[Federal Register Volume 86, Number 65 (Wednesday, April 7, 2021)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 18124-18163]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2021-04998]



[[Page 18123]]

Vol. 86

Wednesday,

No. 65

April 7, 2021

Part II





 Federal Communications Commission





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





47 CFR Parts 1 and 54





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

  Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 65 / Wednesday, April 7, 2021 / Rules 
and Regulations  

[[Page 18124]]


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

FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION

47 CFR Parts 1 and 54

[WC Docket Nos. 11-10 and 19-195; FCC 21-20; FRS 17540]


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

AGENCY: Federal Communications Commission.

ACTION: Final rule.

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

SUMMARY: In this document, a Third Report and Order adopted by the 
Commission establishes important measures for collecting highly 
accurate and reliable broadband data, including requiring facilities-
based fixed service providers to report broadband internet access 
service coverage in the Digital Opportunity Data Collection and to 
identify where such services are offered to residential locations as 
well as where they are offered to business locations; requiring the 
collection of speed and latency information from fixed service 
providers; requiring terrestrial fixed wireless services providers to 
report on the coordinates of their base stations; and requiring mobile 
providers to provide additional information reporting concerning 
provider networks and propagation, which will allow the Commission to 
verify provider data more effectively. In addition, the Third Report 
and Order establishes the requirements for challenges to fixed and 
mobile service coverage reporting and for challenges to the Fabric 
data. The Third Report and Order also establishes standards for 
identifying locations that will be included in the Fabric and 
establishes standards for enforcement of the requirements associated 
with the Digital Opportunity Data Collection.

DATES: Effective May 7, 2021.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Wireline Competition Bureau, Kirk 
Burgee, at (202) 418-1599, [email protected], or Wireless 
Telecommunications Bureau, Garnet Hanly, at (202) 418-0995, 
[email protected].

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: This is a summary of the Commission's Third 
Report and Order in WC Docket Nos. 11-10 and 19-195, FCC 21-20, adopted 
January 13, 2021 and released January 19, 2021. The full text of this 
document is available for public inspection on the Commission's website 
at https://docs.fcc.gov/public/attachments/FCC-21-20A1.pdf.

Synopsis

I. Introduction

    1. The Commission has long recognized that precise, granular data 
on the availability of fixed and mobile broadband are vital to bringing 
digital opportunity to all Americans, no matter where they live. To 
meet the need for such data, in August 2019 the Commission adopted the 
Digital Opportunity Data Collection, a new data collection distinct 
from the FCC Form 477, to collect geographically precise and detailed 
data on broadband service deployment, which would be subject to 
stakeholder challenges. In July 2020, the Commission adopted a Second 
Order and Third Further Notice in this proceeding that implemented 
requirements of the Broadband DATA Act, enacted in March of 2020, and 
further developed the framework and elements of the Digital Opportunity 
Data Collection.
    2. Today, we build on our earlier action creating the Digital 
Opportunity Data Collection and take key additional steps to ensure 
that both the data collection itself, and the measures for verifying 
the accuracy of the data collected, will yield a robust and reliable 
data resource for the Commission, Congress, federal and state 
policymakers, and consumers to evaluate the status of broadband 
deployment throughout the United States. With Congress's recent 
appropriation of funding for the implementation of the Digital 
Opportunity Data Collection, the action we take today will help to 
ensure a rapid and smooth transition to the new mapping platform.

II. Background

    3. The Commission began collecting data on broadband services, 
along with local telephone service and mobile telephony service, in 
2000 with the establishment of the FCC Form 477 data collection. 
Initially, the Form 477 data collection was limited to subscribership 
information from broadband internet access service providers. In 2013, 
the Commission revised Form 477 to begin collecting deployment data, in 
addition to subscribership information, from such providers. The 2013 
revisions required broadband internet access service providers to 
report lists of the census blocks in which they make service available 
to end users and to report the maximum speed offered in each census 
block, distinguishing between residential and non-residential services 
and by the technology used to provide service. This reporting format 
made available a nationwide broadband deployment dataset and 
significantly improved the Commission's understanding of the state of 
broadband deployment, enabling analyses that were previously not 
possible. The Commission has used the Form 477 deployment data to 
monitor the state of broadband deployment in annual reporting and to 
identify the unserved parts of the country for purposes of providing 
universal service support for broadband deployment, among other 
Commission proceedings and actions. Over time, however, it became clear 
that improved broadband data were needed to implement the Commission's 
Universal Service Fund (USF) programs and to support efforts to bridge 
the digital divide. Accordingly, in 2017, the Commission adopted a 
Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking seeking comment on a variety of 
issues associated with improving the quality and accuracy of the 
broadband information the Commission collects as well as on how to 
streamline reporting requirements and thereby reduce filer burdens.
    4. In August 2019, the Commission adopted the Digital Opportunity 
Data Collection Order and Further Notice, which created the Digital 
Opportunity Data Collection, a new data collection distinct from the 
Form 477 that would collect fixed broadband deployment data in the form 
of granular coverage maps and that would include a process for 
accepting crowdsourced data to challenge the accuracy of the submitted 
data. In adopting the Digital Opportunity Data Collection, the 
Commission stated its intention to establish a uniform national dataset 
of locations where broadband could be deployed and upon which new 
coverage data could be overlaid. The Commission directed the Universal 
Service Administrative Company (USAC)--the Administrator of the USF--to 
develop the new data collection and crowdsourcing platforms under the 
oversight of the Commission's Office of Economics and Analytics (OEA) 
and in consultation with the Wireline Competition Bureau (WCB), the 
Wireless Telecommunications Bureau (WTB), and the International Bureau 
(IB). In the Digital Opportunity Data Collection Order and Further 
Notice, the Commission also sought comment on a number of other 
proposals, including: (1) Additional technical standards for fixed 
broadband providers that could ensure greater precision for the Digital 
Opportunity Data Collection deployment reporting; (2) ways in which the 
Commission could incorporate crowdsourced and location-specific fixed 
broadband deployment

[[Page 18125]]

data into the Digital Opportunity Data Collection; and (3) how the 
Commission could incorporate the collection of accurate, reliable 
mobile voice and broadband coverage data into the Digital Opportunity 
Data Collection.
    5. In March 2020, Congress passed the Broadband DATA Act, largely 
ratifying the Commission's approach to broadband mapping established in 
the Digital Opportunity Data Collection proceeding. The Broadband DATA 
Act requires the Commission to establish a semiannual collection of 
geographically granular broadband coverage data for use in creating 
coverage maps and processes for challenges to the coverage data and for 
accepting crowdsourced information, and it further directs the 
Commission to create a comprehensive database of broadband serviceable 
locations. Specifically, the Broadband DATA Act requires the 
Commission, within 180 days of its enactment, to issue rules to: (1) 
Require the semiannual collection and dissemination of granular data 
relating to the availability and quality of service of fixed and mobile 
broadband internet access service for use in conjunction with creating 
broadband coverage maps; (2) establish processes for the Commission to 
verify and protect the data collected; (3) establish a process for 
collecting verified data for use in the coverage maps from State, 
local, and Tribal governmental entities, from other federal agencies, 
and, if the Commission deems it in the public interest, from third 
parties; (4) establish the Fabric to serve as a foundation on which 
fixed broadband availability is overlaid; (5) establish a user-friendly 
challenge process through which the public and State, local, and Tribal 
governmental entities can challenge the accuracy of the coverage maps, 
provider availability data, or information in the Fabric; and (6) 
develop a process through which entities or individuals may submit 
specific information about the deployment and availability of broadband 
internet access service in the United States on an ongoing basis. The 
Broadband DATA Act generally refers to this submission of data as a 
``crowdsourcing'' process. 47 U.S.C. 644(b).
    6. However, the Broadband DATA Act departs from the Commission's 
approach in one significant respect: It prohibits the Commission from 
delegating any responsibilities under the Act to USAC or from using 
funds collected through the USF to pay any costs associated with 
fulfilling them. The upshot is that the Commission could not undertake 
the development of costly IT and filing platforms needed to implement 
the requirements under the Broadband DATA Act or the Commission's rules 
until Congress specifically appropriated funding for that purpose, 
which it has recently done.
    7. In July 2020, the Commission completed the required rulemaking 
to align the Digital Opportunity Data Collection with the requirements 
of the Broadband DATA Act in the Second Order and Third Further Notice. 
The Commission adopted rules regarding reporting standards for fixed 
and mobile services consistent with Broadband DATA Act requirements, 
adopted the Fabric, and established processes for verifying the data 
collected from providers, including certification requirements, regular 
Commission audits, the acceptance of crowdsourced data, and the use of 
the High Cost Universal Broadband (HUBB) database. The Commission also 
adopted the Broadband DATA Act's enforcement standard for submitting 
inaccurate or incomplete data and established standards for 
confidential treatment of information received in the Digital 
Opportunity Data Collection and the Fabric.
    8. In the Second Order and Third Further Notice, the Commission 
sought comment on certain remaining issues surrounding the 
implementation of the Digital Opportunity Data Collection, including: 
Refining the scope of broadband internet service providers required to 
file coverage data in the Digital Opportunity Data Collection; 
establishing speed thresholds and collecting latency data for fixed 
broadband services; establishing propagation modeling standards and on-
the ground testing, and collecting infrastructure data, for mobile 
broadband service; establishing the contours of the challenge process; 
implementing the Fabric; establishing enforcement measures; and 
providing technical assistance to filers and challengers.

III. Third Report and Order

    9. Today we build on our earlier efforts in establishing the 
Digital Opportunity Data Collection. The additional measures we adopt 
will ensure that the data the Commission will collect through the 
Digital Opportunity Data Collection will be highly accurate and 
reliable, not only for the Commission's purposes, but for the public 
and federal, State, Tribal and local stakeholders. In this Third Report 
and Order, we specify that facilities-based fixed service providers are 
required to report broadband internet access service coverage in the 
Digital Opportunity Data Collection and require these providers to 
identify where such services are offered to residential locations as 
well as where they are offered to business locations. We establish 
specific reporting requirements relating to speed and latency for fixed 
service providers and require terrestrial fixed wireless services 
providers to report on the coordinates of their base stations. For 
mobile services, we require additional information reporting concerning 
provider networks and propagation, which will allow the Commission to 
verify provider data more effectively. We also establish the 
requirements for challenges to fixed and mobile service coverage 
reporting and for challenges to the Fabric data. We establish standards 
for identifying locations that will be included in the Fabric, and we 
establish standards for enforcement of the requirements associated with 
the Digital Opportunity Data Collection. With the adoption of these 
steps, we are well positioned to move forward with the development of 
the elements of the Digital Opportunity Data Collection.

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

    10. We adopt our proposal to require facilities-based providers to 
comply with the requirements of the Digital Opportunity Data 
Collection. Accordingly, we revise the definition of ``provider'' in 
our rules governing the Digital Opportunity Data Collection to reflect 
this requirement. Specifically, an entity is a facilities-based 
provider of a service if it supplies the service using any of five 
types of facilities: (1) Physical facilities that the entity owns and 
that terminate at the end-user premises; (2) facilities that the entity 
has obtained the right to use from other entities, such as dark fiber 
or satellite transponder capacity as part of its own network, or has 
obtained from other entities; (3) unbundled network element (UNE) 
loops, special access lines, or other leased facilities that the entity 
uses to complete terminations to the end-user premises; (4) wireless 
spectrum for which the entity holds a license or that the entity 
manages or has obtained the right to use via a spectrum leasing 
arrangement or comparable arrangement pursuant to subpart X of Part 1 
of our Rules (47 CFR 1.9001-1.9080); or (5) unlicensed spectrum.
    11. We adopt our tentative conclusion that the existing definition 
of facilities-based provider in our rules includes the categories of 
service providers identified in the Broadband DATA Act. In the Second 
Order and Third Further Notice,

[[Page 18126]]

the Commission proposed that the providers subject to the requirements 
adopted in the Second Order be limited to ``facilities-based 
providers.'' Although the Broadband DATA Act states that the Commission 
shall collect data from ``each provider of terrestrial fixed, fixed 
wireless, or satellite broadband,'' it also requires that providers 
report data that documents the areas where the provider ``has actually 
built out the broadband network infrastructure of the provider such 
that the provider is able to provide that service.'' Reading this 
provision as a whole, we construe it to require reporting only by 
facilities-based providers. Moreover, as we noted in the Second Order 
and Third Further Notice, facilities-based providers, as compared to 
resellers, are in the best position to know and report such 
information. We further noted our expectation that resellers' 
footprints would entirely overlap facilities-based providers' service 
areas, reducing the additional value such data would provide for our 
coverage maps. Several commenters support this approach.
    12. We disagree with INCOMPAS's proposal to exempt providers using 
UNE loops, special access lines, or other leased facilities to provide 
broadband access to end users. INCOMPAS raises a number of arguments to 
support its position. According to INCOMPAS, the Commission's proposed 
definition risks overstating broadband availability which, INCOMPAS 
argues, Congress intended to avoid in drafting the Broadband DATA Act. 
INCOMPAS further argues that providers that use UNEs or special access 
lines purchased from an underlying provider do not have general access 
to these facilities and must query the underlying provider to confirm 
that they will be available. Consequently, it asserts that providers 
using leased UNEs and special access lines will only be in a position 
to report coverage information for existing customers, which INCOMPAS 
contends is highly confidential and competitively sensitive. INCOMPAS 
points out that the Commission has formerly accorded confidential 
treatment to similar information, requiring it to justify a different 
approach in this context. INCOMPAS also contends that collecting what 
is effectively customer information would conflict with the Broadband 
DATA Act's prohibition against requiring general reporting of coverage 
using lists of addresses or locations and argues that the data 
collected from UNE and special access purchasers will not provide the 
Commission with useful information because those providers are only 
aware of their own competitive service adoption and their reporting 
will not ``accurately depict the full availability of the incumbents' 
networks.'' INCOMPAS also argues that the Commission should not subject 
providers who lease UNEs to invest in new mapping requirements given 
the ongoing review of the Commission's current UNE policy.
    13. We disagree. While providers who lease these facilities may not 
build or own the entire last-mile connection to the customer, they most 
often add essential infrastructure, such as Digital Subscriber Line 
Access Multiplexers (DSLAMs), to the underlying last-mile network to 
connect their customers and to enable broadband service provision. We 
construe the Broadband DATA Act as requiring the Commission to collect, 
from providers who have built out network infrastructure, data showing 
the areas where that infrastructure makes service to locations 
possible. We find no conflict with the terms of the Broadband DATA Act 
in requiring those providers who use leased infrastructure along with 
their own network facilities to report coverage. Nor do we agree that 
this will result in an overstatement of coverage, as INCOMPAS contends.
    14. On the contrary, exempting providers that lease facilities from 
reporting in such a situation, as INCOMPAS urges us to do, could result 
in an understatement of coverage in such situations, since the 
incumbent is not required to make the same service available to the end 
users, and where the lessee has the right to exclusive use of 
facilities the incumbent could not use to provide service, it would not 
fall within the scope of Digital Opportunity Data Collection reporting 
requirements. In situations where the competitive provider does not 
deploy any facilities, a situation in which the competitive provider 
would not be subject to the requirements of the Digital Opportunity 
Data Collection, the incumbent provider's reporting obligation will 
yield the same footprint as the competitor's. However, in instances 
where the incumbent does deploy infrastructure to complete the 
connection, the incumbent's footprint would not necessarily capture the 
competitor's footprint or capability. There are numerous possible 
arrangements and circumstances through which a provider can make 
service available at a location, including an incumbent leasing 
facilities to another provider while not offering its own service to 
end-user customers. Similarly, an incumbent may not be able to provide 
the same level of service as a provider that leases facilities is able 
to provide and thus may report different coverage data. For these 
reasons, we reject INCOMPAS's argument that there is insufficient value 
in collecting data from providers based on service using leased 
facilities. These services are a potentially critical element of 
deployment in an area, even if they may not provide the entire picture. 
Rather than overstating coverage, collecting coverage data from all 
facilities-based providers able to serve an area will help to ensure we 
receive accurate and comprehensive data on broadband coverage. And in 
any event, to the extent that providers using leased facilities to 
provide broadband access did not ``actually buil[d] out the network,'' 
we note that nothing in the Broadband DATA Act prohibits us from 
collecting broadband service data from such providers, and for the 
reasons stated above, we believe that doing so will enhance our ability 
to produce maps that accurately depict the availability of broadband 
internet access service in accordance with the goals of the Broadband 
DATA Act.
    15. We are similarly not persuaded by INCOMPAS's argument that 
confidentiality considerations should prevail here. Those concerns seem 
to arise only when a provider's reporting is based exclusively on 
leased UNE or special access lines, such that the provider can only 
report existing customer locations. When a provider's reporting depicts 
a combination of coverage based on its own network facilities in 
addition to coverage from leased facilities, the locations of its 
actual customers would be indistinguishable from locations of its 
potential customers. This will be true of filers generally, so there is 
little risk of competitive harm. Even in instances where a provider's 
service area includes only its existing customer locations, nothing in 
the publicly available data providers must submit regarding their 
service areas indicates whether they have already provisioned service 
at a given location or whether the provider is using its own facilities 
or leased facilities to do so. In such cases, however, we will 
nevertheless entertain requests for confidential treatment in 
accordance with the Commission's rules. In granting any such relief, we 
will aim to employ measures such as aggregation or redaction to publish 
the information at some form or level, rather than withholding the 
information from the public altogether.

[[Page 18127]]

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

    16. Collecting Data on Mass-Market Services Only. We require fixed 
providers to report data only on broadband internet access services, as 
defined by, and consistent with, the requirements of the Broadband DATA 
Act. In reporting such mass-market broadband service data, we require 
filers to indicate whether their polygons or locations depict service 
that is offered to residential customers and/or whether it is offered 
to business customers. However, we decline to require filers to report 
data on non-mass market services in the Digital Opportunity Data 
Collection. The Broadband DATA Act calls for the collection of data on 
broadband internet access services (which are, by definition, mass-
market services), and we believe that expanding the scope of the 
Digital Opportunity Data Collection beyond that focus is not 
appropriate at this time.
    17. In the Second Order and Third Further Notice, the Commission 
adopted the Broadband DATA Act's definition of ``broadband internet 
access service,'' which adopts by reference the meaning given to that 
term in 47 CFR 8.1 or any successor regulation. Section 8.1 of the 
Commission's rules defines broadband internet access service as ``a 
mass-market retail service by wire or radio that provides the 
capability to transmit data to and receive data from all or 
substantially all internet endpoints, including any capabilities that 
are incidental to and enable the operation of the communications 
service, but excluding dial-up internet access service'' and ``also 
encompasses any service that the Commission finds to be providing a 
functional equivalent of the service described in the previous sentence 
or that is used to evade the protections set forth in [Part 8].'' The 
Commission sought comment in the Second Order and Third Further Notice 
on requiring fixed providers reporting coverage in the Digital 
Opportunity Data Collection to distinguish between ``residential-only'' 
and ``business-and-residential'' services. The Commission also sought 
comment on requiring the collection of business-only broadband 
services, including non-mass market business broadband services.
    18. The Broadband DATA Act only requires that the Commission 
collect availability and quality of service data on broadband internet 
access services, which includes broadband internet access service sold 
to businesses. Several commenters support collecting broadband coverage 
information distinguishing between residential and business service, 
rather than collecting commingled business and residential service 
data, as this will enable us to analyze more effectively the extent and 
type of deployment in an area, including by identifying areas that may 
only have mass-market business services available. Accordingly, we 
require fixed broadband service providers to indicate, for each polygon 
or location they submit in the Digital Opportunity Data Collection, 
whether the reported mass-market broadband service is available to 
residential customers and/or whether it is available to business 
customers. This represents a change from the Commission's proposal in 
the Second Order and Third Further Notice to collect data separately on 
residential and on business-and-residential offerings. We find that the 
approach we adopt will provide us with a more complete picture of the 
state of broadband deployment. We disagree with commenters urging us to 
collect a single category of mass-market services. As USTelecom and 
WISPA note, collecting only one category of service could ultimately 
overstate residential broadband service availability, leading to the 
misallocation of USF support.
    19. Finally, we decline to collect non-mass market broadband 
service data in addition to mass market service data. The Commission 
sought comment in the Second Order and Third Further Notice on whether 
there would be a benefit to collecting data on non-mass-market business 
broadband services, such as might be purchased by healthcare 
organizations, schools and libraries, government entities, and other 
enterprise customers. We agree with commenters who contend that the 
collection of non-mass market broadband availability data goes beyond 
what Congress envisioned in the Broadband DATA Act. Whatever long-term 
value these data might hold, we conclude it is appropriate to 
prioritize required data collections. As NCTA notes, the Commission has 
a short timeframe to implement the provisions of the Broadband DATA 
Act, and we agree that the Commission should focus first on collecting 
the mass market broadband internet access service data needed to 
fulfill our statutory requirements. Moreover, important Commission 
efforts to close the digital divide depend on timely development of 
mass-market broadband coverage maps, such as the Rural Digital 
Opportunity Fund Phase II auction and the recently adopted 5G Fund for 
Rural America. If circumstances warrant in the future, we can re-visit 
this issue and look at including such non-mass market data once we have 
more experience with the Digital Opportunity Data Collection.
    20. We also acknowledge USTelecom's second objection to the 
reporting and publishing of non-mass market business-only broadband 
availability concerning the competitively sensitive nature of such 
data. However, we do not find such concerns relevant when reporting 
availability for mass-market broadband internet access services being 
sold to businesses. As the comments demonstrate, USTelecom's concern is 
more appropriate for non-mass market business broadband services. 
Because we will exclusively collect data on mass-market broadband 
services, the arguments concerning the confidentiality of enterprise 
services are not relevant.
    21. We disagree with ADTRAN and other commenters urging us to 
collect information on broadband services available to community anchor 
institutions or to collect business-only data for use in connection 
with the E-Rate and Rural Health Care programs, which typically support 
non-mass-market services. We note that such institutions will be 
included in the Digital Opportunity Data Collection's broadband 
availability reporting to the extent they use mass-market broadband 
services. We likewise disagree with the Schools, Health & Libraries 
Broadband Coalition that we should ignore altogether the ``mass-market/
non-mass-market dichotomy'' or ``consider all anchor institutions in 
the mass-market category to ensure that they are all included in the 
Commission's broadband maps.'' Merging such disparate data into a 
singular coverage map amplifies the risks commenters identified of 
undermining future universal service programs supporting broadband 
deployment by making it appear as if consumer broadband services are 
available in areas where only non-mass market services are being 
offered.
    22. Collecting Speed Data for Fixed Services. We adopt our proposal 
for how filers must report the maximum advertised download and upload 
speeds associated with fixed broadband internet access service 
available in an area. Specifically, for services offered at speeds 
below 25/3 Mbps, providers must report the speed associated with the 
service using 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 Mbps. For speeds 
greater than

[[Page 18128]]

or equal to 25/3 Mbps, providers must report the maximum advertised 
download and upload speeds associated with the broadband internet 
access service provided in an area. AT&T and ACT--The App Association 
support this approach. We agree with AT&T that this approach will allow 
providers to consolidate data on lower speed services, which are of 
less immediate value to policymaking, and allow them to focus their 
attention on reporting faster services that are in higher demand among 
consumers.
    23. Some commenters argued for a different number of tiers for 
reporting speeds below 25/3 Mbps, while others recommended that the 
Commission adopt a different floor for reporting broadband service in 
the Digital Opportunity Data Collection. We do not believe that the 
speed floor for reporting in the Digital Opportunity Data Collection 
should be raised. Even though the Commission defines terrestrial fixed 
broadband services with speeds of at least 25/3 Mbps as ``advanced 
telecommunications capability,'' millions of Americans lack access to 
such service but live in areas where lower-speed or non-terrestrial 
broadband services are available. We believe it is important to 
understand the types of services available in these areas, how the 
areas and services change over time, and to distinguish them from areas 
of the country that have no broadband internet access service. In 
addition, we believe that we should use the same speed floor used for 
reporting in Form 477 to maintain consistency, particularly with the 
subscribership reporting that will continue as part of the Form 477 
data collection even after the deployment reporting is phased out.
    24. Further, we believe that the two tiers proposed in the Second 
Order and Third Further Notice are appropriate to use for reporting 
fixed broadband service availability below 25/3 Mbps in the Digital 
Opportunity Data Collection. The 10/1 Mbps threshold has been important 
in the universal service context, as it was the minimum speed 
requirement adopted for Connect America Fund Phase II. Using this 
threshold in the Digital Opportunity Data Collection will facilitate 
comparing locations reported in USAC's HUBB at 10/1 Mbps or above with 
locations or areas reported in the Digital Opportunity Data Collection 
as having the same level of service. Such a comparison was adopted in 
the Second Order and Third Further Notice, and this analysis will 
constitute one element of the data verification process required by the 
Broadband DATA Act. In addition, being able to distinguish the 
availability of services offered at speeds between 10/1 Mbps and 25/3 
Mbps versus at lower speeds will be important to the Commission's 
assessment of broadband for policymaking purposes and to the American 
public.
    25. One commenter urges the Commission to require providers to 
report the speed and cost of the fastest offering in an area, as well 
as the speed and cost of the package with the highest number of 
subscribers. USTelecom and WISPA oppose such an approach, and we agree. 
Collecting the proposed pricing data is not immediately relevant to 
this proceeding's focus on broadband availability. Moreover, it would 
be premature to adopt such a filing requirement here because the 
Commission did not propose doing so in the Second Order and Third 
Further Notice and so has not had the opportunity to develop a record 
on the costs and benefits of collecting that information. In addition, 
the Commission's Urban Rate Survey collects broadband service pricing 
information from a random sample of 500 census tract-service provider 
pairs each year and produces thousands of unique pricing data points.
    26. Next Century Cities also argues that the two speed tiers 
proposed in the Second Order and Third Further Notice ``would not 
adequately account for the difference between speeds advertised versus 
what is actually delivered to households.'' We believe that the focus 
of the Digital Opportunity Data Collection is to provide more granular 
and accurate information on where broadband service, at a reported 
maximum speed, is available, not to address cases where the throughput 
a broadband customer experiences varies from the advertised speed of 
the service purchased. In cases where subscribers do not purchase the 
maximum speed offered in an area, there would be no basis for the 
delivered speed to match the speed reported in the Digital Opportunity 
Data Collection and published in the associated broadband coverage 
maps. In addition, as USTelecom and WISPA note, broadband providers are 
already required to disclose information publicly about the expected 
and actual speeds of their service offerings. And in any event, the 
Commission already collects and publishes, through its Measuring 
Broadband America program, empirical data on fixed broadband speeds 
that a representative sample of consumers receive, and these data show 
that delivered speeds typically meet or exceed advertised speeds.
    27. Collecting Latency Data for Fixed Services. We conclude it is 
appropriate to require all providers of fixed broadband internet access 
service to report latency information and to do so using the threshold 
proposed in the Second Order and Third Further Notice. Specifically, 
fixed broadband service providers must indicate in their semiannual 
Digital Opportunity Data Collection filings whether the network round-
trip latency associated with each maximum speed combination reported 
for a particular geographic area is less than or equal to 100 ms, based 
on the 95th percentile of measurements.
    28. In the Second Order and Third Further Notice, the Commission 
sought comment on whether and how to collect latency information for 
fixed broadband services. Specifically, the Commission proposed 
requiring 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 maximum speed combination in 
a particular geographic area is less than or equal to 100 milliseconds 
(ms), based on the 95th percentile of measurements. The Commission also 
asked whether only providers of certain types of fixed broadband 
service should be required to report latency data, noting that the 
Broadband DATA Act states that latency information shall be collected 
from fixed broadband providers ``if applicable'' and requires that 
propagation model-based coverage maps submitted by fixed wireless 
providers reflect the ``speeds and latency'' of the service offered by 
the provider.
    29. The proposal in the Second Order and Third Further Notice to 
have latency reporting be limited to an indication of whether a 
broadband service offered is above or below 100 ms was supported by 
many commenters. We adopt this proposal because we believe this 
information is the most relevant to the Digital Opportunity Data 
Collection and because this approach is simple and minimizes burdens. 
We are not persuaded by some commenters' arguments that fixed broadband 
providers should be required to report more detailed latency data. 
First, because the 100 ms threshold is used in several high-cost 
universal service contexts, and because the data collected pursuant to 
the Broadband DATA Act must be used in determining new awards of high-
cost universal service funding, it is logical to align the two. One 
hundred ms 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. Second, we believe the

[[Page 18129]]

benefit to consumers of collecting actual latency figures that are less 
than 100 ms for services that meet the 100 ms threshold is limited. 
Third, the burden of collecting more granular latency information is 
out of proportion with its limited value. As services change in the 
future, we can modify the threshold(s) used for reporting latency 
information in the Digital Opportunity Data Collection. Further, 
allowing providers to indicate whether the latency of their broadband 
service is above or below a certain threshold will alleviate the 
unnecessary burden and complexity for providers of having to develop a 
single latency value for each service area or served location and will 
eliminate the false precision that can arise from publishing such 
values.
    30. We believe it is appropriate to collect latency data from all 
providers of fixed broadband internet access service, as proposed in 
the Second Order and Third Further Notice. In addition, we disagree 
with USTelecom and WISPA's argument that ``the Broadband DATA Act does 
not compel fixed broadband providers to report latency.'' This approach 
was supported by many commenters. While the Broadband DATA Act requires 
the Commission to collect latency information from terrestrial fixed 
wireless providers that submit propagation maps and propagation model 
data, it also gives the Commission discretion to collect latency 
information from other fixed broadband providers ``if applicable.'' ACA 
Connects and NCTA argue that latency information should be reported 
only by terrestrial fixed wireless and satellite providers. We disagree 
and believe latency reporting should apply to all fixed providers. The 
benefits of having this information from all fixed providers exceeds 
any burden on providers of reporting it, a burden that is minimal given 
the mechanism adopted above for reporting latency. Collecting the 
information from all providers will ensure consistency across fixed 
technologies. It also will provide the Commission and the public with 
basic, but useful, information about the latency associated with the 
highest-speed broadband service available from each fixed provider and 
technology at each location across the country. This information will 
be especially useful in the universal service context, as it will 
enable the Commission to assess which locations have fixed service 
available below 100 ms, in addition to which locations have service 
available above a certain speed, when making eligibility 
determinations.
    31. Collecting Additional Fixed Wireless Infrastructure Data. In 
the Digital Opportunity Data Collection Order and Further Notice, the 
Commission asked which factors Commission staff should consider to 
independently validate fixed wireless mapping, including cell-site 
locations. Today we require fixed wireless providers that submit 
propagation maps and propagation model details to submit the geographic 
coordinates (latitude and longitude) of each base station used to 
provide terrestrial fixed wireless service because such information 
will allow us to assess the validity of their propagation maps. When a 
provider claims to provide coverage in an area, knowing whether its 
base stations are located within or near that area will allow us to 
assess whether the coverage is reasonable. Certain parties that 
provided comments in response to the Digital Opportunity Data 
Collection and Further Notice discussed the importance of transmission 
tower locations on service availability.
    32. In the Second Order and Third Further Notice, the Commission 
adopted requirements for fixed wireless providers submitting 
propagation maps and propagation model details to also submit certain 
information related their base stations, including (1) the frequency 
band(s) used to provide service being mapped; (2) carrier aggregation 
information; (3) the radio technologies used on each band (e.g., 
802.11ac-derived OFDM, proprietary OFDM, LTE); and (4) the elevation 
above ground for each base station. While this information, in 
combination with the other information we are collecting from fixed 
wireless providers, will help us verify the accuracy of these 
providers' coverage maps, we also find that the base station 
information will be much more valuable and useful if, in addition to 
the elevation above ground, we have the geographic coordinates of each 
base station. In particular, we will be able to conduct a more accurate 
verification of coverage with the location information than with the 
height, spectrum, and radio technology alone. The geographic 
coordinates are an important piece of the puzzle that will make other 
information even more useful and applicable to our coverage 
verification efforts.
    33. We recognize that the geographic coordinates of base stations 
may be sensitive information that providers may wish to keep 
confidential for business or national security reasons. We therefore 
will treat such information as presumptively confidential pursuant to 
Section 0.457(d) of the Commission's rules.
    34. Collecting Satellite Fixed Broadband Availability Data. In the 
Second Order and Third Further Notice, the Commission sought additional 
comment on how to improve the existing satellite broadband data 
collection to reflect more accurately current satellite broadband 
service availability. The Commission asked whether it should require 
satellite providers to provide additional demand-side reporting, 
including identifying the census tracts with at least one reported 
subscriber or where the satellite operator is actively marketing its 
broadband services. One satellite operator commented, arguing that ``no 
changes are needed to the reporting of satellite broadband availability 
data because the Commission's current information is accurate.'' The 
satellite operator also asserts that collecting additional information 
would create a burden without any benefit. With respect to the 
collection of demand-side data, Hughes argues that the necessity of 
keeping such data confidential would significantly limit its utility.
    35. In the absence of concrete proposals to more reasonably 
represent satellite broadband deployment, we will instead, as discussed 
in the Second Order and Third Further Notice, rely on other mechanisms 
outlined in this Third Report and Order. We remind satellite providers 
that the standards for availability reporting that apply to all fixed 
services require that satellite providers include only locations that 
they are currently serving or meet the broadband installation standard. 
Satellite providers cannot report an ability to serve an area or 
location without a reasonable basis for claiming that deployment, 
taking into account current and expected locations of spot beams, 
capacity constraints, and other relevant factors. To help ensure a 
better representation of satellite broadband availability, we will rely 
on a number of measures to verify the accuracy of the satellite data, 
such as crowdsourced data checks, certifications, audits, and 
enforcement. We will also rely on subscriber data separately reported 
by satellite broadband providers in assessing the accuracy of satellite 
provider claims of broadband availability. For instance, although the 
presence of actual subscribers is not a requirement for claiming 
deployment in an area, the presence of subscribers above a de minimis 
level in the census tract in which the census block is located may 
provide a useful check on the accuracy of deployment claims.

[[Page 18130]]

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

    36. In the Second Order and Third Further Notice, 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 submit certain propagation model 
details and link budget parameters. The Commission sought comment on 
whether to require providers to make additional disclosures concerning 
the input data, assumptions, and parameter values underlying their 
propagation models, and on adopting additional parameters including 
minimum values for Reference Signal Received Power (RSRP) and Received 
Signal Strength Indicator (RSSI). RSRP is a standard measure of 
reference or synchronization signal power for 4G LTE and 5G-NR 
technologies. RSSI is a measure of total power within the signal 
operating bandwidth for all technologies. The Commission also asked 
whether it should require mobile providers to submit additional 
coverage maps based on different speed, cell edge probability, or cell 
loading values.
    37. We require mobile providers to submit, for each propagation map 
they submit, a second set of maps showing the RSSI or RSRP signal 
levels in the coverage areas for each technology. The Commission has 
recognized that RSRP or RSSI values may vary based on factors such as 
the spectrum band, network design, and device operating capabilities, 
but sought comment on whether it could establish a minimum signal 
strength parameter value, or range of values, to accommodate such 
variation. Requiring providers to disclose signal strength data will 
help Commission staff verify propagation model coverage predictions. 
Thus, for each 4G LTE or 5G-NR propagation map that a provider submits, 
the provider also must submit a second set of maps showing RSRP in dBm 
as would be measured at the industry-standard of 1.5 meters above 
ground level (AGL) from each active cell site. The RSRP values should 
be provided in 10 dB increments or finer beginning with a maximum value 
of -50 dBm and continuing to -120 dBm. These maps will be referred to 
as ``heat maps'' showing RSRP gradient levels as signals propagate out 
from the transmit antenna. This information will be made publicly 
available. Adopting this requirement will help the Commission verify 
service coverage predictions by providing a visualization of the 
underlying signal strength as the signal propagates. This, in turn, 
will enable the Commission to better ensure that consumers and 
policymakers have accurate information about mobile broadband coverage. 
The Mobility Fund Phase II Investigation Staff Report discussed the 
importance of signal strength in measuring mobile broadband performance 
and found a strong positive relationship between the RSRP signal 
strength recorded and network performance. Signal strength maps should 
reflect outdoor coverage only and outdoor environments should include 
both pedestrians using their phones and users traveling in vehicles. A 
second set of maps showing RSSI signal levels for each 3G propagation 
map a provider submits is only required in areas where 3G is the only 
technology the provider offers. RSRP is used in connection with 4G LTE 
and 5G-NR networks and not with 3G networks. Accordingly, we only 
require providers to show RSSI signal levels when submitting signal 
strength maps for their 3G services. We only require providers to 
submit 3G maps in areas where they do not otherwise provide 4G LTE or 
later generation of service. Consistent with that approach, we require 
mobile service providers to submit a second set of maps depicting 
signal levels associated with 3G service only where 3G service is the 
only technology the provider offers. The Broadband DATA Act imposes 
requirements for mapping 4G LTE and later technologies. Given this 
emphasis, we do not require this data for 3G service unless 3G is the 
only technology a provider offers in that area. No commenters opposed 
this approach of requiring providers to submit a second set of maps 
showing RSSI or RSRP signal levels.
    38. We agree with the majority of commenters that, given the 
variety of factors that may affect signal strength, we should not adopt 
a standardized minimum signal strength parameter value. For example, 
CTIA argues that signal strength ``often fails to track actual speeds 
in a given geographic area.'' AT&T contends that propagation maps 
cannot be based on standardized signal strength ``and at the same time 
depict a provider's delivery of a defined service speed.'' Verizon 
argues that ``[b]ecause there is no single RSRP value that is always 
the `correct' RSRP for a given speed target, the Commission cannot 
standardize a minimum RSRP value.'' CCA, by contrast, argues that 
``standardizing signal strength data can improve the reliability of the 
coverage data and enable better comparison of maps among carriers,'' 
but it notes that ``mobile operators calculate minimum signal 
strength--and, by extension, coverage--based on a large number of 
variables that influence their link budget.''
    39. We likewise decline to adopt any other additional propagation 
model parameters or to require the submission of additional link budget 
information. In the Second Order and Third Further Notice, the 
Commission sought comment on adopting such requirements, and in 
particular on whether providers should submit, as part of their link 
budget details, 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. We find that there is no evidence in 
the record to conclude that adopting additional parameters or requiring 
additional link budget information will improve the Commission's 
ability to understand and assess provider submissions. The Commission 
already requires that mobile providers' 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. We 
also require mobile providers to submit detailed link budget 
information, including all applicable link budgets used to design their 
networks and provide service at the defined speeds, and all parameters 
and parameter values included in those link budgets, a description of 
how the carrier developed its link budget(s) and the rationale for 
using specific values in the link budget(s), and the name of the 
creator, developer or supplier, as well as the vintage of the terrain 
and clutter datasets used, the specific resolution of the data, a list 
of clutter categories used, a description of each clutter category, and 
a description of the propagation loss due to clutter for each. We find 
that these requirements are sufficient to improve the accuracy, 
comparability, and reliability of the mobile broadband data the 
Commission collects and will help the Commission more fully understand 
and assess propagation model coverage predictions.
    40. Finally, we decline to require mobile providers to submit 
additional coverage maps based on different speed, cell edge 
probability, or cell loading

[[Page 18131]]

values. In the Second Order and Third Further Notice, the Commission 
asked commenters to address whether there were 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 Order and Third Further 
Notice; or whether there are use cases for which higher thresholds for 
broadband speed or cell loading might make sense. Several commenters 
oppose requiring the submission of coverage maps based on alternative 
parameters. T-Mobile, for example, argues that requiring the submission 
of additional maps would lead to consumer confusion and impose 
additional burdens on providers with little benefit. We agree with 
commenters that having different maps based on different thresholds for 
coverage probability or cell loading could create consumer confusion 
and make it more difficult for consumers to make reasonable comparisons 
between mobile broadband coverage area, and we decline to adopt such a 
requirement.
    41. The majority of commenters also oppose additional parameters or 
requiring the submission of additional coverage maps based on different 
speed, cell edge probability, or cell loading values. They argue that 
the requirements the Commission adopted in the Second Order and Third 
Further Notice are sufficient to meet the requirements of the Broadband 
DATA Act and that additional parameters and/or requirements to produce 
additional maps are unnecessary and could lead to consumer confusion. 
We agree and see limited added benefits to collecting multiple coverage 
maps with different speeds, cell edge probabilities, and cell loading 
factors at this time, especially in light of the other steps we take to 
verify the accuracy of submitted propagation model data.

D. Engineering Certification of Semiannual Filings by Mobile and Fixed 
Service Providers

    42. In the Second Order and Third Further Notice, the Commission 
adopted the Broadband DATA Act requirement that each provider must 
include a certification from a corporate officer as part of its 
semiannual coverage filing. The Mobility Fund Phase II Investigation 
Staff Report recommended that the Commission require service providers 
to include an engineering certification with all data submissions. And 
in the Second Order and Third Further Notice, the Commission proposed 
to require a certified professional engineer or corporate engineering 
officer certify to the accuracy of mobile service provider submissions 
and to require public filing of those certifications. Similarly, the 
Commission sought comment on whether to require an engineering 
certification for semiannual filings for fixed broadband service 
providers and on whether to establish penalties for violating the 
certification requirement.
    43. We require each mobile and fixed service provider to submit 
certifications of the accuracy of its submissions by a qualified 
engineer. Such certifications are in addition to the corporate officer 
certifications required by the Second Order and Third Further Notice, 
but if a corporate officer is also an engineer and has the requisite 
knowledge required under the Broadband DATA Act, a provider may submit 
a single certification that fulfills both requirements. An engineering 
certification must state that the certified professional engineer or 
corporate engineering officer is employed by the service provider and 
has direct knowledge of, or responsibility for, the generation of the 
service provider's Digital Opportunity Data Collection coverage maps. 
The certified professional engineer or corporate engineering officer 
shall certify that he or she has examined the information contained in 
the submission and that, to the best of the engineer's 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.
    44. Several commenters supported our proposal to require 
engineering certifications. For example, AT&T and WTA supported the 
Commission's proposal to require providers to submit an engineering 
certification with their submissions. NTCA also generally supported the 
proposal, but suggested that the Commission not require providers to 
employ a new in-house engineer for the sole purpose of certifying data 
submissions and to limit the requirement to semiannual filings.
    45. Others, however, argue that requiring providers to include an 
engineering certification would be overly burdensome and should not be 
adopted. We are not persuaded that an engineering certification is too 
burdensome or costly given the importance of ensuring the accuracy of 
coverage maps and that they be based on data that are consistent with 
professional engineering standards. The Broadband DATA Act makes clear 
the importance that Congress places on collecting accurate broadband 
deployment data, and the reporting standards the Commission has adopted 
for all technologies in the Digital Opportunity Data Collection will 
require filers to evaluate new, more stringent technical issues than 
have been required in reporting on FCC Form 477. We find that requiring 
that an engineer review and certify the accuracy of a providers' 
submissions is an appropriate measure to confirm that filers have in 
fact engaged in the analysis necessary to meet Congress's objective of 
developing more accurate data. Given that this analysis is already 
required, certifying that it has been conducted will not result in any 
significant additional burden for filers.
    46. The Commission also sought comment on potential penalties for 
violating the engineering certification requirement by omitting and/or 
falsely certifying it. Consistent with the current Form 477 rules, the 
Commission will enforce compliance and assess penalties for materially 
inaccurate or incomplete Digital Opportunity Data Collection filings, 
including failure to file the required corporate officer and 
engineering certifications.

E. Verifying Broadband Availability Data Submitted by Providers

    47. The Broadband DATA Act requires the Commission to verify the 
accuracy and reliability of the broadband coverage data that providers 
submit to the Commission. In carrying out this requirement, we adopt 
provisions to ensure that the coverage data in the Digital Opportunity 
Data Collection are as credible and reliable as possible. The Office of 
Economics and Analytics (OEA) and WTB may request and collect the data 
on a case-by-case basis only where staff have a credible basis for 
verifying the provider's coverage data. In response to such 
verification requests, mobile service providers must submit either 
infrastructure information or on-the-ground test data for where the 
provider claims to provide coverage. In addition to submitting either 
infrastructure or on-the-ground test data, the provider may submit 
additional data that the provider believes support its coverage, such 
as data collected from its transmitter monitoring systems and software. 
At the time of the adoption of this Order, we define on-the-ground test 
data as drive test data. OEA, however, may determine in the future that 
there are other types of on-the-ground test data that are sufficient to 
substitute for drive test data. Mobile providers urge the Commission to 
provide flexibility in the types of data that can be submitted for 
verification purposes. Several

[[Page 18132]]

commenters suggest that we permit providers to submit data collected 
from their network monitoring systems and software in response to a 
verification request. We find that the record does not support a 
finding that such data currently are sufficient to permit such data to 
substitute for requiring either on-the-ground testing or infrastructure 
data in response to a verification investigation. However, we direct 
OEA and WTB to review such data to the extent they are voluntarily 
submitted by providers or in response to verification investigations or 
to requests from staff. To the extent staff concludes that such methods 
are sufficiently reliable, we direct OEA and WTB to specify appropriate 
standards and specifications for such data and add it to the 
alternatives available to providers to respond to verification 
investigations. In so directing OEA and WTB to make such a 
determination, we specifically recognize that such an analysis may lead 
it to expand the options available to providers for responses with 
respect to verification investigations but not do so for other 
purposes, including responses to consumer challenges and/or 
governmental and other entity challenges. Although a provider may 
choose to submit either infrastructure or on-the-ground data in a 
response to a verification inquiry, OEA and WTB are authorized to 
require the submission of additional data if it finds such data would 
assist the Commission in verifying coverage in a particular area where 
the infrastructure or on-the-ground data submitted by the provider is 
insufficient to verify the coverage shown on the provider's map.
    48. We direct OEA and WTB to implement this data collection and to 
adopt the methodologies, data specifications, and formatting 
requirements that providers shall follow when collecting and reporting 
mobile infrastructure and on-the-ground test data to the Commission. We 
direct OEA and WTB to provide guidance about what types of data will 
likely be more probative in different circumstances. We find that 
directing OEA and WTB to adopt the methodologies, specifications, and 
formatting information will provide greater flexibility to adjust and 
improve our collection process over time once the Commission has had an 
opportunity to review the data submitted by mobile service providers 
and to begin the verification process required under the Broadband DATA 
Act.
    49. Second, we adopt standards for collecting verified broadband 
data from State, local, and Tribal mapping entities and third parties 
that meet certain criteria. Specifically, we establish details 
associated with the meaning of ``verified'' data, how to reconcile 
conflicts between these data and data in semiannual provider filings, 
collecting verified data for mobile service, and the parameters of the 
Commission's public interest determination to use broadband data from 
third parties.
1. Verifying Mobile Data
    50. In response to a Commission staff inquiry to verify a mobile 
service provider's coverage data, we require on a case-by-case basis 
that the provider submit either infrastructure information or on-the-
ground test data for where the provider claims to provide coverage. A 
provider has the option of submitting additional data, including but 
not limited to on-the-ground data or infrastructure data (to the extent 
such data are not the primary option chosen by the provider), or other 
types of data that the provider believes support its coverage. The 
mobile provider has 60 days from the time of the request by OEA and WTB 
to submit, at the provider's option, infrastructure or on-the-ground 
data and any additional data that the provider chooses to submit to 
support its coverage. OEA and WTB may require submission of additional 
data (e.g., on-the-ground test data if the provider initially submitted 
infrastructure data) if such data are needed to complete its 
verification inquiry. Should OEA and WTB require further data from the 
provider, the provider shall submit such data no later than 60 days 
from the time of that request.
    51. Collecting Infrastructure Information from Mobile Providers. 
The Broadband DATA Act requires that the Commission establish 
``processes through which the Commission can verify the accuracy of 
data'' that mobile providers submit. In the Second Order and Third 
Further Notice, the Commission reiterated that infrastructure data 
could advance that requirement under the Broadband DATA Act and stated 
that such information could help Commission staff verify the accuracy 
of provider coverage propagation models and maps submitted by mobile 
providers. The Second Order and Third Further Notice sought to refresh 
the record and requested further comment on collecting infrastructure 
information from mobile wireless service providers as part of the 
Digital Opportunity Data Collection. In particular, the Commission 
sought comment on whether to collect infrastructure data, what 
information to collect, how often to collect it, and whether to collect 
it on a regular basis or only on staff request. In seeking comment on 
these issues, the Commission recognized that such collection of 
infrastructure data could raise commercial sensitivity and national 
security concerns.
    52. In light of the Broadband DATA Act requirements and our review 
and analysis of the record (including the Mobility Fund Phase II 
Investigation Staff Report), we find that infrastructure information 
can provide an important means for the Commission to fulfill its 
obligation to independently verify the accuracy of provider coverage 
propagation models and maps. Examples of infrastructure information 
that mobile providers may be required to submit as part of a 
verification inquiry include the following: (1) The latitude and 
longitude of cell sites; (2) the site ID number for each cell site; (3) 
the ground elevation above mean sea level (AMSL) of the site (in 
meters); (4) frequency band(s) used to provide service for each site 
being mapped including channel bandwidth (in megahertz); (5) the radio 
technologies used on each band for each site; (6) the capacity (Mbps) 
and type of backhaul used at each cell site; (7) the number of sectors 
at each cell site; and (8) the Effective Isotropic Radiated Power 
(EIRP, in dBm) of the sector at the time the mobile provider creates 
its map of the coverage data. For example, 802.11ac-derived OFDM, 
proprietary OFDM, LTE Release 13, and NR Release 15. In response to the 
Commission's requests for comment in the Digital Opportunity Data 
Collection Order and Further Notice, CTIA and AT&T supported requiring 
mobile providers to submit these first five types of infrastructure 
information. We define ``backhaul capacity'' as the connection capacity 
from the radio site to the network. Mobile providers submitting 
infrastructure information must do so within 60 days of receiving a 
request from Commission staff. In the Digital Opportunity Data 
Collection Order and Further Notice, the Commission sought comment on 
its proposal to require that a provider submit its infrastructure 
information within 30 days of a Commission request. In response to this 
proposal, certain providers asserted that the Commission require more 
than 30 days to respond to a Commission request.
    53. We agree with the conclusion in the Mobility Fund Phase II 
Investigation Staff Report that infrastructure information can be used 
to verify mobile broadband coverage. In the Mobility Fund Phase II 
Investigation Staff Report, staff recommended that detailed information 
on propagation model parameters and deployed infrastructure

[[Page 18133]]

needed to be collected in order to verify fully the engineering 
assumptions inherent in mobile coverage maps created using propagation 
modeling. We further conclude that collecting such data will enable the 
Commission to satisfy the Broadband DATA Act's requirement that the 
Commission verify the accuracy and reliability of submitted coverage 
data.
    54. Several commenters support the Commission's collection of 
infrastructure information from mobile providers on a case-by-case 
basis for particular purposes. The City of New York, however, asserts 
that the Commission should require that mobile providers submit 
infrastructure information on a regular basis. The Massachusetts 
Department of Telecommunications and Cable (MDTC) contends that 
collecting mobile infrastructure data is critical to analyzing whether 
areas have adequate mobile broadband access. T-Mobile and CTIA assert 
that, if there is an issue regarding a mobile provider's coverage data 
that was identified in the challenge process or by other verification 
tools, the Commission could request targeted infrastructure 
information, such as cell site locations. Verizon contends that speed 
test data and infrastructure data should be used for case-by-case 
verification in small areas when other verification methods have 
identified a potential issue, such as when crowdsourced data or a 
third-party challenge has indicated a potential problem with the 
coverage map's accuracy. AT&T argues that the Commission should 
consider collecting either the propagation model calibration report 
statistics for each propagation map submitted to the Commission or the 
five specific types of infrastructure data. Verizon asserts that the 
Commission could give the mobile service provider the option of 
providing infrastructure data or speed test data to verify the accuracy 
of its map.
    55. In the Second Order and Third Further Notice, the Commission 
recognized that the collection of mobile network infrastructure 
information could raise commercial sensitivity and national security 
concerns. In response to the Commission's request for comment, several 
commenters agree and assert that the disclosure of infrastructure 
information could lead to competitive harm to mobile service providers 
and could compromise the security of providers' cell sites. In 
particular, Verizon argues that infrastructure data is commercially 
sensitive because it reveals the design of a provider's network. 
Verizon also asserts that the risk of disclosing a complete database of 
a provider's network infrastructure raises significant national 
security concerns because it could give hostile actors a roadmap to the 
nation's critical communications infrastructure. We are sensitive to 
those confidentiality and security concerns and will therefore treat 
all of the mobile infrastructure information submitted by providers at 
the request of Commission staff, including the location of cell sites, 
as presumptively confidential.
    56. Certain commenters express concern that producing mobile 
network infrastructure data could be unduly burdensome. To avoid 
imposing excessive burdens, we do not mandate submission of such data 
in response to every Commission verification inquiry. Instead, mobile 
service providers, in the alternative, may submit on-the-ground testing 
data to support their coverage maps in response to staff verification 
requests. These test data provide another means by which the Commission 
can undertake its verification responsibilities. Thus, providers may 
choose whether to submit infrastructure information or on-the-ground 
test data based on the responding provider's evaluation of which type 
of submission will be the most probative and least burdensome. The 
requirement to submit either infrastructure information or on-the-
ground test data constitutes a critical element of our ability to 
verify provider coverage data.
    57. Collecting On-the-Ground Test Data from Mobile Providers. In 
the Second Order and Third Further Notice, the Commission proposed 
requiring mobile providers to submit on-the-ground test data (i.e., 
both mobile and stationary drive-test data) as another means to verify 
mobile providers' coverage maps, and specifically proposed collecting a 
statistically valid sample of on-the-ground data. The Commission sought 
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, in the Second Order 
and Third Further Notice, the Commission requested comment on whether 
Commission staff should develop a statistically valid methodology that 
would 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.
    58. Commenters agree on the verification requirements of the 
Broadband DATA Act but disagree on the most appropriate mechanisms for 
verifying mobile coverage. The majority of commenters oppose requiring 
on-the-ground testing as part of a verification process. Opponents 
assert that on-the-ground testing would be enormously expensive. 
Service providers argue that the Commission should refrain from 
mandating on-the-ground testing and instead review carrier submissions 
and request additional documentation from a service provider to clarify 
any perceived issue. In contrast, the Vermont Department of Public 
Service (VTDPS) argues that the collection of on-the-ground test data 
from providers is a critical component of the verification process and 
is consistent with the Broadband DATA Act. We agree with VTDPS that on-
the-ground test data can be a valuable method for verification. We 
find, however, there must be an appropriate balance between verifying 
coverage and recognizing the challenges of on-the-ground testing in 
various geographic areas. We find that the case-by-case approach we 
adopt here preserves the Commission's ability to use on-the-ground data 
for verification while reducing the burdens associated with requiring 
submission of on-the-ground data on a regular basis. On-the-ground 
testing and infrastructure data generally provide valuable methods for 
verifying coverage data. However, neither may be conclusive in certain 
cases particularly in rural areas with challenging terrain; thus, we 
preserve the opportunity to request additional data. We agree with 
those commenters that argue that a flexible approach is needed and find 
that a case-by-case approach appropriately balances the need to verify 
coverage and the cost of doing so. Thus, similar to the collection of 
infrastructure data described above, we adopt a framework for the 
collection of on-the-ground data from mobile service providers that 
submit on-the-ground test data in response to a request by Commission 
staff for verification data. Connected Nation argues that the 
Commission should require mobile service providers to submit on-the-
ground test data representing a combination of mobile and stationary 
tests. Like infrastructure data, we find that on-the-ground testing can 
provide an effective means for the Commission to investigate the 
accuracy of the mobile broadband coverage maps submitted to the 
Commission.
    59. In the Second Order and Third Further Notice, the Commission 
sought comment on how to ensure that providers submit a statistically 
valid and unbiased sample of on-the-ground tests. We agree with 
commenters that

[[Page 18134]]

argue that the process of establishing a statistically valid sample may 
differ from carrier to carrier and that there should be some 
flexibility in the Commission's determination of an appropriate 
location for statistical sampling. AT&T asserts that the Second Order 
and Third Further Notice lacks guidance as to what is meant by the 
``area tested,'' argues that this is susceptible to many possible 
interpretations, and notes the difficulty in creating statistically 
valid samples for particular geographic areas given the variability of 
the terrain across the nation. CCA argues that a statistically 
significant sample should account for variations in terrain, foliage, 
and potentially clutter. We therefore direct OEA,WTB, and OET to 
develop and administer the specific requirements and methodologies that 
providers must use in conducting on-the-ground-tests, including the 
geographic areas that must be subject to the on-the-ground testing so 
that the tested areas satisfy the requirements of a statistically valid 
and unbiased sample of the provider's network. Additionally, we direct 
OEA, WTB, and OET to approve the equipment that providers may use, 
including the handsets and any other special equipment necessary for 
the testing and other parameters necessary to obtain a statistical 
sample of the network. In 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. For on-the-ground test data, however, spectrum band data 
are essential to understanding and analyzing mobile providers' on-the-
ground submissions, including measurement data and network performance, 
because signal strength values may vary based on the particular band in 
use. Further, we direct OEA, WTB, and OET to take into account the 
lessons learned from Mobility Fund Phase II Investigation Staff Report 
when it specifies the on-the-ground testing requirements. Further, we 
direct that OEA, WTB, and OET approve the number and location of the 
mobile and stationary tests required to accurately verify the coverage 
speed maps.
    60. A mobile provider submitting on-the-ground test data in 
response to a Commission staff verification request shall submit such 
data within 60 days of receiving the request. As with the submission of 
infrastructure data, we find that 60 days is an appropriate time period 
for providers to submit on-the-ground test data. This time period will 
also ensure a speedy resolution of the verification process and 
consistency with the challenge process. In the Second Order and Third 
Further Notice, the Commission also requested comment on whether it 
should treat on-the-ground test data as confidential. We agree with 
commenters that publicly available on-the-ground test data is in the 
public interest because it ensures that the most accurate data are 
collected and reported and ultimately benefit consumers.
2. Collecting Verified Data From Government Entities and Third Parties
    61. The Broadband DATA Act requires the Commission to develop a 
process through which it can collect verified data for use in the 
coverage maps from: (1) State, local, and Tribal governmental entities 
primarily responsible for mapping or tracking broadband internet access 
service coverage in their areas; (2) third parties, if the Commission 
determines it is in the public interest to use their data in the 
development of the coverage maps or in the verification of data 
submitted by providers; and (3) other federal agencies. In the Second 
Order and Third Further Notice, the Commission adopted this requirement 
and directed the Bureaus and Offices to implement the details of the 
process. The Commission stated that it will treat such data as 
``primary'' availability data ``for use in the coverage maps'' on par 
with the availability data submitted by providers in their semiannual 
Digital Opportunity Data Collection filings. We disagree with Connected 
Nation's objection to our treatment of such data as ``primary source 
data.'' We note that, contrary to Connected Nation's contention, 
Congress directed the Commission to ``develop a process through which 
the Commission can collect verified data for use in the coverage 
maps.'' The Commission sought comment in the Second Order and Third 
Further Notice on other details associated with the process, including 
the meaning of ``verified'' data, how to reconcile conflicts between 
these data and data in semiannual provider filings, collecting verified 
data for mobile service, and the parameters of the Commission's public 
interest determination to use broadband data from third parties.
    62. First, we conclude that coverage data from these government 
entities and third parties will be verified for purposes of 
incorporating into coverage map data when they bear certain indicia of 
credibility. Regarding fixed broadband coverage data submitted by 
government entities and third parties, we agree with USTelecom that 
(once complete) the location data in the Fabric will become the 
standard for evaluating the credibility of such data. Specifically, we 
evaluate the credibility of such data by analyzing the source of the 
data and the steps that the submitter took to gather and verify the 
data: (1) Are the data submitted by an entity that specializes in 
gathering and/or analyzing broadband availability data; and (2) is the 
submitter able to demonstrate that it (or the entity acting on its 
behalf) has employed a sound and reliable methodology in collecting, 
organizing, and verifying the availability data it is submitting. We 
will not accept broadband coverage data that are submitted by 
government entities and third parties that do not meet these 
parameters.
    63. To the extent they choose to file verified data, government 
entities and third parties must file their broadband availability data 
in the same portal and under the same parameters as providers (e.g., 
formatting requirements, required information, certifications). We note 
the concern of the Illinois Office of Broadband that the Commission not 
require state, local, or Tribal entities to submit or verify broadband 
availability data according to any particular schedule. While we are 
not requiring government entities to submit broadband availability data 
at every semiannual deadline required for providers to submit their 
data, to the extent such entities do have data to submit, they must do 
it by one of the semiannual filing deadlines. We also agree with NCTA 
that, to be relevant, the timeframes of the third-party verified data 
should match the timeframes of the data submitted by providers ``or new 
broadband deployments will not be represented.'' For example, 
government entities and third parties must generate availability data 
as a fixed broadband availability polygon, mobile propagation map, or 
list of locations depending on whether the data concern terrestrial 
wired, satellite, fixed wireless, or mobile service. In addition, 
submitters must disclose the methodologies they used to produce their 
data. We disagree with NCTA's request that ``[d]ata based on large 
geographic areas, such as statewide data, must include all broadband 
providers in the relevant area to be informative.'' The Broadband DATA 
Act has no such limitation; we find instead that the Act requires the

[[Page 18135]]

Commission to establish a process to encourage the submission of 
verified third-party broadband data, and we refrain from reading the 
limitation proposed by NCTA into the Act.
    64. We will not accept data that government and third-party 
entities have simply collected directly from providers and are passing 
along to us without any attempt to verify the data. We note the concern 
of the Illinois Office of Broadband that, while a governmental agency 
may collect broadband availability data itself using its own personnel 
and resources, more commonly ``the data are likely to be gathered by a 
reputable contractor pursuant to a valid contract with a state, local, 
or Tribal government [entity].'' The Illinois Office of Broadband 
asserts that ``[w]hile such data are highly likely to be reliable, the 
governmental entity itself is unlikely to have the direct personal 
knowledge of the contractor's data gathering and verification process 
that would be necessary to support an attestation.'' According to the 
Illinois Office of Broadband, ``[i]n such cases, no attestation should 
be required from the governmental entity submitting the data or, in the 
alternative, any attestation should be limited to the fact that the 
data were gathered pursuant to a valid contract with a governmental 
entity, and that the governmental entity submitting the data has no 
cause to question their reliability.'' We disagree. We find that a 
certification requirement for such entities akin to that required of 
providers under section 802(b)(4) of the Broadband DATA Act will help 
ensure the reliability of the data. Where government entities rely on 
third parties (e.g., consultants, commercial entities, and the like) to 
collect broadband availability data for them, the government entities 
can supplement their certifications by describing the third party 
providing the data (e.g., does it specialize in gathering and/or 
analyzing broadband availability data) as well as the methodology the 
third party employed in collecting, organizing, and verifying the 
availability data provided.
    65. We will publish the verified availability data collected from 
government entities and third parties as a layer on the relevant 
coverage maps. In addition, we require service providers to review the 
verified data submitted in the online portal, work with the submitter 
to resolve any coverage discrepancies, make any corrections they deem 
necessary based on such review, and submit any updated data to the 
Commission within 60 days after being notified by the online portal 
that data has been submitted by the government entity or third party. 
However, we disagree with Connected Nation that any corrections made to 
the public-facing maps ``should be as a result of FCC-directed 
validation/verification efforts--not as a result of any resolution or 
reconciliation process between submitting entities and the service 
providers themselves. We believe such a process would be cumbersome, 
and would actually discourage third-party entities from submitting 
data.'' While some corrections to the broadband coverage maps could be 
made as a result of Commission-directed validation efforts arising from 
the analysis of government or third-party data, we believe that a 
review and potential reconciliation of data between providers and 
third-party/government submitters will help improve the accuracy of the 
public-facing coverage maps without imposing undue additional burdens 
on submitters. We find that 60 days is an appropriate time for 
providers to review government and third-party data, work with the 
submitter, and determine whether any updates must be made to their 
existing broadband availability data. This time period mirrors the 
timing for providers to respond to challenges. As we note in adopting 
the challenge process, permitting 60 days for provider action will help 
ensure that the process is manageable for providers while also 
providing for speedy resolution of any discrepancies.
    66. If the provider does not agree with the data submitted by the 
government entity or third party, then the provider need not include 
such data as part of its broadband data submissions and the data will 
not be reflected in the broadband coverage maps. If a government entity 
or third party does not agree with the provider's treatment of the 
data, they have the option of filing the data as part of a challenge to 
the provider's availability data via the challenge portal. Such 
challenges will be addressed via the respective fixed and mobile 
challenge process procedures.
    67. Collecting Verified Data on Mobile Service from Government 
Entities and Third Parties. The Second Order and Third Further Notice 
sought comment on how to collect voluntarily-submitted verified on-the-
ground data on mobile service from state, local, and Tribal 
governmental entities, third parties, and Federal agencies for use in 
the mobile coverage maps the Commission will create. The Commission 
also sought comment on a pilot program to collect information to verify 
mobile providers' coverage data to meet the Broadband DATA Act's 
mandate of establishing a process that tests the feasibility of 
partnering with Federal agencies that operate delivery fleet vehicles, 
including the United States Postal Service (USPS). 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.
    68. Consistent with the Commission's obligations under the 
Broadband DATA Act, we direct OEA to collect verified mobile on-the-
ground data through a process similar to the one established for 
providers making their semiannual Digital Opportunity Data Collection 
filings. If a government entity or third party chooses to submit mobile 
verified data, we require it to submit such data, as set forth above, 
through the same online portal created for providers making their 
semiannual Digital Opportunity Data Collection filings. In submitting 
these data, the government entity or third party should include a 
description of relevant methodologies, specifications, and other 
relevant details that the Commission should consider in reviewing these 
verified mobile data. We also require government entities and third 
parties submitting verified mobile data to certify that the information 
it is submitting is true and accurate to the best of their actual 
knowledge, information, and belief.
    69. We direct OEA and WTB to investigate a pilot program that tests 
the feasibility of partnering with the USPS or other federal agencies 
to collect information to verify and supplement broadband information 
submitted by mobile providers. With Congress's recent appropriation of 
funding for the Commission to implement the Broadband DATA Act, we will 
consider appropriate steps to initiate such a pilot program with the 
USPS or another federal agency to collect information to verify and 
supplement the broadband data submitted by mobile providers. Connected 
Nation supports the Commission's proposal to move forward with a pilot 
program with the USPS and urges the Commission to focus primarily on 
rural areas for purposes of the feasibility study.

F. Fixed Service Challenge Process

    70. The Broadband DATA Act requires the Commission to adopt a user-
friendly challenge process through which consumers, State, local, and

[[Page 18136]]

Tribal governmental entities, and other entities or individuals may 
submit challenges to the accuracy of the coverage maps, broadband 
availability information submitted by providers, or information 
included in the Fabric. This requirement aligns with the Commission's 
recognition in the Digital Opportunity Data Collection Order and 
Further Notice 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.'' In 
adopting the challenge process, the Commission must take into 
consideration: (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. Also, pursuant to the Broadband DATA Act, 
the Commission must develop an online mechanism for submitting 
challenges that is integrated into the coverage maps, allows an 
eligible entity or individual to submit a challenge, makes challenge 
data available in both GIS and non-GIS formats, and 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.
    71. In the Second Order and Third Further Notice, we proposed to 
make the online mechanism for receiving and tracking challenges 
accessible through the same portal proposed for accepting crowdsourced 
submissions. We also proposed that the system provide easy, direct 
access to the challenge data as well as broadband availability data. 
Several commenters support this approach and no commenters opposed it. 
We find that establishing a single platform for submitting challenges 
and crowdsourced information that clearly delineates between the two 
functions will promote access and reduce the potential for confusion by 
users. We therefore adopt this approach.
1. Consumer Challenges to Fixed Broadband Internet Access Service and 
Fabric Data
    72. Challenges to Service Availability and Coverage Map Data. We 
adopt the proposal regarding the collection of information from 
consumers seeking to challenge coverage map data or the availability of 
service at a particular location. Specifically, we require consumers 
submitting such a challenge to include: (1) The name and contact 
information of the 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 the consumer is 
disputing the availability of broadband internet access service; (3) a 
representation that the challenger owns or resides at the location 
being disputed or is otherwise authorized to request service there; (4) 
the name of the provider whose coverage is being disputed; (5) the 
category of dispute, chosen from pre-approved options in the online 
portal--e.g., whether the challenge asserts there is no service 
offering at location, the provider failed to install a functioning 
service within ten business days of valid order for service, the 
provider denied the request for service, reported speed not offered; 
(6) for customers or potential customers challenging availability data 
or the coverage maps, 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, while for non-customers challenging availability or 
the coverage maps, evidence showing no availability at the disputed 
location (e.g., screen shot, emails); and (7) a certification from an 
individual, or an authorized officer or signatory if an entity, 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, including certifying to each challenge location if there are 
challenges to multiple locations at once. The challenge process 
proposed for fixed service availability and coverage map data is 
designed to allow consumers and other parties to challenge whether 
coverage maps accurately reflect the availability of broadband service 
from a particular provider using the technology and at the maximum 
advertised speeds reported by the provider. This challenge process is 
not meant to address disputes that subscribers have with their 
broadband provider about quality of service issues, such as network 
performance experienced at a particular location. When collecting, 
storing, using, or disseminating personally identifiable information in 
connection with the challenge process described here, the Commission 
will comply with the requirements of the Privacy Act of 1974, 5 U.S.C. 
552(a).
    73. Commenters generally expressed support for requiring consumers 
to submit this information when seeking to challenge coverage map data 
or availability of service. Commenters also support the Commission's 
adoption of its proposal to require that challengers certify in their 
filings that all statements of fact contained in the submission are 
true and correct. We moreover agree with commenters arguing that all 
fields of requested information must be completely filled in for a 
challenge to be considered complete and for a provider to be required 
to respond and will accordingly make this a feature of the challenge 
portal.
    74. While some commenters express concerns regarding the amount of 
information consumers will need to submit and the risk of creating a 
burdensome process for consumer challenges, we find that collecting the 
required information will promote fairness in the challenge process by 
ensuring that providers receive information necessary to identify each 
challenged location and the basis for each challenge. We conclude that 
collecting this information would appropriately balance the respective 
burdens on challengers and providers, facilitate challenge 
participation, and enable us to adequately verify the information 
collected, as required by the Broadband DATA Act. We also find that 
this process will appropriately inhibit the submission of frivolous or 
malicious filings. We note that in the Digital Opportunity Data 
Collection Order and Further Notice, we directed USAC to develop 
mechanisms in the Digital Opportunity Data Collection to prevent 
malicious or unreliable filings.
    75. We also adopt the proposal from the Second Order and Third 
Further Notice that, once a challenge is submitted to the Commission's 
online portal, the portal should automatically notify a provider that a 
challenge has been filed against it. Commenters do not oppose this 
proposal. Accordingly, we find that sending an automatic notification 
to providers would promote active engagement, awareness, and 
responsiveness by providers as well as comply with the Broadband DATA 
Act,

[[Page 18137]]

which requires the Commission to allow providers to respond.
    76. Several commenters express concerns regarding the pre-
established options proposed for consumer challenges in the Second 
Order and Third Further Notice and identified here. We first address 
NCTA's request that the Commission clarify the category of ``reported 
speed not available'' that ``speed test results alone are not 
sufficient to warrant the submission of a challenge.'' In support of 
its request, NCTA explains that ``a consumer should have to provide 
other evidence to support the claim that the speed reported by the 
broadband service provider is not available at that location'' such as 
``documentation demonstrating that the customer attempted to subscribe 
to the service speed reported by the provider and was unable to do 
so.'' We acknowledge NCTA's concerns and clarify that the challenge 
process is intended to shed light on whether the reported speed is 
actually offered in the marketplace. We otherwise find that the 
identified categories of disputes will allow consumers an efficient way 
to assert a variety of disputes and that collecting such data is 
necessary to comply with the Broadband DATA Act's requirement that we 
verify the accuracy and reliability of submitted coverage data.
    77. Second, USTelecom and others assert that the categories of 
dispute options are overly broad and may result in unfounded 
challenges. In particular, these commenters argue that the categories 
``provider failed to install within 10 days of a valid order'' and 
``installation attempted but unsuccessful'' could result in unfounded 
challenges unrelated to availability. According to USTelecom, ``while a 
provider's inability to offer service within ten business days is a 
denial of service, a delay in installation due to scheduling or other 
unforeseen circumstances that results ultimately in installation 
outside the ten-day window is not a denial of service.'' USTelecom 
argues that ``unforeseen circumstances can delay installation beyond 10 
days but wouldn't show an inability to provide service.'' USTelecom and 
WISPA also argue that an ``unsuccessful installation'' could be the 
result of extenuating circumstances, outside of the control of the 
provider and should not be an option for challengers to assert. WTA 
similarly argues that ``provider failed to install within 10 business 
days'' and ``installation(s) attempted but unsuccessful'' are not 
clearly and wholly related to service availability, and can involve 
``lack of customer cooperation, inadequacy of customer premises 
equipment, and weather disruptions.'' WTA also asserts that these 
categories ``are better and more appropriately'' addressed through the 
Commission's informal section 208 complaint process. Section 208 
complaints against common carriers related to rates, terms, and 
conditions can be filed in an informal and formal complaint process, 
but that process is separate from, and not applicable to, the challenge 
process--a statutory requirement under the Broadband DATA Act.
    78. We disagree. The Broadband DATA Act specifically requires the 
Commission to develop a challenge process through which consumers can 
challenge the accuracy of the coverage maps, broadband availability 
information submitted by providers, or information included in the 
Fabric. Indeed, the ability to install service within 10 business days 
of a customer request is a fundamental component of reporting 
availability for purposes of the Digital Opportunity Data Collection, 
and consumers naturally must have the opportunity to challenge 
assertions of coverage on that basis. It is because of such categories 
that we can ensure ``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.''
    79. We recognize that there may be instances in which it is not 
possible for a provider to meet the 10 business-day standard for 
reasons beyond its control, but in those cases, a provider will have an 
opportunity to submit facts to demonstrate that that was, or continues 
to be, the case. Additionally, we will ask challengers, in initiating a 
challenge, to report on whether the provider has initiated service at 
their location after initially failing to do so within 10 business 
days. Where the information submitted by the parties to the challenge 
shows coverage has been initiated, we will not remove the location from 
reported coverage in the broadband maps, but information about the 
extent to which locations reported as covered are not served within 10 
business days, and the reasons therefor, will be useful in assessing 
the coverage data generally and possibly with regard to providers 
individually.
    80. Dispute Resolution. We adopt the proposal for a multi-step 
dispute resolution process, with certain slight modifications. 
Specifically, upon the filing of a challenge containing all required 
elements, we will designate the subject location in the public coverage 
maps as ``in dispute/pending resolution'' until the challenge is 
resolved. This departs from the proposal to designate a location as 
``in dispute/pending resolution'' in the public maps once the affected 
provider submitted an objection to the challenge. We find that making 
this designation when the challenge is made will better reflect the 
status of the coverage data in the map rather than waiting for a 
provider's response to make such a designation, and give due weight to 
the fact that the challenger has certified to all requisite information 
to lodge a challenge.
    81. In the Second Order and Third Further Notice, the Commission 
sought comment on its proposal to require a provider to submit a reply 
to a challenge in the online portal within 30 days of being notified of 
the challenge. The Commission also sought comment on its proposal that 
a provider's failure to submit a reply within the required period would 
result in the subsequent removal of the location from the Commission's 
official coverage map, and the Commission sought comment on any 
alternative approaches. Connected2Fiber and NRECA propose that the 
Commission adopt a 30-day response time for providers, and NRECA also 
argues for the adoption of a ``'sliding scale''' response time that 
would allow more time for a provider to respond when a challenge 
``covers more locations.'' The record, however, overwhelmingly supports 
NTCA's proposal for a 60-day reply period for providers. For example, 
ACA Connects agrees with USTelecom and NTCA that ``a 30-day response 
deadline would place significant burdens on providers, particularly 
smaller providers that lack the personnel and resources to dedicate to 
handling DODC challenges.'' Connected Nation, while it agrees with the 
30-day reply period, similarly expresses concern ``with the burden that 
such a requirement would place on service providers--particularly small 
providers--and the Commission itself, and that such a process may be 
overly cumbersome.''
    82. We agree with commenters that the challenge process is likely 
to result a large volume of data to analyze and that permitting 60 days 
to respond to a challenge, rather than the proposed 30 days, balances 
the need to ensure that the challenge process is manageable for 
providers, while also providing for prompt resolution of challenges. We 
therefore adopt this approach. We decline to adopt a sliding-scale 
approach, finding that this would add unnecessary complexity to the 
process and could result in confusion to

[[Page 18138]]

challengers and providers as to which deadlines applied.
    83. We also adopt the following substantive requirements for 
providers' replies to availability or coverage map challenges. 
Specifically, a provider must reply by either: (1) Accepting the 
assertions raised by the challenger, in which case the provider must 
submit a correction for the challenged location in the online portal 
within 30 days of its portal reply; or (2) denying the challenger's 
assertions, in which the case the provider must provide evidence in its 
reply that the provider serves, or could and is willing to serve, the 
challenged location. To the extent a provider has several corrections 
to be made to its broadband availability data, it can batch them 
together, but any correction must meet the 30-day deadline.
    84. In the case where a provider disagrees with the challenger's 
assertions, the provider will have 60 days from the date of its reply 
in the online portal to resolve the dispute with the challenger. If the 
parties are unable to reach consensus within that time, the provider 
must report the outcome of efforts to resolve the dispute through the 
online portal, after which Commission staff will review the evidence 
and make a determination of whether the provider has demonstrated it is 
offering service at that location. The service provider must 
demonstrate to Commission staff that by the preponderance of the 
evidence, it in fact offers service at that location consistent with 
the requirements of the Digital Opportunity Data Collection. When staff 
find in favor of the challenger, the provider must remove the specified 
location from its coverage polygon or customer list within 30 days of 
the decision. When staff find in favor of the service provider, the 
location will no longer be subject to the ``in dispute/pending 
resolution'' designation on the coverage maps.
    85. A provider's failure to timely respond to a challenge will 
result in a finding for the challenger and mandatory corrections to the 
provider's Digital Opportunity Data Collection information as requested 
by the challenger. Providers must submit any such corrections within 30 
days of the missed reply deadline or the Commission will make the 
corrections on its own.
    86. We adopt the proposal to use the ``preponderance-of-the-
evidence'' standard in resolving disputes between consumer challengers 
and providers, with the challenger required to demonstrate initially 
facts indicating that a location is most likely unserved. The 
challenger makes its initial showing by submitted a completed, 
certified challenge in the online portal. After this initial showing, 
the burden will shift to the provider to rebut the challenge by a 
preponderance of the evidence. In the Second Order and Third Further 
Notice, the Commission explained that based on a preponderance-of-
evidence evidentiary standard, the Commission would weigh whether the 
service provider has subsequently shown by the greater weight of the 
evidence that it makes service available at the challenger's location.
    87. A number of commenters argue either that the Commission should 
adopt a ``clear and convincing'' evidentiary standard or that the 
burden of proof should be on the challenger at all times, or both. 
USTelecom and WISPA, in addition to these measures, argue that ``a 
provider should be entitled to a presumption that its data is accurate 
(or more so) than the challenger, especially where it is subject to 
enforcement sanctions as the regulated entity.'' We find that adopting 
a heightened burden of proof would place too high of a burden on 
consumers in making and prosecuting challenges and would be contrary to 
Congress's intent that the challenge process be ``consumer friendly.'' 
In particular, we find that it is appropriate to require consumers, in 
the first instance, to articulate basic elements of any claim that a 
location is unserved, but that, after such a showing, it is appropriate 
that providers have the burden to demonstrate, if appropriate, facts 
that sufficiently rebut the challenger's claim. NRECA supports such an 
approach, arguing that the Commission should establish a preponderance 
of the evidence standard and shift the burden of proof to the provider 
after challenger raises ``a legitimate challenge or question regarding 
the reported service availability.'' According to NRECA, ``[t]his would 
provide the relevant information in the most efficient manner for 
resolution.'' We agree and find that it would be inappropriate to 
establish a heavier evidentiary burden in consumer challenges than a 
preponderance-of-the-evidence standard or to place the burden of proof 
on the challenger at all phases.
    88. While consumers will generally have greater familiarity with 
the circumstances that prompt them to challenge coverage, providers are 
in the best position to evaluate and document the specifics of their 
networks at a consumer location. It is thus necessary to shift the 
burden to the provider to rebut preliminarily valid challenges. These 
processes will encourage the sharing of information, opportunities for 
cooperation, and prompt resolution of challenges. We continue to 
believe that this dispute resolution process achieves the Broadband 
DATA Act's objectives, while minimizing burdens on the parties and 
conserving valuable Commission resources to the maximum extent 
possible.
    89. Consumer Challenge of Fabric Data. We adopt the proposal in the 
Second Order and Third Further Notice to establish a distinct process 
for submitting challenges to location information in the Fabric, which 
would not generally require the involvement of a broadband provider. 
Specifically, there will be three specific bases for a challenge to the 
Fabric: 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. We will also permit challengers to Fabric data 
to provide text and documentation in the portal to challenge other 
aspects of the Fabric data. Challenges to the Fabric data will be filed 
on the same portal as challenges of availability and coverage map data, 
along with the submission of much of the same information, including 
details and evidence about the disputed location and a selection of 
pre-established categories of disputes. As proposed, the challenge 
process platform will provide challengers with an acknowledgement of 
their submissions and information about the process, including expected 
timing. Also as proposed, the portal will notify affected providers of 
the challenge and allow, but not require, them to submit information 
relating to the Fabric challenge. We also adopt the proposed goal of 
resolving challenges to the Fabric within 60 days of receipt of the 
challenge and will provide notification of the resolution to the 
challenger and affected providers.
2. Challenges by Governmental and Other Entities to Fixed Broadband 
Internet Access Service and Fabric Data
    90. Challenges to Coverage Data. As with consumer challenges to 
fixed data, we largely adopt the proposed processes for challenges from 
governmental and other entities to coverage and Fabric data. 
Specifically, we will allow government and other entities to file 
challenges to coverage reported at locations where they are not actual 
or potential consumers of the reported broadband service. As proposed 
in the Second Order and Third Further Notice, we will require the 
following information from these challengers, some of which is the same 
information

[[Page 18139]]

as is required for consumer challenges: (1) The name and contact 
information for the challenging entity; (2) the geographic coordinates 
(latitude/longitude) or the street addresses of the locations at which 
coverage is disputed; (3) the names of the providers whose data are 
being disputed; (4) one or more categories of dispute, selected from 
pre-established options--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, installations attempted 
but unsuccessful, reported speed not available for purchase; (5) 
evidence/details supporting dispute, including: (a) The challenger's 
methodology, (b) factual and other basis for assertions 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. For government and 
third-party challenges to Fabric data, we also require challengers to 
submit details and evidence about the disputed location.
    91. We also adopt processes and timeframes for provider replies and 
dispute resolution for challenges by governmental and other entities, 
following a similar approach to the one we adopt for consumer 
challenges to availability and coverage. Specifically, once a challenge 
containing all the required elements is submitted in the online portal, 
the locations covered by the challenge will be identified in the public 
coverage maps as ``in dispute by governmental or other entity/pending 
resolution.'' We decline to give providers 180 days to respond to bulk 
challenges, as urged by ACA Connects, because this would be contrary to 
the Broadband DATA Act's mandate that we adopt a process for ``speedy 
resolution of challenges'' and ACA Connects provides no basis for 
establishing such an extended timeframe for this process. The online 
portal shall alert a provider if there has been a challenge submitted 
against it, and providers will have 60 days within which to reply to a 
challenge by a governmental or other entity in the online portal. In 
the event that the provider disputes the challenge, the challenger and 
the provider will then have 60 days to attempt to resolve the 
challenge. If the parties are able to resolve some or all of the 
challenge in that time, then they must notify the Commission and the 
provider must remove any locations that are not served within 30 days 
and the Commission will remove the ``in dispute/pending resolution'' 
for any others so designated.
    92. If the parties are unable to reach consensus within 60 days, 
then the provider must report the outcome of efforts to resolve the 
challenge in the online portal, after which the Commission will review 
the evidence and make a determination--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. As with consumer challenges to 
coverage data, a provider's failure to timely respond to a challenge 
will result in a finding for the challenger.
    93. A number of parties have raised concerns about the possibility 
that third-party challenges to coverage data, especially bulk 
challenges, could be made in bad faith or for inappropriate reasons, 
such as causing competitive harm to filers. USTelecom and ACA Connects 
urge the Commission to ``use a rigorous process for reviewing non-
consumer challenges and apply a clear evidentiary standard particularly 
for bulk challenges so that the Commission and service providers are 
not inundated with illegitimate challenges.'' USTelecom and WISPA 
assert that bulk challenges should only be accepted from governmental 
and Tribal entities or third parties filing on behalf of a consumer or 
group of consumers that have evidence of failing to obtain service. 
USTelecom and WISPA argue that other entities will not have a 
legitimate interest in submitting bulk challenges.
    94. We agree that there is some risk that third-party challenges, 
including bulk challenges, could be filed for improper purposes but 
also note that the Broadband DATA Act contemplated that challenges 
would be open to a variety of entities. Accordingly, we will not 
categorically exclude any challengers from making these challenges. We 
believe that requiring governmental and other challengers to explain 
their methodologies and the bases for their challenges and to certify 
to the accuracy of the information in their challenges will help to 
limit spurious filings. We note that, in contrast to consumer 
challengers, third-party challengers may not always have direct, 
firsthand knowledge of the on-the-ground facts associated with a 
challenge. In such cases, third-party challengers will certify to the 
accuracy of factual assertions concerning how they sourced and 
processed the information submitted with their challenges. 
Additionally, as we did in connection with consumer filings, we require 
that governmental and other filers submit all required elements of a 
challenge before requiring a provider to respond. We agree with 
USTelecom that evidence submitted in support of government and third-
party challenges must meet a higher standard than preponderance of the 
evidence. Accordingly, governmental and other third-party challengers 
must present evidence showing a lack of coverage by clear and 
convincing evidence. We find that a higher evidentiary standard for 
governmental and other challenges is appropriate given the relatively 
more equal level of knowledge and expertise on both sides of this type 
of challenge, the potentially significant burden that these challenges 
can impose on providers, and the possibility of bad faith challenges.
    95. Challenges to Fabric Data. In the Second Order and Third 
Further Notice, the Commission proposed to align the process for 
challenges by governmental and other entities to the Fabric with the 
process for consumer challenges to the Fabric data. We conclude that 
these proposals are appropriate for challenges by governmental and 
other entities to the Fabric data and adopt this proposal. Accordingly, 
challenges to the Fabric data by governmental and other entities will 
be initiated in the same portal as other challenges to coverage and 
Fabric data with the same filing requirements as apply to consumer 
challenges to the Fabric. As with other challenges, the portal will 
provide the challenger with an acknowledgement of the challenge and 
will notify any affected providers of the challenge and allow, but not 
require, them to submit information relating to the Fabric challenge. 
We adopt the proposed goal of resolving challenges to the Fabric within 
60 days of receipt of the challenge and, as with consumer challenges, 
will provide a notification of the outcome of each challenge to the 
challenger and affected providers.
    96. The Commission received limited comments concerning challenges 
to the Fabric data. The National States Geographic Information Council 
(NSGIC) indicates that most states have extensive GIS data that could 
be useful in challenging the broadband map and the Fabric. The NSGIC 
urges the Commission to provide an easy, flexible means for states to 
provide statewide datasets on a wholesale basis. We agree that such 
information could potentially be extremely useful in improving the

[[Page 18140]]

accuracy of map and note that states and other entities wishing to 
submit such data will have the option of submitting them to us as 
verified third-party data or through a formal challenge to the Fabric.

G. Mobile Service Challenge Process

    97. The Broadband DATA Act requires the Commission to adopt rules 
to 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 the Second Order 
and Third Further Notice, the Commission proposed a user-friendly 
challenge process for consumers, State, local and Tribal governments, 
and other entities seeking to challenge mobile broadband coverage map 
data. In this Third Report and Order, we adopt the Commission's 
proposals from the Second Order and Third Further Notice, with the 
modifications described below. As stated in the Second Order and Third 
Further Notice, the Commission's objective in adopting rules is to 
create a process that ``encourages participation to maximize the 
accuracy of the maps, while also accounting for the variable nature of 
wireless service.''
1. Consumer Challenges of Mobile Coverage Data
    98. First, we adopt the proposal to allow consumers to challenge 
mobile coverage data based on lack of service or poor service quality 
such as slow delivered user speeds. The Broadband DATA Act requires the 
Commission to consider the costs to consumers and providers resulting 
from a misallocation of funds because of a reliance on outdated or 
otherwise inaccurate information in the coverage maps, and we agree 
with commenters that permitting mobile broadband coverage challenges 
will help us verify the accuracy of mobile coverage maps by providing 
us with a source of on-the-ground data that reflects consumer 
experience in areas across the country. Specifically, the Broadband 
DATA Act establishes minimum speeds of 5/1 Mbps for 4G LTE services as 
a requirement of demonstrating coverage. In the Second Order and Third 
Further Notice we expanded the Broadband DATA Act's general approach to 
establishing mobile coverage to 3G and 5G-NR coverage as well. Thus, we 
do not believe that we could reasonably collect challenges to mobile 
coverage without relying on speed testing.
    99. Consistent with the requirements of the Broadband DATA Act, we 
adopt our proposals to collect identifying information and speed test 
data from consumer challengers. In the Second Order and Third Further 
Notice, we proposed to collect identifying information from mobile 
consumer challengers. The Third Further Notice also asked whether such 
identifying information would cover all potential challenges authorized 
by the Broadband DATA Act and facilitate participation in the challenge 
process, while also being detailed enough to discourage frivolous 
filings. We also proposed to require consumers challenging mobile 
broadband coverage to submit speed test evidence. The Commission sought 
comment on whether to require a minimum number of speed tests, specify 
the distance between speed tests, or require that speed tests be 
conducted during a specified time period as part of the data 
collection. The Commission also sought comment on whether it should 
require the use of a specific speed test application.
    100. Commenters supported requiring consumers to supply identifying 
information and speed test data to enable mobile service providers to 
defend challenges of mobile broadband data coverage. Commenters also 
submitted specific recommendations about the information that 
challengers should be required to include in a challenge and the rules 
that should apply to speed test data. Commenters urged the Commission 
to take steps to deter frivolous filings. Commenters also urged us to 
establish procedures specifying how and when mobile service providers 
are required to respond to consumer challenges. We agree with 
commenters that we should require consumer challengers to provide 
identifying information sufficient to deter frivolous filings, ensure 
the reliability and consistency of challenges, and specify how and when 
mobile providers are required to respond to consumer challenges.
    101. Submission of certain identifying information is appropriate 
to deter frivolous filings, and we therefore require consumers 
challenging mobile broadband coverage data to submit the following 
information: (1) The name and contact information of the challenger 
(e.g., address, phone number, and/or email address); (2) the name of 
the provider being challenged; and (3) a certification that the 
challenger is a subscriber or authorized user of the provider being 
challenged. When collecting, storing, using, or disseminating 
personally identifiable information in connection with the challenge 
process described here, the Commission will comply with the 
requirements of the Privacy Act of 1974, 5 U.S.C. 552(a).
    102. We also require consumers to submit speed test data to support 
their mobile coverage challenges. Consumer challengers must take all 
speed tests outdoors. Commenters express support for requiring 
consumers to take speed tests outdoors. Mobile providers are required 
to submit propagation maps reflecting outdoor coverage, and therefore 
requiring consumers to perform speed tests outdoors will ensure that 
speed tests measure the coverage that providers are required to model. 
Consumer challengers must also indicate whether each test was taken in 
an in-vehicle mobile or outdoor pedestrian environment. Tests taken on 
bicycles and motorcycles will be considered tests from in-vehicle 
mobile environments. Tests taken from stationary positions and tests 
taken at pedestrian walking speeds will be considered tests taken in 
outdoor pedestrian environments. Verizon urges the Commission to 
require, for any drive tests conducted by challengers, that the 
challenger stop the vehicle to run the test and place the test device 
outside the vehicle or connect it to an external antenna. We decline to 
adopt such a requirement because we find that it would add complexity 
to the speed test rules we adopt for consumer challengers that would be 
inconsistent with the Commission's obligation under the Broadband DATA 
Act to adopt a user-friendly approach that encourages participation in 
the challenge process. As outlined above, as they are submitting their 
challenges, consumers will be required to indicate whether each test 
was taken in an in-vehicle mobile or outdoor pedestrian environment.
    103. Although the Commission proposed requiring consumer 
challengers to submit speed test data only in connection with quality 
of service challenges, we find that consumers challenging mobile 
broadband availability and/or quality of service should submit the same 
information in support of both types of challenges. The data typically 
collected by speed test apps can be used for both types of challenges 
and the data will be useful for the Commission and challenged parties 
when evaluating challenger data. To ensure that consumer challenge data 
meet necessary reporting requirements, we require consumers to use a 
speed test application that has been designated by

[[Page 18141]]

OET, in consultation with OEA and WTB, for use in the challenge 
process. To ensure that the challenge submission format includes an 
online mechanism as required by Section 802(b)(5)(B)(iv)(I)-(IV) of the 
Broadband DATA Act and is user-friendly, and in order to reduce the 
burdens on consumers seeking to submit challenges, applications 
approved by OET for collecting consumer challenges must automatically 
collect the following information associated with each speed test: (1) 
The geographic coordinates of the test(s) (latitude/longitude); (2) 
consumer device type, brand/model, and operating system used; (3) 
download and upload speeds; (4) latency; (5) the date and time of the 
test; (6) signal strength, if available; (7) an indication of whether 
the test failed to establish a connection with a mobile network at the 
time and place it was initiated; (8) network technology (e.g., LTE, 5G) 
and spectrum bands used for the test; and (9) the location of the 
server to which the test connected. Commenters generally support 
including these metrics. In addition, designated applications must 
allow consumer challengers to submit all of the information required to 
support a challenge directly to the Commission from their mobile 
device.
    104. Approved speed test applications also must require users 
submitting challenges to certify that the user is the subscriber or 
authorized user of the provider being challenged; that the speed test 
measurements were taken outdoors; and that to the best of the person's 
actual knowledge, information, and belief, the handset and the speed 
test application are in ordinary working order and all statements of 
fact contained in the submission are true and correct. Consumers must 
also be able to indicate, through the speed test application, whether 
each test was taken in an in-vehicle mobile or outdoor pedestrian 
environment. Approved speed test applications also must include an 
appropriate privacy notice about how consumer data will be stored, 
used, and protected. We find that requiring the use of approved speed 
test applications that automatically capture relevant speed test 
details and allow consumers to submit speed test results directly will 
both facilitate consumers' participation in the challenge process and 
enable the Commission to verify that the necessary data are submitted 
with each challenge in accordance with the requirements of the 
Broadband DATA Act. We direct OET, in consultation with OEA and WTB, to 
update the FCC Speed Test App as necessary or develop a new speed test 
application to collect the metrics and include the functionalities set 
forth above, so that challengers may use it in the challenge process. 
We also direct OET to approve additional third-party speed test 
applications that collect all necessary data and include the 
functionalities described above.
    105. We recognize that, unlike the government and third party 
challenges, consumers likely will submit challenges regarding distinct, 
localized areas (e.g., at or near their homes and businesses) and will 
not have the time and resources to engage in testing a broader area or 
for extended periods. In order to encourage consumers to participate in 
the challenge process, while at the same time assuring that providers 
are not subject to the undue cost of responding to a large number of 
challenges to very small areas, we direct OEA, in consultation with 
WTB, to determine the threshold number of mobile consumer challenges 
within a specified area that will constitute a challenge triggering a 
provider's obligation to respond. In the Second Order and Third Further 
Notice, the Commission sought comment on establishing rules for 
consumer challengers, including rules requiring a minimum number of 
speed test observations. Mobile service providers argue that a 
requirement to respond to every consumer challenge would be a 
substantial burden. While we cannot predict precisely how many 
challenges consumers will submit, we expect the number will be 
significant and agree that the challenge process should resolve 
challenges in an efficient manner, mitigate the time and expense 
involved, and ensure that the mobile coverage maps are as reliable and 
useful as possible. To meet these objectives, the Commission will 
aggregate speed test results received from multiple consumer 
challengers in the same general area. When these aggregated results 
reach an appropriate threshold, they will constitute a cognizable 
challenge requiring a provider response. We direct OEA, in consultation 
with WTB, to establish the methodology for determining this threshold. 
In developing this methodology, OEA should consider, inter alia, the 
number, location, and timing of the tests, variability in test results, 
and whether the tests were conducted in urban or rural areas.
    106. We also direct OEA, in consultation with WTB, to establish the 
methodology for determining the boundaries of a geographic area where 
the threshold for a cognizable challenge has been met. For example, 
AT&T has submitted a preliminary proposal for defining a challenge area 
based on the test data submitted by the challenger(s), and we direct 
OEA, in consultation with WTB, to consider this proposal as well as 
other proposals as they develop the methodology that will be used. 
Speed test results submitted by consumer challengers that do not reach 
the threshold of a cognizable challenge will nevertheless be 
incorporated in the Commission's analysis of crowdsourced data. We 
direct OEA, in consultation with WTB, to establish the procedures for 
notifying service providers of cognizable challenges filed against 
them. Finally, we agree with AT&T that experience over time may warrant 
adjustments to the methodology used to define the scope of a challenge. 
To the extent that experience warrants that the specifications, data 
format, or methodology for making such a determination be refined or 
adjusted, we further direct the staff, after notice and comment, to 
adjust the methodology for determining the threshold for a challenge 
and for establishing the boundaries of a challenge area.
    107. Challenge Responses. For challenged areas, we require 
providers either to submit a rebuttal to the challenge or to concede 
the challenge within a 60-day period of being notified of the 
challenge. We agree with commenters that permitting 60 days to respond 
to a challenge, rather than the proposed 30 days, makes the challenge 
process more manageable for providers, while also providing for speedy 
resolution of challenges consistent with the requirements of the 
Broadband DATA Act.
    108. To rebut a challenge, we require each provider to submit to 
the Commission either on-the-ground test data or infrastructure data, 
so that Commission staff can examine the provider's coverage in the 
challenged area and resolve the challenge. We recognize that on-the-
ground testing or infrastructure data alone may not be sufficient for 
the Commission to evaluate a challenge fully in all cases. To the 
extent that a service provider believes that it would be helpful to the 
Commission in resolving a challenge, the provider may submit other data 
in addition to the required data, including but not limited to, either 
infrastructure or on-the-ground testing data (to the extent such data 
are not the primary rebuttal option submitted by the provider) or other 
types of data, such as data collected from network transmitter 
monitoring systems or software, or spectrum band-specific coverage 
maps. To permit speedy resolution of challenges, such other data must 
be submitted at the same time as the

[[Page 18142]]

primary on-the-ground testing or infrastructure rebuttal data submitted 
by the provider. If needed to ensure adequate review, OEA may also 
require that the provider submit other data in addition to the data 
initially submitted, including but not limited to, either 
infrastructure or on-the-ground testing data (to the extent not the 
option initially chosen by the provider) or data collected from network 
transmitter monitoring systems or software (to the extent available in 
the provider's network) within 60 days upon OEA's request.
    109. We agree with commenters that adopting a flexible approach for 
responding to challenges will help mitigate the time and expense 
involved and encourage prompt resolution in accordance with the 
requirements of the Broadband DATA Act. This approach is consistent 
with our decision to give service providers a choice in how to respond 
to coverage map verification requests from staff, and both types of 
data generally should enable us to review the merits of the challenge 
while at the same time affording the service providers the opportunity 
to decide the most cost-effective means of rebutting the challenge on a 
case-by-case basis. A mobile service provider that submits on-the-
ground test data to rebut a challenge will be subject to the same on-
the-ground test data requirements and specifications as apply to 
provider submissions of the data in the verification context described 
above. Similarly, a mobile service provider that submits infrastructure 
data to rebut a challenge will be subject to the same infrastructure 
data requirements and specifications that apply to case-by-case 
provider submissions of these data in the verification context 
described above. In the Second Order and Third Further Notice, the 
Commission proposed that mobile providers seeking to rebut a challenge 
must submit a reply in the online portal within 30 days of being 
notified of a challenge. For challenges involving delivered speeds, the 
Commission also proposed that a provider disputing the challenge must 
submit evidence that it has evaluated the speed of its service at the 
location of the dispute and has determined that the delivered speeds of 
the service match the speeds indicated on the provider's coverage map. 
Providers argue that the Commission should permit additional time to 
respond to challenges. They also urge the Commission to allow providers 
flexibility in responding to challenges. CTIA argues that the 
Commission's rules should not require providers to respond in a 
particular way and that the most appropriate response will vary 
depending on the nature of the challenge. Verizon similarly urges the 
Commission to allow providers multiple options for responding to 
challenges, including providing on-the-ground speed test measurements, 
data collected from transmitter monitoring software, or other speed 
test data. . . .'' In cases where providers must revise maps in 
response to a challenge, CTIA requests that providers be allowed to 
update maps as part of their next Digital Opportunity Data Collection 
filing.
    110. Several mobile providers urge the Commission to provide 
additional flexibility in the types of data that can be submitted in 
response to consumer challenges, and they specifically argue that they 
should be permitted to submit drive testing data collected in the 
ordinary course of business, third-party testing data, such as Ookla 
data, and/or tower transmitter data collected from monitoring software. 
The provider may voluntarily submit these or other types of additional 
data to support its rebuttal, but we do not believe the record supports 
a finding that such data are sufficient to permit such alternative data 
to be a complete substitute for either on-the-ground testing or 
infrastructure data. We therefore direct OEA to review such data when 
voluntarily submitted by providers in response to consumer challenges. 
If, after reviewing such data, OEA concludes that any of the data 
sources are sufficiently reliable, we direct them to specify the 
appropriate standards and specifications for each type of data and add 
it to the alternatives available to providers to rebut a consumer 
challenge. In so directing OEA to make such a determination, we 
specifically recognize that such an analysis may lead them to expand 
the options available to providers for responses with respect to 
consumer challenges, but not do so for other purposes, including 
responses to governmental and other entity challenges and/or 
verification investigations.
    111. When a provider responds to a consumer challenge, the 
consumers who submitted the data will be notified and be able to see 
the provider's response. We direct OEA to develop a methodology and 
mechanism to determine if the data submitted by a provider constitute a 
successful rebuttal to all or some of the challenged service area and 
to establish procedures to notify challengers and providers of the 
results of the challenge. Consistent with our decision in the fixed 
context, we direct OEA to use the ``preponderance of the evidence'' 
standard in creating the mechanism to resolve challenges with the 
burden on the provider to verify their coverage maps in the challenged 
area. If a provider that has failed to rebut a challenge subsequently 
takes remedial action to improve coverage at the location of the 
challenge, the provider must notify the Commission of the actions it 
has taken to improve its coverage and provide either on-the-ground test 
data or infrastructure data to verify its improved coverage.
    112. Consistent with the fixed challenge process, in cases where a 
mobile service provider concedes or loses a challenge, the provider 
must file, within 30 days, geospatial data depicting the challenged 
area that has been shown to lack service. Such data will constitute a 
correction layer to the provider's original propagation model-based 
coverage map, and Commission staff will use this layer to update the 
broadband coverage map. In addition, to the extent that a provider does 
not later improve coverage for the relevant technology in an area where 
it has conceded or lost a challenge, it must include this correction 
layer in its subsequent Digital Opportunity Data Collection filings to 
indicate the areas shown to lack service.
2. Challenges by Governmental and Other Entities to Mobile Data
    113. Minimum Requirements for Challengers. For the reasons 
described above regarding consumer challenges of mobile provider data, 
where we allow consumers to submit mobile broadband coverage challenges 
based on lack of mobile broadband service or poor service quality, such 
as slow delivered speeds, we also permit governmental and other 
entities to challenge mobile broadband coverage based on those grounds.
    114. In the Second Order and Third Further Notice, the Commission 
proposed that governmental and other entities follow a grid-based 
approach for submitting standardized challenge data. Specifically, the 
Commission proposed to overlay a uniform grid of one square kilometer 
(1 km by 1 km) grid cells on each carrier's propagation model-based 
coverage maps and 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. 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 asked for comment on the

[[Page 18143]]

number of speed test measurements it should require in each grid cell 
and discussed alternative approaches, including requiring challengers 
to submit at least three speed test measurements per square kilometer 
grid cell in the disputed area or speed test measurements in a certain 
percentage of grid cells in a challenged area.
    115. Commenters disagree concerning the Commission's proposal. 
AT&T, for example, argues that the proposed approach is overly complex 
and that the Commission should instead permit challengers to conduct 
speed tests in the area they wish to challenge and submit the results 
with latitude and longitude information. Verizon urges the Commission 
to adopt strict evidentiary standards and argues that requiring three 
speed test measurements per square kilometer grid cell is insufficient 
to assess coverage. The California PUC opposes the proposed grid-based 
approach, urging the Commission instead to provide more flexibility to 
government entities submitting challenges.
    116. For mobile broadband coverage challenges, we require 
government and third-party entities to submit speed test data, but we 
decline to adopt the grid-based approach described in the Second Order 
and Third Further Notice. The Broadband DATA Act requires the 
Commission to consider lessons learned from the challenge process 
established in the Mobility Fund Phase II proceeding, and we agree with 
commenters that the grid-based approach that the Commission adopted in 
that proceeding added unnecessary complexity for challengers. Adopting 
a grid-based approach for this proceeding could also discourage 
participation by government and third-party entities. We recognize that 
such challengers may use different tools to obtain speed test 
measurement data, including their own data gathering and mapping 
programs. We want to create a flexible approach that permits these 
parties to participate in the challenge process, so that the Commission 
may use their data to improve the mobile broadband coverage maps.
    117. To give flexibility to challengers, we will not require 
government and other entity challengers to use a Commission-approved 
speed test application, but rather will allow them to use their own 
software to collect data for the challenge process. When they submit 
their data, however, the data must contain the following metrics for 
each test: (1) The geographic coordinates of the tests (i.e., latitude/
longitude); (2) the name of the service provider being tested; (3) the 
consumer-grade device type, brand/model, and operating system used for 
the test; (4) the download and upload speeds; (5) the latency; (6) the 
date and time of the test; (7) whether the test was taken in an in-
vehicle mobile or outdoor pedestrian environment, and if in-vehicle, 
whether the test was conducted with the antenna outside of the vehicle; 
(8) for an in-vehicle test, the speed the vehicle was traveling when 
the test was taken, if available; (9) the signal strength, if 
available; (10) an indication of whether the test failed to establish a 
connection with a mobile network at the time and place it was 
initiated; (11) the network technology (e.g., LTE, 5G) and spectrum 
bands used for the test; and (12) the location of the server to which 
the test connected. Given the more complex nature of government and 
other entity data gathering programs, we require government and other 
entity challengers to submit more detail regarding speed tests that 
were taken in an in-vehicle mobile environment than we require for 
consumer challengers. Commenters express support for providing 
flexibility for governmental and third-party challenges. We note that 
these metrics are substantially the same as the metrics we require 
approved speed test applications to collect for consumer challenges. 
Commenters generally support including these metrics. Government and 
third-party challengers must also submit a complete description of the 
methodologies used to collect their data. We also adopt the 
Commission's proposal to require government and other entities to 
substantiate their data through the certification of a qualified 
engineer or official. Although the California PUC opposes such a 
requirement based on concerns about cost, it does not quantify 
potential costs and we find that requiring a certification from a 
qualified engineer or official is necessary to help ensure the 
reliability of the different methodologies that governmental and other 
entity challengers may use to collect their data. Moreover, for those 
governmental and other entities wishing to avoid costs associated with 
certifying the results, they remain free to submit challenge data to 
the Commission through approved applications under the consumer 
challenge process.
    118. We require government and other entity challengers to conduct 
on-the-ground tests using a device advertised by the challenged 
provider as compatible with its network and to conduct all tests 
outdoors. To avoid adding additional complexity, we decline requests to 
adopt additional evidentiary standards, such as a maximum speed for in-
vehicle tests, but direct OEA, WTB, and OET to adopt additional testing 
requirements if it determines it is necessary to do so.
    119. We also will permit competing mobile service providers to 
submit challenges. In the Second Order and Third Further Notice, the 
Commission acknowledged 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, and 
the Commission sought comment on whether to permit challenges from 
competing mobile providers. At least one commenter expresses concern 
about permitting challenges from competing mobile providers. While we 
recognize the concerns that have been expressed, we nevertheless 
conclude that, on balance, the maps will be a more reliable data source 
with those challenges than without. As we conclude that we will permit 
challenges from other service providers, we do not pass on the question 
of whether we may lawfully exclude any class of potential challenger. 
We also decline to establish different evidentiary standards for 
competing mobile service providers and instead require them to follow 
the same rules as other non-consumer challengers. We expect that the 
requirements and procedures we adopt for challenging mobile broadband 
coverage data will allow us to verify and ensure the reliability of 
challenge process data submitted by all challengers in accordance with 
the Commission's obligations under the Broadband DATA Act. And, given 
the potential costs of widespread on-the-ground testing, we expect that 
like other entities, service providers will not waste resources lodging 
challenges they know are unlikely to succeed.
    120. Consistent with the approach we adopt for consumer challenges 
in the mobile context, we will aggregate speed test evidence received 
from multiple governmental and third-party challengers in the same 
general area. When these aggregated results reach an appropriate 
threshold to be determined by the OEA, they will constitute a 
cognizable challenge that requires a provider response. We direct OEA, 
in consultation with WTB, to establish the methodology for determining 
this threshold and establishing the boundaries of an area where the 
threshold has been met. On-the-ground test data submitted by 
governmental and third parties that do not reach the threshold of a 
cognizable challenge will

[[Page 18144]]

be considered in the Commission's analysis of crowdsourced data. 
Finally, we agree with AT&T that OEA's experience over time in 
verifying coverage data and evaluating challenges may warrant 
adjustments to the methodology used to define the scope of a challenge. 
To the extent that such experience warrants adjustment or refinement to 
the specifications, data format, or methodology for making such a 
determination, we further direct the staff, after notice and comment, 
to adjust the methodology for determining the threshold for a challenge 
and for establishing the boundaries of a challenge area.
    121. Challenge Responses. We adopt the same challenge response 
process for government and third-party entities as we do for consumer 
challenges in the mobile context. We require providers either to submit 
a rebuttal to the challenge within a 60-day period of receiving notice 
of the challenge, which rebuttal shall consist of either data from on-
the-ground tests or infrastructure data, or else concede the challenge 
and thereby have the challenged area identified on the mobile coverage 
map as an area that lacks sufficient service. We have directed OEA and 
WTB to develop the specific requirements and methodologies that 
providers must use in conducting on-the-ground testing and in providing 
infrastructure data. In response to commenters that urge the Commission 
to provide additional flexibility in the types of data that can be 
submitted in response to government and third-party challenges, we note 
that, to the extent that a service provider believes it would be 
helpful to the Commission in resolving a challenge, the provider may 
submit other data in addition to the data initially required. These 
other data may include, but are not limited to, either infrastructure 
or on-the-ground testing data (to the extent such data are not the 
primary option chosen by the provider) or other types of data, such as 
data collected from network transmitter monitoring systems or software, 
or spectrum band-specific coverage maps. The data submitted by 
providers will be reviewed by OEA. To the extent that such review 
supports a conclusion that any such data are sufficiently reliable, OEA 
shall specify appropriate standards and specifications for that type of 
data and add it to the alternatives available to providers to rebut 
governmental and other third-party challenges. To permit speedy 
resolution of a challenge, such other data must be submitted at the 
same time as the primary on-the-ground testing or infrastructure 
rebuttal data submitted by the provider.
    122. We recognize that on-the-ground testing or infrastructure data 
alone may not be sufficient for the Commission to investigate a 
challenge fully in all cases. Accordingly, if needed to ensure an 
adequate review, OEA may also require that the provider submit other 
data in addition to the data initially submitted, including but not 
limited to, either infrastructure or on-the-ground testing data (to the 
extent not the option initially chosen by the provider) or data 
collected from network transmitter monitoring systems or software (to 
the extent available in the provider's network) within 60 days upon 
OEA's request.
    123. We decline to adopt the suggestion of certain commenters that 
the Commission permit government and other entities to file challenges 
only during a limited time period each year because we find that it 
would likely inhibit participation in the challenge process and limit 
the Commission's ability to obtain timely data that will help us 
improve the accuracy of mobile coverage maps. However, we will only 
accept new challenges to the most recently published coverage maps. If 
a provider that has failed to rebut a challenge subsequently takes 
remedial action to improve coverage at the location of the challenge, 
the provider must notify the Commission of the actions it has taken to 
improve its coverage and provide either on-the-ground test data or 
infrastructure data to verify its improved coverage.
    124. Consistent with the fixed challenge process and with the 
process we adopt for consumer challenges in the mobile context, in 
cases where a mobile provider concedes or loses a challenge, the 
provider must file, within 30 days, geospatial data depicting the 
challenged area that has been shown to lack sufficient service. To the 
extent a provider must make multiple updates to its coverage maps as a 
result of the challenge process, it can batch them together, but all 
updates must meet the 30-day deadline. Such data will constitute a 
correction layer to the provider's original propagation model-based 
coverage map, and Commission staff will use this layer to update the 
broadband coverage map. In addition, to the extent that a provider does 
not later improve coverage for the relevant technology in an area where 
it conceded or lost a challenge, it must include this correction layer 
in its subsequent Digital Opportunity Data Collection filings to 
indicate the areas shown to lack service.
3. Public Availability of Information Filed in the Challenge Processes
    125. Consistent with our proposal in the Second Order and Third 
Further Notice, the Commission will make public the 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. Commenters support this proposal, and we agree that public 
input will be most effective if these data are made available, so that 
all stakeholders have access to the facts and methods through which 
coverage is evaluated in the challenge process. We will keep all other 
challenge information, such as individual contact information, private 
based on the personal privacy interests involved and our conclusion 
that its disclosure would not be ``helpful to improve the quality of 
broadband data reporting.''

H. Implementation of Broadband Locations Fabric Database

    126. In the Second Order and Third Further Notice, the Commission 
noted that, while the Broadband DATA Act authorizes the Commission to 
contract for the creation and maintenance of the Fabric, the Commission 
had not been appropriated funding to cover the cost of implementing the 
Fabric. Congress has recently authorized funding for the implementation 
of the Digital Opportunity Data Collection and the Fabric, which will 
enable us to move forward with procurements and other steps necessary 
to create and operate these platforms. Today we adopt certain 
definitions and standards for use in the context of the Fabric. As an 
important first step, we adopt as the fundamental definition of a 
``location'' for purposes of the Fabric: A business or residential 
location in the United States at which fixed broadband internet access 
service is, or can be, installed. This definition closely tracks the 
one used in connection with the Commission's high-cost programs, as 
proposed in the Second Order and Third Further Notice, with slight 
refinements to align with the language of the Broadband DATA Act. We 
also adopt the proposal to have the Fabric reflect each location as a 
single point defined by a set of geographic coordinates that fall 
within the footprint of a building. We note that USTelecom and WISPA 
urge us to reflect locations as a single point, defined by both 
geographic coordinates and street addresses. We agree with USTelecom 
and WISPA that street addresses are textual and can be inconsistent as 
a

[[Page 18145]]

label. Accordingly, while street addresses are likely to be useful in 
the Fabric, we decline to commit to a specific role for such data until 
we are able to determine the types of data and functionality that will 
be available through the procurement process.
    127. Additionally, we adopt definitions of ``residential location'' 
and ``business location'' that are based on the definitions of those 
terms that are used in connection with the CAF, with some 
modifications. We note that there was significant support in the record 
for defining locations in the Fabric consistent with the guidance in 
the CAF, and we do so here with certain refinements. Specifically, we 
will treat the following as a ``residential location'' in the Fabric: 
All residential structures, including all structures that are, or 
contain, ``housing units'' or ``group quarters'' based on the U.S. 
Census Bureau definition of these terms. We determine to include group 
quarters in this definition, which is a departure from the definition 
used in connection with the CAF, because we believe this will be more 
consistent with the intention of the Broadband DATA Act that the Fabric 
include ``all locations in the United States where fixed broadband 
internet access service can be installed.''
    128. We will treat the following as business locations in the 
Fabric: All non-residential (business, government, non-profit, etc.) 
structures that are on a property without residential locations and 
that would be expected to demand broadband internet access service. As 
with residential locations, we define a building with multiple offices 
as a single location in the Fabric, and we anticipate that each 
individual building will be a location. However, as with residential 
locations, we recognize that there may be instances where it is not 
appropriate to count every building as a distinct location (e.g., 
buildings without power or multiple buildings on the same property 
owned and occupied by the same entity). We direct OEA, in consultation 
with WCB, to ensure that locations reflect broadband serviceability to 
the extent they are able to make determinations given the data 
available.
    129. We anticipate that the Fabric will include all individual 
structures to which broadband internet access service can be installed, 
consistent with the proposal in the Second Order and Third Further 
Notice. There may be some circumstances, however, where counting each 
individual building or structure might not reflect the way broadband 
service is provisioned (e.g., broadband may not be deployed 
individually to each occupied boat in a marina or to a central location 
in the marina; or to homes without electric power). For example, from 
the definition of ``housing units'' at https://www.census.gov/housing/hvs/definitions.pdf: ``Tents and boats are excluded if vacant, used for 
business, or used for extra sleeping space or vacations'' so occupied 
boats are housing units . . . which is much easier for a snapshot in 
time as the census officially is.'' As USTelecom and WISPA note, 
``[t]he Fabric, as it is described in the Broadband DATA Act, is 
intended to report serviceable locations so that when providers report 
on top of the Fabric, those locations with available service and those 
lacking service will be revealed with granularity.'' We direct OEA, in 
consultation with WCB, to ensure that locations reflect broadband 
serviceability to the extent they are able to make determinations given 
the data available. For example, USTelecom and WISPA seek guidance on 
whether mobile homes will be treated as housing units for purposes of 
the Fabric, contending that land use and tax records can resolve 
ambiguities on whether such structures are stationary or recreational 
vehicles temporarily at a location.
    130. As proposed, we determine to identify a Multi-Tenant 
Environment as a single record in the Fabric and, to the extent 
feasible, to associate the number of units within each Multi-Tenant 
Environment with the Multi-Tenant Environment's location information in 
the Fabric. USTelecom and WISPA support this approach because of the 
difficulty in precisely identifying all of the individual units in 
Multi-Tenant Environments, especially large ones, and because, as 
Connected Nation notes, ``capturing information on the location of each 
unit within every Multi-Tenant Environment across the United States 
would likely be cost-prohibitive, and also unnecessary, given that 
broadband service delivered to a given Multi-Tenant Environment 
structure would be made available to all units within that structure.'' 
It is because of this difficulty and additional burden on providers 
that we disagree with commenters such as NRECA and the City of New York 
that argue for assigning unique location identifiers to each unit in a 
Multi-Tenant Environment. In the end, we direct OEA, in consultation 
with WCB, to analyze these determinations during the procurement 
process. If appropriate, we direct OEA and WCB, after seeking further 
notice and comment in this docket, to determine whether to add to the 
types of datapoints or metrics to be associated with individual 
locations in the Fabric.
    131. For non-residential (i.e., business) locations that share a 
property with residential locations, we anticipate that there may in 
some instances be differences in broadband serviceability. For example, 
a multi-tenant unit with storefronts on the ground floor and apartments 
above might have multiple building entries for residential and business 
service and so it might be appropriate to treat that single building as 
both a residential and a business location. Or, a family farm might 
include both a farmhouse and separate office building (along with a 
number of outer structures like barns, sheds, silos, coops, etc.). We 
direct OEA, in consultation with WCB, to ensure that the treatment of 
such situations reflects broadband serviceability to the extent they 
are able to make determinations given the data available.
    132. Finally, we note that the the procurement process will define 
what types of data and functionality are available and practical for 
inclusion in the Fabric. Accordingly, we find that it would be 
premature to make further determinations about features or elements of 
the Fabric at this point and direct OEA, in consultation with WCB, to 
also determine what additional features or datasets are both available 
and useful for inclusion in the Fabric.

I. Enforcement

    133. The Broadband DATA Act makes it unlawful for an entity or 
individual to willfully and knowingly, or recklessly, submit 
information or data that is materially inaccurate or incomplete with 
respect to the availability of broadband internet access service or the 
quality of service with respect to broadband internet access service. 
In the Second Order and Third Further Notice, the Commission adopted 
this requirement and sought comment on its implementation and how best 
to enforce the Digital Opportunity Data Collection rules. We recognize 
that there is uncertainty surrounding the timing of implementation of 
various aspects of the Digital Opportunity Data Collection, but we 
decline to commit to forgoing enforcement at this time. We expect all 
parties to work in good faith to comply at all times with the 
requirements in effect and will evaluate the appropriateness of taking 
enforcement action accordingly.
    134. In the Second Order and Third Further Notice, the Commission 
sought comment on how the Commission should determine whether an entity 
or individual ``willfully and knowingly'' or

[[Page 18146]]

``recklessly'' submitted inaccurate or incomplete information. The 
Commission noted that other statutes the Commission enforces, such as 
section 510(a) of the Communications Act, include a similar standard of 
proof. The Commission therefore asked commenters what types of evidence 
the Commission would need to show that an entity or individual 
``willfully and knowingly'' or ``recklessly'' submitted materially 
inaccurate or incomplete information.
    135. Commenters generally agree that the Commission should adopt 
its proposed definition of ``willfully and knowingly.'' The City of New 
York argues that the Commission should penalize intentional and 
unintentional reporting errors. We do not believe providers should be 
held strictly liable for all mistakes that may be made in Digital 
Opportunity Data Collection semiannual filings, nor does the statute 
require such an interpretation. Minor inaccuracies will undoubtedly be 
discovered by providers through the crowdsourcing, challenge process, 
audits, and other verification methods established through this 
proceeding, and enforcement action should be reserved for information 
or data that is materially inaccurate or incomplete with respect to the 
availability of broadband services and is submitted willfully and 
knowingly, or recklessly. As the Commission stated in the Second Order 
and Third Further Notice, ``recklessly'' also suggests more than mere 
negligence but something less than intent. A number of commenters 
generally agree with this definition. USTelecom suggests the Commission 
define ``recklessly'' as ``without any reasonable effort to determine 
the accuracy of the data submitted.'' ACA Connects suggests that a 
provider acts recklessly when ``it persistently fails to file accurate 
or complete DODC reports and files such reports without a reasonable 
basis for believing they are accurate and complete.''
    136. Because the Broadband DATA Act does not define ``willful and 
knowingly or recklessly,'' we find it reasonable to look to Commission 
precedent, and, to the extent that the Commission has defined such 
terms in an enforcement context, to use those definitions for purposes 
of enforcement actions under the Broadband DATA Act. The Commission has 
interpreted ``willful'' as the ``conscious and deliberate commission or 
omission of [any] act, irrespective of any intent to violate'' the law. 
We therefore believe the Commission may determine whether conduct is 
``willful and knowing or reckless'' without the need to further clarify 
this point in our rules. Consistent with the Second Order and Third 
Further Notice and the record, the Commission will determine the nature 
of the violation in complying with Digital Opportunity Data Collection 
rules on the grounds of ``willfully and knowingly or recklessly'' 
submitting inaccurate or incomplete information on a case-by-case 
basis, consistent with Commission precedent.
    137. The Second Order and Third Further Notice also requested 
comment on the definition of ``materially inaccurate or incomplete,'' 
including whether the Commission should adopt a qualitative or 
quantitative definition, and what level of inaccuracy or incompleteness 
the information would have to reach before it would be considered 
``material.'' Additionally, the Commission noted that section 
1.17(a)(2) of its rules already makes it unlawful to ``provide material 
factual information that is incorrect or omit material information,'' 
and that 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.
    138. Based on the record and given our obligation to ensure that 
providers submit accurate and complete coverage information, we define 
``materially inaccurate or incomplete'' as a submission that contains 
omissions or incomplete or inaccurate information that the Commission 
finds has a substantial impact on its collection and use of the data 
collected in compliance with the Broadband DATA Act. The Commission 
will find a false statement submitted by a provider as part of its 
Digital Opportunity Data Collection obligations to be an actionable 
violation of section 1.17(a)(2), even absent an intent to deceive, if 
the statement is provided without a reasonable basis for believing that 
the statement is correct and not misleading. We adopt a qualitative 
approach that focuses on the nature of the inaccuracy or 
incompleteness, rather than a quantitative standard that would require 
a showing of multiple inaccurate or incomplete filings in order to rise 
to the level of material. The Commission may consider successful 
challenges to a provider's data as evidence to determine whether a 
submission is materially inaccurate or incomplete.
    139. Penalties. The Commission sought 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 statutes and rules. We will 
assess penalties against providers that file materially inaccurate or 
incomplete information in the same manner that the Commission enforces 
other types of violations under the Communications Act. USTelecom and 
WISPA asked the Commission to only enforce penalties against providers 
that make material errors and to find that inadvertent errors (whether 
material or not) should not be subject to penalties. Several other 
commenters asked the Commission not to penalize providers for all 
submissions that have flaws, or contain minor, inadvertent, or de 
minimis errors or omissions. As discussed, consistent with the 
requirement of the Broadband DATA Act, the Commission will enforce 
penalties against providers who ``willfully and knowingly, or 
recklessly, submit information or data that is materially inaccurate or 
incomplete with respect to the availability of broadband internet 
access service or the quality of service with respect to broadband 
internet access service.'' The Enforcement Bureau will have the ability 
to enforce penalties against providers for all submissions that meet 
this threshold. Section 503(b)(2)(E) of the Communications Act and 
section 1.80(b)(8) of our Rules set forth the factors to be considered 
when determining the amount of forfeiture penalties and empowers the 
Enforcement Bureau to adjust a forfeiture penalty based on several 
factors. These factors include, ``the nature, circumstances, extent and 
gravity of the violation and, with respect to the violator, the degree 
of culpability, any history of prior offenses, ability to pay, and such 
other matters as justice may require.''
    140. The Commission also sought comment on whether to establish a 
base forfeiture amount, subject to adjustment pursuant to section 
503(b) of the Act, and what that amount should be. Only ACA Connects 
responded, asserting that ``failure to provide required forms or 
information to the Commission is subject to a $3,000 base forfeiture 
under the Commission's rules and this amount could serve as a rational 
starting point for the Commission's forfeiture calculations for 
[Digital Opportunity Data Collection] violations.'' While the ACA 
Connects comments appear to address only failure to file required forms 
or information, we note that our decision to impose a base forfeiture 
amount pertains to both materially inaccurate or incomplete Digital 
Opportunity Data Collection filings as

[[Page 18147]]

well as the failure to file required Digital Opportunity Data 
Collection filings. To reflect the importance of the filings at issue, 
and to encourage compliance, we impose a base forfeiture of $15,000 per 
violation on providers that file materially inaccurate or incomplete 
information. We point out that this base forfeiture amount will apply 
in cases where providers file materially inaccurate or incomplete 
information, and in cases where providers fail to make Digital 
Opportunity Data Collection filings. We find this amount appropriate to 
deter bad actors from willfully and knowingly, or recklessly submitting 
materially inaccurate or incorrect coverage data or information, and to 
create sufficient incentive for providers to submit accurate Digital 
Opportunity Data Collection submissions. In setting this base 
forfeiture amount, we consider the types of entities required to make 
Digital Opportunity Data Collection submissions, the need for accurate 
and precise broadband availability maps, and the potential harm to the 
public of having maps that reflect an inaccurate or incomplete picture 
of broadband availability.
    141. We do not require the Enforcement Bureau to look at a 
provider's filing as a singular whole. Instead, the Enforcement Bureau 
may consider whether a filing has multiple omissions or inaccurate data 
and may consider each of those to be a separate violation. We reject 
the proposal put forth by the State of Colorado that would result in 
providers losing eligibility to receive universal service funding or 
forfeiture of previously committed universal service funds, and do not 
adopt the proposal by Next Century Cities, ACA Connects, and others to 
set a standard that offers multiple warnings before imposing sanctions 
on providers. We are not persuaded that a new enforcement mechanism 
such as the one advocated by the State of Colorado will appropriately 
deter providers from filing materially inaccurate or incomplete Digital 
Opportunity Data Collection filings. Commenters were divided on the 
State of Colorado's proposal to make providers ineligible to receive 
USF funds, with states and localities supporting such a proposal, while 
providers generally were not supportive. Commenters also agreed that 
the Commission's existing forfeiture adjustment rules are sufficient. 
Regarding the Next Century Cities proposal, while we find that it is 
important to establish a clear set of rules that consistently apply to 
all providers, we note that the Enforcement Bureau may exercise 
discretion to take into account where appropriate the size and 
geographical location in which a provider makes service available. 
Warnings or reduced forfeitures can also be determined on a case-by-
case basis. Moreover, some providers, such as certain wireless internet 
service providers, are already entitled to a citation before being 
subjected to a forfeiture under section 503 of the Act.
    142. The Commission also proposed and sought comment on an approach 
that would distinguish between entities that make conscientious and 
good faith efforts to provide accurate data and those that fail to take 
their reporting obligations seriously or affirmatively manipulate the 
data being reported. We find that adopting this proposal is unnecessary 
because the statute only addresses situations in which an individual or 
entity ``willfully, knowingly, or recklessly, submit[s] information or 
data . . . that is materially inaccurate or incomplete with respect to 
the availability of broadband internet access service or the quality of 
service with respect to broadband internet access service.'' The 
Commission has adopted the statute's standard and the Enforcement 
Bureau will use it to measure if errors, inaccuracies, or incomplete 
filings that are discovered merit enforcement action, regardless of 
whether those errors, inaccuracies, or incomplete filings are made in 
good faith or otherwise.
    143. The Commission also sought comment on whether section 803 of 
the Broadband DATA Act is an exclusive remedy for all actions under the 
Act or whether behavior that may be actionable under existing 
provisions of the Communications Act or our rules remain subject to 
enforcement under our general section 503 authority. No commenters 
responded to this question. The Broadband DATA Act does not state that 
section 803 should be considered the exclusive mechanism to enforce its 
provisions. Since the Broadband DATA Act amends the Communications Act, 
we find that our existing authority under section 503 of the 
Communications Act allows us to enforce penalties against providers who 
willfully, knowingly, or recklessly file materially inaccurate or 
incomplete broadband availability data in violation of the Broadband 
DATA Act or any other provision of the Communications Act. Retaining 
section 503 authority will enable the Commission to enforce the 
requirements of the Broadband DATA Act under section 503 and ensure 
that providers are appropriately deterred from making inaccurate data 
submissions.
    144. Penalties for failure to file. Consistent with the approach 
the Commission adopted in the Digital Opportunity Data Collection Order 
and Further Notice and the Commission's proposal in the Second Order 
and Third Further Notice, 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. Timely filed Digital Opportunity Data Collection 
information is critical for the Commission to ensure its maps are as 
accurate and up-to-date as possible. The Commission has discretion to 
make upward or downward adjustments from the base forfeiture amount 
taking into considerations the facts of each individual case. To the 
extent a covered provider, however, either fails to file required data, 
or files incorrect data in a subsequent submission, we will consider 
each action a separate violation. The City of New York agrees with the 
Commission's proposal to penalize providers who fail to file the 
required Digital Opportunity Data Collection information and argues 
that penalties should be ongoing until the violation is cured. We 
disagree that the violations should be ``ongoing'' since a failure to 
take an action (filing a report) is a discrete obligation.
    145. Filing corrected data. In the Second Order and Third Further 
Notice, the Commission proposed 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 submitted, whether through self-discovery, the 
crowdsource process, the challenge process, the Commission verification 
process, or otherwise. ACA Connects and NCTA argue that the Commission 
should only require providers to correct their Digital Opportunity Data 
Collection reports for a ``significant reporting error'' that impacts 
the Commission's coverage maps and not every time a provider's 
broadband reporting is inaccurate. Given the importance the Commission 
and Congress have placed on the need for accurate data throughout the 
Digital Opportunity Data Collection proceeding and implementation of 
the Broadband DATA Act, we find it necessary to have providers file 
corrected data when they discover any inaccuracy, omission, or 
significant reporting error in the original data that they submitted, 
whether through self-discovery, the crowdsource process, the challenge 
process, the

[[Page 18148]]

Commission verification process, or otherwise, so that the Commission 
can maintain the most accurate and up-to-date data and maps. We will 
not excuse providers from updating their data for non-significant 
reporting errors.
    146. While the Commission proposed and sought comment on having 
providers file corrections within 45 days of their discovery of 
incorrect data and that corrected filings be accompanied by the same 
types of certifications that accompany the original filings, in order 
to avoid confusion and create consistency among Digital Opportunity 
Data Collection requirements, we find that a 30-day window that aligns 
with the crowdsourcing and challenge processes is more appropriate and 
gives adequate time for service providers to make all necessary 
corrections to their coverage data. USTelecom and WISPA, ACA Connects, 
and NCTA argue that the Commission should allow providers to correct 
their filings as part of their next Digital Opportunity Data Collection 
data submission. As the Commission previously stated, 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. Our 30-day window ensures that errors will be 
``quickly and appropriately addressed,'' whereas allowing providers to 
correct inaccurate data as part of their next Digital Opportunity Data 
Collection data submission could result in data being left inaccurate 
for as much as six months.
    147. Consistent with the crowdsourcing process and challenge 
process, we require that corrected data be filed within 30 days and 
that it must include the required certifications. The 30-day period for 
filing corrected data does not change a provider's obligation to file 
updated and corrected data within 30 days following any discrepancies 
found through the crowdsourcing process. As discussed in the Second 
Order and Third Further Notice, once Commission staff evaluates a 
particular crowdsourced data submission and establishes the need to 
take a closer look at a provider's data, staff will offer the provider 
an opportunity to explain any discrepancies between its data and the 
Commission's analysis. If the provider agrees with staff analysis, then 
it must refile updated and corrected data within 30 days of that 
determination. Providers, however, will be allowed to bundle multiple 
crowdsourced corrections into one filing during the 30-day period. The 
Commission also proposed that such corrections generally should be 
forward-looking only and that providers be required to disclose in 
their next semiannual filing any corrections made as a result of the 
challenge or crowdsource processes. Commenters agree that corrections 
should be forward-looking only, and we also adopt this proposal. 
Finally, the Commission further proposed that, for purposes of 
calculating the statute of limitations, the one-year limit would begin 
to accrue on the date of the corrected filing, where the correction was 
timely submitted under the Commission's rules. We did not receive 
comments on the proposed statute of limitations, and we adopt that 
proposal. Where the Commission determines it is appropriate to propose 
a forfeiture for a violation, it must do so within a one-year statute 
of limitations. We adopt this proposal in order to ensure the 
Commission has ample time to consider and review corrected information, 
and, if necessary, adjudicate enforcement actions.

J. Details on the Creation of the Coverage Maps

    148. In this Third Report and Order, we adopt the proposal to 
publish aggregated broadband availability data in the Broadband Map 
that does not distinguish between fixed or mobile data. We also adopt 
the proposal to create two other maps that identify carrier-specific 
fixed and mobile coverage data, including reported technologies and 
speeds by provider. There is no opposition in the record to these 
proposals. As such, we find that this approach fulfills the 
requirements of the Broadband DATA Act to 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.''

K. Technical Assistance

    149. The Broadband DATA Act requires the Commission to hold annual 
workshops for Tribal governments in each of the 12 Bureau of Indian 
Affairs regions. Additionally, the Commission must review the need for 
continued workshops on an annual basis. In the Second Order and Third 
Further Notice, the Commission sought comment on implementing 
provisions of the Broadband DATA Act that require the Commission to 
provide Tribal governments with technical assistance on the collection 
and submission of data. The Commission sought comment on the type of 
technical assistance the Tribes 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. The 
Commission did not receive any comments regarding tribal workshops.
    150. We direct OEA and the Office of Native Affairs and Policy to 
host at least one workshop in each of the 12 Bureau of Indian Affairs 
regions within one year following adoption of this Third Report and 
Order. The Offices shall publish a public notice announcing the 
workshop date, time, location, and agenda prior to each workshop. In 
addition, following the completion of such workshops, OEA and the 
Office of Native Affairs and Policy shall, in consultation with Indian 
Tribes, conduct a review of the need for continued annual workshops.
    151. 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 the Second Order 
and Third Further Notice, the Commission proposed, subject to receiving 
adequate funding, to make help-desk support available and to provide 
clear instructions on the form for the Digital Opportunity Data 
Collection to aid providers in making their filings. The Commission 
also sought comment on the extent to which providers will need such 
technical assistance and any other help that small providers will need 
to comply with the requirements of the Broadband DATA Act.
    152. In response to the Second Order and Third Further Notice, 
Connected Nation suggested that any help-desk solution should include 
the provision of GIS processing assistance to service providers with 
fewer than 100,000 active broadband subscriptions. Some commenters 
recommend that the Commission should, in addition to making help-desk 
support available, provide small providers with fact sheets, webinars, 
workshops, and other Digital Opportunity Data Collection education 
initiatives, flexibility in filing formats, or additional time to file 
their initial Digital Opportunity Data Collection reports.
    153. We adopt the proposals to make help-desk support available to 
providers

[[Page 18149]]

that have fewer than 100,000 active broadband internet access service 
connections and to provide clear instructions on the form for the 
Digital Opportunity Data Collection in order to aid small providers in 
making their filings. We believe these measures will be of significant 
help to small providers and decline to make additional provisions for 
those entities at this time but expect to revisit the need for 
additional measures after we have begun to implement the Digital 
Opportunity Data Collection.
    154. The Broadband DATA Act also requires the Commission to provide 
technical assistance to consumers and State, local, and Tribal 
governmental entities with respect to the challenge process. The 
Broadband DATA Act requires such technical assistance to include 
detailed tutorials and webinars and the provision of Commission staff 
to provide assistance, as needed, throughout the entirety of the 
challenge process. The Commission sought comment on the type of 
technical assistance that should be provided to assist with the 
challenge process, taking into account the lack of funding at that time 
to implement the Broadband DATA Act. The Commission did not receive any 
comments on this proposal.
    155. We direct OEA and Consumer and Governmental Affairs Bureau to 
make detailed webinars available to explain the challenge process to 
consumers and State, local, and Tribal governments. Additionally, we 
direct the Bureau and Office to make available the names and contact 
information of Commission staff who are available to assist consumers, 
state, local, and Tribal governments with the challenge process.

L. Form 477 Reforms

    156. In the Digital Opportunity Data Collection Order and Further 
Notice, 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 found 
that state-level aggregation of subscription data significantly limited 
its usefulness, and that collection of census-tract level data would 
substantially improve the Commission's ability to conduct more accurate 
mobile competition analysis, particularly in secondary market 
transactions. The Broadband DATA Act, however, 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.'' In the Second 
Order and Third Further Notice, the Commission also proposed 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 and sought comment on sunsetting the fixed 
broadband deployment aspect of Form 477 and the timing of doing so. In 
order to adhere to the requirements of the Broadband DATA Act, and to 
maintain the Commission's flexibility to make informed decisions as it 
implements the legislation, we require mobile service providers to 
report both voice and broadband subscription data under the rules in 
effect on July 1, 2019, for all future Form 477 submissions. We also 
refrain from committing to a timeframe for sunsetting the Form 477 
deployment collection at this time and will revisit this issue after 
further implementation of the Digital Opportunity Data Collection 
enables us to make a more informed decision.
1. Mobile Subscriber Data
    157. In the Second Order and Third Further Notice, 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. This new 
collection of subscription data was to take effect for Form 477 
submissions filed on June 30, 2020. The mobile subscription reporting 
requirements under the Digital Opportunity Data Collection Order and 
Further Notice were subject to approval by OMB and would have been 
effective 30 days after the announcement in the Federal Register of OMB 
approval. OMB approved the collection on March 27, 2020, but the 
Commission did not publish the approval in the Federal Register given 
the recent enactment of the Broadband DATA Act. The Second Order and 
Third Further Notice requested comment on the Commission's proposed 
interpretation of the Broadband DATA Act requiring the collection of 
Form 477 subscription information in effect on July 1, 2019. In 
response to the Second Order and Third Further Notice, AT&T contends 
that the plain language of the Broadband DATA Act requires the 
Commission to revert to the Form 477 broadband subscription 
requirements in effect on July 1, 2019. Similarly, AT&T argues that the 
Commission should also apply these changes to the collection 
requirements for mobile voice subscription data to ensure consistent 
reporting processes and to avoid confusion.
    158. We find that the language in the Broadband DATA Act requires 
the collection of Form 477 subscription information pursuant to the 
rules in effect on July 1, 2019, which is prior to the Commission's 
adoption of the August 2019 Digital Opportunity Data Collection Order 
and Further Notice. We therefore require mobile providers to report 
both voice and broadband subscription data under the rules in effect on 
July 1, 2019, for all future Form 477 submissions. While the Broadband 
DATA Act generally addresses reporting requirements for broadband and 
not voice service, in order to avoid having inconsistent reporting 
requirements for mobile broadband and voice subscriptions, we find 
that, going forward, both mobile voice and broadband subscriber data 
must be reported under the Form 477 rules in effect on July 1, 2019. 
The Commission did not adopt any changes to fixed subscriber data in 
the Second Order and Third Further Notice.
2. Sunsetting Form 477 Census Block Reporting for Fixed Providers
    159. In the Second Order and Third Further Notice, the Commission 
proposed 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 and sought comment on 
sunsetting the fixed broadband deployment aspect of Form 477 and the 
timing of doing so. Several commenters support a set timeframe for 
sunsetting Form 477 fixed deployment reporting, ranging from 
immediately to one year--or two reporting cycles--after the initiation 
of the Digital Opportunity Data Collection, including the Fabric. 
Others urge a more flexible approach. For example, Connected2Fiber 
argues that the Commission should adopt a more open-ended approach to 
allow time to compare data from both collections and allow for 
corrections to the new data. The City of New York further expresses 
opposition to discontinuing the Form 477 fixed deployment data 
collection until the Digital Opportunity Data Collection is ``well 
established.''
    160. Accordingly, we adopt the proposal from the Second Order and 
Third Further Notice to continue census-based deployment data 
collection under Form 477 for at least one reporting cycle after the 
new granular reporting collection commences, but defer consideration of 
how many cycles after further

[[Page 18150]]

implementation of the Digital Opportunity Data Collection. We agree 
with Connected2Fiber and the City of New York that we should not adopt 
a set timeframe for discontinuing the Form 477 fixed deployment 
collection. It is vital that the Commission have access to current 
broadband deployment data. We expect the Digital Opportunity Data 
Collection deployment data to be a substantial improvement over the 
current Form 477 data. The Digital Opportunity Data Collection is an 
entirely new collection, however, and we cannot predict at this point, 
before we have begun to implement it, when it will yield consistently 
useful data.

M. Rules Adopted Prior to Passage of Broadband DATA Act

    161. We note that the Digital Opportunity Data Collection Order and 
Further Notice adopted new rules for the Digital Opportunity Data 
Collection for inclusion in sections 54.1400-54.1403 of the 
Commission's rules. We are not deleting the Part 1 and Part 43 rule 
changes adopted in the Digital Opportunity Data Collection Order and 
Further Notice regarding reporting data on Form 477. In addition, we 
placed the Digital Opportunity Data Collection rules adopted in the 
Digital Opportunity Data Collection Order and Further Notice in Part 54 
of the Commission's rules because of the emphasis on advancing our 
universal service goals and the planned role that USAC would play in 
the administration of the Digital Opportunity Data Collection. Without 
a role for USAC, the rules related to the Digital Opportunity Data 
Collection are a better fit in Part 1 with the other rules related to 
broadband data collection. The Digital Opportunity Data Collection 
Order and Further Notice provided that such rules would not be 
effective until 30 days after announcement in the Federal Register that 
the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) approved the new or modified 
information collection requirements associated with those rules.
    162. However, key provisions in the Part 54 rules adopted in the 
Digital Opportunity Data Collection Order and Further Notice are 
inconsistent with provisions of the Broadband DATA Act. For example, 
section 54.1400 (Purpose) and other sections of the rules adopted would 
have established a role for USAC, which is inconsistent with Congress's 
prohibition on delegating certain responsibilities to third parties 
including USAC. In addition, section 54.1401 (Frequency of reports) is 
inconsistent with the semiannual collection requirement in the 
Broadband DATA Act. As a result of these inconsistencies, we will not 
be seeking OMB approval for the Part 54 rules adopted in the Digital 
Opportunity Data Collection Order and Further Notice, and we repeal 
those rules and find there is good cause to do so without notice and 
comment because they are inconsistent with the Broadband DATA Act. 
Accordingly, we delete 47 CFR 54.1400-54.1403.

IV. Final Regulatory Flexibility Analysis

    163. As required by the Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980, as 
amended (RFA) an Initial Regulatory Flexibility Analysis (IRFA) was 
incorporated in the Second Order and Third Further Notice released in 
July 2020 in this proceeding. The Commission sought written public 
comment on the proposals in the Third Notice, including comments on the 
IRFA. The Commission did not receive comments specifically directed as 
a response to the IRFA. However, the Coalition of Rural Wireless 
Carriers filed reply comments raising issues pertaining to small 
entities and the IRFA. This present Final Regulatory Flexibility 
Analysis (FRFA) conforms to the RFA.

A. Need for, and Objectives of, the Third Report and Order

    164. With the Third Report and Order, the Commission takes steps to 
adopt certain requirements mandated by the Broadband DATA Act, as well 
as adopting improvements to the collection of data as part of the 
Digital Opportunity Data Collection. Specifically, we specify which 
broadband internet access service providers are required to report 
availability data, limiting the requirements only to facilities-based 
providers with reporting on a semiannual basis. We also require fixed 
providers to report the availability of mass-market broadband internet 
access services on the basis of whether the services are residential or 
business in nature. In addition, we adopt speed thresholds for 
reporting fixed services and require reporting on latency for fixed 
technologies.
    165. With regard to reporting by mobile broadband internet access 
services providers, we require for each 4G LTE or 5G-NR propagation map 
that a provider submits, a second set of maps showing Reference Signal 
Received Power (RSRP) signal levels from each active cell site that the 
Commission may use to prepare ``heat maps'' showing signal strength 
levels. Further, we require mobile service providers to submit, on a 
case-by-case basis, their choice of either infrastructure information 
or on-the-ground test data as part of the Commission's investigation 
and verification of a mobile service provider's coverage data. In 
addition, we adopt a user-friendly challenge process for mobile data 
coverage map submissions, and we require mobile providers to report 
both voice and broadband subscription data under the rules in effect on 
July 1, 2019, for all future Form 477 submissions.
    166. The Commission also adopts further measures to verify, 
challenge, and supplement the broadband availability data filed by 
providers. In particular, we create standards for collecting broadband 
data from State, local, and Tribal mapping entities and third parties 
that meet certain criteria, and adopt user-friendly processes for 
challenges to fixed broadband coverage submissions and to the data in 
the broadband serviceable location fabric (Fabric) adopted in the 
Second Order and Third Further Notice. Additionally, we adopt standards 
for identifying ``broadband serviceable'' locations in the Fabric, 
subject to further refinement in the competitive bidding process for 
that platform. We also establish standards for enforcement of filing 
requirements consistent with the applicable provisions of the Broadband 
DATA Act. Finally, we take steps to provide for continuity with the 
Form 477 data collection as we transition to the Digital Opportunity 
Data Collection. We believe our actions in the Third Report and Order 
will increase the usefulness of broadband deployment data made 
available to the Commission, Congress, the industry, and the public, 
and satisfy the requirements of the Broadband DATA Act.

B. Summary of Significant Issues Raised by Public Comments in Response 
to the IRFA

    167. The Coalition of Rural Wireless Carriers filed reply comments 
asserting that additional mapping, drive testing, and the disclosure of 
detailed infrastructure information would impose additional burdens on 
small providers and that the Commission did not present significant 
alternatives in the IRFA to minimize any significant economic impact of 
the new rules on small entities. While we note the concerns in the 
Coalition of Rural Wireless Carriers, the Commission's actions in this 
Third Report and Order are primarily in response to the legislative 
enactment of the Broadband DATA Act, leaving us limited discretion in 
the adoption of our broadband mapping rules. To the extent we do have 
discretion in implementing our rules, we used such discretion to 
develop better quality, more useful, and

[[Page 18151]]

more granular reporting of broadband deployment data. We believe that 
the recordkeeping, reporting, and other compliance requirements adopted 
in the Third Report and Order strike a balance between providing small 
and other affected entities some flexibility in reporting data while 
allowing the Commission to obtain the necessary information to meet its 
obligations under the Broadband DATA Act. In Section E below, we 
discuss alternatives we considered, but declined to adopt, that would 
have increased the costs and/or burdens on small entities.

C. Response to Comments by the Chief Counsel for Advocacy of the Small 
Business Administration

    168. Pursuant to the Small Business Jobs Act of 2010, which amended 
the RFA, the Commission is required to respond to any comments filed by 
the Chief Counsel for Advocacy of the Small Business Administration 
(SBA) and to provide a detailed statement of any change made to the 
proposed rules as a result of those comments.
    169. The Chief Counsel did not file comments in response to the 
proposed rules in this proceeding.

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

    170. 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 rules adopted herein. The RFA generally defines the 
term ``small entity'' as having the same meaning as the terms ``small 
business,'' ``small organization,'' and ``small governmental 
jurisdiction.'' In addition, the term ``small business'' has the same 
meaning as the term ``small-business concern'' under the Small Business 
Act.'' A ``small-business concern'' is one which: (1) Is independently 
owned and operated; (2) is not dominant in its field of operation; and 
(3) satisfies any additional criteria established by the SBA.
    171. Small Businesses, Small Organizations, Small Governmental 
Jurisdictions. Our actions, over time, may affect small entities that 
are not easily categorized at present. We therefore describe here, at 
the outset, 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 Small Business 
Administration's (SBA) 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 30.7 million businesses.
    172. 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.'' 
The Internal Revenue Service (IRS) uses a revenue benchmark of $50,000 
or less to delineate its annual electronic filing requirements for 
small exempt organizations. Nationwide, for tax year 2018, there were 
approximately 571,709 small exempt organizations in the U.S. reporting 
revenues of $50,000 or less according to the registration and tax data 
for exempt organizations available from the IRS.
    173. Finally, the small entity described as a ``small governmental 
jurisdiction'' is defined generally as ``governments of cities, towns, 
townships, villages, school districts, or special districts, with a 
population of less than fifty thousand.'' U.S. Census Bureau data from 
the 2017 Census of Governments indicate that there were 90,075 local 
governmental jurisdictions consisting of general purpose governments 
and special purpose governments in the United States. Of this number 
there were 36,931 general purpose governments (county, municipal, and 
town or township) with populations of less than 50,000 and 12,040 
special purpose governments--independent school districts with 
enrollment populations of less than 50,000. Accordingly, based on the 
2017 U.S. Census of Governments data, we estimate that at least 48,971 
entities fall into the category of ``small governmental 
jurisdictions.''
1. Broadband Internet Access Service Providers
    174. The broadband internet access service provider industry has 
changed since the definition was introduced in 2007. The data cited 
below may therefore include entities that no longer provide broadband 
internet access service and may exclude entities that now provide such 
service. To ensure that this FRFA describes the universe of small 
entities that our action might affect, we discuss in turn several 
different types of entities that might be providing broadband internet 
access service. We note that, although we have no specific information 
on the number of small entities that provide broadband internet access 
service over unlicensed spectrum, we included these entities in our 
Initial Regulatory Flexibility Analysis.
    175. 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 and 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.
    176. 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 $35 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.
2. Wireline Providers
    177. 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

[[Page 18152]]

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.
    178. 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 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 category and the associated size standard, the Commission 
estimates that the majority of local exchange carriers are small 
entities.
    179. 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 our actions. According to Commission 
data, 1,307 Incumbent LECs reported that they were incumbent local 
exchange service providers. Of this total, an estimated 1,006 have 
1,500 or fewer employees. Thus, using the SBA's size standard, the 
majority of Incumbent LECs can be considered small entities.
    180. 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 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.
    181. Interexchange Carriers (IXCs). Neither the Commission nor the 
SBA has developed a small business size standard specifically for 
Interexchange Carriers. The closest NAICS Code category is Wired 
Telecommunications Carriers. The applicable size standard under SBA 
rules consists of all such companies having 1,500 or fewer employees. 
U.S. Census Bureau data for 2012 indicate that 3,117 firms operated 
during that year. Of that number, 3,083 operated with fewer than 1,000 
employees. According to internally developed Commission data, 359 
companies reported that their primary telecommunications service 
activity was the provision of interexchange services. Of this total, an 
estimated 317 have 1,500 or fewer employees. Consequently, the 
Commission estimates that the majority of interexchange service 
providers are small entities.
    182. 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 
that size standard 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 Commission 
estimates that the majority of firms in this industry can be considered 
small. According to Commission data, 33 carriers have reported that 
they are engaged in the provision of operator services. Of these, an 
estimated 31 have 1,500 or fewer employees and 2 have more than 1,500 
employees. Consequently, the Commission estimates that the majority of 
OSPs are small entities.
    183. 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. The applicable SBA size 
standard consists of all such companies having 1,500 or fewer 
employees. U.S. Census Bureau data for 2012 indicate that 3,117 firms 
operated during that year. Of that number, 3,083 operated with fewer 
than 1,000 employees. Thus, under this category and the associated 
small business size standard, the majority of Other Toll Carriers can 
be considered small. According to internally developed 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.
3. Wireless Providers--Fixed and Mobile
    184. The broadband internet access service provider category 
covered by these new rules may cover multiple wireless firms and 
categories of regulated wireless services. Thus, to the extent the 
wireless services listed below are used by wireless firms for broadband 
internet access service, the actions may have an impact on those small 
businesses as set forth above and further below. In addition, for those 
services subject to auctions, we note that, as a general matter, the 
number of winning bidders that claim to qualify as small businesses at 
the close of an auction

[[Page 18153]]

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.
    185. 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 Bureau 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.
    186. The Commission's own data--available in its Universal 
Licensing System--indicate that, as of August 31, 2018, there are 265 
Cellular licensees that will be affected by our actions. The Commission 
does not know how many of these licensees are small, as the Commission 
does not collect that information for these types of entities. 
Similarly, according to internally-developed Commission data, 413 
carriers reported that they were engaged in the provision of wireless 
telephony, including cellular service, Personal Communications Service 
(PCS), and Specialized Mobile Radio (SMR) Telephony services. Of this 
total, an estimated 261 have 1,500 or fewer employees, and 152 have 
more than 1,500 employees. Thus, using available data, we estimate that 
the majority of wireless firms can be considered small.
    187. 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 has 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.
    188. 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.
    189. 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.
    190. Broadband Personal Communications Service. The broadband 
personal communications services (PCS) spectrum is divided into six 
frequency blocks designated A through F, and the Commission has held 
auctions for each block. The Commission initially defined a ``small 
business'' for C- and F-Block licenses as an entity that has average 
gross revenues of $40 million or less in the three previous calendar 
years. For F-Block licenses, an additional small business size standard 
for ``very small business'' was added and is defined as an entity that, 
together with its affiliates, has average gross revenues of not more 
than $15 million for the preceding three calendar years. These 
standards, defining ``small entity'' 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.
    191. 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.
    192. Specialized Mobile Radio Licenses. The Commission awards 
``small entity'' bidding credits in auctions for Specialized Mobile 
Radio (SMR) geographic area licenses in the 800 MHz and 900 MHz bands 
to firms that had revenues of no more than $15 million in each of the 
three previous calendar years. The Commission awards ``very small 
entity'' bidding credits to firms that had revenues of no more than $3 
million in each of the three previous calendar years. The SBA has 
approved these small business size standards for the 900 MHz Service. 
The Commission has held auctions for geographic area licenses in the 
800 MHz and 900 MHz bands. The 900 MHz SMR auction began on December 5, 
1995, and closed on April 15, 1996. Sixty bidders claiming that they 
qualified as small businesses under the $15 million size standard won 
263 geographic area licenses in the 900 MHz SMR band. The 800 MHz SMR 
auction for the upper 200 channels began on October 28, 1997, and was 
completed on December 8, 1997. Ten bidders claiming that they qualified 
as small businesses under the $15 million

[[Page 18154]]

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 
conducted in 2002 and included 23 BEA licenses. One bidder claiming 
small business status won five licenses.
    193. 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.
    194. In addition, there are numerous incumbent site-by-site SMR 
licenses and licensees with extended implementation authorizations in 
the 800 and 900 MHz bands. We do not know how many firms provide 800 
MHz or 900 MHz geographic area SMR service pursuant to extended 
implementation authorizations, nor how many of these providers have 
annual revenues of no more than $15 million. One firm has over $15 
million in revenues. In addition, we do not know how many of these 
firms have 1,500 or fewer employees, which is the SBA-determined size 
standard. We assume, for purposes of this analysis, that all of the 
remaining extended implementation authorizations are held by small 
entities, as defined by the SBA.
    195. Lower 700 MHz Band Licenses. The Commission previously adopted 
criteria for defining three groups of small businesses for purposes of 
determining their eligibility for special provisions such as bidding 
credits. The Commission defined a ``small business'' as an entity that, 
together with its affiliates and controlling principals, has average 
gross revenues not exceeding $40 million for the preceding three years. 
A ``very small business'' is defined as an entity that, together with 
its affiliates and controlling principals, has average gross revenues 
that are not more than $15 million for the preceding three years. 
Additionally, the lower 700 MHz Service had a third category of small 
business status for Metropolitan/Rural Service Area (MSA/RSA) 
licenses--``entrepreneur''--which is defined as an entity that, 
together with its affiliates and controlling principals, has average 
gross revenues that are not more than $3 million for the preceding 
three years. The SBA approved these small size standards. An auction of 
740 licenses (one license in each of the 734 MSAs/RSAs and one license 
in each of the six Economic Area Groupings (EAGs)) commenced on August 
27, 2002, and closed on September 18, 2002. Of the 740 licenses 
available for auction, 484 licenses were won by 102 winning bidders. 
Seventy-two of the winning bidders claimed small business, very small 
business, or entrepreneur status and won a total of 329 licenses. A 
second auction commenced on May 28, 2003, closed on June 13, 2003, and 
included 256 licenses: 5 EAG licenses and 476 Cellular Market Area 
licenses. Seventeen winning bidders claimed small or very small 
business status and won 60 licenses, and nine winning bidders claimed 
entrepreneur status and won 154 licenses. On July 26, 2005, the 
Commission completed an auction of 5 licenses in the Lower 700 MHz band 
(Auction No. 60). There were three winning bidders for five licenses. 
All three winning bidders claimed small business status.
    196. In 2007, the Commission reexamined its rules governing the 700 
MHz band in the 700 MHz Second Report and Order. An auction of 700 MHz 
licenses commenced January 24, 2008 and closed on March 18, 2008, which 
included, 176 Economic Area licenses in the A Block, 734 Cellular 
Market Area licenses in the B Block, and 176 EA licenses in the E 
Block. Twenty winning bidders, claiming small business status (those 
with attributable average annual gross revenues that exceed $15 million 
and do not exceed $40 million for the preceding three years) won 49 
licenses. Thirty-three winning bidders claiming very small business 
status (those with attributable average annual gross revenues that do 
not exceed $15 million for the preceding three years) won 325 licenses.
    197. 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 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) and winning five 
licenses.
    198. 700 MHz Guard Band Licensees. In 2000, in the 700 MHz Guard 
Band Order, the Commission adopted size standards for ``small 
businesses'' and ``very small businesses'' for purposes of determining 
their eligibility for special provisions such as bidding credits and 
installment payments. A small business in this service is an entity 
that, together with its affiliates and controlling principals, has 
average gross revenues not exceeding $40 million for the preceding 
three years. Additionally, a very small business is an entity that, 
together with its affiliates and controlling principals, has average 
gross revenues that are not more than $15 million for the preceding 
three years. SBA approval of these definitions is not required. An 
auction of 52 Major Economic Area licenses commenced on September 6, 
2000, and closed on September 21, 2000. Of the 104 licenses auctioned, 
96 licenses were sold to nine bidders. Five of these bidders were small 
businesses that won a total of 26 licenses. A second auction of 700 MHz 
Guard Band licenses commenced on February 13, 2001, and closed on 
February 21, 2001. All eight of the licenses auctioned were sold to 
three bidders. One of these bidders was a small business that won a 
total of two licenses.
    199. Air-Ground Radiotelephone Service. The Commission has 
previously used the SBA's small business size standard applicable to 
Wireless Telecommunications Carriers (except Satellite). The 
appropriate size standard under SBA rules is that such a business is 
small if it has 1,500 or fewer employees. For this industry, U.S. 
Census Bureau data for 2012 show that there were 967 firms that 
operated for the entire year. Of this total, 955 firms had fewer than 
1,000 employees and 12 had employment of 1,000 employees or more. There 
are approximately 100 licensees in the Air-Ground Radiotelephone 
Service, and we estimate that almost all of them qualify as small 
entities under the SBA definition.
    200. 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

[[Page 18155]]

million. These definitions were approved by the SBA. In May 2006, the 
Commission completed an auction of nationwide commercial Air-Ground 
Radiotelephone Service licenses in the 800 MHz band (Auction No. 65). 
On June 2, 2006, the auction closed with two winning bidders winning 
two Air-Ground Radiotelephone Services licenses. Neither of the winning 
bidders claimed small business status.
    201. 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 has defined a ``small business'' as an entity 
with average annual gross revenues for the preceding three years not 
exceeding $40 million, and a ``very small business'' as an entity with 
average annual gross revenues for the preceding three years not 
exceeding $15 million. For AWS-2 and AWS-3, although we do not know for 
certain which entities are likely to apply for these frequencies, we 
note that the AWS-1 bands are comparable to those used for cellular 
service and personal communications service. The Commission has not yet 
adopted size standards for the AWS-2 or AWS-3 bands but proposes to 
treat both AWS-2 and AWS-3 similarly to broadband PCS service and AWS-1 
service due to the comparable capital requirements and other factors, 
such as issues involved in relocating incumbents and developing 
markets, technologies, and services.
    202. 3650-3700 MHz Band. In March 2005, the Commission released a 
Report and Order and Memorandum Opinion and Order that provides for 
nationwide, non-exclusive licensing of terrestrial operations, using 
contention-based technologies, in the 3650 MHz band (i.e., 3650-3700 
MHz). As of April 2010, more than 1,270 licenses have been granted and 
more than 7,433 sites have been registered. The Commission has not 
developed a definition of small entities applicable to 3650-3700 MHz 
band nationwide, non-exclusive licenses. However, we estimate that the 
majority of these licensees are internet Access Service Providers 
(ISPs) and that most of those licensees are small businesses.
    203. Fixed Microwave Services. Microwave services include common 
carrier, private-operational fixed, and broadcast auxiliary radio 
services. They also include the Upper Microwave Flexible Use Service, 
Millimeter Wave Service, 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. There are approximately 66,680 common carrier fixed 
licensees and 69,360 private and public safety operational-fixed 
licensees, 20,150 broadcast auxiliary radio licensees, 411 LMDS 
licenses, 33 24 GHz DEMS licenses, 777 39 GHz licenses, and five 24 GHz 
licenses, and 467 Millimeter Wave licenses in the microwave services. 
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.
    204. The Commission does not have data specifying the number of 
these licensees that have more than 1,500 employees, and thus is unable 
at this time to estimate with greater precision the number of fixed 
microwave service licensees that would qualify as small business 
concerns under the SBA's small business size standard. Consequently, 
the Commission estimates that there are up to 36,708 common carrier 
fixed licensees and up to 59,291 private operational-fixed licensees 
and broadcast auxiliary radio licensees in the microwave services that 
may be small and may be affected by the rules and policies adopted 
herein. We note, however, that the common carrier microwave fixed 
licensee category includes some large entities.
    205. 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)).
    206. BRS--In connection with the 1996 BRS auction, the Commission 
established a small business size standard as an entity that had annual 
average gross revenues of no more than $40 million in the previous 
three calendar years. The BRS auctions resulted in 67 successful 
bidders obtaining licensing opportunities for 493 Basic Trading Areas 
(BTAs). Of the 67 auction winners, 61 met the definition of a small 
business. BRS also includes licensees of stations authorized prior to 
the auction. At this time, we estimate that of the 61 small business 
BRS auction winners, 48 remain small business licensees. In addition to 
the 48 small businesses that hold BTA authorizations, there are 
approximately 86 incumbent BRS licensees that are considered small 
entities (18 incumbent BRS licensees do not meet the small business 
size standard). After adding the number of small business auction 
licensees to the number of incumbent licensees not already counted, we 
find that there are currently approximately 133 BRS licensees that are 
defined as small businesses under either the SBA or the Commission's 
rules.
    207. 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 four 
licenses; one bidder that claimed very small business status won three 
licenses; and two bidders that claimed entrepreneur status won six 
licenses.
    208. EBS--Educational Broadband Service has been included within 
the broad economic census category and SBA size standard for Wired 
Telecommunications Carriers since 2007. 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.

[[Page 18156]]

Transmission facilities may be based on a single technology or a 
combination of technologies.'' The SBA's small business size standard 
for this category is all such firms 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.
    209. In addition to U.S. Census Bureau data, the Commission's 
Universal Licensing System indicates that as of March 2019 there were 
1,300 licensees holding over 2,190 active EBS licenses. The Commission 
estimates that of these 2,190 licenses, the majority are held by non-
profit educational institutions and school districts, which are by 
statute defined as small businesses.
4. Satellite Service Providers
    210. Satellite Telecommunications. 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 
$35 million or less in average annual receipts, under SBA rules. For 
this category, U.S. Census Bureau data for 2012 show that a total of 
333 firms operated for the entire year. Of this total, 299 firms had 
annual receipts of less than $25 million. Consequently, we estimate 
that the majority of satellite telecommunications providers are small 
entities.
    211. All Other Telecommunications. The ``All Other 
Telecommunications'' category 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 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 $35 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 and 15 firms had annual receipts of 
$25 million to $49,999,999. Thus, the Commission estimates that the 
majority of ``All Other Telecommunications'' firms potentially affected 
by our action can be considered small.
5. Cable Service Providers
    212. Because section 706 of the Act requires us to monitor the 
deployment of broadband using any technology, we anticipate that some 
broadband service providers may not provide telephone service. 
Accordingly, we describe below other types of firms that may provide 
broadband services, including cable companies, MDS providers, and 
utilities, among others.
    213. Cable and Other Subscription Programming. The U.S. Census 
Bureau defines this industry as establishments primarily engaged in 
operating studios and facilities for the broadcasting of programs on a 
subscription or fee basis. The broadcast programming is typically 
narrowcast in nature (e.g. limited format, such as news, sports, 
education, or youth-oriented). These establishments produce programming 
in their own facilities or acquire programming from external sources. 
The programming material is usually delivered to a third party, such as 
cable systems or direct-to-home satellite systems, for transmission to 
viewers. The SBA size standard for this industry establishes as small, 
any company in this category that has annual receipts of $41.5 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 in this industry are small.
    214. 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 4,600 active cable systems in the 
United States. Of this total, all but five 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. Commission records 
show 4,600 cable systems nationwide. Of this total, 3,900 cable systems 
have fewer than 15,000 subscribers, and 700 systems have 15,000 or more 
subscribers, based on the same records. Thus, under this standard as 
well, we estimate that most cable systems are small entities.
    215. 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.'' As of 2019, there were approximately 48,646,056 basic 
cable video subscribers in the United States. Accordingly, an operator 
serving fewer than 486,460 subscribers shall be deemed a small operator 
if its annual revenues, when combined with the total annual revenues of 
all its affiliates, do not exceed $250 million in the aggregate. Based 
on available data, we find that all but five incumbent cable operators 
are small entities under this size standard. We note that the 
Commission neither requests nor collects information on whether cable 
system operators are affiliated with entities whose gross annual 
revenues exceed $250 million. Therefore, we are unable at this time to 
estimate with greater precision the number of cable system operators 
that would qualify as small cable operators under the definition in the 
Communications Act.
6. All Other Telecommunications
    216. 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 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

[[Page 18157]]

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 $35 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 and 15 firms had annual receipts of $25 
million to $49,999,999. Consequently, we estimate that under this 
category and the associated size standard the majority of these firms 
can be considered small entities.

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

    217. We expect the rules adopted in the Third Report and Order will 
impose new or additional reporting, recordkeeping, and/or other 
compliance obligations on small entities. Specifically, we establish 
new reporting and disclosure requirements for fixed and mobile 
broadband providers to facilitate compliance with the Broadband DATA 
Act. For example, we require fixed providers to report the availability 
of mass-market broadband internet access services on the basis of 
whether the services are residential or business in nature. We also 
adopt speed thresholds for reporting fixed broadband services and 
require reporting on latency for fixed technologies. With regard to 
reporting by mobile broadband internet access services providers, we 
require for each 4G LTE or 5G-NR propagation map that a provider 
submits, a second set of maps showing Reference Signal Received Power 
(RSRP) signal levels from each active cell site that the Commission may 
use to prepare ``heat maps,'' showing signal strength levels. Further, 
we require mobile service providers to submit, on a case-by-case basis, 
their choice of either infrastructure information or on-the-ground test 
data as part of a Commission investigation and verification of a mobile 
service provider's coverage data. Finally, we require mobile providers 
to report both voice and broadband subscription data under the rules in 
effect on July 1, 2019, for all future Form 477 submissions.
    218. We also adopt measures to verify, challenge, and supplement 
the broadband availability data filed by providers, which create new 
reporting, recordkeeping, and/or other compliance obligations for small 
entities and other providers. For example, we require all providers to 
provide a certification as to the accuracy of a provider's semiannual 
filling from a certified professional engineer or corporate engineering 
officer that is employed by the provider and has direct knowledge of, 
or responsibility for, the generation of the provider's Digital 
Opportunity Data Collection filing. Further, we create standards for 
collecting broadband data from State, local, and Tribal mapping 
entities and third parties that meet certain criteria, and adopt user 
friendly processes for challenges to fixed broadband coverage 
submissions and to the data in Fabric adopted in the Second Order and 
Third Further Notice. Finally, we establish standards for the 
enforcement of filing requirements consistent with the applicable 
provisions of the Broadband DATA Act.
    219. The requirements we adopt in the Third Report and Order 
continue the Commission's actions to comply with the Broadband DATA Act 
and develop better quality, more useful, and more granular broadband 
deployment data to advance our statutory obligations and continue our 
efforts to close the digital divide. We conclude it is necessary to 
adopt these rules to produce broadband deployment maps that will allow 
the Commission to precisely target scarce universal service dollars to 
where broadband service is lacking. We are cognizant, however, of the 
need to ensure that the benefits resulting from use of the data 
outweigh the reporting burdens imposed on small entities. The 
Commission believes that any additional burdens imposed by our revised 
reporting approach for providers are outweighed by the significant 
benefit to be gained from more precise broadband deployment data. We 
are likewise cognizant that small entities will incur costs and may 
have to hire attorneys, engineers, consultants or other professionals 
to comply with the Third Report and Order. Although the Commission 
cannot quantify the cost of compliance with the requirements in the 
Third Report and Order, we believe the reporting and other requirements 
we have adopted are necessary to comply with the Broadband DATA Act and 
ensure the Commission obtains complete and accurate broadband coverage 
maps.

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

    220. The RFA requires an agency to describe any significant, 
specifically small business, alternatives that it has considered in 
reaching its approach, which may include the following four 
alternatives (among others): (1) The establishment of differing 
compliance or reporting requirements or timetables that take into 
account the resources available to small entities; (2) the 
clarification, consolidation, or simplification of compliance or 
reporting requirements under the rule for such small entities; (3) the 
use of performance, rather than design, standards; and (4) an exemption 
from coverage of the rule, or any part thereof, for such small 
entities. The Commission has considered the comments in the record and 
is mindful of the time, money, and resources that some small entities 
will incur to comply with requirements in the Third Report and Order. 
In reaching the requirements we adopted in the Third Report and Order, 
there were various approaches and alternatives that the Commission 
considered but rejected which prevented small entities from incurring 
additional burdens and economic impact. For example, we declined to 
collect data on non-mass market broadband services such as might be 
purchased by healthcare organizations, schools and libraries, and 
government entities, in addition to mass market service data required 
in the Digital Opportunity Data Collection, although a number of 
comments supported requiring such a collection. We also declined to 
adopt any of the alternative tiers for reporting download and upload 
speeds for broadband internet access service offered at speeds below 
25/3 Mbps by fixed broadband providers as proposed in comments. 
Instead, we adopted the two tiers the Commission proposed in the Second 
Order and Third Further Notice which use the same speed floor as 
existing reporting for Form 477 data and will maintain consistency for 
providers with that collection and provide information on the 
availability of services offered at a wide range of speeds. Further, we 
declined to adopt proposals to require fixed broadband providers to 
report more detailed data on latency than what the Commission proposed 
in the Second Order and Third Further Notice. Lastly, as it pertains to 
the standards for the collection and reporting of data for mobile 
broadband internet access service, we also declined to require mobile 
providers to submit additional coverage maps based on different speed, 
cell edge probability, or cell loading values.
    221. As part of the Commission's process for verifying broadband 
availability data submitted by providers, we adopted the requirement 
that service providers submit, upon the request of the Commission staff 
on a case-by-case

[[Page 18158]]

basis as part of an inquiry concerning a mobile service provider's 
coverage data, either infrastructure information or on-the-ground test 
data for the location(s) under examination, rather than mandating the 
submission of infrastructure information by providers and on a specific 
reporting interval. With this approach, we provide small entities and 
other providers the flexibility to choose the type of data reporting 
that best fits their circumstances and such reporting is only required 
if there is an inquiry from Commission staff. To substantiate the 
accuracy of data submissions by mobile and fixed service providers, the 
Third Report and Order requires providers to submit a certification 
from a qualified engineer that the engineer has reviewed and supports 
the submission and attests that the statements of fact contained in the 
submission are true and correct and prepared in accordance with the 
service provider's ordinary course of network design and engineering. 
To meet this requirement, small entities can use an existing employee 
who is a certified professional engineer and are not required to hire a 
new in-house engineer or an engineer consultant in order to certify its 
data submissions which could have a significant economic impact.
    222. The Broadband DATA Act requires the Commission to adopt rules 
to 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. The challenge process 
rules adopted by the Commission have implications for small entities as 
a party submitting a challenge or as a party being challenged. We 
believe our challenge process rules adopting a single online platform 
for use by all parties for submitting and tracking challenges and 
crowdsource information, implementing an automatic notification to the 
challenged party when a challenge has been submitted, and adopting a 60 
day response period for the challenged party, rather than 30 days as 
proposed in the Second Order and Third Further Notice, are user 
friendly and cost minimizing steps that will benefit small entities.
    223. Other steps taken by the Commission to minimize the compliance 
burdens on small entities include the technical assistance that the 
Commission staff will provide pursuant to the requirements of the 
Broadband DATA Act. In a joint effort, OEA and the Consumer and 
Governmental Affairs Bureau (CGB) will host at least one workshop in 
each of the 12 Bureau of Indian Affairs regions within one year 
following adoption of the Third Report and Order. The Bureau and Office 
shall publish a public notice announcing the workshop date, time, 
location, and agenda prior to each workshop. Next, the Broadband DATA 
Act 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. 
Therefore, we will make help-desk support available to providers that 
have fewer than 100,000 active broadband internet access service 
connections and provide clear instructions on the form for the Digital 
Opportunity Data Collection in order to aid small providers in making 
their filings.
    224. The Broadband DATA Act also requires the Commission to provide 
technical assistance to consumers and State, local, and Tribal 
governmental entities--some of which include small entities, with 
respect to the challenge process. Such technical assistance must 
include detailed tutorials and webinars and must make Commission staff 
available to provide assistance, as needed, throughout the entirety of 
the challenge process. Accordingly, a joint effort OEA and CGB will 
make detailed webinars available to explain the challenge process to 
consumers and State, local, and Tribal governments. Additionally, the 
names and contact information of Commission staff who are available to 
assist consumers, State, local, and Tribal governments with the 
challenge process will be made available.
    225. The Commission believes that the actions we have taken in the 
Third Report and Order and discussed herein, to ensure that the 
Commission has precise, accurate data on broadband deployment, and the 
resources that we will provide small entities to assist with 
compliance, strike the appropriate balance to carry out our obligations 
under the Broadband DATA Act and to minimize the economic impact for 
small entities.

A. Report to Congress

    226. The Commission will send a copy of the Third Report and Order, 
including this FRFA, in a report to Congress pursuant to the 
Congressional Review Act. In addition, the Commission will send a copy 
of the Third Report and Order, including this FRFA, to the Chief 
Counsel for Advocacy of the SBA. A copy of the Third Report and Order 
and FRFA (or summaries thereof) will also be published in the Federal 
Register.

V. Procedural Matters

    227. Final Regulatory Flexibility Analysis. The Regulatory 
Flexibility Act of 1980, as amended (RFA), requires that an agency 
prepare a regulatory flexibility analysis for notice and comment 
rulemakings, unless the agency certifies that ``the rule will not, if 
promulgated, have a significant economic impact on a substantial number 
of small entities.'' Accordingly, we have prepared a Final Regulatory 
Flexibility Analysis (FRFA) concerning the possible impact of the rule 
changes contained in this Third Report and Order on small entities. The 
FRFA is set forth in Appendix B.
    228. Paperwork Reduction Act. This document does not contain new or 
modified information collection requirements subject to the Paperwork 
Reduction Act of 1995 (PRA), Public Law 104-13. In addition, therefore, 
it does not contain any new or modified information collection burden 
for small business concerns with fewer than 25 employees, pursuant to 
the Small Business Paperwork Relief Act of 2002, Public Law 107-198, 
see 44 U.S.C. 3506(c)(4).
    229. Congressional Review Act. The Commission has determined, and 
the Administrator of the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, 
Office of Management and Budget, concurs that this rule is non-major 
under the Congressional Review Act, 5 U.S.C. 804(2). The Commission 
will send a copy of this Order on Remand to Congress and the Government 
Accountability Office pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 801(a)(1)(A).
    230. Contact Person. For further information about this proceeding, 
contact Kirk Burgee, FCC Wireline Competition Bureau, Competition 
Policy Division, 45 L Street NE, Washington, DC 20554, (202) 418-1599, 
[email protected], or Garnet Hanly, FCC Wireless Telecommunications 
Bureau, Competition Policy Division, 45 L Street NE, Washington, DC 
20554, (202) 418-0995, [email protected].

VI. Ordering Clauses

    231. Accordingly, it is ordered that, pursuant to sections 1-4, 7, 
201, 254, 301, 303, 309, 319, 332, and 641-646 of the Communications 
Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. 151-154, 157, 201, 254, 301, 303, 
309, 319, 332, and 641-

[[Page 18159]]

646, this Third Report and Order is adopted.
    232. It is further ordered that Parts 1 and 54 of the Commission's 
rules are amended as set forth in Appendix A of the Third Report and 
Order.
    233. It is further ordered that the Third Report and Order shall be 
effective 30 days after publication in the Federal Register.
    234. It is further ordered that the Commission's Consumer & 
Governmental Affairs Bureau, Reference Information Center, shall send a 
copy of the Third Report and Order to Congress and the Government 
Accountability Office pursuant to the Congressional Review Act, see 5 
U.S.C. 801(a)(1)(A).
    235. It is further ordered that the Commission's Consumer & 
Governmental Affairs Bureau, Reference Information Center, shall send a 
copy of this Third Report and Order, including the Final Regulatory 
Flexibility Analysis, to the Chief Counsel for Advocacy of the Small 
Business Administration.

List of Subjects

47 CFR Part 1

    Administrative practice and procedure, Broadband, Reporting and 
recordkeeping requirements, Telecommunications.

47 CFR Part 54

    Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Telecommunications.

Federal Communications Commission.
Marlene Dortch,
Secretary.

Final Rules

    For the reasons discussed in the preamble, the Federal 
Communications Commission amends 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.  1.80 by revising Table 1 to paragraph (b)(10) to read as 
follows:
* * * * *

 Table 1 to Paragraph (b)(10)--Base Amounts for Section 503 Forfeitures
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                             Violation
                       Forfeitures                            amount
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Misrepresentation/lack of candor........................             (1)
Failure to file required DODC required forms, and/or             $15,000
 filing materially inaccurate or incomplete DODC
 information............................................
Construction and/or operation without an instrument of            10,000
 authorization for the service..........................
Failure to comply with prescribed lighting and/or                 10,000
 marking................................................
Violation of public file rules..........................          10,000
Violation of political rules: Reasonable access, lowest            9,000
 unit charge, equal opportunity, and discrimination.....
Unauthorized substantial transfer of control............           8,000
Violation of children's television commercialization or            8,000
 programming requirements...............................
Violations of rules relating to distress and safety                8,000
 frequencies............................................
False distress communications...........................           8,000
EAS equipment not installed or operational..............           8,000
Alien ownership violation...............................           8,000
Failure to permit inspection............................           7,000
Transmission of indecent/obscene materials..............           7,000
Interference............................................           7,000
Importation or marketing of unauthorized equipment......           7,000
Exceeding of authorized antenna height..................           5,000
Fraud by wire, radio or television......................           5,000
Unauthorized discontinuance of service..................           5,000
Use of unauthorized equipment...........................           5,000
Exceeding power limits..................................           4,000
Failure to respond to Commission communications.........           4,000
Violation of sponsorship ID requirements................           4,000
Unauthorized emissions..................................           4,000
Using unauthorized frequency............................           4,000
Failure to engage in required frequency coordination....           4,000
Construction or operation at unauthorized location......           4,000
Violation of requirements pertaining to broadcasting of            4,000
 lotteries or contests..................................
Violation of transmitter control and metering                      3,000
 requirements...........................................
Failure to file required forms or information...........           3,000
Failure to make required measurements or conduct                   2,000
 required monitoring....................................
Failure to provide station ID...........................           1,000
Unauthorized pro forma transfer of control..............           1,000
Failure to maintain required records....................           1,000
------------------------------------------------------------------------

* * * * *

0
3. Amend Sec.  1.7001 by revising paragraph (a)(16) to read as follows:


Sec.  1.7001  Scope and content of filed reports.

    (a) * * *
    (16) Provider. A facilities-based provider of fixed or mobile 
broadband internet access service.
* * * * *

0
4. Amend Sec.  1.7004 by:
0
a. Adding a new sentence at the end of paragraph (c)(1) introductory 
text;
0
b. Redesignating paragraphs (c)(1)(i) and (ii) as paragraphs (iii) and 
(iv) and adding new paragraphs (c)(1)(i) and (ii);
0
c. Adding paragraphs (c)(2)(ii)(E) and (c)(3)(v); and
0
d. Revising paragraph (d).
    The revisions and additions read as follows:

[[Page 18160]]

Sec.  1.7004  Scope, content, and frequency of Digital Opportunity Data 
Collection filings.

* * * * *
    (c) * * *
    (1) * * * In addition, fixed broadband internet service providers 
shall indicate, for each polygon shapefile or location they submit in 
the Digital Opportunity Data Collection, whether the reported service 
is available to residential customers and/or business customers.
    (i) Each provider of fixed broadband internet access service shall 
report the maximum advertised download and upload speeds associated 
with its broadband internet access service available in an area. 
However, for service offered at speeds below 25 Mbps downstream/3 Mbps 
upstream, providers shall report the maximum advertised download and 
upload speeds associated with the service using two speed tiers: One 
for speeds greater than 200 kbps in at least one direction and less 
than 10 Mbps downstream/1 Mbps upstream, and another for speeds greater 
than or equal to 10 Mbps downstream/1 Mbps upstream and less than 25 
Mbps downstream/3 Mbps upstream.
    (ii) Each provider of fixed broadband internet access service shall 
indicate in its Digital Opportunity Data Collection filing whether the 
network round-trip latency associated with each maximum speed 
combination reported in a particular geographic area is less than or 
equal to 100 milliseconds (ms), based on the 95th percentile of 
measurements.
* * * * *
    (2) * * *
    (ii) * * *
    (E) The geographic coordinates.
* * * * *
    (3) * * *
    (v) For each 4G LTE or 5G-NR propagation map that a provider 
submits, the provider also must submit a second set of maps showing 
Reference Signal Received Power (RSRP) signal levels in dBm, as would 
be measured at the industry standard of 1.5 meters above ground level 
(AGL), from each active cell site. A second set of maps showing 
Received Signal Strength Indicator (RSSI) signal levels for each 3G 
propagation map a provider submits is only required in areas where 3G 
is the only technology the provider offers. The RSSI and RSRP values 
should be provided in 10 dB increments or finer beginning with a 
maximum value of -50 dBm and continuing to -120 dBm.
* * * * *
    (d) Providers shall include in each Digital Opportunity Data 
Collection filing a certification signed by a corporate officer of the 
provider that the officer has examined the information contained in the 
submission and that, to the best of the officer's actual knowledge, 
information, and belief, all statements of fact contained in the 
submission are true and correct. All providers also shall submit a 
certification of the accuracy of its submissions by a qualified 
engineer. The engineering certification shall state that the certified 
professional engineer or corporate engineering officer is employed by 
the provider and has direct knowledge of, or responsibility for, the 
generation of the provider's Digital Opportunity Data Collection 
filing. If a corporate officer is also an engineer and has the 
requisite knowledge required under the Broadband DATA Act, a provider 
may submit a single certification that fulfills both requirements. The 
certified professional engineer or corporate engineering officer shall 
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.

0
5. Amend Sec.  1.7006 by adding paragraphs (c) through (f) to read as 
follows:


Sec.  1.7006  Data Verification.

* * * * *
    (c) Mobile service verification process for mobile providers. 
Mobile service providers shall submit either infrastructure information 
or on-the-ground test data in response to a request by Commission staff 
as part of their inquiry to independently verify the accuracy of the 
mobile provider's coverage propagation models and maps. In addition to 
submitting either on-the-ground data or infrastructure data, a provider 
may also submit data collected from transmitter monitoring software. A 
provider must submit its data, in the case of both infrastructure 
information and on-the-ground data, within 60 days of receiving a 
Commission staff request. Regarding on-the-ground data, a provider must 
submit evidence of network performance based on a sample of on-the-
ground tests that is statistically appropriate for the area tested.
    (d) Fixed service challenge process. State, local, and Tribal 
governmental entities, consumers, and other entities or individuals may 
submit data in an online portal to challenge the accuracy of the 
coverage maps at a particular location, 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 whose reported coverage information is being 
challenged;
    (iv) Category of dispute, selected from pre-established options on 
the portal;
    (v) For consumers challenging availability data 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, or evidence 
showing no availability at the disputed location (e.g., screen shot, 
emails);
    (vi) For government or other entities, evidence and details about 
the dispute, including: (A) The challenger's methodology, (B) the basis 
for determinations underlying the challenge, and (C) communications 
with provider, if any, and outcome;
    (vii) For challengers disputing locations in the Broadband Location 
Fabric, details and evidence about the disputed location;
    (viii) 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; and
    (ix) 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.
    (2) The online portal shall alert a provider if there has been a 
challenge with all required elements submitted against it.
    (3) For availability and coverage map challenges, within 60 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 reply; or
    (ii) Denying the allegation(s) raised by the challenger, in which 
the case the provider shall provide evidence, in the

[[Page 18161]]

online portal and to the challenger, that the provider serves (or could 
and is willing to serve) the challenged location. If the provider 
denies the allegation(s) raised by the challenger, then the provider 
and the challenger shall have 60 days after the provider submits its 
reply to attempt to resolve the challenge.
    (4) A provider's failure to respond to a challenge to its reported 
coverage data within the applicable timeframes shall result in a 
finding against the provider, resulting in mandatory corrections to the 
provider's Digital Opportunity Data Collection information to conform 
to the challenge. 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.
    (5) Once a challenge containing all the required elements is 
submitted in the online portal, 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 
affected provider shall report the status of efforts to resolve the 
challenge in the online portal, after which the Commission, will review 
the evidence and make a determination, 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) In consumer challenges to availability and coverage map data, a 
consumer's challenge must make an initial showing, by a preponderance 
of the evidence, that a provider's data are inaccurate; a provider must 
then provide evidence showing, by a preponderance of the evidence, that 
its reported data are accurate.
    (8) In challenges to availability and coverage data by governmental 
(State, local, Tribal), or other entities, the challenger must make a 
detailed, clear and methodologically sound showing, by clear and 
convincing evidence, that a provider's data are inaccurate.
    (9) For challenges to the Fabric, after a challenge has been filed 
containing the required information in paragraph (d)(1) of this 
section, the provider will receive a notice of the challenge from the 
online portal and can respond to the challenge in the online portal, 
but is not required to do so, and the Commission shall seek to resolve 
such challenges within 60 days of receiving the challenge filing in the 
online portal.
    (10) Government entities or other entities may file challenges at 
multiple locations in a single challenge, but each challenge must 
contain all of the requirements set forth in (d)(1) of this section.
    (11) 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.
    (e) Mobile service challenge process for consumers. Consumers may 
submit data to challenge the accuracy of mobile broadband coverage 
maps. Consumers may challenge mobile coverage data based on lack of 
service or on poor service quality such as slow delivered user speed.
    (1) Consumer challengers must provide in their submissions:
    (i) Name and contact information (e.g., address, phone number, and/
or email address);
    (ii) The name of the provider being challenged;
    (iii) Speed test data. Consumers must take all speed tests 
outdoors. Consumers shall indicate whether each test was taken in an 
in-vehicle mobile or outdoor pedestrian environment. Consumers must use 
a speed test application that has been designated by Office of 
Engineering and Technology, in consultation with Office of Economics 
and Analytics and the Wireless Telecommunications Bureau, for use in 
the challenge process;
    (iv) A certification that the challenger is a subscriber or 
authorized user of the provider being challenged;
    (iv) A certification that the speed test measurements were taken 
outdoors; and
    (v) A certification that, to the best of the person's actual 
knowledge, information, and belief, the handset and the speed test 
application are in ordinary working order and all statements of fact 
contained in the submission are true and correct.
    (2) The Office of Economics and Analytics, in consultation with the 
Wireless Telecommunications Bureau, will determine the threshold number 
of mobile consumer challenges within a specified area that will 
constitute a cognizable challenge that triggers the obligation for a 
provider to respond.
    (3) For areas with a cognizable challenge, providers either must 
submit a rebuttal to the challenge within a 60-day period of being 
notified of the challenge or concede and have the challenged area 
identified on the mobile coverage map as an area that lacks sufficient 
service.
    (4) To dispute a challenge, a mobile service provider must submit 
on-the-ground test data or infrastructure data to verify its coverage 
map(s) in the challenged area. The Office of Economics and Analytics 
and the Wireless Telecommunications Bureau will develop the specific 
requirements and methodologies that providers must use in conducting 
on-the-ground testing and in providing infrastructure data. To the 
extent that a service provider believes it would be helpful to the 
Commission in resolving a challenge, it may choose to submit other data 
in addition to the data initially required, including but not limited 
to either infrastructure or on-the-ground testing (to the extent such 
data are not the primary option chosen by the provider) or other types 
of data such as data collected from network transmitter monitoring 
systems or software, or spectrum band-specific coverage maps. Such 
other data must be submitted at the same time as the primary on-the-
ground testing or infrastructure rebuttal data submitted by the 
provider. If needed to ensure an adequate review, the Office of 
Economics and Analytics may also require that the provider submit other 
data in addition to the data initially submitted, including but not 
limited to either infrastructure or on-the-ground testing data (to the 
extent not the option initially chosen by the provider) or data 
collected from network transmitter monitoring systems or software (to 
the extent available in the provider's network).
    (5) If a mobile service provider that has failed to rebut a 
challenge subsequently takes remedial action to improve coverage at the 
location of the challenge, the provider must notify the Commission of 
the actions it has taken to improve its coverage and provide either on-
the-ground test data or infrastructure data to verify its improved 
coverage.
    (6) In cases where a mobile service provider concedes or loses a 
challenge, the provider must file, within 30 days, geospatial data 
depicting the challenged area that has been shown to lack sufficient 
service. Such data will constitute a correction layer to the provider's 
original propagation model-based coverage map, and Commission staff 
will use this layer to update the broadband coverage map. In addition, 
to the extent that a provider does not later improve coverage for the 
relevant technology in an area where it conceded or lost a challenge, 
it must include this

[[Page 18162]]

correction layer in its subsequent Digital Opportunity Data Collection 
filings to indicate the areas shown to lack service.
    (f) Mobile service challenge process for State, local, and Tribal 
governmental entities; and other entities or individuals. State, local, 
and Tribal governmental entities and other entities or individuals may 
submit data to challenge accuracy of mobile broadband coverage maps. 
They may challenge mobile coverage data based on lack or service or 
poor service quality such as slow delivered user speed.
    (1) State, local, and Tribal governmental entities and other entity 
or individual challengers must provide in their submissions:
    (i) Government and other entity challengers may use their own 
software to collect data for the challenge process. When they submit 
their data, however, it must contain the following metrics for each 
test:
    (A) The geographic coordinates of the test(s) (i.e., latitude/
longitude);
    (B) The name of the service provider being tested;
    (C) The consumer-grade device type(s), brand/model, and operating 
system used for the test;
    (D) The download and upload speeds;
    (E) The latency data;
    (F) The date and time of the test;
    (G) Whether the test was taken in an in-vehicle mobile or outdoor, 
pedestrian stationary environment, and if mobile, whether the test was 
conducted with the antenna outside of the vehicle;
    (H) For an in-vehicle test, the vehicle speed the vehicle was 
traveling when the test was taken, if available;
    (I) The signal strength, if available;
    (J) An indication of whether the test failed to establish a 
connection with a mobile network at the time and place it was 
initiated;
    (K) The network technology (e.g., LTE, 5G) and spectrum band(s) 
used for the test; and
    (L) The location of the server to which the test connected;
    (ii) A complete description of the methodology(ies) used to collect 
their data; and
    (iii) Challengers must substantiate their data through the 
certification of a qualified engineer or official.
    (2) Challengers must conduct speed tests using a device advertised 
by the challenged service provider as compatible with its network and 
must take all speed tests outdoors.
    (3) The Office of Economics and Analytics, in consultation with the 
Wireless Telecommunications Bureau, will determine the threshold number 
of challenges within a specified area that will constitute a cognizable 
challenge that triggers the obligation for a provider to respond.
    (4) For areas with a cognizable challenge, providers either must 
submit a rebuttal to the challenge within a 60-day period of being 
notified of the challenge or concede and have the challenged area 
identified on the mobile coverage map as an area that lacks sufficient 
service.
    (5) To dispute a challenge, a mobile service provider must submit 
on-the-ground test data or infrastructure data to verify its coverage 
map(s) in the challenged area. The Office of Economics and Analytics 
and the Wireless Telecommunications Bureau will develop the specific 
requirements and methodologies that providers must use in conducting 
on-the-ground testing and in providing infrastructure data. To the 
extent that a service provider believes it would be helpful to the 
Commission in resolving a challenge, it may choose to submit other data 
in addition to the data initially required, including but not limited 
to either infrastructure or on-the-ground testing (to the extent such 
data are not the primary option chosen by the provider) or other types 
of data such as data collected from network transmitter monitoring 
systems or software or spectrum band-specific coverage maps. Such other 
data must be submitted at the same time as the primary on-the-ground 
testing or infrastructure rebuttal data submitted by the provider. If 
needed to ensure an adequate review, the Office of Economics and 
Analytics may also require that the provider submit other data in 
addition to the data initially submitted, including but not limited to 
either infrastructure or on-the-ground testing data (to the extent not 
the option initially chosen by the provider) or data collected from 
network transmitter monitoring systems or software (to the extent 
available in the provider's network).
    (6) If a provider that has failed to rebut a challenge subsequently 
takes remedial action to improve coverage at the location of the 
challenge, the provider must notify the Commission of the actions it 
has taken to improve its coverage and provide either on-the-ground test 
data or infrastructure data to verify its improved coverage.
    (7) In cases where a mobile service provider concedes or loses a 
challenge, the provider must file, within 30 days, geospatial data 
depicting the challenged area that has been shown to lack service. Such 
data will constitute a correction layer to the provider's original 
propagation model-based coverage map, and Commission staff will use 
this layer to update the broadband coverage map. In addition, to the 
extent that a provider does not later improve coverage for the relevant 
technology in an area where it conceded or lost a challenge, it must 
include this correction layer in its subsequent Digital Opportunity 
Data Collection filings to indicate the areas shown to lack service.

0
6. Amend Sec.  1.7008 by revising paragraphs (d)(1) introductory text 
and (d)(2) and adding paragraph (d)(3) as follows:


Sec.  1.7008  Creation of broadband internet access service coverage 
maps.

* * * * *
    (d)(1) The Commission shall collect verified data for use in the 
coverage maps from:
* * * * *
    (2) To the extent they choose to file verified data, such 
government entities and third parties shall follow the same filing 
process as providers submitting their broadband internet access service 
data in the Digital Opportunity Data Collection portal.
    (3) Providers shall review the verified data submitted by 
governments and third parties in the online portal, work with the 
submitter to resolve any coverage discrepancies, make any corrections 
they deem necessary based on such review, and submit any updated data 
to the Commission within 60 days of the date that the provider is 
notified that the data has been submitted in the online portal by the 
government entity or third party.

0
7. Revise Sec.  1.7009 to read as follows:


Sec.  1.7009  Enforcement.

    (a) It shall be unlawful for an entity or individual to willfully 
and knowingly, or recklessly, submit information or data as part of the 
Digital Opportunity Data Collection that is materially inaccurate or 
incomplete with respect to the availability or the quality of broadband 
internet access service. 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 the Commission's rules and the instructions to the 
Digital Opportunity Data Collection may lead to enforcement action 
pursuant to the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, and any other 
applicable law.
    (c) For purposes of this section, ``materially inaccurate or 
incomplete'' means a submission that contains omissions or incomplete 
or inaccurate information that the Commission finds has a substantial 
impact on its collection and use of the data collected

[[Page 18163]]

in order to comply with the requirements of 47 U.S.C. 641-646.
    (d) Providers must file corrected data when they discover 
inaccuracy, omission, or significant reporting error in the original 
data that they submitted, whether through self-discovery, the 
crowdsource process, the challenge process, the Commission verification 
process, or otherwise.
    (1) Providers must file corrections within 30 days of their 
discovery of incorrect or incomplete data; and
    (2) The corrected filings must be accompanied by the same types of 
certifications that accompany the original filings.

PART 54--[AMENDED]

0
8. The authority citation for part 54 continues to read as follows:

    Authority: 47 U.S.C. 151, 154(i), 155, 201, 205, 214, 219, 220, 
229, 254, 303(r), 403, 1004, 1302, and 1601-1609, unless otherwise 
noted.

Subpart N--[Removed]

0
9. Remove subpart N, consisting of Sec. Sec.  54.1400 through 54.1403.

[FR Doc. 2021-04998 Filed 4-6-21; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6712-01-P