[Federal Register Volume 85, Number 42 (Tuesday, March 3, 2020)]
[Notices]
[Pages 12555-12557]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2020-04313]


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

FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION

[WC Docket Nos. 17-108, 17-287, 11-42; DA 20-168; FRS 16518]


Telecommunications; Common Carriers; Internet

AGENCY: Federal Communications Commission.

ACTION: Notice.

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

SUMMARY: In this document the Wireline Competition Bureau seeks to 
refresh the record regarding the issues remanded to the Federal 
Communications Commission by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. 
Circuit decision in Mozilla Corp. v. FCC.

DATES: Comments are due on or before March 30, 2020, and reply comments 
are due on or before April 29, 2020.

ADDRESSES: You may submit comments, identified by WC Docket Nos. 17-
108, 17-287, and 11-42, by any of the following methods:
     Federal Communications Commission's Website: https://www.fcc.gov/ecfs/. Follow the instructions for submitting comments.
     Mail: Parties who choose to file by paper must file an 
original and one copy of each filing. If more than one docket or 
rulemaking number appears in the caption of this proceeding, filers 
must submit two additional copies for each additional docket or 
rulemaking number. Filings can be sent by hand or messenger delivery, 
by commercial overnight courier, or by first-class or overnight U.S. 
Postal Service mail. All filings must be addressed to the Commission's 
Secretary, Office of the Secretary, Federal Communications Commission. 
All hand-delivered or messenger-delivered paper filings for the 
Commission's Secretary must be delivered to FCC Headquarters at 445 
12th St. SW, Room TW-A325, Washington, DC 20554. The filing hours are 
8:00 a.m. to 7:00 p.m. All hand deliveries must be held together with 
rubber bands or fasteners. Any envelopes and boxes must be disposed of 
before entering the building. Commercial overnight mail (other than 
U.S. Postal Service Express Mail and Priority Mail) must be sent to 
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.
     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).
    For detailed instructions for submitting comments and additional 
information on the rulemaking process, see the SUPPLEMENTARY 
INFORMATION section of this document.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Annick Banoun, Competition Policy 
Division, Wireline Competition Bureau, at (202) 418-1521 or 
[email protected].

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: In the Restoring Internet Freedom Order (83 
FR 7852), the Commission ended utility-style regulation of the internet 
and returned to the light-touch framework under which a free and open 
internet underwent rapid and unprecedented growth for almost two 
decades. In Mozilla Corp. v. FCC, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 
District of Columbia Circuit upheld the vast majority of the 
Commission's decision, remanding three discrete issues for further 
consideration by the Commission. On February 6, 2020, the D.C. Circuit 
denied all pending petitions for rehearing, and the Court issued its 
mandate on February 18, 2020. With this Public Notice, the Wireline 
Competition Bureau seeks to refresh the record regarding the issues 
remanded to the Commission by the Mozilla Court.
    Public Safety. First, we seek to refresh the record on how the 
changes adopted in the Restoring Internet Freedom Order might affect 
public safety. In the Restoring Internet Freedom Order, the Commission 
predicted, for example, that permitting paid prioritization 
arrangements would ``increase network innovation,'' ``lead[ ] to higher 
investment in broadband capacity as well as greater innovation on the 
edge provider side of the market,'' and ``likely . . . be used to 
deliver enhanced service for applications that need QoS

[[Page 12556]]

[i.e., quality of service] guarantees.'' Could the network improvements 
made possible by prioritization arrangements benefit public safety 
applications--for example, by enabling the more rapid, reliable 
transmission of public safety-related communications during 
emergencies? Relatedly, the Commission concluded that, because 
prioritizing packets for latency-sensitive applications would not 
typically degrade other applications on the same network, any non-
profits, libraries, or independent content providers who declined to 
pay for prioritization would not be harmed. Would this same logic also 
apply to public safety communications? Do broadband providers have 
policies in place that facilitate or prioritize public safety 
communications? To what extent do public safety officials (at both the 
state and local level) even rely on mass-market retail broadband 
services covered by the Restoring Internet Freedom Order (i.e., 
services that only promise ``best efforts'' in the delivery of 
content), rather than dedicated networks with quality-of-service 
guarantees (i.e., enterprise or business data services) for public 
safety applications? With respect to public safety incidents described 
in the Mozilla decision and elsewhere, would the providers' allegedly 
harmful conduct have been prohibited under the rules adopted by the 
Commission in the Title II Order? Are concerns or consequences of 
broadband providers' possible actions different for public-safety-to-
public-safety communications, such as onsite incident response or 
Emergency Operations Center communications, versus public safety 
communications made to or from the public? Do the Commission and other 
governmental authorities have other tools at their disposal that are 
better suited to addressing potential public safety concerns than 
classification of broadband as a Title II service? Are there any other 
impacts on public safety from the changes adopted in the Restoring 
Internet Freedom Order? Finally, how do any potential public safety 
considerations bear on the Commission's underlying decision to classify 
broadband as a Title I information service?
    Pole Attachments. Second, we seek to refresh the record on how the 
changes adopted in the Restoring Internet Freedom Order might affect 
the regulation of pole attachments in states subject to federal 
regulation. To what extent are ISPs' pole attachments subject to 
Commission authority in non-reverse preemption states by virtue of the 
ISPs' provision of cable or telecommunications services covered by 
section 224? What impact would the inapplicability of section 224 to 
broadband-only providers have on their access to poles? Have pole 
owners, following the Order, ``increase[d] pole attachment rates or 
inhibit[ed] broadband providers from attaching equipment''? How could 
we use metrics like increases or decreases in broadband deployment to 
measure the impact the Order has had on pole attachment practices? Are 
there any other impacts on the regulation of pole attachments from the 
changes adopted in the Order? Finally, how do any potential 
considerations about pole attachments bear on the Commission's 
underlying decision to classify broadband as a Title I information 
service?
    Lifeline Program. Third, we seek to refresh the record on how the 
changes adopted in the Restoring Internet Freedom Order might affect 
the Lifeline program. In particular, we seek to refresh the record on 
the Commission's authority to direct Lifeline support to eligible 
telecommunications carriers (ETCs) providing broadband service to 
qualifying low-income consumers. In the 2017 Lifeline NPRM, the 
Commission proposed that it ``has authority under section 254(e) of the 
Act to provide Lifeline support to ETCs that provide broadband service 
over facilities-based broadband-capable networks that support voice 
service,'' and that ``[t]his legal authority does not depend on the 
regulatory classification of broadband internet access service and, 
thus, ensures the Lifeline program has a role in closing the digital 
divide regardless of the regulatory classification of broadband 
service.'' How, if at all, does the Mozilla decision bear on that 
proposal, and should the Commission proceed to adopt it? For example, 
the Court in Mozilla invited the Commission to explain how its 
authority under section 254(e) could extend to broadband, ``even `over 
facilities-based broadband-capable networks that support voice service' 
now that broadband is no longer considered to be a common carrier.'' We 
seek to refresh the record in light of the Court's invitation. We also 
ask parties to refresh the record on whether there are other sources of 
authority that allow the Commission to provide Lifeline support for 
broadband services. Are there any other impacts on the Lifeline program 
from the changes adopted in the Restoring Internet Freedom Order? 
Finally, how do any potential considerations about the Lifeline program 
bear on the Commission's underlying decision to classify broadband as a 
Title I information service?
    These proceedings shall be treated as a ``permit-but-disclose'' 
proceeding in accordance with the Commission's ex parte rules. Persons 
making ex parte presentations must file a copy of any written 
presentation or a memorandum summarizing any oral presentation within 
two business days after the presentation (unless a different deadline 
applicable to the Sunshine period applies). Persons making oral ex 
parte presentations are reminded that memoranda summarizing the 
presentation must (1) list all persons attending or otherwise 
participating in the meeting at which the ex parte presentation was 
made, and (2) summarize all data presented and arguments made during 
the presentation. If the presentation consisted in whole or in part of 
the presentation of data or arguments already reflected in the 
presenter's written comments, memoranda or other filings in the 
proceeding, the presenter may provide citations to such data or 
arguments in his or her prior comments, memoranda, or other filings 
(specifying the relevant page and/or paragraph numbers where such data 
or arguments can be found) in lieu of summarizing them in the 
memorandum. Documents shown or given to Commission staff during ex 
parte meetings are deemed to be written ex parte presentations and must 
be filed consistent with rule 1.1206(b). In proceedings governed by 
rule 1.49(f) or for which the Commission has made available a method of 
electronic filing, written ex parte presentations and memoranda 
summarizing oral ex parte presentations, and all attachments thereto, 
must be filed through the electronic comment filing system available 
for that proceeding, and must be filed in their native format (e.g., 
.doc, .xml, .ppt, searchable .pdf). Participants in this proceeding 
should familiarize themselves with the Commission's ex parte rules.
    Pursuant to sections 1.415 and 1.419 of the Commission's rules, 47 
CFR 1.415, 1.419, interested parties may file comments and reply 
comments on or before the dates indicated on the first page of this 
document. Comments may be filed using the Commission's Electronic 
Comment Filing System (ECFS). See Electronic Filing of Documents in 
Rulemaking Proceedings, 63 FR 24121 (1998).
    [ssquf] Electronic Filers: Comments may be filed electronically 
using the internet by accessing the ECFS: http://apps.fcc.gov/ecfs/.

[[Page 12557]]

    [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 
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.
    [ssquf] 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.
    [ssquf] 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.
    [ssquf] U.S. Postal Service first-class, Express, and Priority mail 
must be addressed to 445 12th Street SW, Washington, DC 20554.
    People with Disabilities: To request materials in accessible 
formats for people with disabilities (braille, large print, electronic 
files, audio format), send an email to [email protected] or call the 
Consumer & Governmental Affairs Bureau at 202-418-0530 (voice), 202-
418-0432 (tty).

Federal Communications Commission.
Daniel Kahn,
Associate Chief, Wireline Competition Bureau.
[FR Doc. 2020-04313 Filed 3-2-20; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 6712-01-P