporting of outages 
affecting critical aviation information facilities that are not 
airport-based, either as a function of their status as TSP Level 3 or 4 
facilities (facilities are eligible for TSP Level 3 or 4 prioritization 
if they (3) support public health, safety, and maintenance of law and 
order activities or (4) maintains the public welfare and the national 
economic system), or upon some other basis. In particular, we seek 
comment on whether it is correct to assume that some information 
systems critical to safe commercial aviation are not located within an 
airport's facility. If the assumption is accurate, we invite discussion 
of the architecture of such external systems, including the safeguards 
currently established for those systems. Were the Commission to explore 
outage reporting requirements for these systems and facilities, what 
reporting criteria should it establish? For outage reporting purposes, 
should the Commission distinguish between facilities enrolled in the 
TSP program and those facilities that are not? If so, on what basis 
should the different treatment be premised? What, if any, additional 
costs might be associated with expanding the reporting obligation to 
such facilities, whether or not enrolled in TSP?

F. Legal Authority

1. 911 and Emergency Communications
    101. Following the evolution in the country's commercial 
communications networks, the nation's emergency communications systems 
are in the process of a critical transition from legacy systems using 
time-division multiplex (TDM)-based technologies to Next Generation 911 
(NG911) systems that utilize IP-based technologies.
    102. As a result of this transition, the nation's 911 system will 
increasingly include the BIAS and dedicated services, which will 
support a new generation of 911 call services that may be vulnerable to 
a similarly new generation of disruptions that may not have existed on 
legacy 911 networks. Indeed, as NG911 services are increasingly 
provisioned through broadband network elements, disruptions to 
broadband could impact the provision and reliability of local 911 voice 
and other shared services essential to emergency response. Accordingly, 
we believe that monitoring the resiliency of broadband networks 
supporting that communication is vital to ensure the reliable 
availability and functionality of 911 services.
    103. Regarding our proposal to update the outage reporting rules 
for interconnected VoIP service providers, 47 U.S.C. 615a-1 instructs 
the Commission to ``take into account any technical, network security, 
or information privacy requirements that are specific to IP-enabled 
voice services'' and to update regulations ``as necessitated by changes 
in the market or technology, to ensure the ability of an IP-enabled 
voice service provider to comply with its obligations.'' The proposed 
reporting process seeks to modernize the outage reporting system in 
light of technology advances and greater consumer adoption of 
interconnected VoIP service, considering the potential for degradations 
of service to impact 911 call completion. We seek comment on how 
Section 615a-1 provides authority to adopt such proposals with respect 
to interconnected VoIP.
    104. We also believe that our proposals to extend outage reporting 
to the classes of broadband providers and services described in this 
FNPRM are authorized by or reasonably ancillary to our statutorily 
mandated responsibility under Section 615a-1 to ensure that ``IP-
enabled voice service provider[s] provide 9-1-1 service and enhanced 9-
1-1 service.'' As noted above, broadband services are now and will 
continue to be key for delivery of 911 call information (including not 
only voice but also data and video) from the end-user to a PSAP. 
Therefore, to ensure broadband-enabled voice service providers comply 
with their 911 obligations, we seek comment on how our proposals better 
equip the Commission to meet its Section 615a-1 mandates. Moreover, in 
light of our obligation to identify capabilities necessary to support 
911 and E911 service for interconnected VoIP, 47 U.S.C. 615a-1(6)(c), 
how would our proposals here enable us to determine if there are 
capabilities currently not captured by our rules? We seek comment on 
whether networks, facilities, databases or other components to the 
extent these are elements that support a ``seamless transmission, 
delivery, and completion of 911 and E-911 calls and associated E-911 
information'' have changed sufficiently to warrant further 
consideration, or because ``critical components of the 911 
infrastructure may reside with an incumbent carrier, a PSAP, or some 
other entity.'' How should the Commission analyze these considerations 
in our Section 615a-1 analysis? In addition, we seek comment as to 
whether these proposals are authorized by or reasonably ancillary to 
our statutory mandates to develop best practices that promote 
consistency and appropriate procedures for defining network diversity 
requirements for IP-enabled 911 and E911 call delivery.
    105. Additionally, under the Twenty-First Century Communications 
and Video Accessibility Act of 2010 (CVAA), the Commission may 
``promulgate regulations to implement the recommendations proposed by 
the [Emergency Access Advisory Committee (EAAC)], as well as any other 
regulations, technical standards, protocols, and procedures as are 
necessary to achieve reliable, interoperable communication that ensures 
access by individuals with disabilities to an Internet protocol-enabled 
emergency network, where achievable and technically feasible.'' The 
CVAA has served as the basis for Commission actions with respect to 
text-to-911 and 911 relay services, and we now seek comment on the 
application of the CVAA to our proposed disruption reporting rules for 
broadband.

[[Page 45112]]

    106. In this vein, the EAAC has recommended that the Commission 
``issue regulations as necessary to require that target entities, in 
the development and deployment of NG9-1-1 systems, take appropriate 
steps to support features, functions and capabilities to enable 
individuals with disabilities to make multimedia NG9-1-1 emergency 
calls.'' The EAAC enumerated a list of goals for the Commission related 
to 911 accessibility, including enabling consumers to call 911 using 
different forms of data, text, video, voice, and/or captioned telephony 
individually or any combination thereof; ensuring direct access to 911 
using IP-based text communications (including real-time text, IM, and 
email); and facilitating the use of video multimedia calls into a PSAP. 
The EAAC also recommended that users have the option to call 911 via 
voice or text service, as well as video and any other emerging 
technology; that is, callers should be able to access 911 using both 
old and new communications services--something that a single broadband 
network can support. We note that these technologies are commonly 
supported by broadband networks, and to ensure access to 911 for 
individuals with disabilities, the Commission must be able to assess 
how those technologies are performing. The EAAC also made clear that 
its recommendations should evolve with the technology. Perhaps most 
importantly, the EAAC recommended that the Commission ``adopt 
requirements that ensure that the quality of video, text and voice 
communications is sufficient to provide usability and accessibility to 
individuals with disabilities based on industry standards for the 
environment.''
    107. Given that video, text, and voice communications to 911 
already traverse broadband networks and will continue to do so as the 
deployment of Real-Time Text and other NG911 multimedia applications 
grows, we believe that the CVAA's mandate for ensuring equal access to 
911 provides an additional legal basis for the broadband reporting 
rules proposed herein. We seek comment on this tentative conclusion. Is 
disruption reporting the optimal mechanism for the Commission to the 
quality of video, text and voice communications is sufficient to 
provide usability and accessibility to individuals with disabilities? 
Are there alternative measures the Commission could take to ensure 
broadband network availability for non-traditional 911 calls (i.e., 911 
text messages or relay calls)? We believe the proposed reporting 
requirements are an ``achievable and technically feasible'' way to 
ensure access to 911 for the deaf and hard of hearing, as required 
under the CVAA, and we seek comment on this approach.
2. Title II
    108. The Commission has classified BIAS and dedicated services as 
telecommunications services under Title II of the Act. As such, we 
tentatively conclude that the Commission has ample authority under 
Title II to support the outage reporting requirements proposed in this 
FNPRM. We seek comment on this tentative conclusion, and on the 
relevance of Sections 201, 202, 214, 218, and any other provisions of 
Title II for supporting the outage reporting requirements proposed here 
for BIAS and dedicated services.
    As we observed in the 2015 Open Internet Order, [S]ection 201 
imposes a duty ``on common carriers to furnish communications services 
subject to Title II `upon reasonable request,' '' and to ensure that 
their practices are ``just and reasonable.'' We also noted that the 
general conduct standard ``represents our interpretation of [S]ections 
201 and 202 in the broadband Internet access context.'' We seek comment 
on the interplay between the 2015 Open Internet Order and the 
Commission's authority under [S]ection 201 to ``prescribe rules and 
regulations as may be necessary in the public interest to carry out the 
provisions of this chapter'', as such authority relates to BIAS. We 
also seek comment generally on other provisions of Title II and legal 
theories under those provisions to support outage reporting in the 
dedicated services and BIAS contexts.
3. Title III
    109. With respect to the rules proposed herein for wireless voice 
and broadband providers, we believe the Commission has further legal 
authority to support the rules proposed herein under Title III of the 
Communications Act. The Supreme Court has long recognized that Title 
III grants the Commission ``expansive powers'' and a ``comprehensive 
mandate'' to regulate the use of spectrum in the public interest, Nat'l 
Broad. Co. v. United States, 319 U.S. 190, 219 (1943) (recognizing the 
FCC's ``expansive powers'' and ``comprehensive mandate'').
    110. We believe that 47 U.S.C. 303(b) and (r), and 316 provide the 
Commission with authority to apply outage reporting requirements to 
mobile BIAS and dedicated services providers and to CMRS providers in 
instances of call failures in the radio access network. We seek comment 
on this view.
    111. For example, Section 303(b) authorizes the Commission to 
``[p]rescribe the nature of the service to be rendered by each class of 
licensed stations and each station within any class.'' Addressing the 
scope of this provision in Cellco Partnership v. FCC, 700 F.3d 534 
(D.C. Cir. 2012), the D.C. Circuit recognized that Section 303(b) 
authorizes the Commission to ``lay[ ] down a rule about `the nature of 
the service to be rendered' by entities licensed'' by the Commission. 
The court further explained in Cellco that, while a provider may choose 
not to offer a wireless service, Section 303(b) authorizes the 
Commission to ``define[ ] the form'' that the ``service must take for 
those who seek a license to offer it.''
    112. We also believe 47 U.S.C. 316 authorizes the Commission to 
impose new conditions on existing licenses if we think such action 
``will promote the public interest, convenience, and necessity.'' The 
D.C. Circuit in Celtronix Telemetry, Inc. v. FCC, 272 F.3d 585 (D.C. 
Cir. 2001), recognized as ``undisputed that the Commission always 
retain[s] the power to alter the term of existing licenses by 
rulemaking.'' Accordingly, we believe that the outage reporting 
requirements proposed here for mobile service providers of BIAS or 
dedicated services, as conditions imposed on existing licenses, fall 
within the Commission's Section 316 authority, and we seek comment on 
this view.
4. Section 706 of the Telecommunications Act
    113. It is the established policy of the United States to ``promote 
the continued development of the Internet and other interactive 
computer services and other interactive media . . . [and] to encourage 
the development of technologies which maximize user control over what 
information is received by individuals, families, and schools who use 
the Internet and other interactive computer services, '' 47 U.S.C. 
230(b). Furthering this policy, in 1996 Congress adopted Section 706 of 
the Telecommunications Act of 1996, which instructs the Commission to 
``encourage the deployment on a reasonable and timely basis of advanced 
telecommunications capability to all Americans,'' and further provides 
if the Commission finds advanced telecommunications capability is not 
being deployed on a reasonable and timely basis, it must ``take 
immediate action to accelerate deployment of such capability.'' 
Advanced telecommunications capability, as

[[Page 45113]]

defined in the statute, 47 U.S.C. 1302(d)(1), includes a subset of 
broadband Internet access. Thus, under Section 706(b), the Commission 
conducts an annual inquiry as to whether advanced telecommunications 
capability is being deployed to all Americans on a reasonable and 
timely basis.
    114. We seek comment on the contours of Section 706 as the basis 
for broadband-related outage reporting under part 4. We believe 
broadband network reliability, resiliency, and security are germane to 
the Commission's effort to achieve Section 706's policy objectives. 
Mandatory outage reporting could provide the Commission with a 
dependable stream of objective data to further inform its annual 
inquiry under Section 706. We seek comment on the value of the proposed 
broadband outage reporting to our annual Section 706 inquiry, and on 
our more general view that such disruption and outage data may aid the 
Commission's efforts to ensure the deployment of advanced 
telecommunications capabilities to all Americans.
    115. Further, the 2016 Broadband Progress Report found that 
advanced telecommunications capability is not being deployed to all 
Americans in a reasonable and timely fashion, requiring the Commission 
to take immediate action to accelerate broadband deployment by removing 
barriers to infrastructure investment and promoting competition. We 
seek comment on whether broadband outage reporting would aid the 
Commission in its efforts to identify where infrastructure investment 
and effective competition may be lacking and thus enable the Commission 
to take steps to remove any barriers to infrastructure investment that 
may prevail or otherwise to promote competition in affected areas. For 
instance, we observed in the 2016 Broadband Progress Report that there 
are indications of a ``correlation between non-adoption of broadband 
and security and privacy concerns.'' We also have stated that ``privacy 
and network security are among the factors that can affect the quality 
and reliability of broadband services,'' and that ``[c]ommunications 
security, integrity, and reliability must be maintained as providers 
transition to IP-supported networks.'' Does the proposed disruption 
reporting facilitate the 706(b) mandate to take immediate action to 
accelerate broadband deployment by providing valuable information on 
broadband infrastructure and service vulnerabilities, risks and 
disruptions that dampen consumer adoption and, thus, dis-incent 
broadband investment and deployment? Would the proposed reporting guide 
us to remove barriers to infrastructure investment and promote 
competition? Would broadband reporting promote Section 706's goals by 
enabling us to view sustained availability over time, providing a 
comprehensive view of performance-related metrics data? Of long-term 
advanced capability deployment? Could the Commission use the proposed 
outage reporting to spot areas of decreased investment or barriers to 
competition that we might need to stimulate or remove? We seek comment 
on whether the reliability of broadband service and its underlying 
network infrastructure can advance Section 706 availability goals as 
well as bring a real-time measure of the services that are available in 
a given area. For example, Form 477 supports Section 706 goals through 
non-outage data submitted by providers on a semiannual basis. Although 
those collections facilitate Section 706 availability driven 
considerations, we ask whether more granular data submitted in Part 4's 
time intervals may be of additional value to the Commission in the 
execution of Section 706's mandates. We think that these insights can 
be added to our Broadband Progress Report analyses without compromising 
the objectives now achieved through Part 4's confidentiality treatment 
(as further discussed below), and we seek comment on this view.
5. Universal Service Fund Mandates Under Section 254
    116. In addition, we believe that the Commission's universal 
service funding mandates, underlying principles and goals, as set forth 
in Section 254 of the Act, authorize us to require broadband disruption 
and outage reporting, as proposed, where the data from such reports 
could promote, or provide assurance (e.g., of ``maximum value'') to, 
the Commission's universal service funding efforts under Section 254. 
Sections 254 and 1 operate dynamically to ensure an appropriately broad 
scope of Commission authority to promote and safeguard universal 
service, thus, Section 1, as a policy statement, ``illuminates'' 
Section 254 which, in turn, ``builds upon'' Section 1. Comcast, 600 
F.3d at 654. We seek comment on this observation and analysis.
    117. Certain broadband providers receive significant federal 
universal service high-cost broadband funding support through the USF's 
Connect America Fund (CAF) program. To the extent that covered 
broadband providers receive (or have received) such funding, it is 
logical to require a certain level of assurance in behalf of the end 
users who fund it. Accordingly, we tentatively conclude that such part 
4 reporting is an appropriate assurance expectation from CAF 
recipients, and we seek comment on this tentative conclusion.
    118. On that basis, we now ask how part 4 disruption reporting 
concerning the broadband services funded through CAF support can best 
be used to assure these services and infrastructure? Specifically, 
should such assurance measurements be sought through our part 4 
disruption reporting, or through some other mechanism? How might the 
collection and analysis of CAF recipient outage information help inform 
our Section 254-related considerations and assist us in achieving our 
universal service goals? Should the Commission adopt standards for 
network health to be made part of CAF funding considerations? If so, 
what mechanisms should be used by the Commission to effectuate that 
approach? Should the Commission, for example, condition CAF support on 
standards that take into account a provider's network health as 
revealed through outage reporting?
    119. Section 4(o). As noted above, Section 4(o), 47 U.S.C. 154(o), 
states that ``[f]or the purpose of obtaining maximum effectiveness from 
the use of radio and wire communications in connection with safety of 
life and property, the Commission shall investigate and study all 
phases of the problem and the best methods of obtaining the cooperation 
and coordination of these systems.'' We believe that in order for the 
Commission to fulfill this mandate in today's transitioning world and 
beyond, it must be able to obtain relevant data--including BIAS and 
dedicated services outage reporting--to investigate and study all 
aspects of broadband communications. We also believe Section 4(o) 
authorizes the Commission to gather broadband network outage data to 
help ensure NS/EP communications continue to obtain maximum 
effectiveness, e.g., to receive appropriate levels of priority, be 
delivered over robust and resilient infrastructure, and function as 
required. Indeed, we believe that the ability to collect information on 
major disruptions to broadband communications supporting NS/EP priority 
services is essential to the Commission in fulfilling its national 
security/defense assurance role under the Act. We seek comment on these 
views.

[[Page 45114]]

II. Procedural Matters

    120. 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 proposals addressed in the FNPRM. Written public comments are 
requested on the IRFA. Comments must be identified as responses to the 
IRFA and must be filed by the deadlines for comments indicated on the 
first page of this FNPRM. In addition, the FNPRM and its IRFA (or 
summaries thereof) will be published in the Federal Register.
    121. The proceeding this FNPRM initiates shall be treated as a 
``permit-but-disclose'' proceeding in accordance with the Commission's 
ex parte rules. Persons making ex parte presentations must file a copy 
of any written presentation or a memorandum summarizing any oral 
presentation within two business days after the presentation (unless a 
different deadline applicable to the Sunshine period applies). Persons 
making oral ex parte presentations are reminded that memoranda 
summarizing the presentation must (1) list all persons attending or 
otherwise participating in the meeting at which the ex parte 
presentation was made, and (2) summarize all data presented and 
arguments made during the presentation. If the presentation consisted 
in whole or in part of the presentation of data or arguments already 
reflected in the presenter's written comments, memoranda or other 
filings in the proceeding, the presenter may provide citations to such 
data or arguments in his or her prior comments, memoranda, or other 
filings (specifying the relevant page and/or paragraph numbers where 
such data or arguments can be found) in lieu of summarizing them in the 
memorandum. Documents shown or given to Commission staff during ex 
parte meetings are deemed to be written ex parte presentations and must 
be filed consistent with rule 1.1206(b). In proceedings governed by 
rule 1.49(f) or for which the Commission has made available a method of 
electronic filing, written ex parte presentations and memoranda 
summarizing oral ex parte presentations, and all attachments thereto, 
must be filed through the electronic comment filing system available 
for that proceeding, and must be filed in their native format (e.g., 
.doc, .xml, .ppt, searchable .pdf). Participants in this proceeding 
should familiarize themselves with the Commission's ex parte rules.

III. Initial Regulatory Flexibility Analysis

    122. As required by the Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980, as 
amended (RFA), the Commission has prepared this present Initial 
Regulatory Flexibility Analysis (IRFA) of the possible significant 
economic impact on a substantial number of small entities by the 
policies and rules proposed in this Further Notice of Proposed Rule 
Making (FNPRM). Written public comments are requested on this IRFA. 
Comments must be identified as responses to the IRFA and must be filed 
by the deadlines for comments provided in ``Comment Period and 
Procedures'' of this FNPRM. The Commission will send a copy of this 
FNPRM, including this IRFA, to the Chief Counsel for Advocacy of the 
Small Business Administration (SBA). In addition, the FNPRM and IRFA 
(or summaries thereof) will be published in the Federal Register.
    123. The FNPRM seeks additional comment on various proposals first 
issued in a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking in PS Docket 11-80, adopted 
in 2011 and in a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking in PS Docket No. 15-80, 
adopted in 2015.
    124. The FNPRM seeks comment on:
     A proposal to require the filing of outage reports for 
broadband network disruptions (BIAS and dedicated service), including 
disruptions based on network performance degradation;
     proposed updates to the rules governing interconnected 
VoIP outage reporting to (i) include disruptions based on network 
performance degradation, and (ii) modify the VoIP outage reporting 
process to make it consistent with other services;
     reporting of call failures in wireless radio access 
networks and wireline local access networks, and on geography-based 
reporting of wireless outages in rural areas;
     refining the definition of ``critical communications'' at 
airports.
    125. The Commission traditionally has addressed network resiliency 
and reliability issues by working with communications service providers 
to develop and promote best practices that address network 
vulnerabilities, 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 legacy networks and the 
services delivered over them. Commission staff collaborate with 
individual providers and industry organizations to review outage 
results and address areas of concern. These efforts have resulted in 
significant reductions in outages affecting legacy services, including 
interconnected VoIP. The aim of extending outage reporting to cover 
broadband providers is to achieve a similar result: Enhance the 
reliability, resiliency and security of their services utilizing an 
approach--tailored as appropriate to account for broadband's unique 
aspects--that has produced significant benefits with respect to legacy 
networks and services.
    126. The legal bases for the rule changes proposed in this FNPRM 
are contained in sections 1, 4(i), 4(j), 4(o), 201(b), 214(d), 218, 
222, 251(e)(3), 254, 301, 303(b), 303(g), 303(r), 307, 309(a), 309(j), 
316, 332, 403, 615a-1, and 615c, 706 of the Communications Act of 1934, 
as amended, 47 U.S.C. 151, 154(i)-(j) & (o), 201(b), 214(d), 218, 222, 
251(e)(3), 254, 301, 303(b), 303(g), 303(r), 307, 309(a), 309(j), 316, 
332, 403, 615a-1, and 615c, 1302(a) and 1302(b).

A. Description and Estimate of the Number of Small Entities to Which 
Rules Will Apply

    127. 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'' the same 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, 5 U.S.C. 601(3). 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), Small Business Act, 15 U.S.C. 632.
1. Total Small Entities
    128. Our action may, over time, affect small entities that are not 
easily categorized at present. We therefore describe here, at the 
outset, three comprehensive, statutory small entity size standards. 
First, nationwide, there are a total of approximately 28.2 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

[[Page 45115]]

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.
2. Interconnected VoIP and Broadband ISPs Services
    129. The 2007 Economic Census places Internet Service Providers, 
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 
(e.g., cable and DSL ISPs), which are considered within the Wired 
Telecommunications Carriers category. Or, depending on whether the VoIP 
service is provided over client-supplied telecommunications connections 
(e.g., dial-up ISPs), which are considered within the All Other 
Telecommunications category. To ensure that this IRFA describes the 
universe of small entities that our action might affect, we discuss 
several different types of entities that might be currently providing 
interconnected VoIP service, broadband Internet access service, or 
business data services. In the document, https://apps.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-16-63A1.pdf, we provide a thorough 
discussion of VoIP service provided over the provider's own 
telecommunications facilities; and VoIP service provided over client-
supplied telecommunications connections, and to the extent applicable, 
whether each listed are considered ``small businesses.''
3. Wireline Providers
    130. Neither the Commission nor the SBA has developed a small 
business size standard specifically for incumbent local exchange 
services, providers of interexchange services, or operator service 
providers. The appropriate size standard under SBA rules is for the 
category Wired Telecommunications Carriers. 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. 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.'' In the document, https://apps.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-16-63A1.pdf, we provide a 
thorough discussion of Incumbent Local Exchange Services, Providers of 
Interexchange Services, or Operator Service Providers, and to the 
extent applicable, whether each of these listed are considered ``small 
businesses.''
4. Wireless Providers--Fixed and Mobile
    131. 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. Accordingly, 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. Also, the Commission does not 
generally track subsequent business size unless, in the context of 
assignments and transfers or reportable eligibility events, unjust 
enrichment issues are implicated. In the document, https://apps.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-16-63A1.pdf, we provide a 
thorough discussion of Wireless Telecommunications Carriers (except 
Satellite); Wireless Communications Services (WCS); 1670-1675 MHz 
Services; Wireless Telephony; Broadband Personal Communications 
Service; Specialized Mobile Radio Licenses; Lower 700 MHz Band 
Licenses; Upper 700 MHz Band Licenses; 700 Mhz Guard Band Licensees; 
Air-Ground Radiotelephone Service; 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)); 3650-
3700 MHz Band; Fixed Microwave Services; Local Multipoint Distribution 
Service; Broadband Radio Service and Educational Broadband Service; and 
to the extent applicable, whether each of these listed are considered 
``small businesses.''
5. Satellite Service Providers
    132. Two economic census categories address the satellite industry. 
The first category has a small business size standard of $32.5 million 
or less in average annual receipts, under SBA rules. The category of 
Satellite Telecommunications category comprises firms ``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.'' The second 
category has a size standard of $32.5 million or less in annual 
receipts. The second category, i.e., ``All Other Telecommunications'' 
``comprises establishments primarily engaged in providing specialized 
telecommunications services, such as satellite tracking, communications 
telemetry, and radar station operation. This industry also includes 
establishments primarily engaged in providing satellite terminal 
stations and associated facilities connected with one or more 
terrestrial systems and capable of transmitting telecommunications to, 
and receiving telecommunications from, satellite systems. 
Establishments providing Internet services or voice over Internet 
protocol (VoIP) services via client-supplied telecommunications 
connections are also included in this industry.'' In the document, 
https://apps.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-16-63A1.pdf, we 
provide a thorough discussion of Satellite Telecommunications firms, 
and All Other Telecommunications establishments; and to the extent 
applicable, whether each of these listed are considered ``small 
businesses.''
6. Cable Service Providers
    133. Because Section 706 requires us to monitor the deployment of 
broadband regardless of technology or transmission media employed, we 
know that some broadband service providers do not provide voice 
telephony service. Accordingly, we describe below other types of firms 
that may provide broadband services, including cable companies, MDS 
providers, and utilities, among others. Wired Telecommunications 
Carriers comprise of 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

[[Page 45116]]

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.'' For 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. For 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. In the 
document, https://apps.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-16-63A1.pdf, we provide a thorough discussion of Wired Telecommunications 
Carriers; Cable Companies and Systems; and Cable System Operators; and 
to the extent applicable, whether each of these listed are considered 
``small businesses.''

B. Description of Projected Reporting, Recordkeeping, and Other 
Compliance Requirements

    134. The rules proposed in the FNPRM would require broadband 
Internet access providers and dedicated service providers as well as 
interconnected VoIP providers, to report outages or disruptions to 
communications according to specified metrics and thresholds, of at 
least 30 minutes. These providers as proposed, would need to specify 
when the outage is related unintended changes to or failures of 
software or firmware, unintended modifications to databases, or 
attributed to a critical network element. Reporting requirements would 
align the reporting process and timing with that of legacy reporting 
currently required in the part 4 rules.
    135. Further, the rules proposed in the FNPRM would require 
interconnected VoIP service providers to submit Initial Reports, in 
addition to the Notifications and Final Reports currently required. 
These reporting requirements would align the reporting process and 
timing with that of legacy reporting currently required in the part 4 
rules.
    136. Moreover, the rules proposed in the FNPRM would require 
wireless and wireline providers to report outages that exceed proposed 
specified technical thresholds in the wireless radio access network and 
the wireline local access network respectively. The rules proposed in 
the FNPRM would also require wireless providers serving rural areas to 
file outage reports whenever one-third or more of its macro cell sites 
serving that area are disabled such that communications services cannot 
be handled through those sites, or are substantially impaired due to 
the outage(s) or other disruptions affecting those sites.
    137. 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 and interconnected VoIP, about 11,000 outage 
reports per year from all reporting sources combined are filed with the 
Commission. As a result of the rules proposed, we anticipate that fewer 
than 2,000 additional outage reports will be filed annually. Hence, 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. We note that, occasionally, the proposed outage reporting 
requirements could require the use of professional skills, including 
legal and engineering expertise. As a consequence, we believe that in 
the usual case, the only burden associated with the proposed reporting 
requirements contained in this FNPRM 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 (similar to 
the type that other service providers currently subject to outage 
reporting requirements are employing) should minimize the amount of 
time and effort that will be required to comply with the rules that we 
propose in this proceeding.
    138. The FNPRM's proposal to require outage reporting would be 
useful in refining voluntary best practices and in developing new ones. 
In each case for the reporting thresholds proposed, we have chosen 
specific circumstances, applicable to the specific service that, in our 
view, warrant reporting as a significant outage, leading to FCC 
analysis and, possibly, the application of existing best practices or 
the development and refinement of best practices in the future. 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 
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.

C. Steps Taken To Minimize Significant Economic Impact on Small 
Entities, and Significant Alternatives Considered

    139. The RFA requires an agency to describe any significant 
alternatives that it has considered in reaching its proposed approach, 
which may include (among others) the following four alternatives: (1) 
The establishment of differing compliance or reporting requirements or 
timetables that take into account the resources available to small 
entities; (2) the clarification, consolidation, or simplification of 
compliance or reporting requirements under the rule for small entities; 
(3) the use of performance, rather than design, standards; and (4) an 
exemption from coverage of the rule, or any part thereof, for small 
entities.
    140. Over the past decade, the proportion of communications 
services provided over a broadband platform has increased dramatically, 
and the U.S. 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 911 services and ensure the 
reliability of communications and critical infrastructures. Also, we 
believe that the magnitude of the outages

[[Page 45117]]

needed to trigger the proposed reporting requirements (e.g., outages of 
at least 30 minutes duration that potentially affect at least 900,000 
user minutes) is set 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 (e.g., packet loss and round-trip 
latency) and the corresponding thresholds chosen to trigger the outage 
reporting will not unduly burden smaller entities because of their 
objective, readily ascertainable nature. 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 FNPRM. Further, we believe 
that the proposed requirement that outage reports be filed 
electronically would significantly reduce the burdens and costs 
currently associated with manual filing processes.
    141. The proposed rules in the FNPRM are generally consistent with 
current industry practices, so the costs of compliance should be small. 
For a number of reasons, we believe that the costs of the reporting 
rules that we propose in the FNPRM are outweighed by the expected 
benefits (i.e., ensuring communications reliability through outage 
reporting, trend analysis and network best practice development and 
implementation). 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.
    142. We ask parties to include comments on possible alternatives 
that could satisfy the aims of the proceeding in cost-effective ways 
that do not overly burden providers, and we also seek comment on 
appropriate legal authority(ies) for the proposals under consideration. 
Moreover, we also seek comments on the relative costs and benefits 
associated with the proposed rules. 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?
    143. Further, 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 networks and services. We ask that 
commenters address 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 dedicated services. We also ask for comments on 
our tentative conclusions that: Expanding part 4 outage reporting 
requirements currently applicable to interconnected VoIP service 
providers, and extending part 4 reporting to BIAS providers and 
dedicated service providers, (i) would allow the Commission to analyze 
outage trends related to those services; (ii) would provide an 
important tool for network operators to use in preventing future 
outages; and (iii) would help to enhance and ensure the resiliency and 
reliability of critical communications networks and services.
    144. In sum, we welcome comments on: The proposed rules themselves; 
whether they would achieve their 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 premises for the actions contemplated; and the 
costs, burdens and benefits of our proposal.

D. Federal Rules That May Duplicate, Overlap, or Conflict With the 
Proposed Rule

    145. None.

List of Subjects in 47 CFR Part 4

    Airports, Communications common carriers, Communications equipment, 
Disruptions to communications, Network outages, Reporting and 
recordkeeping requirements, Telecommunications.

Federal Communications Commission.
Gloria J. Miles,
Federal Register Liaison Officer, Office of the Secretary.

Proposed Rules

    For the reasons discussed in the preamble, the Federal 
Communications Commission proposes to amend 47 CFR part 4 as follows:

PART 4--DISRUPTIONS TO COMMUNICATIONS

0
1. The authority citation for part 4 is revised to read as follows:

    Authority:  Sections 1, 4(i), 4(j), 4(o), 251(e)(3), 254, 301, 
303(b), 303(g), 303(r), 307, 309(a), 309(j), 316, 332, 403, 615a-1, 
and 615c of Pub. L. 73-416, 48 Stat. 1064, as amended, and section 
706 of Pub. L. 104-104, 110 Stat. 56; 47 U.S.C. 151, 154(i)-(j) & 
(o), 251(e)(3), 254, 301, 303(b), 303(g), 303(r), 307, 309(a), 
309(j), 316, 332, 403, 615a-1, 615c, and 1302, unless otherwise 
noted.

0
2. Section 4.3 is amended by redesignating paragraph (i) as paragraph 
(k) and adding new paragraphs (i) and (j) to read as follows:


Sec.  4.3  Communications providers covered by the requirements of this 
part.

* * * * *
    (i) Broadband Internet access service providers (BIAS) are 
providers of broadband Internet access service, as defined in Sec.  8.2 
of this chapter.
    (j) Dedicated Service providers are providers of service that 
transports data between two or more designated points, e.g., between an 
end user's premises and a point-of-presence, between the central office 
of a local exchange carrier (LEC) and a point-of-presence, or between 
two end user premises, at a rate of at least 1.5 Mbps in both 
directions (upstream/downstream) with prescribed performance 
requirements that include bandwidth, latency, or error-rate guarantees 
or other parameters that define delivery under a tariff or in a 
service-level agreement.
* * * * *
0
3. Section 4.7 is amended by revising the section heading and paragraph 
(e)(2), and adding paragraphs (g) through (i) to read as follows:


Sec.  4.7  Definitions of metrics used to determine reporting of 
outages and disruptions to communications.

* * * * *
    (e) * * *
    (2) The mathematical result of multiplying the duration of an 
outage, expressed in minutes, by the number of end-users potentially 
affected by the

[[Page 45118]]

outage, for all other forms of communications.
* * * * *
    (g) Packet loss is defined as the loss of one or more packets of 
data traveling across a network, which after being transmitted from a 
source, fail(s) to reach the destination point designated in the 
transmitting message.
    (h) Latency is defined as the average time delay for a packet to 
travel from a source to a destination.
    (i) Throughput is the amount of information transferred within a 
system in a given amount of time.
0
4. Section 4.9 is amended by revising the heading of paragraph (g), 
paragraphs (g)(1)(ii), (g)(2) and adding paragraph (i) to read as 
follows:


Sec.  4.9  Outage reporting requirements--threshold criteria.

* * * * *
    (g) Interconnected VoIP Service. (1) * * *
    (ii) Within 120 minutes of discovering that they have experienced 
on any facilities that they own, operate, lease, or otherwise utilize, 
an outage of at least 30 minutes duration that:
    (A) Potentially affects at least 900,000 user minutes of 
Interconnected VoIP service and results in complete loss of service;
    (B) Potentially affects 22,500 Gbps user minutes; or
    (C) Potentially affects any special offices and facilities (in 
accordance with paragraphs (a) through (d) of Sec.  4.5).
    (2) Not later than 72 hours after discovering the outage, the 
provider shall submit electronically an Initial Communications Outage 
Report to the Commission. Not later than 30 days after discovering the 
outage, the provider shall submit electronically a Final Communications 
Outage Report to the Commission. The Notification and the Initial and 
Final reports shall comply with the requirements of Sec.  4.11.
* * * * *
    (i) BIAS or Dedicated Service providers. (1) All BIAS providers and 
Dedicated Service providers, as defined in Sec.  4.3 shall submit 
electronically a Notification to the Commission within 120 minutes of 
discovering that they have experienced on any facilities that they own, 
operate, lease, or otherwise utilize, an outage of at least 30 minutes 
duration that:
    (A) Potentially affects at least 22,500 Gbps user minutes;
    (B) Potentially affects any special offices and facilities (in 
accordance with paragraphs (a) through (d) of Sec.  4.5); or
    (C) Potentially affects a 911 special facility (as defined in (e) 
of Sec.  4.5).
    (2) Not later than 72 hours after discovering the outage, BIAS 
providers and Dedicated Service providers, as defined in Sec.  4.3, 
shall submit electronically an Initial Communications Outage Report to 
the Commission. Not later than 30 days after discovering the outage, 
the broadband Internet access service provider shall submit 
electronically a Final Communications Outage Report to the Commission. 
The Notification and the Initial and Final reports shall comply with 
the requirements of Sec.  4.11.

[FR Doc. 2016-16273 Filed 7-8-16; 11:15 am]
 BILLING CODE 6712-01-P