[Federal Register Volume 85, Number 160 (Tuesday, August 18, 2020)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 50911-50936]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2020-16356]


 ========================================================================
 Proposed Rules
                                                 Federal Register
 ________________________________________________________________________
 
 This section of the FEDERAL REGISTER contains notices to the public of 
 the proposed issuance of rules and regulations. The purpose of these 
 notices is to give interested persons an opportunity to participate in 
 the rule making prior to the adoption of the final rules.
 
 ========================================================================
 

  Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 160 / Tuesday, August 18, 2020 / 
Proposed Rules  

[[Page 50911]]



FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION

47 CFR Part 1

[WC Docket Nos. 19-195, 11-10; FCC 20-94; FRS 16946]


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

AGENCY: Federal Communications Commission.

ACTION: Proposed rule.

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

SUMMARY: In this document, the Commission seeks comment on proposals 
for processes for consumers, governmental entities, and other parties 
to challenge the availability data represented in the broadband maps; 
additional processes for verifying broadband availability data 
submitted by providers; targeted reforms to the FCC Form 477 
subscribership data that broadband and voice providers are required to 
file biannually; and implementing other requirements of the Broadband 
DATA Act.

DATES: Interested parties may file comments on or before September 8, 
2020 and reply comments on or before September 17, 2020. Written 
comments on the Paperwork Reduction Act proposed information collection 
requirements must be submitted by the public, Office of Management and 
Budget (OMB), and other interested parties on or before October 19, 
2020.

ADDRESSES: You may submit comments, identified by WC Docket Nos. 19-195 
and 11-10, by any of the following methods:
     Federal Communications Commission's Website: http://apps.fcc.gov/ecfs/. Follow the instructions for submitting comments.
     People with Disabilities: Contact the FCC to request 
reasonable accommodations (accessible format documents, sign language 
interpreters, CART, etc.) by email: [email protected] or phone: 202-418-
0530 or TTY: 202-418-0432.

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

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For further information on this 
proceeding, contact Kirk Burgee, FCC Wireline Competition Bureau, 
Competition Policy Division, (202) 418-1599, [email protected], or 
Garnet Hanly, FCC Wireless Telecommunications Bureau, Competition and 
Infrastructure Policy Division, (202) 418-0995, [email protected].

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: This is a summary of the Commission's Third 
Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (Third FNPRM) in WC Docket Nos. 
19-195 and 11-10, adopted on July 16, 2020 and released on July 17, 
2020. The document is available for download at https://www.fcc.gov/edocs. 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).
    Ex Parte Procedures: The proceeding this Third FNPRM initiates 
shall be treated as a ``permit-but-disclose'' proceeding in accordance 
with the Commission's ex parte rules. See 47 CFR 1.1200 through 1.1216. 
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 Sec.  1.1206(b). In proceedings governed 
by rule Sec.  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.
    Initial Paperwork Reduction Analysis: This document contains 
proposed new or modified information collection requirements. The 
Commission, as part of its continuing effort to reduce paperwork 
burdens, invites the general public and the Office of Management and 
Budget (OMB) to comment on the information collection requirements in 
this document, subject to the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (PRA), 
Public Law 104-13. In addition, pursuant to the Small Business 
Paperwork Relief Act of 2002, Public Law 107-198, see 44 U.S.C. 
3506(c)(4), the Commission seeks specific comment on how it might 
further reduce the information collection burden for small business 
concerns with fewer than 25 employees.
    Statement of Authority: This Third FNPRM is adopted pursuant to 
sections 1 through 4, 7, 201, 254, 301, 303, 309, 319, 332, and 641 
through 646 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. 
151 through 154, 157, 201, 254, 301, 303, 309, 319, 332, and 641 
through 646.

Synopsis

I. Third Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking

    1. In this Third FNPRM, the Commission seeks comment on what steps 
are necessary to implement certain other provisions of the Broadband 
DATA Act. In doing so, the Commission notes that section 806(e) of the 
Broadband DATA Act provides that ``[i]f the Commission, before the date 
of enactment of this title, has taken an action that, in whole or in 
part,

[[Page 50912]]

implements this title, the Commission shall not be required to revisit 
such action to the extent that such action is consistent with this 
title.'' Accordingly, the Commission asks that commenters address the 
extent to which measures already adopted by the Commission meet the 
requirements of the Broadband DATA Act, as well as what new measures 
may be necessary.

A. Service Providers Subject to the Collection of Broadband internet 
Access Service Data

    2. Under the Broadband DATA Act, the Commission must issue rules 
for the collection of broadband internet access service data from each 
``provider'' of broadband internet access service, with ``provider'' 
being defined as ``a provider of fixed or mobile broadband internet 
access service.'' The Commission proposes that the providers subject to 
the requirements adopted in the Second Report and Order, published 
elsewhere in this issue of the Federal Register, be limited to 
``facilities-based providers,'' as defined in 47 CFR 1.7001(a)(2). The 
Commission believes this definition is consistent with the Broadband 
DATA Act because the Act requires each provider to report where it 
``has actually built out the broadband network infrastructure,'' and a 
facilities-based provider, rather than a reseller of the facilities-
based provider's services or capacity, is in the best position to know 
and report such information. If resellers were to report information on 
broadband availability, it is likely that such information would be 
less accurate than the data reported by facilities-based providers. In 
addition, the availability footprints of resold service would overlap 
those reported by facilities-based providers, given that resellers, by 
definition, provide service in all or a portion of the same footprint 
as the facilities-based providers. Further, the definition of 
facilities-based provider that the Commission proposes to use is the 
same as that adopted for fixed providers in the Digital Opportunity 
Data Collection Order and Further NPRM (84 FR 43705, Aug. 21, 2019, and 
84 FR 43764, Aug. 21, 2019), and it currently applies to providers 
required to file Form 477 fixed and mobile broadband deployment data. 
As such, defining ``provider'' in the same way in the Digital 
Opportunity Data Collection will enable ``the comparison of data and 
maps'' produced under Form 477 with those produced under the Broadband 
DATA Act, which the Act requires the Commission to do.

B. Standards for Reporting Availability and Quality of Service Data for 
Fixed Broadband Internet Access Service

    3. The Broadband DATA Act requires that rules issued by the 
Commission provide for uniform standards for the reporting of broadband 
internet access service data. The Commission believes that, except as 
noted below, the reporting requirements previously adopted in the 
Digital Opportunity Data Collection Order and Further NPRM for fixed 
broadband service data are consistent with the Broadband DATA Act's 
requirements for reporting on the availability of such services. In 
particular, the Commission believes that it is consistent with the 
Broadband DATA Act to require providers of broadband internet access 
service at advertised speeds exceeding 200 kbps in at least one 
direction to report broadband availability data under the rules 
established for the Digital Opportunity Data Collection. The 200 kbps 
speed threshold is the same as that adopted in the Digital Opportunity 
Data Collection Order and Further NPRM and currently required for Form 
477.
    4. Business-Only Service. The Digital Opportunity Data Collection 
Order and Further NPRM required fixed providers to differentiate in 
their coverage polygons among service that was residential-only, 
business-only, or business-and-residential. While the Commission 
recognizes that there may be drawbacks to requiring fixed providers to 
report business-only broadband polygons due to the competitively 
sensitive nature of such data, it recognizes that there may be benefits 
to collecting and consulting business-only data, for example, in 
awarding funding for broadband services in other Universal Service Fund 
programs. As such, the Commission seeks comment on excluding from the 
Digital Opportunity Data Collection business-only service and instead 
requiring only a distinction between ``residential-only'' and 
``business-and-residential'' services by fixed providers. The 
Commission seeks comment on this approach. In the alternative, should 
the Commission require the collection of business-only services, 
including non-mass-market business data services, though not 
specifically required by the Broadband DATA Act? Would there be a 
benefit to the Commission having data about the availability of 
broadband service for businesses and organizations that do not buy 
mass-market services, including healthcare organizations, schools, 
libraries, and other government entities? Would business-only 
availability data be particularly helpful for informing, for example, 
E-rate or universal service programs that support health care? Since 
the Broadband DATA Act focuses on restricting subsidies to unserved 
areas and avoiding wasteful subsidized overbuilding, could the 
availability of business-only deployment data for consultation in the 
E-Rate or Rural Health Care programs, for example, help advance the 
goals and principles of the statute?
    5. Speed Information for Fixed Services. As a component of their 
availability reporting under the Broadband DATA Act, fixed broadband 
providers must submit ``information regarding download and upload 
speeds, at various thresholds.'' The Digital Opportunity Data 
Collection Order and Further NPRM required all fixed providers to 
submit broadband coverage polygons that reflect the maximum download 
and upload speeds available in each area, as well as the technology 
used to provide the service and a differentiation among residential-
only, business-only, or residential-and-business broadband services. 
The Commission proposes that all fixed broadband providers be required 
to report the maximum advertised download and upload speeds associated 
with the broadband internet access service that a provider offers in an 
area. However, for service offered at speeds below 25/3 Mbps, the 
Commission proposes the use of two speed tiers: One for speeds greater 
than 200 kbps in at least one direction and less than 10/1 Mbps, and 
another for speeds greater than or equal to 10/1 Mbps and less than 25/
3. For speeds greater than or equal to 25/3 Mbps, the Commission 
proposes that providers report the maximum advertised download and 
upload speeds associated with the broadband internet access service 
provided in an area. The Commission seeks comment on these proposals.
    6. Latency Information for Fixed Services. The Commission also 
seeks comment on whether and how to collect latency information for 
fixed broadband services. Latency refers to the time it takes for a 
data packet to travel from one point to another in a network, whereas a 
round-trip latency refers to the time it takes for a data packet to 
travel from one point to another and then back again. The Digital 
Opportunity Data Collection Order and Further NPRM sought comment on 
whether fixed providers should be required to report latency levels 
along with other parameters in their coverage polygons. The Broadband 
DATA Act provides that latency information shall be collected from 
fixed broadband providers ``if applicable,'' and specifically requires

[[Page 50913]]

that propagation model-based coverage maps submitted by fixed wireless 
providers reflect the ``speeds and latency'' of the service offered by 
the provider. The Commission proposes to require all fixed broadband 
service providers to report latency data by indicating whether the 
network round-trip latency associated with the service offered by each 
technology and each maximum speed combination in a particular 
geographic area is less than or equal to a particular threshold. The 
Commission proposes to use 100 milliseconds (ms)--based on the 95th 
percentile of measurements--as that threshold, since that is the 
latency benchmark that recipients of Connect America Fund Phase II 
model-based support, as well as Connect America Fund Phase II auction 
support recipients in the Low Latency tier, are required to meet. The 
Commission proposes to update that benchmark for the Digital 
Opportunity Data Collection if and when the benchmark is updated in the 
universal service context. The Commission seeks comment on this 
proposal and ask whether a lower value should be used as a latency 
threshold independent of any changes made in the universal service 
context.
    7. As an alternative to having all fixed providers submit latency 
information, should the Commission determine that the collection of 
latency data is only applicable to providers of certain types of fixed 
service? Further, should a more limited set of providers be required to 
submit more granular data on latency? Would such requirements be 
consistent with the Broadband DATA Act? For instance, should the 
Commission require only fixed wireless providers submitting propagation 
maps to file data indicating the 95th percentile latency values for the 
services they offer? Should the Commission extend this requirement to 
satellite providers, given the notable differences in latency values 
between satellite providers and other fixed providers? Should any 
latency requirements of satellite providers be limited to non-
geostationary-orbit satellites and should such providers report latency 
values specifically for the apogee of satellites' orbits or for the 
greatest path distance between a satellite and ground station? The 
Commission proposes to direct OEA, in consultation with WCB, IB, and 
OET, to issue specific guidance to providers on how to measure their 
network latency for purposes of reporting such information in the 
Digital Opportunity Data Collection. The Commission seeks comment on 
these proposals regarding the collection of latency information and ask 
commenters to provide detailed explanations for any alternative 
recommendations, including any alternative latency benchmarks.
    8. Satellite Availability Reporting. In the Digital Opportunity 
Data Collection Order and Further NPRM, the Commission sought comment 
on how, for the purposes of the Digital Opportunity Data Collection, it 
could improve upon the existing satellite broadband data collection to 
reflect more accurately current satellite broadband service 
availability. The Commission sought comment on whether satellite 
broadband deployment data reporting near nationwide deployment could be 
improved by requiring additional information, including the number and 
location of satellite beams, the capacity used to provide service by an 
individual satellite to consumers at various speeds, and the number of 
subscribers served at those speed levels. The Satellite Industry 
Association and Hughes oppose such reporting and argue that neither 
beam location nor capacity would provide additional granular 
information about the reach of the networks or where satellite 
broadband providers make service available. The Commission continues to 
seek comment on how to improve upon the existing satellite broadband 
data collection. Assuming arguendo that requiring the reporting of such 
supply side data is not useful or practical, should the Commission 
require additional reporting on the demand side by requiring any 
satellite provider submitting nationwide broadband coverage also to 
identify the census tracts with at least one reported subscriber? 
Should the Commission require reporting of where the satellite operator 
is actively marketing its broadband services? If concrete proposals are 
not provided to more reasonably represent satellite broadband 
deployment, the Commission would rely on other mechanisms outlined in 
the Second Report and Order and this Third FNPRM including standards 
for availability reporting, crowdsourced data checks, certifications, 
audits, and enforcement, potentially as well as currently reported 
subscriber data, in assessing the accuracy of satellite provider claims 
of broadband deployment.

C. Additional Standards for Collection and Reporting of Data for Mobile 
Broadband Internet Access Service

    9. In the Second Report and Order, the Commission required that a 
mobile provider's propagation model results for 3G, 4G and 5G-NR mobile 
broadband technologies be based on standardized parameter values for 
cell edge probability, cell loading, and clutter that meet or exceed 
certain specified minimum values. The Commission also required mobile 
providers to disclose propagation model details and link budget 
parameters. In this Third FNPRM, the Commission seeks comment on 
whether it should require providers to submit infrastructure 
information, make additional disclosures concerning the input data, 
assumptions, and parameter values underlying their propagation models 
and on whether any additional parameters are necessary to ensure that 
the Commission collects accurate mobile broadband deployment data.
    10. First, the Commission seeks comment on requiring providers to 
disclose to the Commission additional details of their propagation 
models and of the link budgets they use for modeling cell edge network 
throughput (both uplink and downlink). Specifically, the Commission 
seeks comment on requiring providers to submit a description of sites 
or areas in their network where drive testing or other verification 
mechanisms demonstrate measured deviations from the input parameter 
values or output values included in the link budget(s) submitted to the 
Commission, and a description of each deviation and its purpose. The 
Commission seeks comment on whether requiring providers to include this 
additional information will help it more fully understand and assess 
propagation model coverage predictions.
    11. The Commission also seeks comment on whether it should 
prescribe propagation modeling standards, such as a minimum value for 
Reference Signal Received Power (RSRP) or Received Signal Strength 
Indicator (RSSI). A map showing where the RSRP or RSSI meets or exceeds 
a minimum value could assist with the verification of expected user 
speeds. The Mobility Fund Phase II Investigation Staff Report discussed 
the role of signal strength in measuring mobile broadband performance 
and found ``a strong positive relationship between the RSRP signal 
strength recorded and the percentage of 4G LTE speed tests that 
achieved a download speed of at least 5 Mbps . . . .'' Several parties 
discussed signal strength in their comments in response to the Digital 
Opportunity Data Collection Order and Further NPRM and expressed 
differing views on whether a standardized or minimum signal strength 
parameter value is necessary. The Commission seeks additional comment 
to inform its

[[Page 50914]]

determination of whether a minimum signal strength parameter value is 
appropriate. The Commission recognizes that RSRP or RSSI values may 
vary based on factors such as spectrum band, network design, or device 
operating capabilities, but it seeks comment on whether it can 
establish a minimum signal strength parameter value that accommodates 
such variation. For example, should the Commission adopt CCA's 
suggestion that to define a minimum signal strength parameter by 
technology (e.g., LTE or 5G), spectrum band, and channel size? If so, 
the Commission seeks comment on what values would be appropriate. 
Alternatively, in view of the variety of factors that affect signal 
strength, would it be preferable to adopt an approach that uses a range 
of signal strength data to verify propagation model coverage 
predictions? Under such an approach, the Commission could require, for 
each of the propagation maps submitted, a second set of maps showing 
RSSI or RSRP signal levels, measured at 1.5 meters above ground level 
(AGL), from each active cell site. These maps could form color coded 
``heat maps'' showing RSSI or RSRP gradient levels in 10 dB increments 
from -40 dBm to -120 dBm. The Commission seeks comment on this approach 
and whether it would be an effective method for verifying coverage 
predictions.
    12. The Commission also seeks comment on whether it should adopt 
any other minimum values for particular model parameters not otherwise 
specified above. For example, the Mobility Fund Phase II Investigation 
Staff Report concluded that the Commission ``should be able to obtain 
more accurate mobile coverage data by specifying additional technical 
parameters,'' and it recommended that the Commission adopt standard 
fading statistics as one parameter for standardized mobile broadband 
coverage data specifications. Based on this finding, should the 
Commission require carriers to report the fading standard deviation 
they use to set a fade margin or otherwise incorporate into their link 
budgets or propagation models? Should the Commission set minimum values 
or standardize values for any of the additional parameters it would 
require carriers to submit? Commenters advocating for the Commission to 
require reporting (or standardization) of a particular parameter should 
provide detailed technical justifications for why the parameter or 
value is necessary or important for the Commission to verify carriers' 
propagation models and coverage maps.
    13. Finally, the Commission asks whether it should require mobile 
providers to submit additional coverage maps based on different speed, 
cell edge probability, or cell loading values. Are there particular use 
cases or categories of subscribers, such as Machine-to-Machine or 
Internet-of-Things users, that might benefit from information on 4G LTE 
or 5G-NR service availability at speeds below the thresholds set forth 
in the Broadband DATA Act and adopted in the Second Report and Order; 
or are there use cases for which higher thresholds for broadband speed 
or utilization might make sense? For example, should providers report 
coverage with cell loading values set to 30% and 70%, in addition to 
50%, where all other values were held constant? Having different maps 
(or map layers) based on these different assumptions could show how the 
likelihood of establishing or maintaining a mobile broadband connection 
may change when the network is experiencing different utilization 
rates. Rather than setting uniform cell-loading values, should the 
Commission instead require carriers to submit, on a per-cell basis, 
propagation maps that incorporate a cell-loading value based on busy-
hour utilization? The Commission notes that this requirement would be 
in addition to the requirements it adopted in the Second Report and 
Order that carriers submit maps based on minimum speed, cell-edge 
probability, and cell loading metrics. Assuming the Commission requires 
mobile providers to submit additional coverage maps, how should the 
Commission incorporate this information into the maps it creates 
pursuant to the Broadband DATA Act? Are there any steps the Commission 
would need to take to avoid confusing consumers and help ensure that 
they are able to make reasonable comparisons between mobile broadband 
providers' coverage areas?
1. Collecting Infrastructure Information
    14. In the Digital Opportunity Data Collection Order and Further 
NPRM, the Commission proposed to collect certain types of network 
infrastructure information to be submitted by mobile service providers 
upon Commission request, and it sought comment on whether the 
Commission should require mobile providers to submit infrastructure 
information to verify providers' broadband network coverage. The 
Commission seeks to refresh the record and seek further comment on 
collecting infrastructure information as part of the Digital 
Opportunity Data Collection.
    15. The Commission believes such information could help Commission 
staff independently verify the accuracy of provider coverage 
propagation models and maps submitted by mobile wireless service 
providers. The Mobility Fund Phase II Investigation Staff Report 
concluded that collecting such infrastructure data could help 
accurately verify mobile broadband coverage. The Commission also 
believes that infrastructure data could advance the Broadband DATA 
Act's requirement that it verify the accuracy and reliability of 
submitted coverage data. At the same time, The Commission recognizes 
that this is not data it ordinarily collects, and further acknowledges 
that the collection of infrastructure information could raise 
commercial sensitivity and national security concerns, as well as 
impose additional burdens on filers. The Commission seeks additional 
comment on these views and how best to strike a balance between 
competing concerns.
    16. If the Commission opts to collect this information as part of 
the Digital Opportunity Data Collection, it seeks comment on what 
information it should collect, how often it should collect it, and 
whether filers should regularly submit infrastructure information to 
the Commission or submit information only on staff request, such as 
when the need for staff to verify part or all of a filer's network 
arises. In the Digital Opportunity Data Collection Further NPRM, the 
Commission proposed collecting nine categories of infrastructure 
information from filers. The Commission notes that some parties, 
including CTIA and AT&T, support requiring mobile providers to require 
regular submission of certain infrastructure information relating to 
the geographic locations of cell sites, while making other more 
detailed information available upon Commission staff request. The 
Commission seeks comment on these proposals and other alternatives it 
should consider, including whether such a rule is necessary in the 
first instance and whether the benefits of regular reporting would 
outweigh the costs. Commenters should discuss both the value of 
collecting this information for ensuring the accuracy of mobile 
broadband coverage maps and the potential impact on filers.

D. Processes for Verifying Broadband Availability Data Submitted by 
Providers

    17. Pursuant to the Broadband DATA Act, the Commission must issue 
final rules that establish processes through

[[Page 50915]]

which it can ``verify the accuracy and reliability'' of the broadband 
internet access service availability data submitted by providers. These 
requirements are set out in distinct provisions of the Broadband DATA 
Act, separate from other requirements to establish processes for 
improving data accuracy and reliability, such as processes for 
receiving verified data from third parties and governmental mapping 
entities, crowdsourcing, and a challenge process. Accordingly, the 
Commission finds that these verification processes are intended to be 
in addition to other requirements, though there may be overlap and 
interrelationships between them. The Commission notes, for example, 
that information received through the crowdsourcing required under 
section 804(b) of the Broadband DATA Act is to be used to ``verify and 
supplement'' availability data collected under section 802(b)(2)(B) of 
the Act. The Commission seeks comment on this finding.
1. Verifying Mobile Data
    18. In this section, the Commission proposes requiring mobile 
providers to submit a statistically valid sample of on-the-ground data 
(i.e., both mobile and stationary drive-test data) as an additional 
method to verify mobile providers' coverage maps. The Commission seeks 
comment on ways to develop a statistically valid methodology for the 
submission and collection of such data as well as how to implement such 
a requirement in a way that is not cost prohibitive for providers, 
particularly for small service providers. Further, the Commission 
requests comment on directing OEA and WTB to determine whether to 
develop a statistically valid methodology that will be used for 
determining the locations and frequency for on-the-ground testing as 
well as the technical parameters for standardizing on-the-ground data, 
and the Commission seeks comment on potential considerations for 
developing such a methodology. Finally, the Commission requests comment 
on whether and how the Commission should use signal strength 
information submitted by carriers to verify providers' coverage maps.
    19. On-the-Ground Service Provider Data. The 2017 Data Collection 
Improvement FNPRM (82 FR 40118, Aug. 24, 2017) sought comment on 
requiring mobile broadband providers to submit speed test data to 
supplement their model-based data. In the Digital Opportunity Data 
Collection Order and Further NPRM, the Commission sought further 
comment on this issue and asked whether providers already collect such 
data in the ordinary course of business. In response to the 2017 Data 
Collection Improvement FNPRM and the Digital Opportunity Data 
Collection Order and Further NPRM, some commenters supported using 
drive-test data as a means of verifying broadband coverage. Providers, 
on the other hand, argued that collecting such data over their entire 
network would be unduly burdensome and unnecessary. The Mobility Fund 
Phase II Investigation Staff Report, however, found that drive testing 
can play an important role in auditing, verifying, and investigating 
the accuracy of mobile broadband coverage maps submitted to the 
Commission. The Mobility Fund Phase II Investigation Staff Report 
recommended that the Commission require providers to ``submit 
sufficient actual speed test data sampling that verifies the accuracy 
of the propagation model used to generate the coverage maps. Actual 
speed test data is critical to validating the models used to generate 
the maps.''
    20. The Commission proposes requiring mobile service providers to 
submit on-the-ground test data--from a combination of mobile and 
stationary tests--as a tool to help the Commission verify their voice 
and broadband coverage submissions. The Broadband DATA Act requires the 
Commission to verify the accuracy and reliability of mobile broadband 
coverage data that mobile providers submit to the Commission. The 
Commission believes that on-the-ground test data from mobile providers 
could be a critical component of its verification process. The 
Commission anticipates, however, that requiring providers to test their 
entire network would be prohibitively expensive; accordingly, the 
Commission proposes to require mobile providers to collect a 
statistically valid, unbiased sample of on-the-ground test data to 
verify their coverage maps. Industry commenters have indicated either 
that providers do not collect on-the-ground test data in the ordinary 
course of business or that they do so only to calibrate their 
propagation models. Accordingly, the Commission expects that collecting 
a sample would be more effective in verifying coverage than on-the-
ground test data already collected in the ordinary course of business.
    21. In order to help verify the accuracy of mobile providers' 
submitted coverage maps, the Commission proposes that carriers submit 
evidence of network performance based on a sample of on-the-ground 
tests that is statistically appropriate for the area tested. The 
Commission proposes at a minimum that the speed tests include downlink, 
uplink, latency, and signal strength measurements and that they be 
performed using an end-user application that measures performance 
between the mobile device and specified test servers. The Commission 
proposes that speed tests must be taken outdoors. The Commission 
proposes requiring a combination of mobile and stationary tests to 
accurately verify the coverage speed maps. The Commission also seeks 
comment on how it should compare the two types of tests. The Commission 
requests comment on the parameters that should be specified, such as 
the time of day within which the tests should be performed and whether 
it should set limits on the height at which the tests must be 
conducted. In the case of mobile speed tests, the Commission requests 
comment on whether it should set limits on vehicle speed and whether it 
should accept unmanned aircraft system tests. The Commission also seek 
comment on how to ensure that providers submit a statistically valid 
and unbiased sample of tests. For example, how should the tests be 
distributed between urban and rural areas? How can the Commission 
ensure that the speed test measurements represent the typical user case 
for the area covered? How, for example, can the Commission prevent 
providers from performing their tests close to their towers where 
signal strength is greatest? In developing its methodology, should the 
Commission specify the types of equipment that providers can use, 
including the handsets and any other special equipment necessary for 
the testing? Should the Commission specify where to place such 
equipment during the testing? Although the Commission eliminated the 
requirement to report network coverage on Form 477 by spectrum band in 
the Digital Opportunity Data Collection Order and Further NPRM, it 
proposes, for verification purposes, to require providers to indicate 
spectrum bands and bandwidths in submitted mobile and stationary test 
data. In the context of eliminating the requirement to submit separate 
Form 477 coverage maps by spectrum band, the Commission acknowledged 
that it had not yet used such data to analyze deployment in different 
spectrum bands and that such data were unnecessary to confirm buildout 
requirements or to determine deployment speeds, as such information was 
typically provided by mobile providers through other means. Digital 
Opportunity Data Collection Order and Further NPRM, 34 FCC Rcd at 7523-
24, paras. 42-43. For on-the-ground test data, however, spectrum band 
data are essential to be able to understand and

[[Page 50916]]

analyze mobile providers' on-the-ground submissions and to use them as 
a tool to verify mobile coverage maps.
    22. The Commission seeks comment on the costs of requiring mobile 
providers to submit a statistically valid sample of on-the-ground data 
to verify their network coverage. The Commission recognizes both that 
it may be difficult to develop a statistically valid methodology 
governing mobile and stationary tests that eliminates or minimizes 
selection bias and that on-the-ground testing may prove burdensome and 
expensive. The Commission requests comment on the potential costs of 
developing a statistically valid methodology for on-the-ground testing. 
In addition, the Commission seeks comment on the potential costs for 
providers to implement such methodology, particularly in light of its 
proposal to require only a sample of a mobile provider's network. What 
are the costs of requiring providers to submit both mobile stationary 
test data? To what extent should the Commission modify its requirements 
for small providers, if at all?
    23. The Commission requests comment on the type of confidentiality 
protections that it should apply to any on-the-ground data that mobile 
providers submit. The Broadband DATA Act's privacy provision does not 
clearly apply to the collection of data submitted to verify the 
accuracy of coverage data. Should these data be subject to disclosure 
pursuant to the private-public balancing test in Sec. Sec.  0.457 and 
0.461 of the Commission's rules? Should these data be available to the 
public during the challenge process?
2. Engineering Certification of Biannual Filings
    24. While the Broadband DATA Act requires that each provider must 
include as part of its filing a certification from a corporate officer, 
the Mobility Fund Phase II Investigation Staff Report included a 
similar recommendation that the Commission require service providers to 
include an engineering certification with all data submissions.
    25. In the Second Report and Order, as required by the Broadband 
DATA Act, the Commission requires providers to submit a certification 
from a corporate officer that the statements of fact contained in its 
biannual submissions are true and correct. The Commission proposes 
requiring mobile providers in addition to submit a certification of the 
accuracy of their submissions from a qualified engineer. The Commission 
also proposes to require public filing of these certifications. The 
Mobility Fund Phase II Investigation Staff Report recommended that the 
Commission require providers to include an engineering certification. 
It found that requiring an engineering certification would help improve 
the accuracy of submissions by ensuring that providers take into 
account network performance data showing actual service availability in 
different areas across the country. The Commission seeks comment on the 
Report's recommendation and on whether requiring both an engineering 
certification and a certification from a corporate officer would help 
improve accuracy of provider submissions. To the extent a corporate 
officer (e.g., a Chief Technology Officer) is both an engineer and has 
the requisite knowledge required under the Broadband DATA Act, the 
Commission proposes to require the mobile filer to submit a single 
certification, which would also attest to the corporate officer's 
engineering qualifications. The Commission proposes requiring that this 
certification state that the certified professional engineer or a 
corporate engineering officer that is employed by the service provider 
has direct knowledge of, or responsibility for, the generation of the 
service provider's Commission-filed coverage maps. The Commission 
proposes requiring that the certified professional engineer or 
corporate engineering officer certify that he or she has examined the 
information contained in the submission and that, to the best of the 
engineer's actual knowledge, information, and belief, all statements of 
fact contained in the submission are true and correct, and in 
accordance with the service provider's ordinary course of network 
design and engineering.
    26. The Commission also seeks comment on whether it should require 
an engineering certification for biannual filings for fixed broadband 
service providers, as it proposes to do with certifications for mobile 
service providers. The Commission believes that this step would improve 
the accuracy of data on availability of fixed services by requiring 
providers to focus on network performance in certifying the accuracy of 
their filings, but seek comment on whether the same considerations 
would apply to fixed services so as to warrant this step. The 
Commission also seeks comment on any potential penalties for violating 
the certification.
3. Collection and Use of Verified Data
    27. The Commission seeks comment on how best to implement the 
Broadband DATA Act's requirement to collect and use ``verified'' data 
from third parties and government entities. As an initial matter, the 
Commission seeks comment on what constitutes ``verified'' data. If the 
data are produced by the entity submitting them, should the entity be 
required to explain the methodology for collecting and producing the 
data? If the entity gathers the data from providers or other third 
parties, should the entity be required to attest to the reliability of 
the data? Also, how should these verified data be ``used'' in the 
coverage maps to provide a useful resource? If the provider agrees with 
the data submitted by the government entity or third party, then the 
Commission proposes to ``use'' such data by including the data in the 
coverage maps. The Commission seeks comment on a process for getting 
the provider's assessment of this data. The Commission also seeks 
comment on these proposals and seek ideas on other approaches to 
verifying and using such data.
    28. The Commission proposes requiring third party and governmental 
entities to attempt to resolve any inconsistent data with the 
providers. If the third party or governmental provider successfully 
reconciles its data with the provider, then the Commission would allow 
those data to be used in the coverage maps. If the third-party or 
governmental data cannot be reconciled with the provider after a period 
of 60 days, then the data would be made publicly available and its 
status noted, but the data would not be included as part of the 
official coverage maps. The Commission seeks comment on this approach 
and whether it is consistent with the Broadband DATA Act's mandate that 
such data be used in the coverage maps. The Commission seeks comment on 
any other methods for resolving inconsistencies between a provider's 
data and data submitted by third parties and government entities.
    29. In addition, the Commission seeks comment on how to handle 
instances in which an external data format used by the third party is 
incompatible with the data submitted by providers--for example, if a 
state provides data based on geocoded addresses, but the provider 
submits availability data using shapefiles. The Commission proposes to 
make publicly available, and note the status of, such incompatible data 
from governments and third parties, but not to include them in 
producing the coverage maps. Is this a viable proposal and consistent 
with the Broadband DATA Act? What else could the Commission do to 
resolve the incompatibility in formats so that the

[[Page 50917]]

data can be useful for the coverage maps?
    30. The Commission seeks comment on the flexibility in the 
Broadband DATA Act to collect third-party availability data when the 
Commission determines that it is in the public interest to use such 
data in the development of the coverage maps or the verification of 
data submitted by providers. The Commission proposes to accept 
broadband internet access service availability data from any third 
party that is able to demonstrate that it has employed a sound and 
reliable methodology in collecting, organizing, and verifying coverage 
data or location data. However, the Commission proposes to only use 
such data if, in its discretion, it determines that the data would make 
the coverage maps (or the data underlying the coverage maps) more 
accurate. The Commission seeks comment on this proposal and on any 
alternatives where collecting and using third-party data would improve 
the coverage maps or the underlying provider-submitted data. For 
example, should the Commission use third-party data only to verify the 
availability data submitted by providers? Also, what factors should 
drive the Commission's public interest determination to accept and use 
the third-party data? The Commission proposes to use factors such as 
whether the third party specializes in gathering and/or analyzing 
broadband availability data, the format and type of data submitted (are 
they compatible and comparable with the providers' data), and the 
extent to which the entity demonstrates that its collection, 
organization, and verification methodologies are sound and would 
appreciably improve the accuracy and reliability of the coverage maps. 
Finally, the Commission proposes to require third parties submitting 
verified data to certify that the information it is submitting is true 
and accurate to the best of their actual knowledge, information, and 
belief, consistent with the certification requirements the Commission 
proposes to apply to providers in connection with their availability 
data.
4. Additional Options for Collecting Verified Data on Mobile Service
    31. As discussed above, the Commission proposes to require mobile 
providers to submit on-the-ground test data to assist the Commission in 
verifying their data submissions. In this section, the Commission 
proposes to collect voluntarily-submitted ``verified'' on-the-ground 
data on mobile service from ``[s]tate, local, and Tribal governmental 
entities that are primarily responsible for mapping or tracking 
broadband internet access service'' and from Federal agencies for use 
in the mobile coverage maps the Commission creates. The Commission also 
seeks comment on whether to collect voluntarily-submitted ``verified'' 
on-the-ground data from other third parties, including other non-
federal government entities and mobile providers that submit data 
unrelated to their own networks, for use in the coverage maps. In 
addition, to meet the Broadband DATA Act's mandate to conclude a 
process that tests the feasibility of partnering with one or more 
Federal agencies to collect information to verify and supplement 
broadband information submitted by providers, the Commission proposes 
to launch a pilot program with a Federal agency with a delivery fleet, 
such as the United States Postal Service (USPS). The Commission seeks 
comment on how to implement this pilot program.
    32. On-the-Ground Data from Government Entities and Third Parties. 
The Commission seeks to refresh the record on accepting on-the-ground 
data from certain state, local, and Tribal governmental entities as 
well as from other third parties. The Digital Opportunity Data 
Collection Order and Further NPRM sought comment on whether to contract 
with third parties to deliver speed test data. In response to the 
Digital Opportunity Data Collection Order and Further NPRM, the 
California PUC argued that the Commission or third parties not 
affiliated with providers should conduct nationwide drive-testing and 
that the Commission should accept data collected through tests 
conducted by states or their contractors. The City of New York also 
supported submission of voluntary speed-test data produced by local 
governments. Verizon maintained that, if the Commission were to obtain 
third-party sources of test data, including structured sample data, it 
would be reasonable to supplement providers' submissions but 
unreasonable to use such data to validate providers' submissions, given 
inherent variability in such data.
    33. The Commission seeks comment on whether it should adopt 
standards or requirements that these data must satisfy. The Commission 
also seeks comment on whether the Commission has discretion, under the 
Act, not to use such data if it determines that such data is not 
reliable or helpful for creation of the coverage maps. The Commission 
also seeks comment on whether, and under what conditions, the 
Commission should accept verified on-the-ground data from other third 
parties. The Commission proposes to define ``other third parties'' to 
include all entities not mentioned in section 642(a)(2)(A) and (C) of 
the Act, including non-federal governmental entities that are not 
primarily responsible for mapping or tracking broadband internet access 
service, service providers that submit data on other providers' network 
coverage and performance, and other entities, such as third-party 
entities that routinely collect on-the-ground data. The Commission 
seeks comment on this proposed definition. Would data from other third 
parties help the Commission develop more accurate mobile coverage maps 
and verify providers' submitted data? If the Commission collects data 
from other third parties, should it specify the procedures and 
parameters for on-the-ground testing that the Commission will accept, 
as discussed in more detail above? Should the third-party be required 
to certify the methods by which the data were collected? The Commission 
seeks comment on whether establishing required procedures and standards 
will ensure the accuracy of these data. Will third parties be able to 
manipulate the procedures to generate inaccurate coverage data?
    34. The Commission seeks comment on whether it can set technical 
standards for on-the-ground data that it collects from government and 
third parties, and if so, what standards it should require for such 
data. In the Digital Opportunity Data Collection Order and Further 
NPRM, the Commission sought comment on ways to define a drive-testing 
process that would yield a useful dataset to verify provider data. The 
Commission notes that the data speed that users experience depends on 
both the deployed network and the performance capabilities of the 
device. The Commission believes that adopting standardized 
methodologies, testing parameters, and minimum device performance 
capabilities that apply equally to on-the-ground data submitted by 
providers to verify their network (as discussed in section IV.D.1., 
above) and to on-the-ground data voluntarily submitted by state, local, 
and Tribal governmental entities, other third parties, and Federal 
agencies (including through a pilot program) will assist the Commission 
in collecting verified data. Accordingly, the Commission proposes that 
any standardized requirements should be the same as those it adopts for 
service providers submitting on-the-ground data to verify their 
coverage data, as discussed above. For government and third-party on-
the-ground test data, should the Commission set parameters

[[Page 50918]]

and methodologies such as equipment standards, requirements for 
placement of equipment, and time-of-day testing requirements? Should 
the Commission require a combination of mobile and stationary test 
data? To the extent the Commission adopts methodologies and parameters, 
can parties still manipulate such tests to generate inaccurate results? 
What, if anything, can the Commission do to prevent such manipulation?
    35. Should the Commission consider accepting any other forms of 
verified on-the-ground data besides mobile and/or stationary test data? 
In the Digital Opportunity Data Collection Order and Further NPRM, the 
Commission sought comment on the use of aerial drone testing and other 
technologies to verify data accuracy, with a particular emphasis on 
using such technologies to conduct sample audits of provider-submitted 
mobile deployment data, but few commenters addressed this issue. The 
Commission seeks to refresh the record on the extent to which the 
Commission could verify and use such data in the creation of its mobile 
broadband maps. Are such data sufficiently reliable for use in the 
mobile broadband coverage maps? Would third parties have an interest in 
submitting such data for use in the Commission's coverage maps?
    36. Federal Agency Delivery Fleet Pilot Program. Section 
644(b)(2)(B) of the Broadband DATA Act requires the Commission, within 
one year of the Act's enactment, to ``conclude a process that tests the 
feasibility of partnering with Federal agencies that operate delivery 
fleet vehicles, including the United States Postal Service, to 
facilitate the collection and submission'' of data that can be used to 
verify and supplement broadband coverage information. After the 
feasibility testing, the Commission must publish a report determining 
``whether the partnerships with Federal agencies . . . are able to 
facilitate the collection and submission of information'' to verify and 
supplement mobile broadband data submitted by providers. The Commission 
seeks comment on how best to comply with these mandates.
    37. The Commission believes that it should study the feasibility of 
partnering with Federal agencies by seeking to develop a pilot program 
that would install drive-test hardware on last-mile federal delivery 
fleet vehicles in certain sample markets to perform drive tests during 
a typical delivery route. How can the Commission develop a cost-
effective pilot program with USPS or another Federal agency that would 
yield useful data? What steps could the Commission take to address 
concerns about the validity of drive-test data more generally? For 
example, should the Commission focus its pilot program on rural areas, 
where there are greater concerns with mobile coverage, or on markets 
where coverage is disputed? The Commission seeks comment on whether the 
pilot program should also incorporate stationary testing.
    38. What other considerations should guide the Commission's 
decisions in establishing a pilot program with a federal agency that 
operates delivery fleet vehicles, such as USPS? For instance, in a 
Government Accountability Office (GAO) Report that considered the 
feasibility of USPS delivery vehicles collecting mobile wireless 
coverage and performance data, GAO identified two potential 
limitations: large up-front costs and complex technical specifications. 
The Commission seeks comment on the likely costs of a pilot program. 
What procedures could the Commission implement to address concerns with 
requiring delivery workers to perform technically complex tasks? Can 
drive-testing be automated so that delivery vehicles can collect data 
passively? The Commission seeks comment on possible best practices for 
obtaining reliable drive-test data, including whether technicians would 
be required to install and calibrate test equipment; whether drivers 
would have to be trained to perform tests; and whether, in order to 
ensure a statistically valid sample, multiple drive-tests would be 
required on the same route. Would there be any legal or other 
constraints inherent in partnering with USPS for such a pilot program? 
For example, USPS Rural Carrier Associates ``serv[e] thousands of 
families and businesses in rural and suburban areas while traveling 
millions of miles daily'' but typically use their own vehicles for mail 
delivery. Are there challenges to deploying drive testing equipment in 
vehicles not owned by the USPS? Are there other Federal agencies ``that 
operate delivery fleet vehicles,'' as the Broadband DATA Act states?
    39. Finally, should the Commission also consider exploring a pilot 
program with a private entity that operates a large fleet of delivery 
vehicles, such as UPS or Federal Express? Are private entities better 
equipped than Federal agencies to operate such a program? Are there 
other private entities that routinely cover a high enough percentage of 
the roads?

E. Challenge Process

    40. In the Digital Opportunity Data Collection Order and Further 
NPRM, the Commission explained that ``input from the people who live 
and work in the areas that a service provider purports to serve also 
plays a vital role in ensuring the quality of these maps, helping to 
identify areas where the data submitted do not align with the reality 
on the ground.'' The Commission seeks comment on how best to implement 
a user-friendly challenge process consistent with the Broadband DATA 
Act.
    41. Pursuant to the Broadband DATA Act, the Commission must 
establish a user-friendly challenge process through which consumers, 
State, local, and Tribal governmental entities, and other entities or 
individuals may submit coverage data to challenge the accuracy of the 
coverage maps, broadband availability information submitted by 
providers, or information included in the Fabric. In establishing the 
rules for the challenge process, the Commission must take into 
consideration a number of factors, including: (1) The types and 
granularity of information to be provided in a challenge; (2) the need 
to mitigate time and expense in submitting or responding to a 
challenge; (3) the costs to consumers and providers from misallocating 
funds based on outdated or inaccurate information in coverage maps; (4) 
lessons learned from comments submitted in the Mobility Fund Phase II 
challenge process; and (5) the need for user-friendly submission 
formats to promote participation in the process. The process also must 
include the verification of data submitted through the challenge 
process and allow providers to respond to challenges to their data. The 
Commission must develop an online mechanism for submitting challenges: 
(1) That is integrated into the coverage maps, (2) that allows an 
eligible entity or individual to submit a challenge, (3) that makes 
challenge data available in both GIS and non-GIS formats, and (4) that 
clearly identifies broadband availability and speeds as reported by 
providers. The rules establishing the challenge process also must 
include processes for the speedy resolution of challenges and for 
updating the Commission's coverage maps and data as challenges are 
resolved.
1. Online Tracking System
    42. In the Digital Opportunity Data Collection Order and Further 
NPRM, the Commission directed OEA to work with the Administrator to 
create an online portal for State, local, and Tribal governmental 
entities and members of the public to review and dispute the broadband 
coverage data filed by fixed providers under the new Digital 
Opportunity Data Collection. The

[[Page 50919]]

Broadband DATA Act does not permit USAC to develop the new portal, 
however, and, as described above, the portal must be flexible enough to 
handle broadband internet access service mapping, availability, and 
location challenges for both fixed and mobile providers. The Commission 
proposes that the online mechanism for receiving and tracking 
challenges be accessible through the same portal that is proposed to be 
used for crowdsourced submissions, and that it provide easy, direct 
access to the challenge data as well as broadband availability data the 
Commission collects from providers, including speed and latency data. 
The Commission seeks comment on this proposal and on any alternatives 
for tracking challenges. For example, in the Digital Opportunity Data 
Collection Order and Further NPRM, the Commission asked whether the 
tracking portal could be similar to the Commission's existing consumer 
complaints database. The Commission also seeks comment on the best 
user-friendly format for filing, responding to, and tracking 
challenges, as well as on what other steps may be required to ensure 
that the challenge portal complies with the requirements of the 
Broadband DATA Act.
2. Consumer Challenge Process
    43. The challenge process must be available for consumers, as well 
as for State, local, and Tribal governmental entities and other 
entities. The Commission anticipates that the issues raised in 
individual consumer challenges may differ from those raised by 
entities, so it proposes to establish separate sets of requirements and 
procedures for consumer challengers.
a. Consumer Challenges of Fixed Data
    44. Service Availability and Coverage Map Data. The Commission 
proposes to collect the following information from consumers seeking to 
challenging coverage map data or the availability of service at a 
particular location: (1) The name and contact information of the 
challenger (e.g., address, phone number, and/or email); (2) the street 
address and geographic coordinates (latitude/longitude) of the 
location(s) at which the consumer is disputing the availability of 
broadband internet access service; (3) a representation that the 
challenger owns or resides at the location or is authorized to request 
and receive service there; (4) the name of the provider whose coverage 
is being disputed; (5) a category of availability dispute, selected 
from pre-established options on the portal (e.g., no actual service 
offering at location; provider failed to install within ten business 
days of valid order for service; provider denied request for service; 
installation attempted but unsuccessful; reported speed not available); 
and (6) text and documentary evidence and details of a request for 
service (or attempted request for service), including the date, method, 
and content of the request and details of the response from the 
provider. As required by the Broadband DATA Act, the platform for this 
submission would be integrated with the coverage maps so that the 
challenger would have ready access to broadband availability 
information reported at the location that is subject to the challenge.
    45. The Commission concludes that collecting this information would 
appropriately balance the burden on the challenger and provider, would 
facilitate challenge participation, and would adequately verify the 
information collected, as required by the Broadband DATA Act. The 
Commission seeks comment on this conclusion.
    46. The Commission also seeks comment on the information that it 
proposes to collect for challenges to fixed service availability and 
coverage data. Is there additional information that the Commission 
should collect or are any of the proposed types of information not 
needed to present a clear picture of a challenge? Is the information 
the Commission proposes to collect comprehensive enough to cover all 
challenges considered by the Broadband DATA Act? The Commission also 
believes that requiring detailed information to support a challenge 
will inhibit the submission of frivolous or malicious filings. The 
Commission seeks comment on this assumption.
    47. Regarding the information requested from a consumer challenger, 
the Commission seeks comment on the specificity it should require for 
contact information and whether there are any privacy concerns with 
requesting this information (e.g., whether the Commission should 
require both telephone numbers and email addresses). With regard to 
geographic coordinates, the Commission proposes to require that 
challenges be brought only on a location-specific basis, whether the 
challenge be for coverage maps, availability, or the Fabric. The 
Commission seeks comment on this proposal and on any better 
alternatives.
    48. Also, in order to ensure the reliability of the data submitted, 
the Commission proposes that an individual, or an authorized officer or 
signatory of an entity, certify that the person examined the 
information contained in the challenge and that, to the best of the 
person's actual knowledge, information, and belief, all statements of 
fact contained in the submission are true and correct. Because 
providers must certify in a similar fashion with regard to their 
availability filings, the Commission believes it is appropriate that a 
challenge to the substance of such filings be supported with 
certification that have comparable terms. The Commission also propose 
that, if allowed to challenge multiple locations at once, the 
challenger must certify that this is true for each of the locations. 
The Commission seeks comment on these proposals.
    49. Once a challenge is submitted to the online portal, the 
Broadband DATA Act requires the Commission to allow providers to 
respond. As an initial matter, the Commission proposes that its online 
portal should automatically notify a provider that a challenge has been 
filed against it. The Commission believes that sending an automatic 
notification to providers is appropriate as it should promote active 
engagement, awareness, and responsiveness by providers. The Commission 
seeks comment on this proposal and on any alternatives to alerting 
providers to the filing of a challenge in the portal.
    50. The Commission proposes requiring providers to submit a reply 
to a challenge in the online portal within 30 days of being notified of 
the challenge. The Commission further proposes that a provider's 
failure to submit a reply within the required period, or its acceptance 
of the assertions in the challenge, result in removal of the location 
from the Commission's official coverage map. The Commission seeks 
comment on this approach and on alternative time periods and 
alternative approaches. For example, NTCA has proposed a 60-day reply 
period for providers. Any timetable for a provider response must 
balance the burdens on the provider versus the public's interest in 
rapid resolution of disputes so that the Commission has the best 
broadband internet access service deployment data available for funding 
decisions and reporting. The Commission also wants to assess the 
burdens on providers (especially small providers) in responding to 
challenges.
    51. The Commission proposes that a provider disputing a challenge 
must provide evidence in its reply to the challenger that it has either 
verified the existence of service or evaluated its capability of 
provisioning service at the location of the dispute and that it is 
currently providing service or is willing and able to provide service 
to the challenger at that location. Once a

[[Page 50920]]

provider submits its objection to the challenge, the location will be 
identified on the public coverage maps as ``in dispute/pending 
resolution.'' The challenger and provider would then have 60 days from 
the provider's reply to resolve the dispute. If the parties are unable 
to reach consensus within those 60 days, then the Commission will 
review the evidence and make a determination (based on a preponderance 
of the evidence, with the burden on the provider to demonstrate service 
availability), either: (1) In favor of the challenger, in which case 
the provider must remove the location from its Digital Opportunity Data 
Collection polygon within 30 days of the decision; or (2) in favor of 
the provider, in which case the location will no longer be subject to 
the ``in dispute/pending resolution'' designation on the coverage maps. 
A provider failing to respond to a challenge, or a challenger failing 
to respond to a provider's reply, would result in a finding for the 
other party. The Commission seeks comment on this multi-step dispute 
resolution proposal and the timelines therein.
    52. The Commission also seeks comment on its proposed use of the 
``preponderance of the evidence'' standard in resolving disputes 
between challengers and providers. Based on this evidentiary standard, 
the Commission would weigh the presented evidence and determine whether 
the challenger had initially established evidence of a lack of service 
and, if so, whether the service provider has shown by the greater 
weight of the evidence that it makes service available at the 
challenger's location. The Commission seeks comment on potential 
alternatives. For example, in response to the Digital Opportunity Data 
Collection Order and Further NPRM, the Broadband Mapping Coalition 
proposed a ``clear and convincing'' evidence standard, with the burden 
of proof on the challenger, for resolving challenges, which ``is 
intermediate, being more than mere preponderance, but not to extent of 
such certainty as is required beyond reasonable doubt as in criminal 
cases.'' NCTA recommends that the dispute resolution framework ``should 
be an evidence-based challenge process that places substantive 
evidentiary requirements on the party submitting the challenge, 
requires a response from the provider, and leads to a decision by the 
Commission if there is no resolution between the parties.'' The 
Commission seeks comment on the dispute resolution framework and 
whether it should put the burden of proof in the challenge process on 
the challenger.
    53. One of the benefits of the proposed approach is that it 
balances the interest in avoiding unreliable or malicious availability 
and location disputes with the need to have finality in disputes to 
enhance the accuracy of the provider's data and coverage maps. The 
Commission believes the process it proposes would encourage the sharing 
of information and opportunities for cooperation that will result in 
many challenges being resolved promptly without the need for Commission 
intervention. The Commission's goal is to establish a dispute 
resolution process that achieves the Broadband DATA Act's objectives 
while minimizing burdens on the parties and conserving valuable 
Commission resources to the maximum extent possible.
    54. Consumer Challenge of Fabric Data. The Commission proposes a 
different process for consumers to challenge information in the Fabric. 
The Commission anticipates that challenges to location information in 
the Fabric would not generally require the involvement of a broadband 
provider. The Commission proposes, however, that challenges to the 
Fabric data will be filed on the same portal as challenges of 
availability and coverage map data, with the submission of much of the 
same information. As with consumer challenges to availability and 
coverage map data, for challenges to the Fabric, the Commission 
proposes to provide a selection of pre-established categories of 
disputes, including, for example: Placement of location on the map is 
wrong (geocoder/broadband serviceable location); location is not 
broadband serviceable (e.g., condemned, not a habitable structure); or 
serviceable location is not reflected in the Fabric. The Commission 
also proposes to provide an ``other'' option, along with the 
opportunity in the portal for submitting text or documentary evidence 
in support of the challenge. The Commission proposes that the challenge 
process platform provide each challenger with an acknowledgement of its 
submission and information about the process, including expected 
timing, and it proposes that the portal notify any affected providers 
of the challenge and allow, but not require, them to submit information 
relating to the Fabric challenge. The Commission proposes to establish 
a goal of resolving challenges to the Fabric within 60 days of receipt 
of the challenge and seek comment on that proposal.
b. Consumer Challenges of Mobile Coverage Data
    55. The Commission seeks comment on how to create a user-friendly 
challenge process that encourages participation to maximize the 
accuracy of the maps, while also accounting for the variable nature of 
wireless service. However, the Commission recognizes that resolving 
challenges to mobile coverage maps presents unique challenges not 
present with regard to fixed broadband availability challenges.
    56. For consumers seeking to challenge mobile broadband coverage 
map data, the Commission proposes to collect the following information: 
(1) The name and contact information of challenger (e.g., address, 
phone number, and/or email address); (2) the street address or 
geographic coordinates (latitude/longitude) of the location(s) at which 
mobile broadband internet access service coverage is disputed; (3) the 
name of the provider whose coverage is being disputed; (4) a 
representation that the challenger is a subscriber of the provider that 
is the subject of the challenge; (5) a category of dispute, selected 
from pre-established options on the portal (e.g., no mobile broadband 
signal at a location; mobile broadband speed below defined technology 
speed parameter at a location); and (6) information regarding the 
available mobile broadband service. The Commission seeks comment about 
whether the information it proposes to collect from consumer 
challengers would cover all the potential challenges authorized by the 
Act and facilitate participation in the challenge process, while being 
detailed enough to discourage frivolous filings. Would it be enough to 
verify the legitimacy of the challenge and provide enough information 
for the challenged party to respond? Should the Commission require the 
submission of other information or should it not require the submission 
of certain information listed above? Consistent with its proposed 
process for consumer challenges in the fixed context, the Commission 
proposes that a mobile challenger certify that an authorized person has 
examined the information contained in the challenge and that, to the 
best of the person's actual knowledge, information, and belief, all 
statements of fact contained in the submission are true and correct.
    57. In addition to challenges regarding the availability of mobile 
broadband service, the Commission proposes to allow challenges by 
consumers based on quality of service metrics such as delivered user 
speeds. The Commission believes that allowing such challenges would 
help it verify the accuracy of mobile coverage maps by providing it 
with a source of on-the-ground data that reflects consumer experience 
in areas across the country. The Commission

[[Page 50921]]

seeks comment on its proposal. What are the advantages and 
disadvantages of permitting consumers to make such challenges? The 
Commission proposes requiring consumers who are challenging quality of 
service metrics (such as download or upload speeds) to submit speed 
test evidence. For consumers using third-party mobile speed test 
applications to collect data for their challenges, the Commission 
proposes to adopt the same procedures for qualifying applications as 
the Commission uses for receiving crowdsource data. The Commission 
seeks comment on whether it should establish rules for consumer 
challengers requiring a minimum number of speed test observations, 
specifying the distance between speed tests, or requiring that speed 
tests be conducted during a defined time frame. The Commission seeks 
comment on whether it should require the use of a specific speed test 
application, such as the FCC Speed Test application or another 
application. Would requiring the submission of speed test data be 
consistent with the Broadband DATA Act's requirement that the 
Commission develop an online mechanism to receive challenges? Would 
adopting these additional requirements be consistent with the 
requirement that the Commission create a user-friendly challenge 
process as required by the Broadband DATA Act? Alternatively, should 
the Commission limit challenges in the mobile context to those based 
only on evidence of a lack of service availability? Would doing so be 
consistent with the requirements of the Broadband DATA Act? The 
Commission also seeks comment on whether and how it should use signal 
strength information submitted by carriers, assuming the Commission 
adopts such a requirement, as part of the challenge process. As noted 
above, end user throughput can be affected by factors other than signal 
strength, but often signal strength correlates to expected throughput. 
Based on this relationship between signal strength and throughput, the 
Commission seeks comment on the role signal strength information could 
play in the challenge process. Should the Commission adopt a different 
evidentiary standard or burden of proof in cases where a party submits 
a challenge in an area where the carrier's RSRP/RSSI falls below a 
specified threshold? If so, then what RSRP/RSSI value would be 
appropriate?
    58. The Commission proposes to use generally the same processes and 
timeframes for mobile service providers to respond to challenges in the 
mobile context as it proposes to use in the fixed context. Consistent 
with its proposal for fixed services, the Commission proposes that its 
dispute tracking portal automatically push notifications through to 
mobile providers regarding filings made against them and that providers 
seeking to dispute a challenge be required to submit a reply to a 
challenge in the online portal within 30 days of being notified of the 
challenge. The Commission seeks comment on this proposal. For 
challenges involving the delivered speeds associated with a mobile 
broadband service, the Commission proposes that a provider disputing a 
challenge from a mobile consumer must provide evidence in its reply to 
the challenger that it has evaluated the speed of its service at the 
location of the dispute and determined that the delivered speeds of the 
service match the speeds indicated on the provider's coverage map. The 
Commission proposes that the rest of the challenge process for 
consumers follow the same approach as for consumer challenges in the 
fixed context. The Commission seeks comment on this approach and on any 
better alternatives to ensure that it and the provider have complete 
and accurate information about the challenge. Additionally, the 
Commission seeks comment on whether the rules for consumer challenges 
should require uniform measurements per grid cell similar to what the 
Commission proposes to adopt for challenges by governmental and other 
non-consumer entities as set forth below.
3. Challenges by Governmental and Other Entities
a. Challenges by Governmental and Other Entities to Fixed Data
    59. Challenges by Governmental and Other Entities to Service 
Availability and Coverage. The Commission also proposes to establish 
two processes for challenges to fixed data by State, local, or Tribal 
governmental entities or other entities: One for availability and 
coverage map challenges and one for challenges to Fabric data. These 
entities will not under normal circumstances be consumers of mass-
market broadband services and so the Commission anticipates that the 
challenges they initiate will be typically in the form of bulk 
challenges of provider availability, coverage map, or Fabric data. The 
Commission seeks comment on this conclusion. The Commission proposes to 
establish a portal for entity challenges on the same platform used for 
consumer challenges.
    60. While government organizations or other entities (e.g., 
businesses, trade groups, other organizations) can be customers of a 
provider at a location (and follow the challenge process above laid out 
for consumers (or potential consumers) at a specific location), the 
Commission proposes to allow them also to file challenges for locations 
where they are not customers or potential customers. In those 
situations, the Commission proposes to require some of the same 
information from the challenger as for consumer availability 
challenges, including: (1) The name and contact information for the 
challenger; (2) the geographic coordinates (latitude/longitude) or the 
street addresses of the location(s) at which coverage is disputed; (3) 
the name[s] of the provider[s] whose availability data are being 
disputed; (4) narrative description of dispute (e.g., no actual service 
offering at location; provider failed to install within ten business 
days of valid order for service; provider denied request for service; 
installation[s] attempted but unsuccessful; reported speed not 
available for purchase); (5) evidence/details supporting dispute, 
including (a) methodology, (b) basis for determinations underlying the 
challenge, and (c) communications with provider, if any, and outcome; 
and (6) a certification that the information submitted with the 
challenge is accurate, equivalent to the certification made by 
providers in submitting their availability data. The Commission also 
proposes that the processes and timeframes for provider replies and 
dispute resolution follow the same approach as for consumer challenges 
to availability and coverage. The Commission seeks comment on this 
approach and on any better alternatives to ensure that the Commission 
and the provider have complete and accurate information about the 
challenge.
    61. Challenges by Governmental and Other Entities to the Fabric. 
The Commission proposes that governmental and other entities' 
challenges to locations in the Fabric be initiated on the same portal 
as their challenges to availability, with the same filing requirements 
as consumer challenges to the Fabric, including the name and contact 
information for the challenger and the geographic coordinates 
(latitude/longitude) or the street addresses of the location(s) for 
which the entity disputes the Fabric data, as well as a description of 
the disputed information and evidence/details that support the 
challenge. As with consumer challenges to Fabric data, the Commission 
proposes to

[[Page 50922]]

establish a goal of resolving disputes of data in the Fabric within 60 
days of receipt of the challenge and seek comment on that proposal.
    62. The Commission seeks comment on these proposals and 
specifically on whether they would appropriately balance the 
considerations the Broadband DATA Act requires it to take into account 
in establishing the challenge process.
b. Challenges by Governmental and Other Entities to Mobile Data
    63. Minimum Requirements for Challengers. Consistent with its 
proposal for consumers in the mobile context, the Commission proposes 
to allow challenges from governmental and other entities based on both 
mobile broadband service availability and quality of service metrics 
such as delivered speeds. For challenges involving delivered speeds, 
however, the Commission proposes that governmental and other entities 
follow a different process for submitting standardized challenge data.
    64. In the Mobility Fund Phase II proceeding, the Commission 
required challengers to submit proof of lack of 4G LTE coverage in the 
form of actual outdoor download throughput speed test measurements to 
reflect actual consumer experience throughout the entire challenged 
area. In particular, the Commission adopted a requirement that a 
challenger must take measurements that were no more than one-half of a 
kilometer apart from one another in each challenged area and required 
challengers to demonstrate measured speeds falling below the applicable 
parameters in 75% of the challenged area. Challengers also faced 
additional evidentiary requirements, including a requirement to use 
pre-approved handset models, to purchase a service plan from each 
provider in the challenged area, and to conduct speed tests during a 
specified timeframe.
    65. In response to the Digital Opportunity Data Collection Order 
and Further NPRM, at least one commenter argued that the evidentiary 
standards the Commission adopted for the Mobility Fund challenge 
process were burdensome and difficult to meet, particularly for small 
entities. CCA explained that collecting drive test data to dispute 
coverage was a significant challenge because ``many rural areas that 
could be challenged have thousands of square kilometer blocks that must 
be separately analyzed to determine whether any carrier is providing 
service.'' CCA also claimed that the requirement to provide evidence 
demonstrating lack of coverage in 75% of the area being challenged 
limited small provider participation because as many as half of rural 
blocks did ``not have enough drivable roads to meet the Commission's 
75-percent benchmark.'' While WTA expressed support for a challenge 
process generally, it noted that establishing a challenge process in 
the mobile context is difficult because of the need to collect evidence 
of mobile broadband performance over vast areas.
    66. The Commission proposes to adopt an approach for governmental 
and other non-consumer entities submitting challenge data that is 
similar to the process for demonstrating compliance with performance 
requirements that the Commission has proposed in the 5G Fund NPRM (85 
FR 31616, May 26, 2020). Under such an approach, the Commission would 
overlay a uniform grid of one square kilometer (1 km by 1 km) grid 
cells on each carrier's propagation model-based coverage maps. The 
Commission would then require governmental and other entities 
interested in challenging the accuracy of a carrier's map to submit 
user speed test measurement data showing measured user throughput 
speeds in the area they wish to challenge. For example, the Commission 
could require challengers to submit at least 3 speed test measurements 
per square kilometer grid cell in the disputed area demonstrating that 
measured throughput speeds do not match reported service levels. 
Measurement data indicating speed levels below applicable parameters in 
the challenged area would constitute evidence that a provider's 
coverage map may not be accurate. The Commission seeks comment on the 
feasibility of this approach for governmental and other entities in the 
context of the challenge process. The Commission seeks comment on the 
minimum number of measurements that should be required in each grid 
cell. Would a minimum testing requirement of 3 speed test measurements 
per square kilometer grid cell in the challenged area provide 
sufficient data while minimizing costs and logistical burdens for 
challengers? Does the Commission need to adopt any requirements 
concerning the three speed tests, such as requiring a minimum distance 
between tests? Or, should the Commission require a different number of 
speed test measurements? Are there other types of drive tests that can 
be conducted with more frequent observations? Alternatively, should the 
Commission require challengers to submit speed test measurements in a 
defined percentage of grid cells in a challenged area? What percentage 
of grid cells would provide a representative sample of coverage in an 
area? Should the Commission require challengers to submit measurements 
in 15% of grid cells in the challenged area? Would doing so provide a 
sufficient sample size on which to base a challenge filing? Are there 
alternative approaches that would not require challengers to submit 
speed test data?
    67. The Commission proposes that tests must be conducted using a 
device certified by the service provider that is the subject of the 
challenge as compatible with its service. The Commission further 
proposes that each speed test be taken between the hours of 6:00 a.m. 
and 12:00 a.m. (midnight) local time and that each test be taken 
outdoors. The Commission proposes to require challengers to provide 
test data from a combination of mobile and stationary tests. For in-
vehicle tests, the Commission seeks comment about whether it should 
specify the maximum vehicle speed during which tests may be taken and 
whether challengers should be required to report the speed of the 
vehicle at the time of the measurements. If tests are conducted with 
the device in the vehicle, the Commission proposes that the 
measurements must be calibrated to accurately represent outdoor 
operation and that the calibration procedures be provided with the 
analysis. The Commission also proposes to require that speed test data 
be substantiated by the certification of a qualified engineer or 
official. To the extent governmental or other non-consumer entities use 
third-party applications to collect data used for their challenge 
process, the Commission proposes that the Commission will adopt the 
same procedures for qualifying applications as it uses for receiving 
crowdsource data and consumer challenge data. The Commission seeks 
comment on this proposal. The Commission also seeks comment on whether 
and how a challenger might game the results of a challenge. If so, how 
might the Commission prevent such gaming?
    68. The Commission acknowledges that a mobile service provider 
might have different motives for challenging a competitor's propagation 
models and coverage maps than governmental entities and other third 
parties that do not provide competing mobile broadband internet access 
service. Should the Commission allow competing mobile service providers 
to submit challenges, and if so, should the Commission adopt different 
evidentiary standards for mobile service providers than for 
governmental agencies and other third parties that are not service

[[Page 50923]]

providers? The Commission also seek comment on whether to establish 
different evidentiary standards or permit challengers to use different 
measurements methods in rural areas. The Commission seeks comment on 
its proposals and asks commenters to discuss any other measures it 
should adopt to help ensure that it receives useful data while 
minimizing the time, expense, and administrative burden for both 
challengers and providers.
    69. Lastly, the Commission seeks comment on whether the minimum 
requirements and other standardization procedures tit proposes here for 
challenging mobile broadband coverage data, if adopted, would ensure 
the reliability of the data sufficient to satisfy its obligations under 
the Broadband DATA Act. If not, then what other processes would be 
necessary for the Commission to verify and ensure the reliability of 
the challenge process data in accordance with the Act?
    70. Challenge Responses. The Commission proposes to generally use 
the same challenge response processes and timeframes for challenges by 
governmental and other entities as it proposes to use for challenges 
made by those entities involving fixed services. For cases where a 
mobile provider seeks to rebut a governmental or other entity's 
allegation regarding delivered speeds, however, the Commission proposes 
the following. The Commission will allow the provider to submit 
comprehensive on-the-ground data, or a statistically valid and 
sufficient sample of such data to verify its coverage maps in the 
challenged area. The Commission also proposes that the Bureaus have the 
option to require carriers to submit other data as necessary. The 
Commission further proposes that mobile service providers be subject to 
the same speed test measurement parameters it ultimately adopts for 
challengers. The Commission seeks comment on its proposals.
    71. In order to facilitate the resolution of challenges in the 
mobile context, the Commission seeks comment on requiring providers to 
submit a standardized ``challenge evaluation map'' of specific 
geographic areas being challenged using a Commission-approved 
propagation model. In the Second Report and Order, the Commission 
requires that a provider's propagation model results be based on 
certain standardized parameters (and their corresponding minimum 
values) that the Commission establishes for cell edge probability, cell 
loading, and clutter. The Commission also require that providers must 
use the same optimized propagation models and parameters that they use 
in their normal course of network planning and design. Notwithstanding 
these standardized parameters, there remain many differences among the 
propagation models used by providers which may result in coverage maps 
that are difficult for potential challengers to analyze and contrast 
across providers and different RF environments. Moreover, the 
propagation models used by providers in their normal course of business 
contain RF network engineering parameters that are proprietary and 
unique, which may make it more difficult for Commission staff to 
resolve challenges to the results produced by these propagation models.
    72. To address these issues, the Commission seeks comment on 
whether to require providers, as part of the challenge process, to 
produce a standardized ``challenge evaluation map'' of specific 
geographic areas being challenged using a Commission-approved 
propagation model (e.g., Longley-Rice, or E-Hata), so that third 
parties and the Commission are able to analyze the technical and 
statistical factors that lead to variations in actual coverage and user 
experience. Such a Commission-approved standard model, implemented by 
the service provider(s), would produce signal strength predictions, as 
well as predictions of expected minimum downlink and uplink user 
speeds, based on provider specific system parameters (such as spectrum 
band and bandwidth deployed, transmit power, etc.). The Commission 
believes that the use of such a standardized propagation model would 
afford the Commission and challengers additional insight into the 
expected minimum coverage and speed performance, to resolve the 
challenge of validating providers' claims beyond what is provided in 
the maps produced using providers' proprietary and unique RF 
parameters, especially in challenged areas. However, by requiring 
coverage prediction in specific geographic areas through the use of a 
standardized propagation model, the Commission recognizes that there 
may be an additional information collection burden associated with 
requesting this additional information from licensees. Therefore, the 
Commission seeks comment on the costs and benefits of this proposed 
requirement and whether adopting it would be consistent with the 
Broadband DATA Act requirement that the Commission consider `` . . . 
the need to mitigate the time and expense incurred by, and the 
administrative burdens placed on, entities and individuals in . . . 
responding to challenges.''
    73. Are there other alternatives that would achieve the results of 
balancing the desired outcome of having more transparent maps and 
predictions with less calibration error and uncertainty? Can a standard 
model be produced by providers without undue additional burden, given 
the more extensive and detailed normal-course-of-business RF 
propagation modeling that providers perform using proprietary tools?
    74. For commenters who favor the adoption of a standardized 
propagation model, the Commission seeks comment on the appropriate open 
RF propagation model(s) and its applicability to meet the accuracy 
expectations of this proceeding. Is Longley-Rice and/or E-Hata 
appropriate for the Commission to use for this purpose? How could such 
models be calibrated, such as through the use of clutter databases and 
models, to be adequately reflective of their effects on propagation in 
specific geographic areas? For example, path loss exponents and/or 
other modeling parameters such as clutter loss may be geographically 
dependent on the propagation path between two points (between 
transmitter and receiver) and significantly influence predicted 
coverage and performance. Commenters should specify how their 
recommended model(s) would provide the Commission and challengers the 
insight necessary to evaluate the coverage maps and performance claims 
produced by providers in their normal course of network planning and 
design.
    75. Could a public dataset(s) of geospatial RF propagation 
parameters be developed and used, so that a standard evaluation model, 
or models, may be calibrated for the public benefit? Are there 
incentives and policies that the Commission should promote to encourage 
greater transparency and the development of trusted public propagation 
data in the public's interest? Commenters should specify which 
parameters should or should not be disclosed to the Commission with 
supporting reasons for their position on each parameter.
    76. The Commission also seeks comment on when in the process 
providers should be required to submit these new coverage maps, if the 
Commission adopts this requirement to standardize challenge evaluation 
maps. Should providers submit such maps on a calendar basis or only 
when coverage and performance is challenged in a specific area? Could 
the use of standardized challenge evaluation maps reduce the need and 
cost burden of measurement test campaigns? What

[[Page 50924]]

other methods or processes can be used to evaluate providers' coverage 
maps under a challenge process? The Commission seeks comment on the 
above, as well as the relative costs and benefits of these alternative 
approaches.
    77. Framework for Verifying Data. The Commission seeks comment on 
the data that should be used in the framework and how such data should 
be analyzed in ways not otherwise proposed in this Third FNPRM. What 
metrics from on-the-ground test results and crowdsourced data should be 
analyzed in the framework and how? To improve its ability to verify 
provider data, the Commission proposes that the framework require 
results from a certain number of on-the-ground or crowdsourced tests in 
an area. How many tests are needed to adequately assess coverage in a 
particular grid cell, set of grid cells, the area covered by a cell 
site, or a larger portion of a network? In assessing this number, the 
Commission must consider that test results will be from particular 
points or lines within a grid cell, while coverage maps depict much 
larger areas. How often should test results be taken (i.e., across a 
range of dates and times of day)? How should the Commission account for 
peak hour or other time-based variations in network traffic?
    78. What, if any, additional infrastructure data should the 
Commission include in the framework? The Commission proposes to obtain 
busy hour metrics for individual cell sites and include that data, as 
well as backhaul speed and technology, into its analysis. Are there 
other metrics and data sources that the framework should incorporate? 
The Commission also proposes to include population data and roadway 
traffic patterns. Should traffic pattern data be used to assess the 
level of cell loading on the network? If a mobile connection can be 
established in an area at one point, or one point in time, but not 
another, especially if the lack of a connection can be explained by 
high traffic or another factor, should the map of coverage in that area 
be deemed accurate and reliable? The Commission proposes to include a 
confidence rating within the framework, given the amount of data and 
level of network traffic variation to account for. The Commission 
proposes that the framework treat urban and rural areas differently. 
The Commission seeks comment on this proposal. The Commission asks that 
commenters provide in-depth explanations of how various types of on-
the-ground tests, crowdsourced data, infrastructure data, and other 
data can be used to verify mobile coverage pursuant to this framework.
4. Public Availability of Information Filed in the Challenge Process
    79. The Broadband DATA Act requires the Commission to establish 
processes and procedures whereby entities or individuals submitting 
non-public or competitively sensitive information can protect the 
security, privacy, and confidentiality of that information with regard 
to Fabric data and broadband internet access service data that they 
submit. While the Broadband DATA Act does not expressly require the 
Commission to extend such protection to data submitted as part of the 
challenge process, the Commission proposes to do so in a limited 
capacity. In the Digital Opportunity Data Collection Order and Further 
NPRM, the Commission stated that ``public input on fixed broadband 
service coverage will be most effective if some types of data collected 
in this process are routinely made available to the public.'' As a 
result, the Commission directed USAC to make public information about 
the location that is the subject of the challenge (including the street 
address and/or coordinates (latitude and longitude)), the name of the 
provider, and any relevant details concerning the basis for challenging 
the reported broadband coverage. The Commission proposes to adopt the 
same requirements for information submitted as part of its proposed 
challenge process (with the exception of the Administrator's 
involvement), and seeks comment on that approach and any better 
alternatives. Specifically, the Commission asks whether the information 
to be made public is too much or too little to adequately inform the 
public about the nature of a challenge. The Commission also proposes to 
keep all other challenge information private, unless disclosure ``would 
be helpful to improve the quality of broadband data reporting.'' The 
Commission seeks comment on the extent of this exception and under what 
circumstances the Commission would make any other challenge information 
available to the public.
    80. In the Digital Opportunity Data Collection Order and Further 
NPRM, the Commission also directed that any input from the public on 
broadband coverage service data be made available as soon as is 
practical after submission. The Commission did not specify a timeline 
for making such data publicly available, but expected that there would 
be regular releases of data. The Commission seeks comment on the 
procedures and timing for making available the public data submitted as 
part of the challenge process. One option would be to make such 
information available and searchable in the Digital Opportunity Data 
Collection, without any official release of data. Another option would 
be to regularly issue public notices with the appropriate information. 
The Commission seeks comment on the best option for accomplishing its 
goal of making public challenge data available.

F. Broadband Serviceable Location Database

    81. In the Second Report and Order, the Commission adopted the 
Fabric as required by section 642(b) of the Broadband DATA Act, along 
with other basic Fabric elements prescribed in the Act. As noted in the 
Second Report and Order, the Broadband DATA Act authorizes the 
Commission to contract for the creation and maintenance of the Fabric, 
subject to Federal Acquisition Regulations, but it has not been 
appropriated funding to cover the cost of implementing the Fabric. The 
Commission intends to initiate a procurement process promptly once 
adequate funding has been appropriated, and it expects to address many 
of the technical aspects of the Fabric in the course of that process.
    82. In the Digital Opportunity Data Collection Order and Further 
NPRM, the Commission sought comment on a number of issues related to 
the implementation of a comprehensive location database, including how 
it should define a broadband serviceable location, how to treat multi-
structure parcels and multi-tenant environments, and the best way to 
check the quality of the database. While technical issues related to 
the Fabric can be addressed in the procurement process, the Commission 
seek comment on certain proposals related to the Fabric.
    83. The Broadband DATA Act requires that the Fabric include ``all 
locations in the United States where fixed broadband internet access 
service can be installed.'' In order to create the Fabric, the 
Commission will need to provide greater specificity on the criteria to 
determine whether a location can have fixed broadband service installed 
at it. In the context of the Connect America Fund (CAF), a ``location'' 
is a residential or business location to which providers would extend 
mass market broadband and voice services. Carriers are directed to base 
residential locations served on the Census Bureau's definition of a 
``housing unit,'' and to report ``the locations of businesses that they 
would expect to demand consumer-grade broadband services, which 
typically are

[[Page 50925]]

small businesses.'' The Commission proposes to adopt the CAF approach 
and seek comment on this proposal.
    84. As the Commission has done in the CAF context, the Commission 
proposes to have the Fabric reflect a location as a single point, 
defined by both geographic coordinates (latitude and longitude) and 
street address. As the Commission stated in the Digital Opportunity 
Data Collection Order and Further NPRM, ``[w]e anticipate that this 
would be the coordinates of a building on a parcel,'' to which 
broadband can be installed. In cases where there are multiple buildings 
on a parcel, the Commission proposes that all of the buildings on a 
parcel to which broadband can be installed, and only those buildings, 
be included in the Fabric. The Commission believes 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. The Commission seeks comment on this proposal.
    85. Because the Commission specified that a residential location 
should be based on the definition of a housing unit, locations in the 
CAF context include the individual units in Multi-Tenant Environments 
(MTEs), such as an apartment building or office building, not simply 
the buildings themselves. The Commission seeks comment on whether to 
use the same approach for the Fabric, particularly given that fixed 
providers likely would not offer service only to some units in an MTE. 
Should each unit in a building be assigned a unique identifier, or 
should the building be assigned a unique identifier and the number of 
units recorded, which is more analogous to the process used for the 
Connect America Fund? Is it feasible to record the location of each 
individual unit within an MTE? What are the trade-offs of identifying a 
separate latitude/longitude (and perhaps altitude) point for each unit 
versus recording a single point for the building and its total number 
of units? The Commission is concerned that the added complexity of 
identifying individual units as individual locations--far more 
locations and the need to differentiate not just latitude and 
longitude, but also potentially altitude--would outweigh any benefits. 
The Commission seeks comment on this assumption.
    86. Further, the Commission seeks comment on whether to identify 
each location as a residential or business location, which the 
Broadband Mapping Coalition claims to be a ``critical step to ensure 
that datasets can be appropriately selected and calibrated.''
    87. The Commission also seeks comment on how to ensure the quality 
of the Fabric. The Commission notes that there are different types of 
errors possible in such a database, for example, incorrectly counting a 
structure that cannot have a broadband service installation as a 
location, such as a dilapidated house or a shed. 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. 
Finally, there also could be errors about the characteristics of a 
location, such as identifying the wrong building from among several on 
a parcel as the one that is broadband serviceable. Given the potential 
for errors, what data sources and methods can the Commission staff use 
to verify the accuracy of the Fabric? Should 2020 Census data, the 
National Address Database, Open Address Database, and/or other sources 
be used? Should staff manually verify a statistically valid sample of 
locations in the database? If so, what methods should they use for that 
verification? The Commission seeks comment on these and other 
approaches to ensure that the Fabric is accurate.

G. Enforcement

    88. In the Second Report and Order, the Commission adopts the 
Broadband DATA Act requirement that it is unlawful to willfully and 
knowingly, or recklessly, submit information or data that is materially 
inaccurate or incomplete with respect to the availability or the 
quality of broadband internet access service. The Commission seeks 
comment on several aspects of the Broadband DATA Act's enforcement 
requirement. As an initial matter, how should the Commission determine 
whether an entity or individual ``willfully and knowingly'' or 
``recklessly'' submitted inaccurate or incomplete information?
    89. ``Willfully and knowingly'' seems to presume that such 
information was submitted intentionally, and the Commission seeks 
comment on the evidence needed to prove an entity or individual's 
intent. The Commission has generally found intent in cases where a 
false statement is ``coupled with proof that the party . . . [knew] of 
its falsity.'' In addition, the Commission notes that other statutes 
that it enforces include a similar standard of proof. For example, 
section 510(a) of the Communications Act similarly provides that the 
United States may seize equipment that is used or sold ``with willful 
and knowing intent to violate'' section 301 or 302a of the 
Communications Act. Should the Commission apply ``willfully and 
knowingly'' in the same manner in this context? ``Recklessly'' suggests 
something less than intent yet more than mere negligence. What evidence 
would the Commission need to show that an entity or individual 
recklessly submitted materially inaccurate or incomplete information?
    90. The Commission also seeks comment on the definition of 
``materially inaccurate or incomplete.'' What level of inaccuracy or 
incompleteness does the information submitted to the Commission have to 
reach before it should be considered material? Could it involve just 
one location or must there be multiple locations involved for the 
inaccurate or incomplete information to be material? The Commission 
asks whether it should adopt a quantitative or qualitative standard for 
determining materiality and what that standard should be. In addition, 
the Commission notes that Sec.  1.17 of its rules require that truthful 
and accurate statements be provided to the Commission in investigatory 
and adjudicatory matters. Specifically, Sec.  1.17(a)(2) makes it 
unlawful to ``provide material factual information that is incorrect or 
omit material information.'' The Commission has held that a false 
statement may constitute an actionable violation of that rule, even 
absent an intent to deceive, if it is provided without a reasonable 
basis for believing that the statement is correct and not misleading.
    91. The Commission seeks comment on the scope of the information 
subject to the enforcement requirements. The Broadband DATA Act makes 
it unlawful to submit ``information or data . . . that is materially 
inaccurate or incomplete information or data with respect to 
availability of broadband internet access or the quality of service 
with respect to broadband internet access service.'' Because these are 
the only two types of information required to be reported under the 
Broadband DATA Act, should enforcement of the prohibition in the 
Broadband DATA Act be limited to any data or information supplied in 
biannual Digital Opportunity Data Collection filings? Or, could 
enforcement be brought against availability and quality of service data 
submitted in other contexts (e.g., the challenge process, the 
crowdsource process, by governments or third parties pursuant to 47 
U.S.C. 642(a)(2))? The Commission also seeks comment on whether the 
reference in section 803 of

[[Page 50926]]

the Broadband DATA Act to the submission of ``information and data 
under this title'' applies to filings that are not specifically 
contemplated by the Act (e.g., the proposed mandatory submission of 
speed-test data by providers).
    92. Penalties for the submission of materially inaccurate or 
incomplete data. The Commission also seeks comment on the scope of 
appropriate penalties for submitting materially inaccurate or 
incomplete information, including any civil penalties under the 
Commission's rules or other applicable statues and rules. Should the 
Commission establish a base forfeiture amount, subject to adjustment 
pursuant to section 503(b) of the Act? If so, what should that base 
amount be? The Commission seeks comment on the recommendation from the 
State of Colorado that enforcement actions should include making the 
provider ineligible to receive USF funds and/or a forfeiture of 
previously committed USF funds. The Commission also seek comment on the 
proposal of the Next Century Cities that the Commission should set a 
``simple and transparent standard that offers multiple warnings before 
an escalating set of sanctions that takes into account the geographic 
reach of a provider.'' Would such an approach send an appropriate 
signal to filers regarding the importance of their filings and the need 
for them to ensure their accuracy? Alternatively, should the Commission 
look at a provider's filing as a singular whole or do it need to 
consider whether a filing could have multiple omissions or inaccurate 
data that could each be considered a separate violation?
    93. The Commission proposes to adopt an approach that properly 
distinguishes between those entities that make a conscientious, good 
faith effort to provide accurate data and those that fail to take their 
reporting obligations seriously or affirmatively manipulate the data 
being reported. The Commission agrees with the Broadband Mapping 
Coalition that reporting entities that make a good faith effort to 
comply fully and carefully with reporting obligations should not be 
sanctioned if their data prove to be flawed in some way, provided that 
any errors be quickly and appropriately addressed. The Commission also 
agrees with commenters who argue that, while providers are responsible 
for submitting accurate Digital Opportunity Data Collection data, an 
excessively aggressive enforcement stance could lead providers to be 
overly cautious in their filings and possibly distort the coverage 
maps. The Commission seeks comment on this approach.
    94. Finally, the Commission seeks comment on whether section 803 of 
the Broadband DATA Act is an exclusive remedy for all actions under 
that law or whether behavior that may be actionable under existing 
provisions of the Communications Act or its rules remain subject to 
enforcement under the Commission's general section 503 authority. For 
example, under rule 1.17(a)(2), provision of written information to the 
Commission without a reasoned basis is actionable under the 
Commission's existing authority today. How should this, and other 
existing provisions, apply?
    95. Penalties for failure to file. Similar to the conclusion that 
the Commission reached in the Digital Opportunity Data Collection Order 
and Further NPRM, it proposes that a failure to timely file required 
data in the new Digital Opportunity Data Collection may lead to 
enforcement action and/or penalties as set forth in the Communications 
Act and other applicable laws. The Commission seeks comment on the 
specific penalties that should be imposed if a provider fails to timely 
submit its Digital Opportunity Data Collection filings. In instances in 
which enforcement action and/or penalties are appropriate, should the 
Commission propose higher fine levels for either failures to file or 
for misrepresentation of material data? We note that we have the 
discretion to upwardly or downwardly adjust from the base forfeiture, 
taking into account the particular facts of each individual case. The 
Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Amendment of Section 1.80 
of the Rules to Incorporate the Forfeiture Guidelines, Report and 
Order, 62 FR 43474, Aug. 14, 1997, 12 FCC Rcd 17087, 17098-99, para. 22 
(1997). How should the Commission address the extent of untimeliness?
    96. Filing corrected data. The Commission proposes that providers 
must revise their Digital Opportunity Data Collection filings any time 
they discover an inaccuracy, omission, or significant reporting error 
in the original data that they submit, whether through self-discovery, 
the crowdsource process, Commission discovery, or otherwise. In the 
Digital Opportunity Data Collection Order and Further NPRM, the 
Commission sought comment on how quickly providers should be required 
to correct any data where they do not refute a lack of coverage. While 
several commenters argued that providers should be allowed to file any 
corrections at their next Digital Opportunity Data Collection filing 
opportunity, the Commission proposes instead that providers should file 
corrections within 45 days of their discovery of incorrect data. The 
Commission proposes that any corrected filings be accompanied by the 
same level of certifications that accompany the original filings and 
further propose that, for calculation of the statute of limitations, 
the one-year limit would begin to accrue on the date of the corrected 
filing, where the correction was timely under the Commission's rules. 
The Commission believes that this timing would help ensure that the 
most accurate data possible are available at any particular time. The 
Commission seeks comment on this proposal and on any better 
alternatives.
    97. Scope of Required Corrections. The Commission asked in the 
Digital Opportunity Data Collection Order and Further NPRM whether 
providers should be required to refile earlier Digital Opportunity Data 
Collection reports where it is determined that current availability 
data are incorrect. Based on that record, the Commission proposes that 
corrections generally should be forward-looking only, although 
providers must reflect in their next biannual filing any corrections 
made as a result of the challenge or crowdsource processes. The 
Commission seeks comment on this proposal and any better alternatives.

H. Details on the Creation of Coverage Maps

    98. In the Second Report and Order, the Commission adopted 
requirements pursuant to the Broadband DATA Act to take the granular 
broadband availability data submitted by providers and others and 
create the Broadband Map and two different maps depicting the 
availability of, respectively, fixed and mobile broadband internet 
access service. The Broadband DATA Act requires that the Broadband Map 
depict ``the extent of the availability of broadband internet access 
service in the United States, without regard to whether that service is 
fixed broadband internet access service or mobile broadband internet 
access service, which shall be based on data collected by the 
Commission from all providers.'' The Commission proposes to implement 
this by publishing aggregated broadband availability data in the 
Broadband Map that does not distinguish between fixed or mobile data. 
With regard to the other two maps, the Commission proposes to create 
maps that identify carrier-specific fixed and mobile coverage data, 
including reported technologies and speeds by provider. The Commission 
seeks comment on these proposals and if there

[[Page 50927]]

are other steps it should take to ensure that it fulfills the 
requirements of the Broadband DATA Act in connection with these maps. 
Are there other features or datasets that would be helpful to inform 
the Commission and the public with regard to broadband availability?

I. Technical Assistance

    99. Pursuant to the Broadband DATA Act, the Commission must hold 
annual workshops for Tribal governments in each of the 12 Bureau of 
Indian Affairs regions to provide technical assistance with the 
collection and submission of data. In addition, every year the 
Commission, in consultation with the Tribes, must review the need for 
continued workshops The Commission seeks comment on the type of 
technical assistance the Tribes will need to help them collect and 
submit data under the Broadband DATA Act's provision allowing State, 
local, and Tribal government entities that are primarily responsible 
for mapping or tracking broadband internet access service coverage in 
their areas to provide verified data for use in the coverage maps.
    100. The Broadband DATA Act also requires the Commission to 
establish a process in which a provider that has fewer than 100,000 
active broadband internet access service connections may request and 
receive assistance from the Commission with respect to GIS data 
processing to ensure that the provider is able to comply with the 
Broadband DATA Act in a timely and accurate manner. In response to the 
Digital Opportunity Data Collection Order and Further NPRM, the 
Commission received several comments asking it to provide technical 
assistance to small providers. Subject to receiving adequate funding to 
support it, the Commission proposes to make service-desk help 
available, as well as providing clear instructions on the form for the 
Digital Opportunity Data Collection, to aid providers in making their 
filings. The Commission seeks comment on the extent of such technical 
assistance and any other help that small providers will need to comply 
with the Broadband DATA Act.
    101. Pursuant to the Broadband DATA Act, the Commission also must 
provide technical assistance to consumers and State, local, and Tribal 
governments with respect to the challenge process, which must include 
detailed tutorials and webinars and the provision of Commission staff 
to provide assistance throughout the challenge process. The Commission 
seeks comment on the type of technical assistance with the challenge 
process that it should provide pursuant to this requirement, taking 
into account the current lack of funding for the Commission to 
implement the provisions of the Broadband DATA Act.

J. Form 477 Reforms

    102. Pursuant to the Broadband DATA Act, not later than 180 days 
after the Commission's broadband internet access service collection 
rules take effect, the Commission must: (1) Reform the Form 477 
broadband deployment service availability collection process to achieve 
the purposes of the Broadband DATA Act in a manner that enables the 
comparison of data and coverage maps produced before the implementation 
of the Broadband DATA Act with data and coverage maps produced after 
implementation of the Broadband DATA Act and maintains the public 
availability of broadband internet access service deployment data; and 
(2) harmonize reporting requirements and procedures regarding the 
deployment of broadband internet access service that are in effect 
before the new rules are effective with those in effect after the new 
rules are effective. The measures the Commission proposes in this Third 
FNPRM would only increase the granularity of broadband availability 
data that the Commission collects so that comparison of new 
availability data with the data currently collected would only require 
the aggregation of the new data to the geographic scale currently 
employed. The Commission proposes to publish the new broadband 
availability data it collects in aggregated forms, so as to allow 
comparisons with the data it collects now. The Commission believes that 
these measures will comply with the requirements under the Broadband 
DATA Act concerning the ability to compare the new and existing data. 
The Commission seeks comment on this conclusion and, to the extent that 
commenters disagree, it seeks comment on any measures it should adopt 
to ensure compliance with this requirement of the Broadband DATA Act.
1. Mobile Subscriber Data
    103. In the Digital Opportunity Data Collection Order and Further 
NPRM, the Commission made several changes to its collection of mobile 
voice and broadband subscriber data in order to obtain more granular 
data and to improve the usefulness of such data. The Commission 
required mobile providers to submit broadband and voice subscriber 
information at the census-tract level based on the subscriber's place 
of primary use for postpaid subscribers and based on the subscriber's 
telephone number for prepaid and resold subscribers. Under the Digital 
Opportunity Data Collection Order and Further NPRM, the revised mobile 
broadband and voice subscription reporting requirements were to take 
effect for submissions filed on June 30, 2020. The Broadband DATA Act 
directs the Commission to ``continue to collect and publicly report 
subscription data that the Commission collected through the Form 477 
broadband deployment service availability process, as in effect on July 
1, 2019.''
    104. The Commission interprets the plain language of the Broadband 
DATA Act as requiring the collection of Form 477 subscription 
information pursuant to the rules in effect on July 1, 2019, which is 
before the date the Digital Opportunity Data Collection Order and 
Further NPRM was adopted. The Commission therefore proposes that for 
Form 477 filings as of December 31, 2020 and beyond, mobile providers 
report subscription data under the rules in effect on July 1, 2019 and 
not under the rule changes adopted in the Digital Opportunity Data 
Collection Order and Further NPRM. While the Broadband DATA Act 
generally addresses reporting requirements for broadband and not voice 
service, in order to avoid having potentially inconsistent reporting 
requirements for mobile broadband and voice subscriptions, the 
Commission proposes that, going forward, both mobile voice and mobile 
broadband subscribership data be reported under the Form 477 rules in 
effect on July 1, 2019. The Commission seeks comment on this proposal 
and its interpretation of the Broadband DATA Act.
2. Sunsetting FCC Form 477 Census Block Reporting for Fixed Providers
    105. In order to ensure continuity in its fixed broadband 
deployment data, the Commission proposes to continue the current 
census-based deployment data collection under Form 477 for at least one 
reporting cycle after the new granular reporting collection commences. 
The Commission seeks comment on sunsetting the census-block broadband 
deployment reporting in the FCC Form 477 and the timing of doing so.
    106. Pursuant to Sec. Sec.  1.415 and 1.419 of the Commission's 
rules, 47 CFR 1.415, 1.419, interested parties may file comments and 
reply comments on or before the dates indicated in the DATES section of 
this document. Comments may be filed using the Commission's Electronic 
Comment Filing System (ECFS). See Electronic Filing of

[[Page 50928]]

Documents in Rulemaking Proceedings, 63 FR 24121 (1998).
     Electronic Filers: Comments may be filed electronically 
using the internet by accessing the ECFS: http://apps.fcc.gov/ecfs/.
     Paper Filers: Parties who choose to file by paper must 
file an original and one copy of each filing. If more than one docket 
or rulemaking number appears in the caption of this proceeding, filers 
must submit two additional copies for each additional docket or 
rulemaking number.
    Filings can be sent by 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.
     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.
     Effective March 19, 2020, and until further notice, the 
Commission no longer accepts any hand or messenger delivered filings. 
This is a temporary measure taken to help protect the health and safety 
of individuals, and to mitigate the transmission of COVID-19. See FCC 
Announces Closure of FCC Headquarters Open Window and Change in Hand-
Delivery Policy, Public Notice, DA 20-304 (March 19, 2020). https://www.fcc.gov/document/fcc-closes-headquarters-open-window-and-changes-hand-delivery-policy.
    107. 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).
    108. In addition to filing comments with the Secretary, a copy of 
any comments on the Paperwork Reduction Act information collection 
modifications proposed herein should be submitted to the Commission via 
email to [email protected] and to [email protected] or 
[email protected]. Include in the comments the OMB control number.

II. Procedural Matters

Initial Regulatory Flexibility Analysis

    109. 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 Third FNPRM. The Commission requests written public 
comment on this IRFA, including any alternative proposals that will 
reduce the impact on small entities. Comments must be identified as 
responses to the IRFA and must be filed by the deadlines for comments 
on the Third FNPRM. The Commission will send a copy of the Third FNPRM, 
including this IRFA, to the Chief Counsel for Advocacy of the Small 
Business Administration (SBA). In addition, the Third FNPRM and IRFA 
(or summaries thereof) will be published in the Federal Register.

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

    110. The Commission continues its ongoing efforts to collect 
accurate and granular broadband deployment data so that it can bring 
broadband to those areas most in need of it. In the Third FNPRM, the 
Commission raises issues for consideration and seeks comment on 
additional steps it can take to obtain more reliable data on the 
availability and quality of service of broadband internet access 
service and how it should implement the requirements in the Broadband 
DATA Act. Specifically, the Commission seeks comment about the 
standards for collecting and disseminating availability and quality of 
service data from providers on a biannual basis. Further, the 
Commission asks about a range of options for verifying the data 
submitted by providers, including a challenge process, an engineering 
certification for biannual filers, and obtaining data from government 
entities and certain third parties. The Commission also provides 
tentative conclusions and seeks comment on how to implement provider 
coverage map verification methods for mobile services and on how best 
to use mobile data. While some of the tools the Commission requests 
comment on are required by the Broadband DATA Act, the Commission also 
inquires about various ways to use other data sources to verify the 
accuracy of provider coverage maps. Further, the Commission seeks 
comment on the details for establishing the Broadband Serviceable 
Location Fabric (Fabric) and for the creation of coverage maps 
depicting broadband availability. Finally, the Commission asks about 
enforcement issues if providers either fail to make their required 
filings or they submit materially inaccurate or incomplete data.

B. Legal Basis

    111. The proposed action is authorized pursuant to sections 1-5, 
201-206, 214, 218-220, 251, 252, 254, 256, 303(r), 332, 403, 405, and 
641-646 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, 405, 
641-646.

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

    112. 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
    113. Small Businesses, Small Organizations, Small Governmental 
Jurisdictions. The Commission's actions, over time, may affect small 
entities that are not easily categorized at present. The Commission 
therefore describes here, at the outset, 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.
    114. 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).
    115. Finally, the small entity described as a ``small governmental 
jurisdiction'' is defined generally as ``governments of cities, 
counties, towns, townships, villages, school districts, or

[[Page 50929]]

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, the Commission estimates that at 
least 49,316 local government jurisdictions fall in the category of 
``small governmental jurisdictions.''
2. Broadband Internet Access Service Providers
    116. To ensure that this IRFA describes the universe of small 
entities that its action might affect, the Commission discusses in turn 
several different types of entities that might be providing broadband 
internet access service.
    117. 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.
    118. 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
    119. 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.
    120. 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.
    121. 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 to 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 its 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.
    122. 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 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.
    123. 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

[[Page 50930]]

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.
    124. 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.
    125. 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.
    126. 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
    127. 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, the Commission notes 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.
    128. 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.
    129. 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 its 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, the Commission 
estimates that the majority of wireless firms can be considered small.
    130. 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.
    131. 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.
    132. 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 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.
    133. 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

[[Page 50931]]

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.
    134. 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.
    135. 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.
    136. 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.
    137. In addition, there are numerous incumbent site-by-site SMR 
licenses and licensees with extended implementation authorizations in 
the 800 and 900 MHz bands. The Commission does 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, the Commission does not know how many 
of these firms have 1,500 or fewer employees, which is the SBA-
determined size standard. The Commission assumes, for purposes of this 
analysis, that all of the remaining extended implementation 
authorizations are held by small entities, as defined by the SBA.
    138. Lower 700 MHz Band Licenses. The Commission previously adopted 
criteria for defining three groups of small businesses for purposes of 
determining their eligibility for special provisions such as bidding 
credits. The Commission defined a ``small business'' as an entity that, 
together with its affiliates and controlling principals, has average 
gross revenues not exceeding $40 million for the preceding three years. 
A ``very small business'' is defined as an entity that, together with 
its affiliates and controlling principals, has average gross revenues 
that are not more than $15 million for the preceding three years. 
Additionally, the lower 700 MHz Service had a third category of small 
business status for Metropolitan/Rural Service Area (MSA/RSA) 
licenses--``entrepreneur''--which is defined as an entity that, 
together with its affiliates and controlling principals, has average 
gross revenues that are not more than $3 million for the preceding 
three years. The SBA approved these small size standards. An auction of 
740 licenses (one license in each of the 734 MSAs/RSAs and one license 
in each of the six Economic Area Groupings (EAGs)) commenced on August 
27, 2002, and closed on September 18, 2002. Of the 740 licenses 
available for auction, 484 licenses were won by 102 winning bidders. 
Seventy-two of the winning bidders claimed small business, very small 
business, or entrepreneur status and won a total of 329 licenses. A 
second auction commenced on May 28, 2003, closed on June 13, 2003, and 
included 256 licenses: 5 EAG licenses and 476 Cellular Market Area 
licenses. Seventeen winning bidders claimed small or very small 
business status and won 60 licenses, and nine winning bidders claimed 
entrepreneur status and won 154 licenses. On July 26, 2005, the 
Commission completed an auction of 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.
    139. In 2007, the Commission reexamined its rules governing the 700 
MHz band in the 700 MHz Second Report and Order (72 FR 48814, Aug. 24, 
2007). 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

[[Page 50932]]

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.
    140. 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.
    141. 700 MHz Guard Band Licensees. In 2000, in the 700 MHz Guard 
Band Order (65 FR 17594, April 4, 2000), 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.
    142. 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 the Commission estimates that almost all of them qualify 
as small entities under the SBA definition.
    143. 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.
    144. 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 the Commission 
does not know for certain which entities are likely to apply for these 
frequencies, it notes 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.
    145. 3650-3700 MHz band. In March 2005, the Commission released a 
Report and Order and Memorandum Opinion and Order (70 FR 24712, May 11, 
2005) 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, the Commission estimates that the majority of these 
licensees are internet Access Service Providers (ISPs) and that most of 
those licensees are small businesses.
    146. 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 this SBA category 
and the associated size standard, the Commission estimates that a 
majority of fixed microwave service licensees can be considered small.
    147. 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

[[Page 50933]]

rules and policies adopted herein. The Commission notes, however, that 
the common carrier microwave fixed licensee category does include some 
large entities.
    148. 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, the Commission estimates 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, the 
Commission finds that there are currently approximately 440 BRS 
licensees that are defined as small businesses under either the SBA or 
the Commission's rules.
    149. 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.
    150. 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, the Commission estimates 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 the Commission 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
    151. 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, the Commission estimates that the 
majority of satellite telecommunications providers are small entities.
    152. 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 the Commission's action can be considered small.
6. Cable Service Providers
    153. Because section 706 of the Act requires the Commission to 
monitor the deployment of broadband using any technology, it 
anticipates that some broadband service providers may not provide 
telephone service. Accordingly, the Commission describes below other 
types of firms that may provide broadband services, including cable 
companies, MDS providers, and utilities, among others.
    154. 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

[[Page 50934]]

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.
    155. 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, the Commission estimates that most 
cable systems are small entities.
    156. 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, the Commission finds that all but nine incumbent 
cable operators are small entities under this size standard. The 
Commission notes that it 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, the Commission is 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
    157. 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, the Commission estimates 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

    158. The potential modifications proposed in the Third FNPRM, if 
adopted, would impose some new reporting, recordkeeping, or other 
compliance requirements on some small entities. Specifically, in 
addition to information adopted in the Second Report and Order, the 
Commission proposes that providers of broadband internet access service 
submit latency information (for fixed providers), backhaul speed and 
technology for each base station (for fixed wireless providers), and 
details of their propagation models (for mobile providers). All 
providers of broadband internet access service would be required to 
provide a certification from a qualified engineer that the information 
provided in their biannual Digital Opportunity Data Collection 
Collections filings are true and correct. They also would be able to 
challenge the broadband coverage maps, providers' availability data, or 
data in the Fabric.
    159. In addition, as a means of improving the accuracy and 
reliability of broadband internet access service data, the Commission 
proposes a number of methods to verify the information in the 
providers' filings, including a challenge process and receiving 
verified data from third parties and governmental mapping entities. The 
Commission also seeks comment on how to implement provider coverage map 
verification and enhancement tools for mobile services, including on-
the-ground data, infrastructure data, and a challenge process. The 
adoption of any of these verification processes could subject small 
entities and other providers to additional submission, recordkeeping, 
and compliance requirements.
    160. In addition, since the Broadband DATA Act grants fixed 
broadband internet access service providers the ability to submit 
availability data using a list of addresses or locations, the 
Commission seeks comment on how to implement a location-based reporting 
requirement for small entities and other providers. The Commission also 
seeks comment on whether to impose penalties for providers that file 
materially inaccurate or incomplete data related to availability or 
quality of broadband internet access service. The Commission also asks 
about the scope and timing of filing corrected data when it is 
determined that a provider's Digital Opportunity Data Collection 
information is inaccurate or incomplete. If adopted, any of these 
requirements could impose additional reporting, recordkeeping, or other 
compliance obligations on small entities.
    161. The issues raised for consideration and comment in the Third 
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 Third FNPRM. The Commission expects its requests for 
information on potential burdens on small entities associated with 
matters raised in the Third FNPRM will provide it with information to 
assist with its evaluation of the cost of compliance on small entities 
of any reporting,

[[Page 50935]]

recordkeeping, or other compliance requirements the Commission adopts.

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

    162. None.

List of Subjects in 47 CFR Part 1

    Broadband, Broadband Mapping, Communications, Internet, Reporting 
and recordkeeping requirements, Satellites, Radio, Telecommunications.

Federal Communications Commission.
Marlene Dortch,
Secretary.

Proposed Rules

    For the reasons discussed in the preamble, the Federal 
Communications Commission proposes to amend 47 CFR part 1 as follows:

PART 1--PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE

0
1. The authority citation for part 1 continues to read as follows:

    Authority:  47 U.S.C. chs. 2, 5, 9, 13; 28 U.S.C. 2461, unless 
otherwise noted.

0
2. Amend Sec.  1.7006 by adding paragraph (c) to read as follows:


Sec.  1.7006  Data verification.

* * * * *
    (c) Challenge process. Consumers; State, local, and Tribal 
governmental entities; and other entities or individuals may submit 
coverage data in the Digital Opportunity Data Collection portal to 
challenge the accuracy at a location of the coverage maps; any 
information submitted by a provider regarding the availability of 
broadband internet access service; or the Fabric.
    (1) Challengers must provide in their submissions:
    (i) Name and contact information (e.g., address, phone number, 
email);
    (ii) The street address or geographic coordinates (latitude/
longitude) of the location(s) at which broadband internet access 
service coverage is being challenged;
    (iii) Name of provider being challenged;
    (iv) Category of dispute, selected from pre-established options on 
the portal;
    (v) For customers or potential customers challenging availability 
or the coverage maps, evidence and details of a request for service (or 
attempted request for service), including the date, method, and content 
of the request and details of the response from the provider, while for 
non-customers challenging availability or the coverage maps, evidence 
showing no availability at the disputed location (e.g., screen shot, 
emails). For consumers seeking to challenge mobile broadband coverage 
map data, information regarding the available mobile broadband service;
    (vi) For challengers disputing locations in the Broadband Location 
Fabric, details and evidence about the disputed location;
    (vii) For customer or potential customer availability or coverage 
map challengers, a representation that the challenger resides or does 
business at the location of the dispute or is authorized to request 
service there. For consumers seeking to challenge mobile broadband 
coverage map data, a representation that the challenger is a subscriber 
of the provider who is the subject of the challenge;
    (viii) A certification from an individual or an authorized officer 
or signatory of a challenger that the person examined the information 
contained in the challenge and that, to the best of the person's actual 
knowledge, information, and belief, all statements of fact contained in 
the challenge are true and correct; and
    (ix) For consumers disputing mobile broadband throughput speeds, 
speed test evidence. For governmental and other entities disputing 
mobile broadband throughput speeds, speed test measurement data showing 
measured throughput speeds in the area they wish to challenge. 
Governmental and other entities must conduct speed tests using a device 
certified by the service provider that is the subject of the challenge 
as compatible with its service and must conduct speed tests outdoors 
and between the hours of 6:00 a.m. and 12:00 a.m. (midnight) local 
time. Governmental and other entities must also substantiate speed test 
data by the certification of a qualified engineer or official.
    (2) The online portal shall alert a provider if there has been a 
challenge submitted against it.
    (3) For availability and coverage map challenges, within 30 days of 
receiving an alert, a provider shall reply in the portal by:
    (i) Accepting the allegation(s) raised by the challenger, in which 
case the provider shall submit a correction for the challenged location 
in the online portal within 30 days of its portal response; or
    (ii) Denying the allegation(s) raised by the challenger, in which 
the case the provider shall, within 60 days after providing notice of 
its rejection in the portal:
    (A) Provide evidence to the challenger that the provider serves (or 
could serve) the challenged location. For consumer challenges involving 
the delivered speeds associated with a mobile broadband service, 
provide evidence that the provider has evaluated the speed of its 
service at the location of the dispute and determined that the 
delivered speeds of the service match the speeds indicated on the 
provider's coverage map. For governmental and other entity challenges 
involving the delivered speeds associated with a mobile broadband 
service, provide comprehensive on-the-ground data, or a statistically 
valid and sufficient sample of such data to verify coverage maps in the 
challenged area;
    (B) Indicate in the online portal that such communication to the 
challenger was made; and
    (C) Attempt to resolve the dispute with the challenger.
    (4) Failure to respond to the challenger within the applicable 
timeframes shall result in a default finding against the provider, 
resulting in mandatory corrections to the provider's Digital 
Opportunity Data Collection information as requested by the challenger. 
Providers shall submit any such corrections within 30 days of the 
missed reply deadline or the Commission will make the corrections on 
its own and incorporate such change into the coverage maps or Broadband 
Location Fabric.
    (5) Once a provider submits its response, the location shall be 
identified on the coverage maps as ``in dispute/pending resolution.''
    (6) If the parties are unable to reach consensus within 60 days 
after submission of the provider's reply in the portal, then the 
Commission will review the evidence and make a determination, based on 
a preponderance of the evidence standard with the burden of proof on 
the challenger, either:
    (i) In favor of the challenger, in which case the provider shall 
update its Digital Opportunity Data Collection information within 30 
days of the decision; or
    (ii) In favor of the provider, in which case the location will no 
longer be subject to the ``in dispute/pending resolution'' designation 
on the coverage maps.
    (7) For challenges to the Fabric, the Commission shall resolve such 
challenges within 60 days of receiving the filing.
    (8) The provider shall retain for its records, for at least six 
months after the challenge dispute is resolved, any evidence showing 
that it actually serves (or could serve) the location being challenged, 
as well as documentation regarding its communication with the 
challenger.

[[Page 50936]]

    (9) Government entities (State, local, Tribal) may file challenges 
in bulk, but each challenge must contain the requirements set forth in 
paragraph (c)(1) of this section.
    (10) The Commission shall make public information about the 
location that is the subject of the challenge (including the street 
address and/or coordinates (latitude and longitude)), the name of the 
provider, and any relevant details concerning the basis for the 
challenge.
0
3. Amend Sec.  1.7009 by adding a sentence at the end of paragraph (a) 
and adding paragraph (b) to read as follows:


Sec.  1.7009  Enforcement.

    (a) * * * Such action may lead to enforcement action and/or 
penalties as set forth in the Communications Act and other applicable 
laws.
    (b) Failure to make the Digital Opportunity Data Collection filing 
in accordance with this subpart may lead to enforcement action pursuant 
to the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, and any other applicable 
law.

[FR Doc. 2020-16356 Filed 8-17-20; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6712-01-P