[Federal Register Volume 84, Number 163 (Thursday, August 22, 2019)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 43764-43783]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2019-18062]


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

FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION

47 CFR Parts 1 and 54

[WC Docket Nos. 11-10 and 19-195, FCC No. 19-79]


Establishing the Digital Opportunity Data Collection and 
Modernizing the FCC Form 477 Data Program

AGENCY: Federal Communications Commission.

ACTION: Proposed rule.

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

SUMMARY: In this document, the Federal Communications Commission 
(Commission) adopts a Report and Order and Second Further Notice of 
Proposed Rulemaking (Second FNPRM). This document seeks comment on 
certain aspects of the Digital Opportunity Data Collection to enhance 
its accuracy and usefulness. The Second FNPRM seeks comment on ways to 
develop location-specific data that could be used in conjunction with 
the polygon-based data in the new collection to precisely identify the 
homes and small businesses that have and do not have access to 
broadband services. With respect to mobile wireless coverage, the 
Second FNPRM seeks comment on how to align the Digital Opportunity Data 
Collection with changes in mobile broadband deployment technology, 
markets, and policy needs. The Second FNPRM also seeks comment on how 
to improve satellite broadband deployment data given the unique 
characteristics of satellites.

DATES: For the Second FNPRM comments are due on or before September 23, 
2019, and reply comments are due on or before October 7, 2019. Written 
comments on the Paperwork Reduction Act information collection 
requirements must be submitted by the public, OMB, and other interested 
parties on or before October 21, 2019.

ADDRESSES: In addition to filing comments with the Commission's Office 
of the Secretary, as set forth below, a copy of any comments on the 
Paperwork Reduction Act information collection requirements contained 
herein should be submitted to the Commission via email to [email protected] 
and to Nicole Ongele, FCC, via email to [email protected].

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Wireline Competition Bureau, Kirk 
Burgee, at (202) 418-1599, [email protected], or, Wireless 
Telecommunications Bureau, Garnet Hanly, at (202) 418-0995, 
[email protected]. For additional information concerning the 
Paperwork Reduction Act information collection requirements contained 
in this document, send an email to [email protected] or contact Nicole Ongele 
at (202) 418-2991.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: This is a summary of the Commission's Report 
and Order and Second Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking in WC Docket 
Nos. 11-10 and 19-195, FCC 19-79, adopted August 1, 2019 and released 
August 6, 2019. The full text of this document is available for public 
inspection during regular business hours in the FCC Reference 
Information Center, Portals II, 445 12th Street SW, Room CY-A257, 
Washington, DC 20554. It also is available on the Commission's website 
at https://www.fcc.gov/document/fcc-improves-broadband-mapping-0.
    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 in response to the Second FNPRM on or before the dates 
indicated on the first page of this document. Comments may be filed 
using the Commission's Electronic Filing System (ECFS). See Electronic 
Filing of Documents in Rulemaking Proceedings, 63 FR 24121 (1998).
    [ssquf] Electronic Filers: Comments may be filed electronically 
using the internet by accessing the ECFS: https://www.fcc.gov/ecfs/.
    [ssquf] 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

[[Page 43765]]

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 
9050 Junction Drive, Annapolis Junction, MD 20701. U.S. Postal Service 
first-class, Express, and Priority mail must be addressed to 445 12th 
Street SW, Washington, DC 20554.
    [ssquf] 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

I. Introduction

    1. Accurate broadband deployment data is critical to the 
Commission's efforts to bridge the digital divide. Effectively 
targeting federal and state spending efforts to bring broadband to 
those areas most in need of it means understanding where broadband is 
available and where it is not. The census-block level fixed broadband 
service availability reporting the Commission currently requires has 
been an effective tool for helping the Commission target universal 
service support to the least-served areas of the country, but has made 
it difficult for the Commission to direct funding to the ``gaps'' in 
broadband coverage--those areas where some, but not all, homes and 
businesses have access to modern communications services.
    2. We therefore initiate a new data collection, the Digital 
Opportunity Data Collection, that is distinct from the existing Form 
477 collection and that will gather geospatial broadband service 
availability data specifically targeted toward advancing our universal 
service goals. Pursuant to the Digital Opportunity Data Collection, we 
require all broadband service providers to submit granular maps of the 
areas where they have broadband-capable networks and make service 
available. Given the Commission's ongoing investigation into the 
coverage maps of one or more major mobile operators, we limit the new 
data collection obligations to fixed broadband providers at present and 
seek comment on how best to incorporate mobile wireless coverage data 
into the Digital Opportunity Data Collection.
    3. Service providers--who are uniquely situated to know where their 
own networks are deployed--must determine in the first instance the 
availability of broadband in their service areas, taking into account 
their individual circumstances and their on-the-ground knowledge and 
experience. At the same time, to complement this granular broadband 
availability data, we adopt a process to begin collecting public input, 
sometimes known as ``crowdsourcing,'' on the accuracy of service 
providers' broadband deployment data. Through this new tool, State, 
local, and Tribal governmental entities and members of the public will 
be able to submit fixed broadband availability data, leveraging their 
experience concerning service availability. In addition, because we 
leave in place for now the existing Form 477 data collection, we make 
targeted changes to reduce reporting burdens for all providers by 
removing and clarifying certain requirements and modifying the 
collection.
    4. In the Second FNPRM, we seek comment on certain aspects of the 
Digital Opportunity Data Collection to enhance the accuracy and 
usefulness of broadband deployment reporting. We also seek comment on 
ways that we can develop location-specific data that could be overlaid 
onto the polygon-based data in this new data collection to precisely 
identify the homes and small businesses that have and do not have 
access to broadband services. With respect to mobile wireless coverage, 
we seek comment on how to align the Digital Opportunity Data Collection 
with changes in mobile broadband deployment technology, markets, and 
policy needs. The questions asked, and proposals made, in the Second 
FNPRM build a framework for addressing these and other issues. Finally, 
the Second FNPRM seeks comment on how we can improve the satellite 
broadband deployment data given the unique characteristics of 
satellites.

II. Background

    5. First established in 2000, the Commission's Form 477 began as a 
collection of subscription and connection data for local telephone and 
broadband services that helped the Commission to, among other things, 
meet statutory annual reporting obligations and monitor local voice 
competition. Over time, the Form 477 data collection has evolved into 
the primary data source for many Commission actions, including 
reporting to Congress and the public about the availability of 
broadband services, informing transaction reviews, and supporting our 
universal service policies. At the same time, it has become 
increasingly clear that the fixed and mobile broadband deployment data 
collected on the Form 477 are not sufficient to understanding where 
universal service support should be targeted and supporting the 
imperative of our broadband-deployment policy goals.
    6. For purposes of broadband deployment reporting, the Commission 
currently requires fixed providers to report the census blocks in which 
their broadband service is available. Fixed broadband connections are 
available in a census block ``if the provider does, or could, within a 
service interval that is typical for that kind of connection--that is, 
without an extraordinary commitment of resources--provision two-way 
data transmission to and from the internet with advertised speeds 
exceeding 200 kbps in at least one direction to end-user premises in 
the census block.'' However, census-block based fixed deployment data 
have limitations--providers report whether or not fixed broadband 
service is available in at least some part of each census block, but 
not whether there is availability at all areas within a block.
    7. Providers of fixed voice and broadband service report on their 
end-user subscriptions by submitting the total number of connections in 
each census tract in which they provide service. Providers of mobile 
voice and broadband service report their total subscribers for each 
state in which they provide service to customers. Facilities-based 
providers of mobile broadband service report on deployment by 
submitting, for each technology and frequency band employed, polygons 
in geographic information system (GIS) mapping files that digitally 
represent the geographic areas in which a customer could expect to 
receive the minimum speed the service provider advertises for that 
area. In addition, mobile service providers must report the census 
tracts in which their service is advertised and available to potential 
customers.
    8. In establishing the Form 477 as its primary vehicle for 
collecting

[[Page 43766]]

information about the deployment of broadband services, the Commission 
predicted that the data from the Form 477 would ``materially improve'' 
its ability to develop, evaluate, and revise broadband policy, as well 
as provide valuable benchmarks for Congress, the Commission, other 
policymakers, and consumers. In its comments in this proceeding, the 
National Telecommunications and Information Administration (NTIA) 
states that its analysts ``routinely refer to the Commission's Form 477 
data, including both deployment and subscription data, to help inform 
policymakers and enhance [its] technical support of broadband 
infrastructure investment.'' The Commission has used aggregate 
broadband data reported by providers on Form 477 to, among other 
things: (1) Meet our statutory obligation to annually report on the 
state of broadband availability; (2) update our universal service 
policies and monitor whether our universal service goals are being 
achieved in a cost-effective manner; (3) meet our public safety 
obligations; and (4) maintain coverage maps to inform stakeholders, 
including industry and the public.
    9. In an effort to collect and develop better quality, more useful, 
and more granular broadband deployment data, the Commission adopted the 
2017 Data Collection Improvement FNPRM in August 2017. In the 2017 Data 
Collection Improvement FNPRM, the Commission sought comment on: (1) 
Ways in which the Commission might increase the quality and accuracy of 
the broadband information we collect; and (2) ways in which the 
Commission might streamline its broadband reporting requirements and 
thereby reduce the burdens on filers. The Commission also noted that 
one of its primary objectives is to ensure that the data collected will 
be closely aligned with the uses to which they will be put, and sought 
comment on those uses to inform our analysis. In response, we received 
a voluminous amount of comments, reply comments, and ex parte 
presentations with specific recommendations on how best to improve our 
broadband reporting process.

III. Second Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking

    10. We take steps today in the Report and Order to improve our 
broadband data collection and reporting by directing USAC, under the 
supervision of OEA, to undertake establishing the online portal for the 
Digital Opportunity Data Collection, an entirely new collection 
targeted specifically at identifying unserved areas with greater 
precision in order to advance our universal service goals. In this 
Second FNPRM, we seek comment on additional issues to continue our 
ongoing efforts to ensure that the Digital Opportunity Data Collection 
will evolve to align with changes to technology, markets, and policy 
needs.

A. Improving Broadband Data

    11. Even with public input to improve the quality of the Digital 
Opportunity Data Collection over time, it is essential that we receive 
reliable fixed broadband availability data from filers of this new 
collection at the outset. Although we are cognizant of the potential 
burdens that greater precision in reporting can entail, commenters have 
indicated in the record that the approach we adopt today--to collect 
coverage polygons of fixed-broadband service availability--will allow 
providers to submit more precise data with reasonable burdens. 
Nonetheless, we seek comment on steps the Commission can take to 
improve the quality of fixed broadband coverage polygons while 
minimizing the associated reporting burdens.
1. Additional Technical Standards for Fixed Broadband Reporting
    12. As part of the Digital Opportunity Data Collection, the 
Commission is directing OEA to provide guidance to fixed providers 
regarding how to develop the polygons depicting fixed broadband 
coverage. Connected Nation expresses concern that small service 
providers in particular will struggle to comply with the new reporting 
requirements in the Digital Opportunity Data Collection unless they get 
assistance in creating their broadband coverage polygons. In the Report 
and Order, we identify help-desk support and clear instructions as ways 
we will assist fixed broadband providers with meeting the new filing 
obligations. We seek comment on what other steps the Commission and 
USAC can take to help fixed providers file accurate data as part of the 
new collection.
    13. We seek comment on whether Commission staff should prescribe 
rules for reporting fixed wired broadband deployment that will provide 
consistently reliable results for similarly-situated filers? For 
example, should we establish fixed buffers around network facilities to 
define coverage for specific fixed technologies (e.g., 200-meter 
buffers around the location of distribution or coaxial plant)? Would 
this promote consistency and reliability among submissions? We note 
that applying such buffers or other constraints may foreclose 
consideration of individual network characteristics. Are there ways to 
mitigate or address this risk? What other methodologies for developing 
polygons should we permit fixed providers to use? For example, would 
polygons based on homes passed or addresses served by the fixed 
provider produce equally reliable polygons? How much flexibility should 
we afford fixed providers in selecting a methodology to creating 
broadband coverage polygons? Would any globally-applied constraint be 
too likely to over- or under-state service availability? How should 
broadband coverage polygons account for transport capacity? That is, 
how should we ensure that fixed providers are capable of serving every 
location covered by a polygon? We recognize that determining the area 
served by a broadband network is highly idiosyncratic and determined by 
multiple factors. For example, different companies might take different 
approaches in the same circumstance, while a single company might take 
a different approach in different markets depending on the level of 
local government regulation (e.g., local franchise agreements that 
include build-out requirements). In addition, coverage can depend on 
very local conditions like access to rights-of-way along one route and 
not another or the ability to serve the edge of franchise or service 
areas. With the end goal of creating a single cohesive dataset and map 
representation of where coverage is and is not located, what measures, 
methods, and mechanisms should be implemented to ensure the greatest 
interoperability and least post-processing of the submitted data?
    14. We also seek comment on establishing standards for reporting 
coverage polygons for terrestrial fixed wireless broadband service. In 
the 2017 Data Collection Improvement FNPRM, the Commission sought 
comment on setting standards for mobile coverage polygons. Separately, 
it adopted a set of standards for determining mobile coverage using a 
propagation model for the Mobility Fund Phase-II (MF-II) LTE data 
collection. If the Commission adopts standards for reporting mobile 
broadband deployment, should we require terrestrial-fixed wireless 
providers to report broadband deployment using similar standards? Are 
there fundamental differences between fixed wireless and mobile 
technologies that would caution against using mobile wireless standards 
for fixed wireless deployment reporting (e.g., fixed wireless use of 
fixed, high-powered antennas that could result in a different link 
budget than for mobile

[[Page 43767]]

service, or the use of unlicensed spectrum by some fixed wireless 
providers)? If so, would it be appropriate to adopt different standards 
(e.g., probability of cell-edge throughput) or parameters (e.g., a 
different utilization rate for unlicensed spectrum) for fixed wireless? 
Further, what factors should Commission staff consider to independently 
validate the fixed wireless mapping methodology (e.g., cell-site and 
receive-site engineering and technical details and locations, RF 
propagation characteristics, signal strength)?
    15. We also seek comment on whether fixed broadband providers 
should include latency levels along with the other parameters in 
reporting their coverage polygons. Latency is the time it takes for a 
data packet to travel across a network from one point on the network to 
another. The Commission considers latency levels as relevant in the 
provision of universal service support. If latency is to be included in 
reporting fixed broadband coverage, how should it be included? For 
instance, how and at what point in the network should the provider 
measure latency? Would we need to be more specific than how we 
considered latency in the context of awarding Connect America Fund 
Phase II support or would the same approach be appropriate?
    16. We seek comment on what steps the Commission can or should take 
to support the production of high-quality data and ways the Commission 
can provide incentives to improve the quality of the data filed. Are 
there steps that fixed providers can take to ensure better quality 
broadband deployment data and, if so, what will the cost of those steps 
likely be? Does the technology deployed or the size of the fixed 
provider matter? If so, how? Is there a size or type of fixed provider 
that will be able to file high-quality data without any additional 
support or added cost? Are there unique burdens on smaller fixed 
providers that would not be burdens for larger fixed providers? In 
general, what will the cost be on the fixed broadband industry to 
produce reliable deployment data? Also, is there anything that can be 
done to lessen reporting burdens on all filers as part of the new 
collection, especially ways to harmonize filing procedures and 
requirements from other collections to reduce duplication of efforts? 
In addition, are there other relevant data that we should gather as 
part of a new collection of broadband deployment data?
    17. We emphasize that the introduction of crowdsourced data does 
not alleviate a fixed provider's obligation to conduct thorough 
assessments of service availability before submitting broadband 
deployment data. We propose to use a variety of methods, including 
audits and statistical analyses, to confirm that the fixed broadband 
deployment data submitted by providers are accurate. Put simply, if a 
location falls within the coverage polygon submitted by a fixed 
provider, then it must either already receive fixed broadband service 
or be capable of receiving such service within ten business days and 
without extraordinary expense. We seek comment on the best method (or 
mix of methods) to ensure the submission of accurate fixed broadband 
deployment data, including the plans that USAC must develop for 
corroborating and spot-checking data submitted by fixed providers. What 
penalties would be appropriate upon a finding of inaccurate data and 
should there be more severe penalties for chronic filers of bad data? 
Should the Commission treat differently those coverage polygons 
submitted by providers that have a certain number of public filings 
disputing their accuracy? Is there an appropriate threshold or 
methodology to identify unreliable filings that should be treated 
differently, and if so, how should the Commission treat those filings? 
ACA argues that providers should not be sanctioned for submitting 
inaccurate data ``unless there is clear evidence the provider 
intentionally and persistently did so.'' We seek comment on this 
approach, as well as how to handle situations in which the filer is 
negligent (but not intentional) in submitting inaccurate data.
    18. The Digital Opportunity Data Collection will significantly 
improve our understanding of broadband deployment, and we want to 
ensure that its value is fully realized by the Commission, 
stakeholders, and ratepayers. We therefore seek comment on additional 
measures we can adopt to meet this objective. Can the maps and datasets 
derived from the Digital Opportunity Data Collection be used in 
connection with the other universal service programs, in particular E-
Rate and Rural Health Care, to the extent they provide support for 
infrastructure build-out, to promote efficiency, minimize waste, and 
help avoid duplicative funding within the Fund? If so, how? Should we 
combine the Digital Opportunity Data Collection datasets with other 
datasets, for example, locations where funding has been committed in 
Commission and other federal agency programs, even where deployment may 
not have occurred? We believe that the Digital Opportunity Data 
Collection represents a unique opportunity for integrating related but 
distinct data resources to produce a unified picture of broadband data. 
What data would be appropriate to include in this effort and how can it 
be used most effectively? What other issues should we consider as we 
evaluate this possibility?
    19. Improving Satellite Broadband Data. We seek comment on how, for 
purposes of the Digital Opportunity Data Collection, we can improve 
upon the existing satellite broadband data collection to reflect more 
accurately current satellite broadband service availability. The 
Commission has recognized there are issues with the quality of the 
satellite broadband data that are currently reported under the existing 
Form 477. For instance, according to currently reported data, satellite 
service offering 25 Mbps/3 Mbps speeds is available to all but 0.03% of 
the U.S. population. However, while satellite signal coverage may 
enable operators to offer services to wide swaths of the country, 
overall satellite capacity may limit the number of consumers that can 
actually subscribe to satellite service at any one time. Given that the 
coverage geographies reported by satellite providers based on satellite 
beams are likely to remain larger than those reported by terrestrial 
fixed providers based on their network facilities, we seek comment 
generally on how to improve the satellite broadband data reported in 
the new data collection. Geostationary orbit (GSO) satellites are 
unique in that they have the relatively large beam coverage area over 
which service is provided, have inherent flexibility in using wide-area 
beams and spot beams, and face relative difficulty in adding new 
capacity. For instance, given these characteristics of GSO satellite 
service, should the Commission require GSO satellite providers to 
report network capacity as well? Would additional information, 
including the number and location of satellite beams, the capacity used 
to provide service by individual satellite to consumers at various 
speeds, and the number of subscribers served at those levels, improve 
the quality and usefulness of the satellite broadband availability 
data?
    20. We also seek comment on whether we could rely on other data to 
improve the reliability of the satellite broadband availability data 
reported in the new data collection. For example, would examining the 
presence of existing subscribers provide greater insight into where 
satellite broadband service is available than does satellite beam

[[Page 43768]]

coverage data alone? Could we meaningfully validate a satellite 
provider's availability data based on the presence of subscribers above 
a de minimis level in the census tract in which the census block is 
located? For instance, should we use an absolute number and/or 
percentage of households or subscribers in a census tract? We seek 
comment on these methods and any other analysis to obtain a more 
meaningful representation of the deployment of satellite capacity in a 
geographic area.
    21. We also seek comment on whether there are any other limitations 
that we should place on the reporting of fixed satellite broadband 
service. Current fixed satellite broadband service relies on GSO 
satellites, and customers' satellite earth stations therefore need a 
clear view of the southern sky to connect to such services. Should 
satellite broadband providers that rely on GSO satellites exclude from 
their reported coverage polygons any area where terrain blocks a clear 
view of their satellites (i.e., where it is not physically possible to 
deliver the service)? We note that the Commission has recently 
authorized several non-geostationary satellite constellations (NGSOs) 
that contemplate providing low-earth-orbit, low latency satellite 
broadband services in the future. What issues should be addressed for 
these satellite services in the new data collection as they begin to be 
offered?
2. Use of Crowdsourcing
    22. In the Report and Order, the Commission directs USAC to begin 
collecting information from state governments, including state public 
utility commissions, and local and Tribal governmental entities, as 
well as members of the public, about the accuracy of the coverage 
polygons gathered from fixed providers and to make certain data 
publicly available. In this section, we seek comment about steps the 
Commission and USAC can take to make the best use of such data to 
improve the quality of the service-availability dataset going forward.
    23. At a high level, we propose that USAC track coverage disputes, 
follow-up with providers to ascertain whether there is agreement that 
there is a problem with the data and ensure that providers refile 
updated and corrected data in a timely fashion. We propose that USAC 
create a system to track complaints about the accuracy of fixed 
broadband coverage polygons. This functionality could be similar to the 
Commission's existing consumer-complaints database. Having a tracking 
system would allow USAC to pass the complaints along to the appropriate 
provider and track whether the person filing the complaint received a 
response. In instances where the provider agrees that its original 
filing was in error, USAC could track the error and ensure that the 
provider corrects its data. Alternatively, USAC could simply publish 
the complaints it receives and require providers to periodically check 
complaints about their filings. Is this a reasonable burden to place on 
providers? How could USAC efficiently track which of the complaints 
should be and ultimately are addressed through data corrections?
    24. We also seek comment on the appropriate time period (if any) 
for fixed providers to respond to a complaint. ACA argues that it would 
be ``onerous if a smaller provider had to respond immediately to each 
and every submission from an individual or government entity'' and 
recommends that small providers be allowed to account for any 
inaccurate data at its next Digital Opportunity Data Collection filing. 
Connected Nation recommends that there be ``a cyclical, scheduled 
feedback process in which there are defined windows for receiving 
feedback, analyzing and validating feedback, and updating the map after 
feedback has been adjudicated.'' We seek comment on the best approach 
to timing for the crowdsourcing process, not only for small providers 
but for all filers.
    25. We propose to have USAC collect the following data from 
entities disputing coverage: The address of the location at which 
coverage is disputed and/or its coordinates (latitude and longitude); 
the fixed provider whose service coverage is in dispute; the download 
and upload speeds available for subscription; the technology reported 
at that location by the provider; and contact information from the 
submitting party (email address and/or phone number). Are these types 
of data appropriate for this collection and are there other types of 
data USAC should ask for to make this collection an effective tool for 
USAC, the Commission, industry, and the public? We also propose to 
require that individuals disputing coverage certify that they have 
requested service from the provider and that the provider either 
refused, or failed, to provide service within the applicable 10-
business day period. Would this establish a reasonable threshold for 
disputing coverage? Are there other requirements we could establish to 
ensure that disputes raise a valid question about coverage in 
individual locations? How should we handle disputes that do not meet 
these criteria (such as those admitting availability but alleging that 
a service falls short of expectations based on service provider's 
reported coverage)? Would it be helpful to gather information about 
nearby areas where service is available (if the individual knows)?
    26. The Commission has noted that overall broadband deployment in 
Indian country remains significantly behind deployment on non-Tribal 
lands due to several long-recognized barriers to broadband deployment 
on Tribal lands. Given these additional challenges, we recognize the 
importance of Tribal participation in the Digital Opportunity Data 
Collection's public feedback mechanism. We seek comment on how best to 
incorporate input of Tribal governments on broadband coverage maps, 
given the special importance of collecting accurate and complete 
broadband availability information for Tribal lands. For example, we 
propose to have USAC or Commission staff conduct outreach directly with 
Tribal governments to facilitate their involvement in the dispute 
process and to provide technical assistance to them as needed. We seek 
comment on these proposals and how we could implement them most 
effectively. We also seek comment on any additional issues specific to 
Tribal governments that we should take into account in connection with 
any disputes concerning coverage data. Finally, we seek comment on 
whether we should expand these proposals to include other Tribal 
entities, such as inter-Tribal organizations.
    27. We seek comment about how quickly fixed providers should be 
required to correct any data where they do not refute the alleged lack 
of coverage. Should USAC require that fixed providers either establish 
coverage or file updated coverage polygons within a specific number of 
days following submission of an uncontested dispute? If so, what number 
of days would provide a reasonable balance between the burden placed on 
fixed providers and the need for policy-makers to have the most 
accurate data possible? On the other hand, would it be overly 
burdensome for fixed providers to re-file data addressing each 
individual error, particularly if the provider's coverage is the 
subject of multiple pending complaints? Should USAC allow for fixed 
providers to batch any corrections into weekly or monthly updates, as 
needed? How can USAC balance the need for corrected data against 
provider burden? We note that NCTA proposes that fixed providers would 
correct the data in the next filing opportunity, which could leave the

[[Page 43769]]

original data possibly in place for many months even after an agreement 
that the original filing was in error. Is that approach reasonable?
    28. When the public files a complaint about the fixed broadband 
coverage polygons, there is a time lag between the date of the filing 
under the new collection and the date that the complaint is filed. We 
believe there are only very limited circumstances in which a provider 
would have previously had broadband service of a given quality 
(technology, upload speed and download speed) but removed it (e.g., 
copper retirement). Thus, if there is a complaint that the fixed 
broadband coverage polygons are incorrect, we believe it is likely that 
the data are incorrect for earlier time periods as well. Is this a 
reasonable assumption and should we require providers to resubmit all 
earlier datasets for the affected areas to conform to any corrections? 
Doing so would provide a more accurate view on the evolution of 
service-availability coverage over time. On the other hand, it will 
also involve a greater burden for providers. In addition, it is unclear 
whether the time-series data would be useful in targeting USF support. 
We seek comment on the relative benefit (better time series data) 
compared to the provider burden.
    29. We also seek comment on what standards and processes the 
Commission should establish to govern the resolution of cases in which 
providers and the stakeholders disagree about whether the broadband 
coverage polygons are correct--that is, whether service is actually 
available at a given location. NTCA argues that crowdsourced reports 
should not be treated the same as general consumer complaints, 
requiring a provider response in all cases. NTCA suggests that 
providers should be required to respond to reports or adjust their maps 
only in situations where ``material trends develop in vetted 
information that indicate a systemic problem with a provider's 
reporting in a given area.'' Are these reasonable approaches? What 
dispute resolution process would be appropriate? Providers should have 
a period of time within which to refute any complaint and, in the 
absence of a timely and compelling response, USAC could require the 
fixed provider to submit a coverage polygon that excludes the disputed 
location. What types of evidence would be appropriate for providers to 
submit? What framework should the Commission establish to ensure that 
USAC reliably and efficiently adjudicates conflicting claims in such 
circumstances? What evidentiary standard should the Commission 
establish to resolve such disputes: Preponderance of evidence, clear 
and convincing evidence, or another standard? In situations indicating 
pervasive reporting errors, bad faith, or a refusal to refile a 
coverage polygon that has been found to contain an inaccurate location, 
USAC could take additional steps, such as referring the matter to the 
FCC for enforcement action. What remedies would be appropriate in such 
an enforcement action? If one possibility were monetary forfeitures, 
what would be an appropriate base forfeiture amount and what would be 
appropriate increments in the case of repeated or more egregious 
violations? Are there other approaches the Commission should take to 
areas where there is disagreement?
    30. We believe there could be instances of dispute between a member 
of the public filing a complaint and a fixed provider where both 
parties can credibly claim that they are correct. For example, a 
consumer may find a fixed provider is not available in its building 
because the building owner is not allowing that provider entry into the 
building. If the excluded provider could meet the service-reporting 
requirements (e.g., with respect to time to service), should the 
Commission consider such a location as served by that provider or not? 
Would it be beneficial to identify, as part of any tracking process for 
public feedback on the data collection, instances where a provider is 
willing and able to provide service but is not able to do so due to 
circumstances beyond its control? Would USAC need to verify or validate 
such claims and, if so, how? Or, in the alternative, should the 
Commission require that providers remove from the coverage polygons 
they file small areas to represent those buildings in which they are 
prohibited from offering service for any reason?
    31. Finally, we seek comment on whether the Commission should 
direct USAC to accept the upload of bulk complaints data. We want to 
avoid bad-faith or malicious challenges to coverage data, such as a 
dispute to every address in a fixed provider's footprint via an 
automated tool or bot. In order for this tool to be effective, it is 
essential that we safeguard the integrity of the data submitted through 
it. On the other hand, we can see there could be value in allowing 
Tribal, local, or state governments to provide data in bulk where they 
have already investigated and so want to consider whether and how to 
permit USAC to allow for the collection of bulk data. Would 
establishing a certification requirement, similar to what we have 
proposed for individuals, help to ensure the validity of bulk challenge 
data?
    32. To address these issues, should the Commission limit 
permissible bulk filings to certain authenticated users, such as states 
or state commissions, local governments, and Tribal entities? If so, 
how should it approach authentication? What entities should be entitled 
to become authenticated users--for example, should the Commission limit 
it to just state government entities? Are there parts of state 
governments, like public-utility commissions, or mapping or broadband 
offices, that would be more likely to provide meaningful input? Should 
USAC track and resolve disputes involving bulk complaints in the same 
manner as individual complaints? Or, in the alternative, should USAC 
accept complaints as accurate and shift the burden of proof onto 
providers to submit convincing data to refute the crowdsourced data? We 
seek comment on these issues.
3. Incorporating Location Information Into the Digital Opportunity Data 
Collection
    33. In the accompanying Report and Order, we adopt the reporting of 
coverage polygons for fixed-broadband services, a step that will result 
in more precise deployment data. Parties have correctly pointed out, 
however, that simply knowing what parts of a census block lack 
broadband service does not provide enough information by itself to 
identify the specific locations within that census block that lack 
fixed broadband availability. We agree that there are likely benefits 
to incorporating nationwide location data into the Digital Opportunity 
Data Collection and we propose to adopt such an approach, informed by 
comments on how USAC can collect and incorporate such data. What data 
does USAC need and how could it get access to them? We believe that 
broadband coverage polygons submitted by service providers could be 
overlaid on nationwide location data in order to precisely identify the 
homes and small businesses that have and do not have access to 
broadband services, and seek comment on this view.
    34. We note that the first step in incorporating location data is 
to establish a process where all broadband-serviceable locations (e.g., 
houses, businesses, structures) are mapped using a single methodology, 
providing a harmonized reference point for fixed broadband reporting. 
Toward that end, the Broadband Mapping Coalition is in the process of 
testing a ``Broadband Serviceable Location Fabric'' to demonstrate the 
viability of a location-

[[Page 43770]]

based proposal. The Broadband Mapping Coalition's testing represents a 
concrete effort to identify the issues facing USAC in moving to a 
location-based collection.
    35. We propose to create and integrate a broadband-serviceable 
location tool into the Digital Opportunity Data Collection. As an 
initial matter, we seek comment on Alexicon's claim that a broad 
definition of location lowers both the reporting burden for providers 
and the underlying cost of identifying locations. We also seek comment 
on what kinds of locations we should include as broadband-serviceable. 
For example, we could designate a parcel as the definition of a 
location on the theory that a fixed provider that offers service to one 
part of the parcel would be willing to serve anywhere on that parcel. 
We seek comment on how to define the location of a parcel (e.g., as the 
centroid of a parcel or as the location of a building on a parcel). 
Alternatively, we could determine that a broadband addressable location 
should be defined as a building. The Broadband Mapping Coalition work 
has shown that it is generally possible to identify individual 
buildings as locations. We note, however, that there can be multiple 
buildings on a parcel and question whether it would be advisable to 
treat each of those buildings as a distinct location. We believe a 
provider is likely to run a single connection (drop) from its network 
to, for example, a farm, rather than individual connections to all of 
the structures on the parcel (e.g., the farmhouse and each garage, 
barn, chicken coop, storage shed, etc.). We seek comment on 
alternatives for defining a broadband-serviceable location.
    36. Should we decide that, for residential users, the location 
would be the individual housing unit? For residential Multi-Tenant 
Environments (e.g., apartment buildings), this could mean treating each 
individual apartment or unit as a separate broadband-serviceable 
location. We do not believe this approach is appropriate for 
determining fixed broadband coverage in a Multi-Tenant Environment--
fixed providers likely would not offer service only to some units in a 
Multi-Tenant Environment. Additionally, we are concerned that the added 
complexity--far more locations and the need to differentiate not just 
latitude and longitude, but also potentially altitude--would outweigh 
any benefits. We seek comment on this assumption.
    37. With regard to defining a location, we propose to have the 
database record a single point, defined by latitude and longitude, for 
that location. We anticipate that this would be the coordinates of a 
building on a parcel. We believe that recording each location as a 
single point has an advantage over reporting the outlines of each 
building (i.e., a polygon for each location), the latter of which will 
increase the difficulty of creating the database and the amount of data 
required, without meaningfully improving the quality of the database. 
We seek comment on this approach.
    38. We also seek comment on how we would approach the quality of 
such a broadband-serviceable location database. We note that there are 
different types of errors possible in such a database, for example 
incorrectly counting a structure that does not need a broadband 
connection as a broadband-serviceable location, such as an abandoned 
house or a shed. Including such locations might lead us to mistakenly 
direct USF support to a location that does not need broadband service. 
Another type of error could be to exclude locations that should be 
included, such as a home in a heavily forested area that does not 
appear on satellite imagery. Such missed locations would not appear in 
the data collection at all and could be excluded from any USF support. 
Finally, there also could be errors about the characteristics of a 
location, for example, designating a residential location as a business 
or identifying the wrong building from among several on a given 
property. We seek comment on how best to account for these and other 
possible challenges in building an accurate location-based database.
    39. We note that there are a limited number of data sources against 
which USAC could check such a dataset. The U.S. Census Bureau publishes 
block-level data, including the number of housing units, but only every 
ten years and Census data do not generally include business locations. 
We seek comment on whether the less granular county-level housing 
estimates the Census publishes yearly could be used as a data source 
for dataset verification. Furthermore, if we define a location as a 
parcel or building (rather than a housing unit), we would not expect 
the counts to match the Census data. The National Address Database and 
Open Address Database each provide a list of addresses and point 
locations for areas where they have coverage. Neither is a complete 
nationwide dataset, though they could be useful for checking areas 
where they have data. Each of these datasets has challenges, however. 
For example, the data in the National Address Database do not appear to 
be updated on a regular schedule and often have multiple points for a 
given address (e.g., from state, county and local government), making 
it hard to get a count of points in a given area. We seek comment on 
whether or how we can make use of such data sources. We also seek input 
on whether there are other sources we should be aware of that could be 
useful as a check of a broadband-addressable location database.
    40. As an alternative, we could take a statistically valid sample 
of the data points as a way to keep the database updated and accurate. 
We seek comment on how to stratify such a sample (are there distinct 
categories in the data--urban, suburban, rural, residential, business, 
Tribal, non-Tribal--that warrant distinct samples?). We also seek 
comment about how to evaluate the quality of the sampled data. Is it 
sufficient to look at satellite imagery or would we need to inspect 
locations in person?
    41. In addition, the Commission must consider the level of quality 
that it seeks to attain in using any database. How should the 
Commission consider the trade-off between the time to improve the 
database's accuracy against the risks posed by any inaccuracies in the 
data? Would any of these approaches or sources identified above, or 
others, be helpful in determining particular types of errors in the 
location database? Should we incorporate public feedback, as we are 
doing with regard to broadband service availability polygons, in order 
to improve the accuracy of such a broadband-serviceable location 
database? And if so, how should we incorporate that data effectively?
    42. With regard to the Broadband Mapping Coalition's proposal to 
integrate location data into the Digital Opportunity Data Collection, 
we seek comment on the use of two distinct data products used by the 
Broadband Mapping Coalition: a database of broadband-serviceable 
locations and a ``lookup'' tool for integrating provider addresses data 
into the locations database. We seek comment on whether the lookup tool 
would be necessary given our adoption of availability-map reporting in 
the accompanying Report and Order. In other words, if fixed providers 
have invested the resources to create accurate polygons that depict the 
areas where their service is available, is an address-based lookup 
necessary at all? In the event such a lookup is necessary, should USAC 
be responsible for creating that lookup? And if USAC does develop a 
lookup, how can it ensure its accuracy? The Broadband

[[Page 43771]]

Mapping Coalition has noted that there are reliability problems with 
geocoders, particularly in rural areas. What steps can USAC take to 
ensure that this lookup avoids some of the pitfalls the Broadband 
Mapping Coalition has observed? For example, matching a provider's 
address data to the Broadband Mapping Coalition's address data might 
require matching several data fields, such as the street number and 
name, any prefix or suffix, the city or town, state, and zip code, each 
with substantial possible variations. Should USAC accept only strict 
matches in order to avoid making mistakes, such as suggesting that a 
provider offers service in a location where it does not because of a 
too-loose matching approach? Is the risk greater of accepting low-
quality matches, that is, identifying that service is available when it 
is not, or in rejecting too many matches for failing to meet quality 
criteria, potentially understating providers' reach? If USAC is 
matching only a relatively small fraction of provider addresses to the 
Broadband Mapping Coalition's database, should it be USAC's 
responsibility to improve the lookup or the providers' responsibility 
to improve their source data?
    43. The Broadband Mapping Coalition pilot also raises several 
methodological and technical questions. For example, the Broadband 
Mapping Coalition chose which data sources to use, including 
negotiating the data rights associated with those sources; the fields 
from those data sources used to help make determinations about what 
constitutes a location in the database; and the logic used. For 
purposes of its pilot program, the Broadband Mapping Coalition also 
established, for example, a method for determining if a single 
structure that spans multiple parcels is a row house that should be 
split into multiple locations and how to choose which building location 
to use as part of the database, when there are multiple buildings on a 
parcel, or whether there are certain circumstances when one might have 
more than one building, such as in a trailer park. Are there 
determinations made by the Broadband Mapping Coalition as part of its 
pilot that the Commission should approach differently?
    44. We also seek comment on whether, when, and how, after 
establishing a location-based fabric, USAC should implement 
incorporating the fabric into the Digital Opportunity Data Collection. 
We seek comment on USTelecom's proposal that the creation of a 
location-based fabric run in parallel with the establishment of the 
online portal for our polygon-based approach. Is this a reasonable 
approach or would it be more reasonable to adopt a different transition 
time for implementation? Will collecting locations for use as part of 
the Digital Opportunity Data Collection impose additional burdens on 
filers, especially smaller providers, and (if so) would such burdens be 
outweighed by the benefits of using locations as part of the new 
collection? In addition, ACA argues that fixed providers not accepting 
Universal Service support should not be required to ``publicly disclose 
individual location information since such information is considered to 
be competitively-sensitive.'' We seek comment on ACA's proposal.
    45. In addition, we seek comment on the extent to which any 
location-based database should be fully accessible by the public. 
Should the full dataset be made available to the public or just the 
aggregate results from the filings? To what extent should such location 
information be shared with all providers? Would full disclosure aid the 
Commission and USAC in gathering location-specific information from the 
public? Would securing such rights lead to higher costs for the 
Commission than for the Broadband Mapping Coalition? Are there some 
data sources or fields that should not be made public? Should members 
of the public be granted access to the actual database? Should there be 
restrictions on who should be granted such access (e.g., governmental 
entities, other providers)? We seek comment on these issues.

B. Improving Mobile Broadband and Voice Data

    46. We seek comment on incorporating mobile wireless voice and 
broadband coverage into the Digital Opportunity Data Collection and 
what additional steps the Commission should take to obtain more 
accurate and reliable mobile broadband deployment data. Obtaining 
accurate mobile broadband deployment data is challenging because 
measuring performance on mobile broadband networks is inherently 
variable even though coverage is generally reliable. Mobile network 
speed at a particular location and the coverage area of any specific 
cell site can vary depending on a wide variety of factors, including: 
(1) The spectrum band employed; (2) cell traffic loading and network 
capacity in different locations; (3) the availability and quality of 
cell site backhaul; (4) the capability of consumers' devices; (5) 
whether a consumer is using a device indoors or outdoors; (6) terrain 
and the presence of obstacles between a consumer's device and the 
provider's nearest cell site (e.g., buildings, trees, and other local 
structures); and (7) weather conditions. This inherent variability has 
two dimensions--temporal and spatial. For example, a consumer's handset 
may not receive a strong enough signal at a given location to maintain 
a reliable broadband speed, or the network may be overloaded at one 
moment, and then suddenly acquire a signal strong enough, or the 
network traffic load lightens enough, to maintain a connection at 
speeds of 5 Mbps or more. This makes the measurement of mobile 
broadband service at any specific location complex, as many factors can 
affect a user's experience, making it difficult to develop a coverage 
map that provides the exact mobile coverage and speed that a consumer 
experiences. Although no mobile broadband map will consistently reflect 
consumer experience with complete accuracy, wireless service providers 
must improve the quality of the data they submit.
    47. Standardized Predictive Propagation Maps. In the 2017 Data 
Collection Improvement FNPRM, the Commission sought comment on 
requiring the submission of coverage maps generated by propagation 
modeling software using standardized parameters for 4G LTE and later-
generation technologies. It also sought comment on whether to specify 
possible eligible models and to standardize to some extent the output 
of those models and certain input parameters, with the goal of allowing 
more meaningful comparisons among providers' mobile broadband 
deployment. The Commission asked, for instance, whether it should 
require deployment maps to represent coverage at median speeds as well 
as speeds at the cell edge and, if so, how it should determine those 
speeds. The Commission inquired about a range of potential input 
parameters, including: (1) The location of cells in decimal degrees 
latitude and longitude; (2) channel bandwidth in megahertz; (3) signal 
strength; (4) signal quality with signal to noise ratio; (5) cell 
loading factors; and (6) terrain provided at a minimum resolution of 
three arc-seconds.
    48. In response to the 2017 Data Collection Improvement FNPRM, 
several commenters expressed support for requiring providers to submit 
coverage maps based on standardized technical parameters. AT&T, for 
example, recommended requiring parameters ``with a standard cell edge 
probability of attaining specific download speeds for each technology 
(3G/4G, 4G LTE and 5G),'' and a ``standard cell loading factor based on 
the geographic service area (e.g., 30% for rural areas; 50% for

[[Page 43772]]

urban/suburban areas).'' AT&T further argued that the reporting of 
other parameters, such as signal strength and clutter factors, was 
unnecessary. The City of New York supported standardized parameters for 
median and edge speeds and stated that a median download speed of 10 
Mbps with an edge speed of 3 Mbps ``may be sufficient for current 4G 
LTE deployments, but is unlikely to be sufficient for future-generation 
deployments.'' Deere & Company commented that propagation models should 
reflect ``a signal strength of -85 dBm RSSI (Relative Signal Strength 
Indicator),'' because a signal strength parameter would ``accurately 
[reveal] where service quality is insufficient.'' Other commenters 
urged the Commission to adopt the same parameters that it adopted for 
data collected in the Mobility Fund Phase II (MF-II) proceeding.
    49. In 2017, in the MF-II proceeding, the Commission separately 
instituted a new, one-time collection of data to determine the 
deployment of 4G LTE for purposes of establishing the areas eligible 
for universal service support in the MF-II auction. Broadly consistent 
with an industry consensus proposal, the Commission standardized a 
number of technical parameters for the data collection to be used for 
MF-II. In December 2018, the Commission suspended the subsequent phase 
of the MF-II challenge process, in which providers that filed coverage 
maps and data regarding their 4G LTE coverage could respond to 
challenges, and launched an investigation into potential violations of 
MF-II challenge process rules by one or more major providers. The 
investigation remains ongoing.
    50. We ask commenters to refresh the record on the potential use of 
RF signal prediction, including the mutual use (by the Commission and 
stakeholders) of a standardized RF propagation prediction model, and 
standardized coverage maps for mobile services. We observe that at 
least one other national regulator is considering a standardized RF 
propagation prediction method as a basis for verifying geographic 
coverage. Commenters should specifically discuss their experience in 
the MF-II proceeding. Do commenters believe that requiring the 
submission of coverage maps using standardized RF propagation model(s) 
and parameters was or would be useful in demonstrating mobile broadband 
coverage? What insights should the Commission draw from the 
standardized parameters it established in that proceeding? Do 
commenters view standardized RF signal strength prediction and 
technical parameters regarding download speed, cell loading, 
probability of coverage or confidence intervals as sufficient to 
demonstrate coverage? If not, what additional parameters would generate 
better data that will allow meaningful comparisons of coverage between 
providers? Should the Commission, for example, specify an upload speed 
parameter? Should it specify a standardized signal strength level? 
Alternatively, should the Commission establish fewer or different 
parameters? Would 5G technology require different standardized 
parameters? Given that cell traffic loading and network capacity varies 
with time and in different locations, how representative of loading do 
commenters view the 30% loading factor for rural areas established in 
the context of the MF-II proceeding as compared to standard network 
loading conditions at various locations? Should we adopt a higher 
standard loading factor for urban areas? Should we instead require 
mobile wireless service providers to maintain and report historical 
cell loading over a given reporting period?
    51. Coverage models predict speed and coverage using assumptions 
that are based on a combination of geographical and network 
information, including the location of network infrastructure and the 
power and capacity of network equipment. Although providers continually 
refine models by adding additional data, the inherent variability of 
mobile broadband performance will always affect their ability to 
predict an individual consumer's experience at a particular time and 
location. We seek commenters' views on how best to specify technical 
parameters that would account for the variability of mobile broadband 
performance. Do commenters agree that all parameters must be subject to 
a specified probability standard or confidence interval? Assuming a 
probability factor is necessary for describing coverage, do commenters 
view the 80% probability factor at the cell edge established in the 
context of the MF-II proceeding as reasonable or would a higher 
probability parameter such as 90% be more appropriate?
    52. GIS Data Format. We ask commenters to refresh the record on 
whether providers should submit coverage maps as vector-formatted or 
raster-formatted GIS data. In the 2017 Data Collection Improvement 
FNPRM, the Commission sought comment on requiring the submission of 
raster data, noting that because deployment maps are typically 
developed in raster format and then converted into vector-formatted GIS 
data, the submission of raster data would appear to be less burdensome 
for filers than the submission of vector data. The Commission also 
stated that, unlike vector data, raster data would allow the Commission 
to ``check the resolution of the submissions and to apply standard 
parameters, including simplified outputs and smoothing, when converting 
the rasters to shapefiles for analysis.'' Some commenters supporting 
such an approach argued that allowing the submission of raster data 
instead of vector data would help reduce the burdens associated with 
broadband data collection by allowing providers to skip the step of 
converting deployment data into vector format. We seek additional 
comment on whether requiring the submission of raster-formatted rather 
than vector-formatted data would improve the ability to verify the 
accuracy of deployment data, and what file format is the least 
burdensome. Would raster-formatted or vector-formatted data be 
preferable if the Commission decides to require providers to submit 
standardized coverage maps? Should the Commission require, or in the 
alternative, permit filers to submit data using another file format, 
such as ESRI Geodatabase? Additionally, we seek comment as to what GIS 
standards, file formats, and technical specifications should be used to 
facilitate the most efficient and effective collection of data.
    53. Infrastructure Information. We propose to require that, upon 
the Commission's request, providers submit infrastructure information 
sufficient to allow for verification of the accuracy of providers' 
broadband data. A growing number of parties have suggested that mobile 
broadband coverage maps are inaccurate and have urged the Commission to 
implement mechanisms to verify provider data. To date, however, the 
Commission has not had the information necessary to examine the 
methodologies used by providers in generating coverage data, or whether 
these propagation models reflect actual consumer experience. In light 
of issues raised about the accuracy of coverage maps even after the 
Commission standardized some technical parameters in the MF-II 
proceeding, we anticipate that collecting accurate and recent network 
infrastructure information would be necessary to independently verify 
providers' data. Therefore, we propose to require that the provider 
submit, upon Commission request, the following information: (1) The 
geographic location of cell sites; (2) the height (above ground and sea 
level), type, and directional orientation of all transmit antennas at 
each cell site; (3)

[[Page 43773]]

operating radiated transmit power of the radio equipment at each cell 
site; (4) the capacity and type of backhaul used at each cell site; (5) 
all deployed spectrum bands and channel bandwidth in megahertz; (6) 
throughput and associated required signal strength and signal to noise 
ratio; (7) cell loading factors; (8) deployed technologies (e.g., LTE 
Release 13) and (9) any terrain and land use information used in 
deriving clutter factors or other losses associated with each cell 
site. We propose to require that a provider submit its infrastructure 
information within 30 days of receiving a request from the Commission. 
We ask for commenters' views on our proposal.
    54. At the outset, we recognize that providers may view the 
infrastructure information we propose to collect as commercially 
sensitive information and we agree that such information should be 
treated as highly confidential. We seek comment on this view. Do 
commenters agree that collecting network infrastructure information 
would be necessary to verify the accuracy of provider coverage map 
filings? If not, without such data, what mechanisms are available to 
validate that providers' coverage maps reflect reasonable predictions 
of consumer experience? Do commenters view the infrastructure 
information included in our proposal as sufficient to evaluate 
providers' mobile coverage and speed claims? If not, we ask commenters 
to discuss any additional infrastructure information we should require. 
Alternatively, does our proposal include any information that is not 
necessary? We seek comment on the potential burden associated with 
requiring such information, particularly for small providers, and on 
steps we could take to minimize the potential burden.
    55. Supplement Data Collections with On-The-Ground Data. In 
addition to seeking comment on whether to require the submission of 
coverage maps based on standardized parameters, the 2017 Data 
Collection Improvement FNPRM sought comment on whether to require the 
submission of ``on-the-ground'' data as part of the broadband data 
collection. The Commission asked whether collecting on-the-ground data 
from providers, such as drive test data or tests taken from stationary 
points, would allow it to better evaluate consumer experience. It noted 
that collection of on-the-ground data could supplement the model-based 
data, improving the understanding of how the theoretical data relates 
to actual consumer experience. The Commission asked whether it should 
require speed test data, how it could impose such a requirement without 
being unduly burdensome to small providers, and whether providers 
generate data of this kind during their ordinary course of business.
    56. We ask commenters to refresh the record on these questions. In 
their comments on the 2017 Data Collection Improvement FNPRM, some 
commenters supported a requirement that providers supplement their 
current broadband data with on-the-ground data. Other providers opposed 
collecting on-the-ground data; they argued that such a requirement 
would impose unnecessary burdens on providers, especially since the 
Commission already had access to such information from third-party 
providers. Some also argued that speed test data generally had limited 
value given variations in providers' speed test methodologies. What 
steps could the Commission take to address concerns about the 
meaningfulness and statistical validity of providers' on-the-ground 
data? Should the Commission specify the methodology that providers must 
use to collect and provide on-the-ground mobile network performance 
data? If so, what parameters should the Commission establish for 
specific methodologies? Should the Commission consider requiring use of 
a specific set of measurement equipment or software applications 
enabling measurement of mobile broadband speeds? What measurement 
scenarios (i.e., indoor, outdoor, in-vehicle, stationary, mobile, 
height, etc.) should the Commission specify? To what extent do 
providers already collect any such data in their ordinary course of 
business?
    57. Crowdsourced Data. Consistent with the public feedback 
mechanism we adopt for fixed providers in the Digital Opportunity Data 
Collection, we propose to collect similar crowdsourced data for 
purposes of improving the quality of mobile broadband deployment data 
and seek comment on how to incorporate such data into data quality 
analysis. Crowdsourced data are generated by mobile broadband users who 
voluntarily download speed test apps on their mobile devices. The 
Commission has used crowdsourced data in assessing service availability 
and in various Commission reports. For example, in its most recent 
Broadband Deployment Report, the Commission supplemented Form 477 data 
with Ookla crowdsourced speed test data in assessing the deployment of 
advanced telecommunications capability for mobile services. 
Crowdsourced data can serve as an inexpensive tool to validate speed 
and coverage claims by providing independent measurements of actual 
consumer experience on a mobile network across a variety of times and 
locations. Crowdsourced data have certain limitations, however. For 
example, speed tests that consumers usually initiate manually and 
perform only at specific times or places may introduce bias into the 
data and provide a less accurate picture of overall broadband 
performance. More generally, the methods by which different speed test 
apps collect data vary and may not use techniques that control for 
geographic location, type of device, whether the test is performed 
indoors or outdoors, and traffic along the network path not controlled 
by the wireless provider. In addition, there may be a small sample 
problem with respect to some crowdsourced data, especially in rural 
areas where there may sometimes be very few speed tests. And, given the 
probabilistic nature of mobile wireless service in general, we note 
that crowdsourced data may not indicate an inaccuracy in the data from 
the coverage map as much as a difference in conditions.
    58. We seek comment on developments in crowdsourcing applications 
and on ways in which the Commission can make greater use of third-party 
crowdsourced data to create more accurate and reliable mobile broadband 
maps. While we recognize the potential limitations, we nonetheless 
believe that crowdsourced data can serve as an important supplement to 
the information we collect from providers by independently measuring 
mobile broadband speed and availability. We ask parties to discuss 
potential sources of crowdsourced data as well as alternatives to 
crowdsourced data that can provide similar benefits. How should the 
Commission make greater use of third-party crowdsourced data? How 
should the Commission determine which data to use, what limitations 
affect the use of such data, and how can they be resolved? How can we 
best make use of the Commission's own crowdsourcing application--the 
Measuring Mobile Broadband speed test? Are there particular areas, such 
as rural areas, Tribal areas, or urban areas, or situations, such as 
hours of peak capacity, in which the Measuring Mobile Broadband speed 
test app would perform particularly well? How else can the FCC's own 
crowdsourcing application be better used? How can the Commission make 
greater use of crowdsourced data collected by local, state, or Tribal 
governmental entities? What steps should the Commission take to ensure 
that the crowdsourced data it uses are statistically valid and provide

[[Page 43774]]

accurate information? How should the Commission handle cases in which 
crowdsourced data show that service is unavailable in an area where a 
provider claims broadband availability?
    59. Sampling Methodologies. We also seek comment on other potential 
approaches for verifying submitted mobile broadband deployment data. 
Should the Commission establish a structured sampling process to verify 
the information it collects from providers? The Commission has used 
third-party structured sample data to assess service availability in 
its analysis of the mobile wireless industry. Structured sample data 
help ensure statistical validity by controlling for the location and 
time of the tests as well as for the devices used in the test and may 
be collected using stationary indoor or outdoor tests or drive tests. 
But structured sample data can be expensive and involve judgments about 
when and where to run tests. Structured sample data may not include 
sufficient testing at indoor locations or in rural areas. We seek 
comment on whether the Commission should expand the use of structured 
sample data or even establish its own structured sample testing program 
to verify provider filings regarding mobile broadband coverage and 
speed? If so, then how can the Commission create a program that will 
produce a rich and useful dataset?
    60. In response to the 2017 Data Collection Improvement FNPRM, the 
California PUC supported the Commission's adoption of a structured 
sample approach. It argued that collecting drive test data at the state 
level provides ``the most effective measure of actual mobile broadband 
service speeds.'' It suggested that the Commission designate a defined 
set of points nationwide and contract with a third party to deliver 
speed test data from those locations. We seek commenters' views on such 
an approach. Assuming the Commission establishes its own testing 
process, how should it design a process that will produce a useful 
dataset? Should the Commission establish partnerships to collect drive 
test information? For example, should the Commission explore creating a 
pilot program with the United States Postal Service or other delivery 
organization with a nationwide fleet, to gather mobile performance 
data? Under such an approach, postal trucks could be equipped to 
collect mobile deployment and speed data as they travel on their routes 
in rural areas. We seek comment on the feasibility of creating such a 
program. What other partnerships should the Commission explore?
    61. Drones and Other Testing Technologies. We seek comment on the 
use of aerial drone testing, and other technologies, such as 
satellites, to verify data accuracy, with a particular emphasis on 
using such technologies to conduct sample audits of provider-submitted 
mobile deployment data. For example, drone testing, like drive testing, 
measures signal strength and coverage using various software solutions 
(e.g., crowdsourcing and network performance applications) loaded onto 
smartphones mounted to a testing platform. Service providers have begun 
using drones to measure coverage and signal strength of their networks, 
demonstrating that drones are a viable mobile network performance 
testing method. We note that both drive and drone testing have 
significant limitations due to the inherent probabilistic nature of 
mobile network performance testing.
    62. We seek comment generally on the cost elements of drone and 
other types of testing technologies and the relative contribution of 
each element to overall cost. For instance, drones may need fuel or 
battery replacements more frequently than vehicles used in drive 
testing platforms. Are these costs significant? How do roadway density, 
population, weather and natural and man-made terrain features affect 
the cost of drone testing? How does flight duration affect costs? Are 
there cost-effective ways to mitigate survey time? What proportion of 
costs are attributable to the drone operator? What other costs are 
significant?
    63. We also seek comment on unique barriers that may affect the 
usefulness and practicality of conducting network performance testing 
using drones and other technologies. USAC recently performed drone and 
drive tests to measure mobile wireless coverage and quality in Puerto 
Rico post-hurricanes. USAC's initial analysis shows that drone and 
drive-tests can provide a comparable picture of network coverage and 
service quality in a given area, although drone tests are subject to 
specific variables that the test design should take into account. What 
specific testing parameters should apply to drone data collection 
compared to drive testing, satellites, and crowdsourcing to ensure 
uniform results across methods? Are there any specific technical 
requirements (e.g., antenna, on-board processing) necessary to ensure 
uniform results across testing methods? Are there places and/or terrain 
where specific technologies are either uniquely suited to surveying or, 
alternatively, currently unable to perform a valid network performance 
test, regardless of the cost?
    64. We seek comment on future technological advances that may 
increase drone efficiency. Are advanced drone technologies ready and 
available today, at sufficiently low costs, to use widely? If not, what 
is a likely timeframe for their widespread adoption? Finally, we seek 
comment on whether there are other technologies in addition to drones 
that can be used to measure signal strength and data accuracy.
    65. Availability of Mobile Broadband Deployment Data. Finally, we 
seek comment on ways we can make mobile broadband deployment data more 
available to the public. Currently, the Commission makes available on 
its website both coverage shapefiles, by provider and technology, as 
well as the deployment data represented in those shapefiles 
disaggregated to census blocks, based on two different methodologies. 
In addition, the Commission has created a limited number of 
visualizations of the mobile deployment data including a map of 
nationwide mobile wireless coverage and a map of LTE coverage by number 
of providers. As the Commission works to improve its data collection, 
we seek comment on whether we should provide additional visualizations 
of mobile broadband deployment data. Now that we have determined in the 
Report and Order that, going forward, we will publish nationwide 
provider-specific coverage maps that depict minimum advertised or 
expected speed data, what additional maps or other visualizations would 
help provide useful information to the public? Should we make this data 
available to the public in any other formats? We seek comment on how 
the proposals described in this Second FNPRM would affect the 
Commission's ability to provide additional visualizations of mobile 
broadband data.
    66. Changes to the Collection of Mobile Voice and Broadband 
Subscription Data. We seek comment on other changes to improve the 
collection of subscription data. For example, should we combine the 
mobile voice and broadband subscription data filing requirements? 
Consolidating these data could provide a better understanding of the 
marketplace, as consumers increasingly subscribe to both broadband and 
voice service. In the current form, providers are required to include 
subscriptions to mobile broadband plans purchased ``on a standalone 
basis, as an add-on feature to a voice subscription, or bundled with a 
voice subscription.'' We propose to require providers to report whether

[[Page 43775]]

subscriptions are data only, voice only, or provided as a bundle. These 
data could provide us with a better understanding of whether and how 
consumers purchase and use mobile services, in addition to allowing us 
to continue to track those who only subscribe to voice service.
    67. We propose to require facilities-based mobile broadband and/or 
voice service providers to report whether subscriptions are enterprise, 
government, wholesale, prepaid retail, or postpaid retail. These data 
serve an important purpose in understanding the marketplace for mobile 
services, that aid in competitive analysis, particularly in transaction 
review. Should we require providers to submit data about Internet of 
Things (IoT) or Machine-to-Machine (M2M) subscriptions? Do these 
subscriptions make up enough of the marketplace for mobile services 
that they should be tracked? Would a combined subscription filing--as 
opposed to the current separate filings--likely reduce or increase the 
burden on filers? We also propose to eliminate the requirement to 
report mobile broadband subscription data by minimum upload and 
download speed given that this information is already submitted with 
broadband deployment data.
    68. We also seek comment on how best to assign prepaid and reseller 
subscribers to a particular census tract. CTIA observes that, while 
place of primary use address is technically feasible for postpaid-
customer subscription data at the census-tract level, the primary place 
of use methodology is ``challenging for mobile providers when applied 
to prepaid customer and reseller data.'' CTIA states that the Mobile 
Telecommunications Sourcing Act, which defines primary place of use, 
does not apply to prepaid customers, as those customers are taxed at 
the point of sale, and using place of primary use for prepaid customers 
is likely infeasible. We seek comment regarding how best to assign 
prepaid subscribers to census tracts, based on CTIA's concern. In the 
Report and Order, we require mobile providers, on an interim basis, to 
assign prepaid and resold mobile voice and broadband subscribers to a 
census tract, based on their telephone number. Is there a methodology 
that can measure more accurately where these customers use their 
service, particularly for those mobile broadband subscribers that may 
only have an IP address? Should we require providers to attribute 
prepaid subscribers to the census tract where they purchased the 
service? Is this approach feasible, and does it increase the accuracy 
of the data? Could mobile providers submit aggregated data that samples 
where the device is primarily used without raising privacy or other 
concerns? Is there another consistent methodology that could be applied 
to postpaid and prepaid subscribers that accurately attributes those 
subscribers to a census tract?

C. Sunsetting the Form 477 Broadband Deployment Data Collection

    69. Over the long term, we expect the Digital Opportunity Data 
Collection will largely displace the Form 477 process, at least with 
respect to the collection of granular deployment data. We therefore 
seek comment on discontinuing the broadband deployment data collection 
that is part of Form 477 at some point after the new collection has 
been established. Under what conditions would eliminating that part of 
the broadband data collection be appropriate? What would be an 
appropriate timetable for sunsetting both the mobile and fixed Form 477 
broadband data collections? Are there other portions of the Form 477 
collection we should consider sunsetting as well?

IV. Initial Regulatory Flexibility Analysis

    70. As required by the Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980, as 
amended (RFA), the Commission has prepared this Initial Regulatory 
Flexibility Analysis (IRFA) of the possible significant economic impact 
on a substantial number of small entities from the policies and rules 
proposed in this Second FNPRM. The Commission requests written public 
comment on this IRFA. Comments must be identified as responses to the 
IRFA and must be filed by the deadlines for comments on the Second 
FNPRM. The Commission will send a copy of the Second FNPRM, including 
this IRFA, to the Chief Counsel for Advocacy of the Small Business 
Administration (SBA). In addition, the Second FNPRM and IRFA (or 
summaries thereof) will be published in the Federal Register.

A. Need for, and Objectives of, the Proposed Rules

    71. The Commission continues its ongoing efforts to ensure that the 
new collection for fixed broadband deployment reporting and 
crowdsourcing of that reporting as adopted in the Report and Order and 
the Form 477 collection will evolve to align with changes to 
technology, markets, and policy needs. In the Second FNPRM, the 
Commission raises issues for consideration and seeks comment on 
additional steps we can take to obtain more accurate and reliable fixed 
and mobile broadband deployment data. The probabilistic nature of 
mobile networks and the many factors that impact a user's experience 
make it difficult to predict with precision mobile coverage and speed 
or to develop a coverage map that always provides predictability for 
consumers. Although no mobile broadband map will consistently reflect 
consumer experience with complete accuracy, we recognize that we must 
take steps to improve the quality of the data we collect. Therefore, we 
seek further comment on the tradeoffs among different potential 
approaches for developing more accurate and reliable mobile broadband 
data. We also seek comment on additional technical standards for fixed 
broadband reporting as part of the Digital Opportunity Data Collection, 
steps that USAC and the Commission can take to make the best use of 
crowdsourced data, and ways that we can incorporate the filing of 
location-specific fixed broadband deployment data in the Digital 
Opportunity Data Collection.

B. Legal Basis

    72. The proposed action is authorized pursuant to Sections 1-5, 
201-206, 214, 218-220, 251, 252, 254, 256, 303(r), 332, 403, and 405 of 
the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. 151-155, 201-206, 
214, 218-220, 251, 252, 254, 256, 303(r), 332, 403, and 405.

C. Description and Estimate of the Number of Small Entities to Which 
the Proposed Rules Would Apply

    73. 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, if adopted. The RFA generally defines 
the term ``small entity'' as having the same meaning as the terms 
``small business,'' ``small organization,'' and ``small governmental 
jurisdiction.'' In addition, the term ``small business'' has the same 
meaning as the term ``small-business concern'' under the Small Business 
Act. A small-business concern'' is one which: (1) Is independently 
owned and operated; (2) is not dominant in its field of operation; and 
(3) satisfies any additional criteria established by the Small Business 
Administration (SBA).
1. Total Small Entities
    74. Small Businesses, Small Organizations, Small Governmental 
Jurisdictions. Our actions, over time, may affect small entities that 
are not easily categorized at present. We therefore describe here, at 
the outset,

[[Page 43776]]

three broad groups of small entities that could be directly affected 
herein. First, while there are industry-specific size standards for 
small businesses that are used in the regulatory flexibility analysis, 
according to data from the SBA's Office of Advocacy, in general a small 
business is an independent business having fewer than 500 employees. 
These types of small businesses represent 99.9% of all businesses in 
the United States, which translates to 28.8 million businesses.
    75. Next, the type of small entity described as 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 August 2016, there were approximately 356,494 small 
organizations based on registration and tax data filed by nonprofits 
with the Internal Revenue Service (IRS).
    76. Finally, the small entity described as a ``small governmental 
jurisdiction'' is defined generally as ``governments of cities, 
counties, towns, townships, villages, school districts, or special 
districts, with a population of less than fifty thousand.'' U.S. Census 
Bureau data from the 2012 Census of Governments indicate that there 
were 90,056 local governmental jurisdictions consisting of general 
purpose governments and special purpose governments in the United 
States. Based on this data, we estimate that at least 49,316 local 
government jurisdictions fall in the category of ``small governmental 
jurisdictions.''
2. Broadband Internet Access Service Providers
    77. To ensure that this IRFA describes the universe of small 
entities that our action might affect, we discuss in turn several 
different types of entities that might be providing broadband internet 
access service.
    78. Internet Service Providers (Broadband). Broadband internet 
service providers include wired (e.g., cable, DSL) and VoIP service 
providers using their own operated wired telecommunications 
infrastructure fall in the category of Wired Telecommunication 
Carriers. Wired Telecommunications Carriers are comprised 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 a single technology or a combination of technologies. The SBA size 
standard for this category classifies a business as small if it has 
1,500 or fewer employees. U.S. Census Bureau data for 2012 show that 
there were 3,117 firms that operated that year. Of this total, 3,083 
operated with fewer than 1,000 employees. Consequently, under this size 
standard the majority of firms in this industry can be considered 
small.
    79. Internet Service Providers (Non-Broadband). Internet access 
service providers such as Dial-up internet service providers, VoIP 
service providers using client-supplied telecommunications connections, 
and internet service providers using client-supplied telecommunications 
connections (e.g., dial-up ISPs) fall in the category of All Other 
Telecommunications. The SBA has developed a small business size 
standard for All Other Telecommunications, which consists of all such 
firms with gross annual receipts of $32.5 million or less. For this 
category, U.S. Census Bureau data for 2012 show that there were 1,442 
firms that operated for the entire year. Of these firms, a total of 
1,400 had gross annual receipts of less than $25 million. Consequently, 
under this size standard, a majority of firms in this industry can be 
considered small.
3. Wireline Providers
    80. Wired Telecommunications Carriers. The U.S. Census Bureau 
defines this industry as ``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 communications 
networks. Transmission facilities may be based on a single technology 
or a combination of technologies. Establishments in this industry use 
the wired telecommunications network facilities that they operate to 
provide a variety of services, such as wired telephony services, 
including VoIP services, wired (cable) audio and video programming 
distribution, and wired broadband internet services. By exception, 
establishments providing satellite television distribution services 
using facilities and infrastructure that they operate are included in 
this industry.'' The SBA has developed a small business size standard 
for Wired Telecommunications Carriers, which consists of all such 
companies having 1,500 or fewer employees. U.S. Census Bureau data for 
2012 show that there were 3,117 firms that operated that year. Of this 
total, 3,083 operated with fewer than 1,000 employees. Thus, under this 
size standard, the majority of firms in this industry can be considered 
small.
    81. Local Exchange Carriers (LECs). Neither the Commission nor the 
SBA has developed a size standard for small businesses specifically 
applicable to local exchange services. The closest applicable NAICS 
Code category is Wired Telecommunications Carriers. Under the 
applicable SBA size standard, such a business is small if it has 1,500 
or fewer employees. According to Commission data, U.S. Census data for 
2012 show that there were 3,117 firms that operated that year. Of this 
total, 3,083 operated with fewer than 1,000 employees. Thus, under this 
category and the associated size standard, the Commission estimates 
that the majority of local exchange carriers are small entities.
    82. Incumbent Local Exchange Carriers (Incumbent LECs). Neither the 
Commission nor the SBA has developed a small business size standard 
specifically for incumbent local exchange services. The closest 
applicable NAICS Code category is Wired Telecommunications Carriers. 
Under the applicable SBA size standard, such a business is small if it 
has 1,500 or fewer employees. According U.S. Census Bureau data for 
2012, 3,117 firms operated in that year. Of this total, 3,083 operated 
with fewer than 1,000 employees. Consequently, the Commission estimates 
that most providers of incumbent local exchange service are small 
businesses that may be affected by our actions. According to Commission 
data, 1,307 Incumbent LECs reported that they were incumbent local 
exchange service providers. Of this total, an estimated 1,006 have 
1,500 or fewer employees. Thus, using the SBA's size standard, the 
majority of Incumbent LECs can be considered small entities.
    83. Competitive Local Exchange Carriers (Competitive LECs), 
Competitive Access Providers (CAPs), Shared-Tenant Service Providers, 
and Other Local Service Providers. Neither the Commission nor the SBA 
has developed a small business size standard specifically for these 
service providers. The appropriate NAICS Code category is Wired 
Telecommunications Carriers and under that size standard, such a 
business is small if it has 1,500 or fewer employees. U.S. Census 
Bureau data for 2012 indicate that 3,117 firms operated during that 
year. Of that number, 3,083 operated with fewer than 1,000 employees. 
Based on these data, the Commission concludes that the majority of 
Competitive LECs, CAPs, Shared-Tenant Service Providers, and Other 
Local Service Providers, are small entities. According to Commission 
data, 1,442 carriers reported that they were engaged in the provision 
of either

[[Page 43777]]

competitive local exchange services or competitive access provider 
services. Of these 1,442 carriers, an estimated 1,256 have 1,500 or 
fewer employees. In addition, 17 carriers have reported that they are 
Shared-Tenant Service Providers, and all 17 are estimated to have 1,500 
or fewer employees. Also, 72 carriers have reported that they are Other 
Local Service Providers. Of this total, 70 have 1,500 or fewer 
employees. Consequently, based on internally researched FCC data, the 
Commission estimates that most providers of competitive local exchange 
service, competitive access providers, Shared-Tenant Service Providers, 
and Other Local Service Providers are small entities.
    84. Interexchange Carriers (IXCs). Neither the Commission nor the 
SBA has developed a definition for Interexchange Carriers. The closest 
NAICS Code category is Wired Telecommunications Carriers. The 
applicable size standard under SBA rules consists of all such companies 
having 1,500 or fewer employees. U.S. Census Bureau data for 2012 
indicate that 3,117 firms operated during that year. Of that number, 
3,083 operated with fewer than 1,000 employees. According to internally 
developed Commission data, 359 companies reported that their primary 
telecommunications service activity was the provision of interexchange 
services. Of this total, an estimated 317 have 1,500 or fewer 
employees. Consequently, the Commission estimates that the majority of 
interexchange service providers are small entities.
    85. Operator Service Providers (OSPs). Neither the Commission nor 
the SBA has developed a small business size standard specifically for 
operator service providers. The closest applicable size standard under 
SBA rules is the category of Wired Telecommunications Carriers. Under 
the size standard for Wired Telecommunications Carriers, such a 
business is small if it has 1,500 or fewer employees. U.S. Census 
Bureau data for 2012 show that there were 3,117 firms that operated 
that year. Of this total, 3,083 operated with fewer than 1,000 
employees. Thus, under this size standard, the majority of firms in 
this industry can be considered small.
    86. According to Commission data, 33 carriers have reported that 
they are engaged in the provision of operator services. Of these, an 
estimated 31 have 1,500 or fewer employees and two have more than 1,500 
employees. Consequently, the Commission estimates that the majority of 
OSPs are small entities.
    87. Other Toll Carriers. Neither the Commission nor the SBA has 
developed a definition for small businesses specifically applicable to 
Other Toll Carriers. This category includes toll carriers that do not 
fall within the categories of interexchange carriers, operator service 
providers, prepaid calling card providers, satellite service carriers, 
or toll resellers. The closest applicable size standard under SBA rules 
is for Wired Telecommunications Carriers and the applicable small 
business size standard under SBA rules consists of all such companies 
having 1,500 or fewer employees. U.S. Census data for 2012 indicate 
that 3,117 firms operated during that year. Of that number, 3,083 
operated with fewer than 1,000 employees. According to Commission data, 
284 companies reported that their primary telecommunications service 
activity was the provision of other toll carriage. Of these, an 
estimated 279 have 1,500 or fewer employees. Consequently, the 
Commission estimates that most Other Toll Carriers are small entities.
4. Wireless Providers--Fixed and Mobile
    88. The broadband internet access service provider category covered 
by this Order may cover multiple wireless firms and categories of 
wireless services. Thus, to the extent the wireless services listed 
below are used by wireless firms for broadband internet access service, 
the proposed actions may have an impact on those small businesses as 
set forth above and further below. In addition, 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.
    89. Wireless Telecommunications Carriers (except Satellite). This 
industry comprises establishments engaged in operating and maintaining 
switching and transmission facilities to provide communications via the 
airwaves. Establishments in this industry have spectrum licenses and 
provide services using that spectrum, such as cellular services, paging 
services, wireless internet access, and wireless video services. The 
appropriate size standard under SBA rules is that such a business is 
small if it has 1,500 or fewer employees. For this industry, U.S. 
Census data for 2012 show that there were 967 firms that operated for 
the entire year. Of this total, 955 firms had employment of 999 or 
fewer employees and 12 had employment of 1,000 employees or more. Thus, 
under this category and the associated size standard, the Commission 
estimates that the majority of wireless telecommunications carriers 
(except satellite) are small entities.
    90. The Commission's own data--available in its Universal Licensing 
System--indicate that, as of August 31, 2018, there are 265 Cellular 
licensees that will be affected by our actions. The Commission does not 
know how many of these licensees are small, as the Commission does not 
collect that information for these types of entities. Similarly, 
according to internally-developed Commission data, 413 carriers 
reported that they were engaged in the provision of wireless telephony, 
including cellular service, Personal Communications Service (PCS), and 
Specialized Mobile Radio (SMR) Telephony services. Of this total, an 
estimated 261 have 1,500 or fewer employees, and 152 have more than 
1,500 employees. Thus, using available data, we estimate that the 
majority of wireless firms can be considered small.
    91. Wireless Communications Services. This service can be used for 
fixed, mobile, radiolocation, and digital audio broadcasting satellite 
uses. The Commission defined ``small business'' for the wireless 
communications services (WCS) auction as an entity with average gross 
revenues of $40 million for each of the three preceding years, and a 
``very small business'' as an entity with average gross revenues of $15 
million for each of the three preceding years. The SBA approved these 
small business size standards. In the Commission's auction for 
geographic area licenses in the WCS there were seven winning bidders 
that qualified as ``very small business'' entities, and one that 
qualified as a ``small business'' entity.
    92. 1670-1675 MHz Services. This service can be used for fixed and 
mobile uses, except aeronautical mobile. An auction for one license in 
the 1670-1675 MHz band was conducted in 2003. One license was awarded. 
The winning bidder was not a small entity.
    93. Wireless Telephony. Wireless telephony includes cellular, 
personal communications services, and specialized mobile radio 
telephony carriers. The closest applicable SBA category is Wireless 
Telecommunications Carriers (except Satellite). Under the SBA small 
business size standard, a business is small if it

[[Page 43778]]

has 1,500 or fewer employees. For this industry, U.S. Census Bureau 
data for 2012 show that there were 967 firms that operated for the 
entire year. Of this total, 955 firms had fewer than 1,000 employees 
and 12 firms had 1,000 employees or more. Thus, under this category and 
the associated size standard, the Commission estimates that a majority 
of these entities can be considered small. According to Commission 
data, 413 carriers reported that they were engaged in wireless 
telephony. Of these, an estimated 261 have 1,500 or fewer employees and 
152 have more than 1,500 employees. Therefore, more than half of these 
entities can be considered small.
    94. Broadband Personal Communications Service. The broadband 
personal communications services (PCS) spectrum is divided into six 
frequency blocks designated A through F, and the Commission has held 
auctions for each block. The Commission initially defined a ``small 
business'' for C- and F-Block licenses as an entity that has average 
gross revenues of $40 million or less in the three previous calendar 
years. For F-Block licenses, an additional small business size standard 
for ``very small business'' was added and is defined as an entity that, 
together with its affiliates, has average gross revenues of not more 
than $15 million for the preceding three calendar years. These small 
business size standards, in the context of broadband PCS auctions, have 
been approved by the SBA. No small businesses within the SBA-approved 
small business size standards bid successfully for licenses in Blocks A 
and B. There were 90 winning bidders that claimed small business status 
in the first two C-Block auctions. A total of 93 bidders that claimed 
small business status won approximately 40% of the 1,479 licenses in 
the first auction for the D, E, and F Blocks. On April 15, 1999, the 
Commission completed the reauction of 347 C-, D-, E-, and F-Block 
licenses in Auction No. 22. Of the 57 winning bidders in that auction, 
48 claimed small business status and won 277 licenses.
    95. On January 26, 2001, the Commission completed the auction of 
422 C and F Block Broadband PCS licenses in Auction No. 35. Of the 35 
winning bidders in that auction, 29 claimed small business status. 
Subsequent events concerning Auction 35, including judicial and agency 
determinations, resulted in a total of 163 C and F Block licenses being 
available for grant. On February 15, 2005, the Commission completed an 
auction of 242 C-, D-, E-, and F-Block licenses in Auction No. 58. Of 
the 24 winning bidders in that auction, 16 claimed small business 
status and won 156 licenses. On May 21, 2007, the Commission completed 
an auction of 33 licenses in the A, C, and F Blocks in Auction No. 71. 
Of the 12 winning bidders in that auction, five claimed small business 
status and won 18 licenses. On August 20, 2008, the Commission 
completed the auction of 20 C-, D-, E-, and F-Block Broadband PCS 
licenses in Auction No. 78. Of the eight winning bidders for Broadband 
PCS licenses in that auction, six claimed small business status and won 
14 licenses.
    96. Specialized Mobile Radio Licenses. The Commission awards 
``small entity'' bidding credits in auctions for Specialized Mobile 
Radio (SMR) geographic area licenses in the 800 MHz and 900 MHz bands 
to firms that had revenues of no more than $15 million in each of the 
three previous calendar years. The Commission awards ``very small 
entity'' bidding credits to firms that had revenues of no more than $3 
million in each of the three previous calendar years. The SBA approved 
these small business size standards for the 900 MHz Service. The 
Commission held auctions for geographic area licenses in the 800 MHz 
and 900 MHz bands. The 900 MHz SMR auction began on December 5, 1995, 
and closed on April 15, 1996. Sixty bidders claiming that they 
qualified as small businesses under the $15 million size standard won 
263 geographic area licenses in the 900 MHz SMR band. The 800 MHz SMR 
auction for the upper 200 channels began on October 28, 1997, and was 
completed on December 8, 1997. Ten bidders claiming that they qualified 
as small businesses under the $15 million size standard won 38 
geographic area licenses for the upper 200 channels in the 800 MHz SMR 
band. A second auction for the 800 MHz band was held on January 10, 
2002, and closed on January 17, 2002, and included 23 BEA licenses. One 
bidder claiming small business status won five licenses.
    97. The auction of the 1,053 800 MHz SMR geographic area licenses 
for the General Category channels was conducted in 2000. Eleven bidders 
won 108 geographic area licenses for the General Category channels in 
the 800 MHz SMR band and qualified as small businesses under the $15 
million size standard. In an auction completed in 2000, a total of 
2,800 Economic Area licenses in the lower 80 channels of the 800 MHz 
SMR service were awarded. Of the 22 winning bidders, 19 claimed small 
business status and won 129 licenses. Thus, combining all four 
auctions, 41 winning bidders for geographic licenses in the 800 MHz SMR 
band claimed status as small businesses.
    98. In addition, there are numerous incumbent site-by-site SMR 
licenses and licensees with extended implementation authorizations in 
the 800 and 900 MHz bands. We do not know how many firms provide 800 
MHz or 900 MHz geographic area SMR service pursuant to extended 
implementation authorizations, nor how many of these providers have 
annual revenues of no more than $15 million. One firm has over $15 
million in revenues. In addition, we do not know how many of these 
firms have 1,500 or fewer employees, which is the SBA-determined size 
standard. We assume, for purposes of this analysis, that all of the 
remaining extended implementation authorizations are held by small 
entities, as defined by the SBA.
    99. Lower 700 MHz Band Licenses. The Commission previously adopted 
criteria for defining three groups of small businesses for purposes of 
determining their eligibility for special provisions such as bidding 
credits. The Commission defined a ``small business'' as an entity that, 
together with its affiliates and controlling principals, has average 
gross revenues not exceeding $40 million for the preceding three years. 
A ``very small business'' is defined as an entity that, together with 
its affiliates and controlling principals, has average gross revenues 
that are not more than $15 million for the preceding three years. 
Additionally, the lower 700 MHz Service had a third category of small 
business status for Metropolitan/Rural Service Area (MSA/RSA) 
licenses--``entrepreneur''--which is defined as an entity that, 
together with its affiliates and controlling principals, has average 
gross revenues that are not more than $3 million for the preceding 
three years. The SBA approved these small size standards. An auction of 
740 licenses (one license in each of the 734 MSAs/RSAs and one license 
in each of the six Economic Area Groupings (EAGs)) commenced on August 
27, 2002, and closed on September 18, 2002. Of the 740 licenses 
available for auction, 484 licenses were won by 102 winning bidders. 
Seventy-two of the winning bidders claimed small business, very small 
business, or entrepreneur status and won a total of 329 licenses. A 
second auction commenced on May 28, 2003, closed on June 13, 2003, and 
included 256 licenses: 5 EAG licenses and 476 Cellular Market Area 
licenses. Seventeen winning bidders claimed small or very small 
business status and

[[Page 43779]]

won 60 licenses, and nine winning bidders claimed entrepreneur status 
and won 154 licenses. On July 26, 2005, the Commission completed an 
auction of five licenses in the Lower 700 MHz band (Auction No. 60). 
There were three winning bidders for the five licenses. All three 
winning bidders claimed small business status.
    100. In 2007, the Commission reexamined its rules governing the 700 
MHz band in the 700 MHz Second Report and Order. An auction of 700 MHz 
licenses commenced January 24, 2008, and closed on March 18, 2008, 
which included 176 Economic Area licenses in the A Block, 734 Cellular 
Market Area licenses in the B Block, and 176 EA licenses in the E 
Block. Twenty winning bidders, claiming small business status (those 
with attributable average annual gross revenues that exceed $15 million 
and do not exceed $40 million for the preceding three years) won 49 
licenses. Thirty-three winning bidders claiming very small business 
status (those with attributable average annual gross revenues that do 
not exceed $15 million for the preceding three years) won 325 licenses.
    101. Upper 700 MHz Band Licenses. In the 700 MHz Second Report and 
Order, the Commission revised its rules regarding Upper 700 MHz 
licenses. On January 24, 2008, the Commission commenced Auction 73 in 
which several licenses in the Upper 700 MHz band were available for 
licensing: 12 Regional Economic Area Grouping licenses in the C Block, 
and one nationwide license in the D Block. The auction concluded on 
March 18, 2008, with 3 winning bidders claiming very small business 
status (those with attributable average annual gross revenues that do 
not exceed $15 million for the preceding three years) and winning five 
licenses.
    102. 700 MHz Guard Band Licensees. In 2000, in the 700 MHz Guard 
Band Order, the Commission adopted size standards for ``small 
businesses'' and ``very small businesses'' for purposes of determining 
their eligibility for special provisions such as bidding credits and 
installment payments. A small business in this service is an entity 
that, together with its affiliates and controlling principals, has 
average gross revenues not exceeding $40 million for the preceding 
three years. Additionally, a very small business is an entity that, 
together with its affiliates and controlling principals, has average 
gross revenues that are not more than $15 million for the preceding 
three years. SBA approval of these definitions is not required. An 
auction of 52 Major Economic Area licenses commenced on September 6, 
2000, and closed on September 21, 2000. Of the 104 licenses auctioned, 
96 licenses were sold to nine bidders. Five of these bidders were small 
businesses that won a total of 26 licenses. A second auction of 700 MHz 
Guard Band licenses commenced on February 13, 2001, and closed on 
February 21, 2001. All eight of the licenses auctioned were sold to 
three bidders. One of these bidders was a small business that won a 
total of two licenses.
    103. Air-Ground Radiotelephone Service. The Commission previously 
used the SBA's small business size standard applicable to Wireless 
Telecommunications Carriers (except Satellite) for this service. The 
appropriate size standard under SBA rules is that such a business is 
small if it has 1,500 or fewer employees. For this industry, U.S. 
Census Bureau data for 2012 show that there were 967 firms that 
operated for the entire year. Of this total, 955 firms had fewer than 
1,000 employees and 12 had employment of 1,000 employees or more. There 
are approximately 100 licensees in the Air-Ground Radiotelephone 
Service, and we estimate that almost all of them qualify as small 
entities under the SBA definition.
    104. For purposes of assigning Air-Ground Radiotelephone Service 
licenses through competitive bidding, the Commission has defined 
``small business'' as an entity that, together with controlling 
interests and affiliates, has average annual gross revenues for the 
preceding three years not exceeding $40 million. A ``very small 
business'' is defined as an entity that, together with controlling 
interests and affiliates, has average annual gross revenues for the 
preceding three years not exceeding $15 million. The SBA approved these 
definitions. In May 2006, the Commission completed an auction of 
nationwide commercial Air-Ground Radiotelephone Service licenses in the 
800 MHz band (Auction No. 65). On June 2, 2006, the auction closed with 
two winning bidders winning two Air-Ground Radiotelephone Services 
licenses. Neither of the winning bidders claimed small business status.
    105. Advanced Wireless Services (AWS) (1710-1755 MHz and 2110-2155 
MHz bands (AWS-1); 1915-1920 MHz, 1995-2000 MHz, 2020-2025 MHz and 
2175-2180 MHz bands (AWS-2); 2155-2175 MHz band (AWS-3)). For the AWS-1 
bands, the Commission defined a ``small business'' as an entity with 
average annual gross revenues for the preceding three years not 
exceeding $40 million, and a ``very small business'' as an entity with 
average annual gross revenues for the preceding three years not 
exceeding $15 million. For AWS-2 and AWS-3, although we do not know for 
certain which entities are likely to apply for these frequencies, we 
note that the AWS-1 bands are comparable to those used for cellular 
service and personal communications service. The Commission has not yet 
adopted size standards for the AWS-2 or AWS-3 bands but proposes to 
treat both AWS-2 and AWS-3 similarly to broadband PCS service and AWS-1 
service due to the comparable capital requirements and other factors, 
such as issues involved in relocating incumbents and developing 
markets, technologies, and services.
    106. 3650-3700 MHz band. In March 2005, the Commission released a 
Report and Order and Memorandum Opinion and Order that provides for 
nationwide, non-exclusive licensing of terrestrial operations, using 
contention-based technologies, in the 3650 MHz band (i.e., 3650-3700 
MHz). As of April 2010, more than 1,270 licenses have been granted and 
more than 7,433 sites have been registered. The Commission has not 
developed a definition of small entities applicable to 3650-3700 MHz 
band nationwide, non-exclusive licensees. However, we estimate that the 
majority of these licensees are internet Access Service Providers 
(ISPs) and that most of those licensees are small businesses.
    107. Fixed Microwave Services. Microwave services include common 
carrier, private-operational fixed, and broadcast auxiliary radio 
services. They also include the Local Multipoint Distribution Service 
(LMDS), the Digital Electronic Message Service (DEMS), and the 24 GHz 
Service, where licensees can choose between common carrier and non-
common carrier status. At present, there are approximately 36,708 
common carrier fixed licensees and 59,291 private operational-fixed 
licensees and broadcast auxiliary radio licensees in the microwave 
services. There are approximately 135 LMDS licensees, three DEMS 
licensees, and three 24 GHz licensees. The Commission has not yet 
defined a small business with respect to microwave services. The 
closest applicable SBA category is Wireless Telecommunications Carriers 
(except Satellite), and the appropriate size standard for this category 
under SBA rules is that such a business is small if it has 1,500 or 
fewer employees. For this industry, U.S. Census Bureau data for 2012 
show that there were 967 firms that operated for the entire year. Of 
this total, 955 firms had fewer than 1,000 employees and 12 had 
employment of 1,000 employees or more. Thus, under

[[Page 43780]]

this SBA category and the associated size standard, the Commission 
estimates that a majority of fixed microwave service licensees can be 
considered small.
    108. The Commission does not have data specifying the number of 
these licensees that have more than 1,500 employees, and thus is unable 
at this time to estimate with greater precision the number of fixed 
microwave service licensees that would qualify as small business 
concerns under the SBA's small business size standard. Consequently, 
the Commission estimates that there are up to 36,708 common carrier 
fixed licensees and up to 59,291 private operational-fixed licensees 
and broadcast auxiliary radio licensees in the microwave services that 
may be small and may be affected by the rules and policies adopted 
herein. We note, however, that the common carrier microwave fixed 
licensee category does include some large entities.
    109. Broadband Radio Service and Educational Broadband Service. 
Broadband Radio Service systems, previously referred to as Multipoint 
Distribution Service (MDS) and Multichannel Multipoint Distribution 
Service (MMDS) systems and ``wireless cable,'' transmit video 
programming to subscribers and provide two-way high speed data 
operations using the microwave frequencies of the Broadband Radio 
Service (BRS) and Educational Broadband Service (EBS) (previously 
referred to as the Instructional Television Fixed Service (ITFS)). In 
connection with the 1996 BRS auction, the Commission established a 
small business size standard as an entity that had annual average gross 
revenues of no more than $40 million in the previous three calendar 
years. The BRS auctions resulted in 67 successful bidders obtaining 
licensing opportunities for 493 Basic Trading Areas (BTAs). Of the 67 
auction winners, 61 met the definition of a small business. BRS also 
includes licensees of stations authorized prior to the auction. At this 
time, we estimate that of the 61 small business BRS auction winners, 48 
remain small business licensees. In addition to the 48 small businesses 
that hold BTA authorizations, there are approximately 392 incumbent BRS 
licensees that are considered small entities. After adding the number 
of small business auction licensees to the number of incumbent 
licensees not already counted, we find that there are currently 
approximately 440 BRS licensees that are defined as small businesses 
under either the SBA or the Commission's rules.
    110. In 2009, the Commission conducted Auction 86, the sale of 78 
licenses in the BRS areas. The Commission offered three levels of 
bidding credits: (1) A bidder with attributed average annual gross 
revenues that exceed $15 million and do not exceed $40 million for the 
preceding three years (small business) received a 15% discount on its 
winning bid; (2) a bidder with attributed average annual gross revenues 
that exceed $3 million and do not exceed $15 million for the preceding 
three years (very small business) received a 25% discount on its 
winning bid; and (3) a bidder with attributed average annual gross 
revenues that do not exceed $3 million for the preceding three years 
(entrepreneur) received a 35% discount on its winning bid. Auction 86 
concluded in 2009 with the sale of 61 licenses. Of the ten winning 
bidders, two bidders that claimed small business status won 4 licenses; 
one bidder that claimed very small business status won three licenses; 
and two bidders that claimed entrepreneur status won six licenses.
    111. In addition, the SBA's Cable Television Distribution Services 
small business size standard is applicable to EBS. There are presently 
2,436 EBS licensees. All but 100 of these licenses are held by 
educational institutions. Educational institutions are included in this 
analysis as small entities. Thus, we estimate that at least 2,336 
licensees are small businesses. Since 2007, Cable Television 
Distribution Services have been defined within the broad economic 
census category of Wired Telecommunications Carriers; that category is 
defined as follows: ``This industry comprises establishments primarily 
engaged in operating and/or providing access to transmission facilities 
and infrastructure that they own and/or lease for the transmission of 
voice, data, text, sound, and video using wired telecommunications 
networks. Transmission facilities may be based on a single technology 
or a combination of technologies.'' The SBA has developed a small 
business size standard for this category, which is: All such firms 
having 1,500 or fewer employees. To gauge small business prevalence for 
these cable services we must, however, use the most current census data 
that are based on the previous category of Cable and Other Program 
Distribution and its associated size standard: All such firms having 
$13.5 million or less in annual receipts. For this industry, U.S. 
Census data for 2012 show that there were 3,117 firms that operated 
that year. Of this total, 3,083 operated with fewer than 1,000 
employees. Thus, the majority of these firms can be considered small.
5. Satellite Service Providers
    112. Satellite Telecommunications Providers. This 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.'' Satellite telecommunications service providers 
include satellite and earth station operators. The category has a small 
business size standard of $32.5 million or less in average annual 
receipts, under SBA rules. For this category, U.S. Census Bureau data 
for 2012 show that there were a total of 333 firms that operated for 
the entire year. Of this total, 299 firms had annual receipts of less 
than $25 million. Consequently, we estimate that the majority of 
satellite telecommunications providers are small entities.
    113. All Other Telecommunications. The ``All Other 
Telecommunications'' category is comprised of entities that are 
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. The 
SBA has developed a small business size standard for ``All Other 
Telecommunications,'' which consists of all such firms with gross 
annual receipts of $32.5 million or less. For this category, U.S. 
Census Bureau data for 2012 show that there were 1,442 firms that 
operated for the entire year. Of these firms, a total of 1,400 had 
gross annual receipts of less than $25 million. Consequently, a 
majority of ``All Other Telecommunications'' firms potentially affected 
by our action can be considered small.
6. Cable Service Providers
    114. Because Section 706 of the Act requires us to monitor the 
deployment of broadband using any technology, we anticipate that some 
broadband service providers may not provide telephone

[[Page 43781]]

service. Accordingly, we describe below other types of firms that may 
provide broadband services, including cable companies, MDS providers, 
and utilities, among others.
    115. Cable and Other Subscription Programming. This industry 
comprises establishments primarily engaged in operating studios and 
facilities for the broadcasting of programs on a subscription or fee 
basis. The broadcast programming is typically narrowcast in nature 
(e.g., limited format, such as news, sports, education, or youth-
oriented). These establishments produce programming in their own 
facilities or acquire programming from external sources. The 
programming material is usually delivered to a third party, such as 
cable systems or direct-to-home satellite systems, for transmission to 
viewers. The SBA size standard for this industry establishes as small, 
any company in this category which has annual receipts of $38.5 million 
or less. According to 2012 U.S. Census Bureau data, 367 firms operated 
for the entire year. Of that number, 319 operated with annual receipts 
of less than $25 million a year and 48 firms operated with annual 
receipts of $25 million or more. Based on this data, the Commission 
estimates that the majority of firms operating in this industry are 
small.
    116. Cable Companies and Systems (Rate Regulation). The Commission 
has 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 there are currently 4,600 active cable 
systems in the United States. Of this total, all but nine cable 
operators nationwide are small under the 400,000-subscriber size 
standard. In addition, under the Commission's rate regulation rules, a 
``small system'' is a cable system serving 15,000 or fewer subscribers. 
Current Commission records show 4,600 cable systems nationwide. Of this 
total, 3,900 cable systems have fewer than 15,000 subscribers, and 700 
systems have 15,000 or more subscribers, based on the same records. 
Thus, under this standard as well, we estimate that most cable systems 
are small entities.
    117. Cable System Operators (Telecom Act Standard). 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% 
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.'' There are approximately 52,403,705 cable video 
subscribers in the United States today. Accordingly, an operator 
serving fewer than 524,037 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. Based 
on available data, we find that all but nine incumbent cable operators 
are small entities under this size standard. We note that the 
Commission neither requests nor collects information on whether cable 
system operators are affiliated with entities whose gross annual 
revenues exceed $250 million. Although it seems certain that some of 
these cable system operators are affiliated with entities whose gross 
annual revenues exceed $250 million, we are unable at this time to 
estimate with greater precision the number of cable system operators 
that would qualify as small cable operators under the definition in the 
Communications Act.
7. All Other Telecommunications
    118. Electric Power Generators, Transmitters, and Distributors. 
This U.S. industry is comprised of establishments that are primarily 
engaged in providing specialized telecommunications services, such as 
satellite tracking, communications telemetry, and radar station 
operation. This industry also includes entities 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. Entities providing internet services or voice 
over internet protocol (VoIP) services via client-supplied 
telecommunications connections are also included in this industry. The 
closest applicable SBA category is ``All Other Telecommunications''. 
The SBA's small business size standard for ``All Other 
Telecommunications,'' consists of all such firms with gross annual 
receipts of $32.5 million or less. For this category, U.S. Census data 
for 2012 show that there were 1,442 firms that operated for the entire 
year. Of these firms, a total of 1,400 had gross annual receipts of 
less than $25 million. Consequently, we estimate that under this 
category and the associated size standard the majority of these firms 
can be considered small entities.

D. Description of Projected Reporting, Recordkeeping, and Other 
Compliance Requirements for Small Entities

    119. The potential modifications proposed in the Second FNPRM if 
adopted, could, at least initially, impose some new reporting, 
recordkeeping, or other compliance requirements on some small entities. 
Small entities and other providers could potentially be required to 
submit coverage maps based on standardized parameters. Commenters have 
been asked to refresh the record from the 2017 Data Collection 
Improvement FNPRM on the potential use of standardized coverage maps 
for mobile services in the context of Form 477 and to specifically 
discuss their experience with the approach used in the MF-II 
proceeding. Commenters also have been asked to refresh the record on 
whether to require on-the-ground data as part of the Form 477 data 
collection. In particular, the Commission asked whether it should 
require some actual speed test data, how it could impose such a 
requirement without being unduly burdensome to small providers, and the 
extent to which providers already collect on-the-ground data in their 
ordinary course of business.
    120. In the Second FNPRM, the Commission also seeks comment on a 
requirement for providers to submit infrastructure information 
sufficient to allow us to verify the accuracy of providers' Form 477 
filings. Anticipating that the collection of accurate and recent 
network infrastructure information would help the Commission to verify 
providers' filings, we propose to require small entities and other 
providers to submit, as part of their Form 477 filing, the following 
information: (1) The location of cell sites in decimal degrees; (2) the 
height (above ground and sea level), type, and directional orientation 
of transmit antennas at each cell site; (3) maximum radiated transmit 
power of the radio equipment at each cell site; (4) the capacity and 
type of backhaul used at each cell site; (5) deployed spectrum band and 
channel bandwidth in MHz; (6) throughput and the required signal 
strength and signal to noise ratio; (7) cell loading factors; (8) 
deployed technologies (e.g., LTE Release 13) and; (9) any terrain and 
land use information used in deriving clutter factors or other losses 
associated with each cell site. Additionally, the Commission also 
requests updated comments on adopting a requirement that coverage maps 
be submitted in raster format, noting that such a requirement might be 
less burdensome than shapefiles.

[[Page 43782]]

    121. As means of improving accuracy and reliability of mobile 
broadband filings, the Commission seeks comment on whether we should 
establish a challenge process similar to the MF-II challenge process to 
verify Form 477 filings. The adoption of such a process would allow 
states, local governments, Tribal entities, or other interested parties 
an opportunity to challenge providers' mobile broadband filings and 
could subject small entities and other providers to additional 
submission and compliance requirements. In addition, while the 
Commission has adopted the GIS reporting format for fixed broadband 
services, the Commission seeks comments on how to move to a location-
based data requirement for small entities and other providers.
    122. In addition, we seek comment on how best to ensure the 
collection of high-quality fixed broadband coverage data as part of the 
Digital Opportunity Data Collection. Although we are cognizant of the 
potential burdens that greater precision in reporting can entail, 
commenters have indicated in the record that the approach we adopt 
today--to collect coverage polygons of fixed-broadband service 
availability--will allow providers to submit more precise data with 
reasonable burdens. Nonetheless, we seek comment on steps the 
Commission can take to improve the quality of fixed broadband coverage 
polygons while minimizing the associated reporting burdens. In 
addition, as part of the Digital Opportunity Data Collection, the 
Commission is directing OEA, in consultation with WCB, WTB, and IB, to 
provide guidance to fixed providers regarding how to develop the 
polygons depicting fixed broadband coverage. Connected Nation expresses 
concern that small service providers in particular will struggle to 
comply with the new reporting requirements in the Digital Opportunity 
Data Collection unless they get assistance in creating their broadband 
coverage polygons. In the Report and Order, we identify help-desk 
support and clear instructions as ways we will assist fixed broadband 
providers with meeting the new filing obligations, and we seek comment 
on what other steps the Commission and USAC can take to help small 
fixed providers file accurate data as part of the new collection.
    123. We also seek comment on whether to require fixed providers to 
provide latency reports, whether to impose penalties for entities that 
chronically file bad data, and how we can improve the existing 
satellite broadband collection to reflect more accurately current 
satellite broadband coverage availability. Additionally, we seek 
comment on how best to collect information relating to service 
availability data gathered from fixed providers. For example, we seek 
comment on how to establish a crowdsourced tracking system through 
USAC, how quickly fixed providers should be required to correct any 
data where they do not refute the alleged lack of coverage, and how we 
should instruct USAC to handle cases in which providers and the 
stakeholders disagree about whether service is actually available at a 
given location. ACA argues that it would be ``onerous if a smaller 
provider had to respond immediately to each and every submission from 
an individual or government entity'' and recommends that small 
providers be allowed to account for any inaccurate data at its next 
Digital Opportunity Data Collection filing. As a result, we seek 
comment on the best approach to timing for the crowdsourcing process, 
not only for small providers but for all filers. Finally, if a 
location-based process is adopted for fixed broadband deployment 
reporting, we ask about an appropriate transition time, especially for 
smaller providers.
    124. The issues raised for consideration and comment in the Second 
FNPRM may require small entities to hire attorneys, engineers, 
consultants, or other professionals. At this time, however, the 
Commission cannot quantify the cost of compliance with any potential 
rule changes and compliance obligations for small entities that may 
result from the Second FNPRM. We expect our requests for information on 
potential burdens on small entities associated with matters raised in 
the Second FNPRM will provide us with information to assist with our 
evaluation of the cost of compliance on small entities of any 
reporting, recordkeeping, or other compliance requirements we adopt.

E. Steps Taken To Minimize the Significant Economic Impact on Small 
Entities and Significant Alternatives Considered

    125. The RFA requires an agency to describe any significant, 
specifically small business, 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.
    126. To assist the Commission's evaluation of the economic impact 
on small entities, as a result of actions that may result from 
proposals and issues raised for consideration in the Second FNPRM, and 
to better explore options and alternatives, the Commission has sought 
comment from the public. More specifically, the Commission seeks 
comment on what burdens are associated with the potential requirements 
discussed in the preceding section and how such burdens can be 
minimized for small entities. For example, the Commission has sought 
comment on the potential burdens associated with requiring providers to 
submit on-the-ground data and/or mobile broadband and voice 
subscription data at the census tract level, particularly for small 
providers, and on steps the Commission could take to minimize the 
potential burdens.
    127. In addressing possible changes to the Digital Opportunity Data 
Collection, we seek comment on lessening the burdens associated with 
the stringent timeliness and completeness requirements for the 
broadband coverage data to be submitted by smaller broadband providers. 
In addition, we seek comment on the burdens of a proposal for USAC to 
publish crowdsourced complaint data without directly informing the 
affected providers, which would require the provider to regularly check 
for pertinent complaints. Further, any requirement to timely submit 
corrected broadband deployment data may impose a burden on small 
providers, so we seek comment on ways to ease that burden. Finally, the 
creation of a new online portal for use with the Digital Opportunity 
Data Collection, generally, has the potential for errors to the 
disadvantage of small providers seeking USF funds, and we seek comment 
on how to lessen the potential for such errors.
    128. More generally, the proposals and questions laid out in the 
Second FNPRM were designed to enable the Commission to understand the 
benefits, impact, and potential burdens associated with the different 
approaches that the Commission can pursue to achieve its objective of 
improving accuracy and reliability of its data collections. Before 
reaching its final conclusions and taking action in this proceeding, 
the Commission expects to review the comments filed in response to the 
Second FNPRM and more fully consider the economic impact on small

[[Page 43783]]

entities and how any impact can be minimized.

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

    129. None.

V. Procedural Matters

    130. Ex Parte Rules. This proceeding 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, then 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 47 CFR 1.1206(b). In proceedings governed 
47 CFR 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.
    131. Paperwork Reduction Act. The Second FNPRM contains proposed 
new and modified information collection requirements subject to the 
Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (PRA), Public Law 104-13. The 
Commission, as part of its continuing effort to reduce paperwork 
burdens, invites the general public and the Office of Management and 
Budget to comment on the information collection requirements contained 
in the Second FNPRM, as required by the PRA. In addition, pursuant to 
the Small Business Paperwork Relief Act of 2002, Public Law 107-198 (44 
U.S.C. 3506(c)(4)), we seek specific comment on how we might further 
reduce the information collection burden for small business concerns 
with fewer than 25 employees.
    132. Initial Regulatory Flexibility Analysis. Pursuant to the 
Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA), the Commission has prepared an 
Initial Regulatory Flexibility Analysis (IRFA) of the possible 
significant economic impact on small entities of the policies and 
actions considered in this NPRM. The IRFA is set forth above. 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 on the Second FNPRM. The Commission's Consumer and 
Governmental Affairs Bureau, Reference Information Center, will send a 
copy of the Second FNPRM, including the IRFA, to the Chief Counsel for 
Advocacy of the Small Business Administration.
    133. 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).

VI. Clauses

    134. Accordingly, it is ordered that, pursuant to Sections 1-4, 7, 
201, 254, 301, 303, 309, 319, and 332 of the Communications Act of 
1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. 151-154, 157, 201, 254, 301, 303, 309, 319, 
and 332, this Report and Order and Second Further Notice of Proposed 
Rulemaking is adopted.
    135. It is further ordered that the Commission's Consumer & 
Governmental Affairs Bureau, Reference Information Center, shall send a 
copy of this Report and Order and Second Further Notice of Proposed 
Rulemaking, including the Initial Regulatory Flexibility Analysis, to 
the Chief Counsel for Advocacy of the Small Business Administration.

Federal Communications Commission.
Marlene Dortch,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2019-18062 Filed 8-21-19; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6712-01-P