[Federal Register Volume 90, Number 165 (Thursday, August 28, 2025)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 41940-41965]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2025-16540]
=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION
47 CFR Parts 51 and 63
[WC Docket Nos. 25-208, 25-209; FCC 25-37; FR ID 308937]
Reducing Barriers to Network Improvements and Service Changes
AGENCY: Federal Communications Commission.
ACTION: Proposed rule.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: In this document, the Federal Communications Commission
(Commission) adopted a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking that seeks comment
on deregulatory options to encourage providers to build, maintain, and
upgrade their networks such that all consumers and businesses can
benefit from technological strides in the communications marketplace,
while safeguarding consumers' access to critical emergency services
such as 911. These actions propose to reduce regulatory barriers that
prevent much-needed investment in and deployment of broadband and thus
hinder the transition to all-IP networks offering a
[[Page 41941]]
plethora of advanced communications services, and seek comment on ways
to further fast-track the delivery of services to consumers through
modernized networks while protecting public safety.
DATES: Comments are due on or before September 29, 2025; reply comments
are due on or before October 27, 2025.
ADDRESSES: Pursuant to Sec. Sec. 1.415 and 1.419 of the Commission's
rules, 47 CFR 1.415, 1.419, interested parties may file comments and
reply comments. Comments may be filed using the Commission's Electronic
Comment Filing System (ECFS). You may submit comments, identified by WC
Docket Nos. 25-208 and 25-209, by the following method:
Electronic Filers: Comments may be filed electronically
using the internet by accessing the ECFS: https://www.fcc.gov/ecfs.
Paper Filers: Parties who choose to file by paper must
file an original and one copy of each filing.
Filings can be sent by hand or messenger delivery, by
commercial courier, or by the U.S. Postal Service. All filings must be
addressed to the Secretary, Federal Communications Commission.
Hand-delivered or messenger-delivered paper filings for
the Commission's Secretary are accepted between 8:00 a.m. and 4:00 p.m.
by the FCC's mailing contractor at 9050 Junction Drive, Annapolis
Junction, MD 20701. All hand deliveries must be held together with
rubber bands or fasteners. Any envelopes and boxes must be disposed of
before entering the building.
Commercial courier deliveries (any deliveries not by the
U.S. Postal Service) must be sent to 9050 Junction Drive, Annapolis
Junction, MD 20701.
Filings sent by U.S. Postal Service First-Class Mail,
Priority Mail, and Priority Mail Express must be sent to 45 L Street
NE, Washington, DC 20554.
People with Disabilities. To request materials in
accessible formats for people with disabilities (braille, large print,
electronic files, audio format), send an email to [email protected] or
call the Consumer & Governmental Affairs Bureau at 202-418-0530.
In addition to filing comments with the Secretary, a copy of any
comments on the Paperwork Reduction Act proposed information collection
requirements contained herein should be submitted to the Federal
Communications Commission via email to [email protected] and to Nicole
Ongele, FCC, via email to [email protected].
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For further information about this
proceeding, please contact Michele Berlove, Competition Policy
Division, Wireline Competition Bureau, at (202) 418-1477, or
[email protected], or Mason Shefa, Competition Policy Division,
Wireline Competition Bureau, at [email protected], or (202) 418-2494.
For additional information concerning the Paperwork Reduction Act
proposed information collection requirements contained in this
document, send an email to [email protected] or contact Nicole Ongele at
(202) 418-2991.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: This is a summary of the Commission's Notice
of Proposed Rulemaking in WC Docket Nos. 25-208, 25-209; FCC 25-37,
adopted on July 24, 2025, and released on July 25, 2025. The full text
of this document is available for public inspection at the following
internet address: https://docs.fcc.gov/public/attachments/FCC-25-37A1.pdf.
Paperwork Reduction Act: This document contains proposed new or
modified information collection requirements. The Commission, as part
of its continuing effort to reduce paperwork burdens, invites the
general public and the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) to comment
on the information collection requirements contained in this document,
as required by the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, Public Law 104-13.
In addition, pursuant to the Small Business Paperwork Relief Act of
2002, Public Law 107-198, see 44 U.S.C. 3506(c)(4), we seek specific
comment on how we might further reduce the information collection
burden for small business concerns with fewer than 25 employees.
Providing Accountability Through Transparency Act: Consistent with
the Providing Accountability Through Transparency Act, a summary of
this Notice of Proposed Rulemaking is available at https://www.fcc.gov/proposed-rulemakings. To request materials in accessible formats for
people with disabilities (e.g. Braille, large print, electronic files,
audio format), send an email to [email protected] or call the Consumer &
Governmental Affairs Bureau at (202) 418-0530.
Ex Parte Rules: The proceeding this document initiates shall be
treated as a ``permit-but-disclose'' proceeding in accordance with the
Commission's ex parte rules. Persons making ex parte presentations must
file a copy of any written presentation or a memorandum summarizing any
oral presentation within two business days after the presentation
(unless a different deadline applicable to the Sunshine period
applies). Persons making oral ex parte presentations are reminded that
memoranda summarizing the presentation must (1) list all persons
attending or otherwise participating in the meeting at which the ex
parte presentation was made, and (2) summarize all data presented and
arguments made during the presentation. If the presentation consisted
in whole or in part of the presentation of data or arguments already
reflected in the presenter's written comments, memoranda or other
filings in the proceeding, the presenter may provide citations to such
data or arguments in his or her prior comments, memoranda, or other
filings (specifying the relevant page and/or paragraph numbers where
such data or arguments can be found) in lieu of summarizing them in the
memorandum. Documents shown or given to Commission staff during ex
parte meetings are deemed to be written ex parte presentations and must
be filed consistent with rule 1.1206(b). In proceedings governed by
rule 1.49(f) or for which the Commission has made available a method of
electronic filing, written ex parte presentations and memoranda
summarizing oral ex parte presentations, and all attachments thereto,
must be filed through the electronic comment filing system available
for that proceeding, and must be filed in their native format (e.g.,
.doc, .xml, .ppt, searchable .pdf). Participants in this proceeding
should familiarize themselves with the Commission's ex parte rules.
Synopsis
I. Discussion
A. Copper Retirement (and Other Network Change Disclosures)
1. Section 251(c)(5) of the Act, which establishes incumbent local
exchange carriers' (LECs) obligations when making changes that could
affect the interoperability of their facilities or networks, is a
notice-only provision. An incumbent LEC may thus make changes to its
network, including switching from copper facilities to fiber or other
next-generation facilities, without the need to receive prior
Commission authorization so long as it provides ``reasonable public
notice''--a requirement the Commission historically has reflected in
its implementing rules. Consistent with section 251(c)(5), the
Commission's implementing rules require that an incumbent LEC provide
public notice regarding any network change that (1) will affect a
competing service provider's performance or ability to provide service;
(2) will affect the incumbent LEC's interoperability with
[[Page 41942]]
other service providers; or (3) will result in a copper retirement. The
rules define copper retirement as ``[t]he removal or disabling of
copper loops, subloops, or the feeder portion of such loops or
subloops; or [t]he replacement of such loops with fiber-to-the-home
loops or fiber-to-the-curb loops.'' Section 251(c)(5) reflects the
decision by Congress that a notice-based network change process best
serves the public by striking a balance between allowing incumbent LECs
to make changes to their networks without undue regulatory burdens and
giving competitive LECs time to account for those changes. Accordingly,
the Commission has periodically reviewed its rules to determine whether
they appropriately reflect this balance.
2. Earlier this year, the Bureau issued the NCD Waiver Order, which
waives, for a period of two years, the filing requirements in the
Commission's network change disclosure rules adopted pursuant to
section 251(c)(5) of the Act. The Bureau also waived its process of
issuing public notices for short-term network changes and copper
retirements, as well as the associated objection process for
interconnected service providers. Pursuant to the waiver, incumbent
LECs are only required to post public notice of planned network changes
through industry fora, industry publications, or on the carrier's
publicly accessible internet site. Incumbent LECs are still required to
provide direct notice of copper retirements and short-term network
changes to interconnected telephone exchange service providers.
Additionally, incumbent LECs must continue to provide public notice and
communicate directly with interconnected telephone exchange service
providers about network changes resulting from force majeure events and
other events outside of the carrier's control.
3. The Bureau found that this waiver would result in ``more
effective implementation of overall policy'' of the transition from
legacy networks to next-generation networks. It also concluded that by
reducing unnecessary regulatory burdens, as contemplated by the First
Wireline Infrastructure Order (82 FR 61520 (11/28/2017)), the waiver
would serve the public interest by freeing up incumbent LEC resources
to devote to the development and deployment of networks capable of
supporting more advanced communications services. The Bureau noted that
over the past two years, the Commission has processed more than 400
network change disclosure filings and did not receive a single comment
in opposition despite the public notices released by the Bureau. The
Bureau thus concluded that the requirement of filing with the
Commission ``serve[s] no purpose but to unnecessarily duplicate the
information that incumbent LECs are already required to publicly post
on their websites or in other public places.''
1. Codify Waiver of Network Change Disclosure Filing Requirements
4. We propose to eliminate all filing requirements with the
Commission currently set forth in our network change disclosure rules.
We seek comment on this proposal.
5. What benefit, if any, does the public gain from requiring
incumbent LECs to file their network change disclosures with the
Commission? What benefit, if any, does the public gain from public
notices released by the Commission notifying the public of incumbent
LEC network change disclosures? Conversely, what costs do incumbent
LECs incur in connection with these requirements? What would be the
likely cost savings to carriers from eliminating all of these filing
requirements? Does eliminating all filing requirements, while
maintaining public notice requirements consistent with section
251(c)(5), meaningfully reduce the regulatory burdens on carriers? Does
publishing public network change disclosures through carriers' own
channels, and not with the Commission, provide reasonable public
notice, as required by section 251(c)(5) of the Act?
2. Forbearance From All Section 251(c)(5) Requirements
6. As an alternative to our proposal to eliminate all network
change disclosure filing and associated requirements, we seek comment
on whether we should instead forbear from all public notice
requirements imposed by section 251(c)(5) and our implementing rules.
7. Section 251(c)(5)'s ``reasonable public notice'' requirement
ensures that all providers are aware of changes that may affect a
carrier's ability to provide service. Congress enacted section
251(c)(5) as one of a number of market-opening provisions at a time
when incumbent LECs held a virtual monopoly in the communications
marketplace. The Commission based its rules implementing section
251(c)(5)'s public notice requirements on the then-existing industry
practice of notifying carriers of network changes via industry fora,
industry publications, and the internet. The filing requirements served
as an additional measure to ensure ``wide availability of pertinent
network change information,'' particularly for small entities with
limited resources. In the NCD Waiver Order, the Bureau concluded that
the need for incumbent LECs to also file notice with the Commission in
addition to providing public notice imposes ``redundant regulatory
filing requirements that serve no practical purpose.''
8. Section 10 of the Act requires the Commission to forbear from
applying any requirement of the Act or of our regulations to a
telecommunications carrier or telecommunications service if the
Commission determines that (1) enforcement of the requirement ``is not
necessary to ensure that the charges, practices, classifications, or
regulations by, for, or in connection with that telecommunications
carrier or telecommunications service are just and reasonable and are
not unjustly or unreasonably discriminatory,'' (2) enforcement of that
requirement ``is not necessary for the protection of consumers,'' and
(3) ``forbearance from applying such provision or regulation is
consistent with the public interest.'' When determining whether
forbearance is consistent with the public interest, the Commission must
consider ``whether forbearance from enforcing the provision or
regulation will promote competitive market conditions.'' Forbearance is
warranted only if all three criteria are satisfied. Section 10 of the
Act also requires the Commission to determine whether the requirements
in section 251(c) of the Act ``have been fully implemented'' before
forbearing from them. The Commission has previously concluded that the
requirements in section 251(c) have been fully implemented because the
Commission issued rules implementing that section that went into
effect. The D.C. Circuit upheld this conclusion using a Chevron
analysis in Qwest Corp. v. FCC. We seek comment on any current and
relevant aspects of the fully implemented requirement and on whether
the Commission's determination in the Qwest Forbearance Order that
section 251(c) has been fully implemented constitutes the best reading
of the statute.
9. Ensuring practices are just and reasonable (section 10(a)(1)).
Should the Commission forbear from section 251(c)(5)'s requirements,
incumbent LECs would be allowed to make any network change or copper
retirement without providing public notice of any type or filing with
the Commission. Is section 251(c)(5)'s requirement that incumbent LECs
provide ``reasonable public notice of changes in the information
necessary for the transmission and routing of services using that local
exchange carrier's
[[Page 41943]]
facilities or networks, as well as of any other changes that would
affect the interoperability of those facilities and networks'' still
necessary to ensure that incumbent LECs' practices are just and
reasonable and not unjustly or unreasonably discriminatory? If the
requirement continues to be necessary, why and to what extent? Do
incumbent LECs still exert sufficient control over the marketplace such
that an incumbent LEC providing no notice of changes to its network
would unreasonably inhibit competing service providers? Would
interconnected telephone exchange service providers be adversely
affected by receiving no notice of short-term network changes or copper
retirements? Do interconnection agreements between incumbent LECs and
competitive providers contain notice requirements that make section
251(c)(5)'s requirements redundant?
10. Ensuring protection of consumers (section 10(a)(2)). We seek
comment on whether enforcement of the public notice requirements in
section 251(c)(5) and our implementing rules is necessary to protect
consumers, understanding that the notice is directed to interconnecting
carriers that are in a business relationship with the incumbent LEC.
Would consumers be harmed were we to forbear from section 251(c)(5)'s
public notice requirement and the Commission's rules implementing that
requirement? Have incumbent LEC network changes affected other
carriers' ability to provide services to their customers and, if so,
how often and in what ways? In instances where carriers' ability to
provide services has been affected, how long have such disruptions
lasted? Were consumers harmed as a result of such disruptions and, if
so, what was the extent of those harms? Do interconnection agreements
between incumbent LECs and competitive LECs provide sufficient
protection for consumers?
11. Consistent with the public interest (section 10(a)(3)). We seek
comment on whether forbearance from section 251(c)(5)'s requirements
would be consistent with the public interest. In the Second Local
Competition Order, the Commission noted that notice of network changes
was necessary to ``reduce[] the possibility that incumbent LECs could
make network changes in a manner that inhibits competition.'' At the
time, competing providers relied on their connection to incumbent LECs'
networks to provide service to customers. The marketplace has since
gone through significant developments and become much more competitive.
At the end of 2003, the year in which the Commission extended its
network change disclosure rules to copper retirements, incumbent LECs
provisioned more than 80% of the roughly 181 million reported end-user
switched access lines. Since then, reliance on legacy networks in the
communications marketplace has drastically decreased, with only 18
million switched access lines by mid-2024 compared to 64.5 million
interconnected VoIP subscriptions. And when accounting for all retail
voice telephone service connections across both technologies, incumbent
LECs have steadily lost market share to non-incumbents, dropping to
just 25% of all wireline retail voice telephone service connections as
of June 2024. Does this correlate to incumbent LECs having a smaller
share of the market? Does this change in the marketplace support
elimination of all notice requirements? Should incumbent LECs alone
bear the burden of mandated notice requirements when other carriers
have no equivalent regulatory burden? Were we to forbear from section
251(c)(5)'s requirements, incumbent LECs would be freed from regulatory
burdens that might divert their focus from the development and
deployment of next-generation networks that give consumers access to
more advanced communication services. Does this mean forbearance would
be in the public interest? Does this benefit outweigh any harm that
could result from forbearance from section 251(c)(5)? Would
forbearance, and the potential loss of a significant number of switched
access lines, have any impact on the ability of critical infrastructure
industries or government agencies to maintain critical operations and
services? If we were to forbear from section 215(c)(5)'s public notice
requirement, could the Commission, through its own outreach, mitigate
any potential harm to consumers? If so, how best could the Commission
utilize such outreach?
12. We also seek comment on how to ensure that 911 service remains
available and fully functional for consumers if we were to forbear from
section 251(c)(5)'s requirements. The Commission has consistently
emphasized that a key element of ``promoting safety of life and
property through the use of wire and radio communications'' is to
ensure that the American people have access to reliable and resilient
911 communications service. We therefore seek comment on how to ensure
that granting forbearance would not lead to interruptions in 911
service. In particular, we note that network transitions subject to
section 251(c)(5) may occur in areas where 911 authorities and
originating service providers (OSPs) have not yet transitioned to Next
Generation 911 (NG911) and will therefore continue for some time to
rely on legacy selective routers and other TDM-based infrastructure for
delivery of 911 calls to public safety answering points (PSAPs). Unlike
legacy 911 systems that rely on Time Division Multiplexing (TDM)
infrastructure, NG911 uses internet Protocol (IP)-based formats and
routing and supports the transmission of text, photos, videos, and
data. The Commission recently adopted nationwide NG911 transition rules
that define responsibilities and deadlines for originating service
providers (OSPs), such as wireless carriers, to deliver 911 calls to
NG911 systems, among other requirements. The NG911 Order also
establishes the demarcation point for assigning cost responsibilities
for OSPs to deliver 911 traffic to NG911 systems and for 911
authorities to route 911 traffic to PSAPs. Some commenters have
expressed concern that in such circumstances, discontinuing operation
of critical TDM circuits in the 911 call path without prior notice
could lead to disruption or interruption of 911 calls. We seek comment
on this concern and whether safeguards are needed to ensure the
continuity of 911 service. For example, should we require advance
notice for network changes that could disrupt traffic to 911 networks
to allow time for substitute services to be arranged? Should the
Commission reserve the right to direct a carrier to temporarily delay a
section 251(c)(5) network change if it would imminently disrupt 911
service? On what basis would the Commission have the authority to do
so? Alternatively, could forbearance from section 251(c)(5)'s
requirements help accelerate the deployment of the next-generation
networks necessary for NG911?
B. Section 214 Discontinuance
13. We next examine our rules governing the section 214(a)
discontinuance process. We first take a close look at our rules
governing technology transitions discontinuances and seek comment on
various ways to replace, forbear from, simplify, or otherwise revise
our section 214(a) discontinuance rules to expedite the transition from
legacy services to next-generation services. We seek comment on the
possible regulatory costs and delays for carriers seeking to
discontinue services, and ultimately for consumers who must wait longer
for advanced services or may experience a
[[Page 41944]]
gap in service. We also seek comment on other targeted actions, such as
whether to extend application of the no-customer rule to the emergency
discontinuance context in cases in which customers migrate to other
services while their provider attempts to restore their existing
service. Finally, we undertake a long-overdue broad review of specific
outdated discontinuance regulations to determine whether any existing
rules have become fully obsolete in this modern communications era.
14. Section 214(a) of the Act provides that a carrier may not
discontinue, reduce, or impair a telecommunications service without
Commission authorization. Section 214(a)'s discontinuance obligations
apply to interstate voice and data telecommunications services, but not
to services provisioned by a carrier that fall outside of the purview
of Title II of the Act, such as information services or data or other
services offered on a private carriage basis. While the Commission has
not categorized interconnected VoIP as either a telecommunications
service or an information service, it extended the section 214(a)
discontinuance obligations to include that service. In evaluating
whether to grant such authorization, the Commission must determine
whether the discontinuance would adversely impact the public interest.
All applicants seeking to discontinue a service on a streamlined basis
are required to file a section 214 application in accordance with the
Commission's rules governing notice, opportunity for comment, review,
and processing requirements. Such applications are automatically
granted on a specified date unless the Bureau has notified the
applicant that the grant will not be automatically effective. Under
such streamlined processing, a discontinuance application is
automatically granted on the 31st day (for non-dominant carriers) or
the 60th day (for dominant carriers) after the Bureau accepts the
application for filing. The Bureau has the discretion to remove an
application from streamlined processing ``when the public interest
demands a more searching review.'' The Bureau will generally authorize
the discontinuance ``unless it is shown that customers would be unable
to receive service or a reasonable substitute from another carrier or
that the public convenience is otherwise adversely affected.'' In
evaluating whether ``the public convenience and necessity is otherwise
adversely affected'' by the discontinuance, the Commission has long
applied a five-factor balancing test. This test analyzes: (1) the
financial impact on the common carrier of continuing to provide the
service; (2) the need for the service in general; (3) the need for the
particular facilities in question; (4) increased charges for
alternative services; and (5) the existence, availability, and adequacy
of alternatives.
15. Technology Transitions Discontinuances. The Commission defines
a ``technology transition'' as ``any change in service that would
result in the replacement of a wireline TDM-based voice service with a
service using a different technology or medium for transmission to the
end user, whether internet Protocol (IP), wireless, or another type.''
In the 2016 Technology Transitions Order (81 FR 62632 (09/12/2016)),
the Commission adopted an updated approach for section 214 applications
involving technology transitions, having determined that the adequacy
of the replacement service has ``heightened importance'' in the context
of technology transitions. It thus established the three-prong Adequate
Replacement Test, which a carrier must meet to be eligible for
streamlined treatment and automatic grant for their own replacement
service. Under the Adequate Replacement Test, technology transitions
discontinuance applications must: (1) demonstrate that an adequate
replacement for their voice service exists ``by either certifying or
showing, based on the totality of the circumstances, that one or more
replacement service(s) . . . offers substantially similar levels of
network infrastructure and service quality''; (2) ``show the
replacement service complies with regulations regarding the
availability and functionality of 911 service for consumers and public
safety answering points''; and (3) show that the replacement service
``offers interoperability with key applications and functionalities.''
Applicants relying on a third-party replacement service rather than
their own replacement service are allowed to make a prima facie showing
based on publicly available information that the third-party service is
an adequate replacement. With this test, the Commission sought ``to
minimize uncertainty or confusion that could slow or even discourage
technology transitions.''
16. In the June 2018 Second Wireline Infrastructure Order (83 FR
31659 (07/09/2018)), in furtherance of its commitment to accelerate the
transition to next-generation networks and advanced communications
services, the Commission amended its technology transitions
discontinuance rules to provide an additional, more streamlined option,
the Alternative Options Test, for carriers seeking to discontinue
legacy voice services. Under the Alternative Options Test, an
application seeking to discontinue a legacy retail voice service as
part of a technology transition is eligible for streamlined treatment
if (1) the applicant offers a stand-alone interconnected VoIP service
throughout the affected service area, and (2) at least one other
alternative stand-alone facilities-based wireline or wireless voice
service is available from another unaffiliated provider throughout the
affected service area, unless the Commission notifies the applicant
otherwise. A service is ``stand-alone'' if a customer is ``not required
to purchase a separate broadband service to access the voice service.''
The Commission's rules exempt a carrier from the requirement to include
in its application a certification or showing that it satisfies the
adequate replacement test for streamlined processing if the carrier
satisfies both prongs of the Alternative Options Test. Where only one
potential replacement service exists, a carrier must meet the more
rigorous demands of the Adequate Replacement Test in order to receive
streamlined treatment of its discontinuance application. An application
filed by a carrier meeting these requirements shall be automatically
granted on the 31st day after filing unless the Commission has notified
the applicant otherwise.
1. Reexamining the Technology Transitions Discontinuance Process
17. We first propose replacing the Adequate Replacement Test and
the Alternative Options Test with one rule that would apply to all
technology transition discontinuance applications. We next seek comment
on two alternatives to this approach, namely: (1) eliminating the tests
and the technology transition discontinuance distinction altogether; or
(2) granting forbearance relief in certain contexts. We also seek
comment more generally on whether there are additional ways in which we
might further streamline the discontinuance process for carriers
choosing to discontinue legacy voice services beyond those we describe
below. We encourage commenters to be as specific as possible and to
support any proposals with as much evidence as is available.
a. Replacing the Adequate Replacement Test and the Alternative Options
Test With One Simplified Rule
18. We propose to replace both the Adequate Replacement Test and
the
[[Page 41945]]
Alternative Options Test with one consolidated rule applicable to all
technology transitions discontinuance applications. Specifically, we
propose that an application to discontinue an existing retail service
as part of a technology transition be eligible for streamlined
processing if the applicant certifies that one or more of the following
replacement services exists throughout the affected service area: (1) a
facilities-based interconnected VoIP service; (2) a facilities-based
mobile wireless service; (3) a voice service offered pursuant to an
obligation from one of the Commission's modernized high-cost support
programs; (4) a voice service that has been available from the
applicant throughout the affected service area for the previous six
months and for which the carrier has at least a certain number of
existing subscribers; or (5) a widely adopted alternative voice
service. We seek comment on this proposal, and on whether we should
consider streamlined processing in any other instances, including those
listed in the forbearance section below.
19. Proposal generally. We first seek comment on our proposal
generally. Do commenters agree that we should replace both the Adequate
Replacement Test and the Alternative Options Test with a single,
consolidated rule applicable to all technology transition
discontinuance applications? Should we retain the definition of
``technology transition'' in Sec. 63.60(i) of our rules, or should we
adopt a different definition? If commenters believe we should adopt a
different definition, what should that definition be? Do commenters
believe either the Adequate Replacement Test or the Alternative Options
Test--whether with possible targeted revisions as contemplated below,
or as they stand today--provides any benefit to carriers seeking to
discontinue legacy voice services as part of a technology transition,
or to consumers? We note that in spite of the Commission's goal that
consumers receive the benefits of technology transitions with ``all
reasonable efficiency,'' the first discontinuance application seeking
streamlined processing under the Adequate Replacement Test without
relying on the existence of a third-party cable VoIP service was filed
in July 2024, almost eight years after the Commission adopted the test,
and six years after its effective date. Is this evidence that the
Adequate Replacement Test, rather than supporting the Commission's goal
of accelerating the transition to IP-based voice services, actually
``impede[s] the industry from a prompt transition to newer
technologies''?
20. We seek comment on whether the Alternative Options Test has had
the intended effect of ``[r]emoving regulatory barriers causing
unnecessary costs or delay when carriers seek to transition from legacy
networks and services to broadband networks and services,'' or whether,
as USTelecom argues, it has ``fallen short of the Commission's
intent''? As discussed further below, the Bureau concurred with
USTelecom's assertion that ``in the nearly seven years since the
Alternative Options Test . . . was adopted, the Wireline Competition
Bureau . . . has found that presumptive streamlined treatment under the
. . . test was available only eight times'' and thus adopted a limited
waiver of the word ``stand-alone'' in the Alternative Options Test. Do
commenters think this waiver is sufficient to enable the test, as
USTelecom states, ``to align . . . with the Commission's aims''? Or,
would the replacement of both this test and the Adequate Replacement
Test with a single, consolidated rule more effectively accelerate and
streamline the technology transitions discontinuance process while
providing adequate protection to consumers? Are there any other
considerations that we should take into account regarding the adoption
of a single, consolidated rule, particularly regarding the potential
impact on consumers? We also seek comment on the extent to which our
proposal ensures that subscribers maintain ready access to emergency
services via 911.
21. Specified replacement services. We seek comment on our proposal
to adopt five specific options for services that would each satisfy the
applicant's requirement to certify that a replacement service exists
throughout the affected service area. As is already the case under our
rules, customers would have the opportunity to comment on or object to
the discontinuance application, 47 CFR 63.71(a)(5), and Commission
staff would have the discretion to remove an application from
streamlined processing if they determine the application requires a
more thorough review. Would adopting any of the options enumerated
above adversely impact the current or future public convenience and
necessity? In 2016, the Commission declined to adopt presumptions or
exclusions regarding specific types of replacement services ``because
our public interest analysis demands that applicants provide objective
evidence showing a replacement service will provide quality service and
access to needed applications and functionalities.'' The Commission
noted that 911 service is a critical application that must remain
available and fully functional as part of any technology transition.
The Commission also noted that ``it is critical that we retain the
ability to examine each discontinuance application given the potential
for variability in different implementations of the same technology,''
adding that ``[t]he same technology could nonetheless utilize different
features, be produced by different vendors with different
methodologies, and use different quality measurement techniques, any of
which could result in varied service quality and thus lead to potential
interoperability issues.'' Do commenters agree that, over the course of
nearly a decade, these concerns have become less relevant or
irrelevant? In 2018, the Commission considered whether to replace the
Adequate Replacement Test with a simple requirement that a
discontinuing carrier show that any fixed or mobile voice service,
including interconnected VoIP, is available to qualify for streamlined
treatment. The Commission declined to do so, stating that such a rule
would ``fail[] to ensure the availability of a voice replacement
service in the community as a condition to obtaining streamlined
treatment that sufficiently addresses commenters' concerns . . . about
the characteristics of the replacement voice service, and [would] not
carry the added benefit of ensuring the availability of multiple
alternatives to affected customers, whether present or future.'' Given
the state of the voice service marketplace today, are such concerns
still relevant? If so, do commenters think that our proposed rule,
including any or all of the proposed options, addresses these concerns?
Are the answers to these questions the same when the customers include
critical infrastructure industries and government agencies that provide
or support critical operations or services? Are the answers to these
questions the same for any other types of customers or communities? How
do prices for these various types of services compare to prices for
legacy wireline services?
22. Adequacy of facilities-based interconnected VoIP service. We
seek comment on adopting a rule establishing that facilities-based
interconnected VoIP service is an adequate replacement for purposes of
eligibility for streamlined processing. In adopting the Alternative
Options Test, the Commission noted that ``the stand-alone
interconnected VoIP service option required to meet the . . . test
[[Page 41946]]
embodies managed service quality and underlying network infrastructure,
and disabilities access and 911 access requirements . . . .'' In the
Stand-Alone and Single Service Waiver Order, however, the Bureau
pointed to the improvements in technology and the ``new and innovative
communications technologies and bundled service offerings that benefit
consumers'' that have come about since that time in waiving the
Alternative Options Test's stand-alone requirement. Do subscribers to
facilities-based interconnected VoIP service have comparable access to
services used by individuals with disabilities and to 911? For example,
how accurate is the caller location information that these
interconnected VoIP services transmit to PSAPs in comparison with
legacy wired voice services? And do commenters agree that the
availability of ``apps running solely on data networks'' ``obviat[e]
the need or desire for stand-alone voice service''? The Bureau also
pointed to evidence in the record that facilities-based interconnected
VoIP service compares favorably in price on average to legacy voice
services. Do commenters agree, including when facilities-based
interconnected VoIP service is offered on a stand-alone basis? Is there
other evidence the Commission should consider regarding the relative
prices of facilities-based interconnected VoIP service and legacy voice
service? Do commenters agree that facilities-based interconnected VoIP
service is an adequate replacement service for legacy voice service? Do
commenters believe that facilities-based interconnected VoIP service
has inherent benefits or drawbacks compared to legacy voice service? If
so, please state with specificity the characteristics leading to this
conclusion. Do commenters consider the state of competition for
facilities-based interconnected VoIP service to be strong in most
localities? Are there any drawbacks to adopting this rule?
23. Adequacy of facilities-based mobile wireless service. We seek
comment on our proposed rule establishing that a facilities-based
mobile wireless service is an adequate replacement for purposes of
eligibility for streamlined processing. The Wireline Competition Bureau
recently granted a technology transitions discontinuance application
filed by a subsidiary of Lumen Technologies, Inc. seeking streamlined
treatment under the Adequate Replacement Test in which Lumen provided a
showing of a 4G LTE and 5G NR mobile broadband and voice wireless
service as the adequate replacement service. By proposing and seeking
comment on a broader rule that a mobile wireless service is an adequate
replacement to a legacy voice service, we consider whether and under
what circumstances to more broadly enable discontinuing carriers to
conduct a technology transition discontinuance with a type of mobile
wireless service as the replacement service. Mobile telephony (mobile
voice) service is a real-time, two-way switched voice service that is
interconnected with the public switched network using an in-network
switching facility that enables the provider to reuse frequencies and
accomplish seamless handoff of subscriber calls. As of December 2023,
there were approximately 386.1 million mobile voice subscriptions in
the United States. According to preliminary data from the Centers for
Disease Control and Prevention, as of December 2023, more people
continue to live in wireless-only homes across all age groups. The
Commission thus noted recently that ``consumers continue to rely more
heavily on mobile wireless services'' and that, ``thus, they have
become an essential part of everyday life.'' The Commission found that
the three largest nationwide service providers in the marketplace have
networks that they report ``cover a substantial majority of the
country--each reports covering at least 95% of the U.S. population and
at least 68% of U.S. road miles with their 4G LTE networks, and at
least 75% of the U.S. population and at least 35% of road miles with
their 5G-NR networks at speeds of at least 7/1 Mbps.'' Do commenters
agree that we should consider mobile wireless service as an adequate
replacement for legacy voice service for purposes of the section 214
discontinuance streamlined process? What are the drawbacks, if any, of
adopting this rule? Is mobile wireless service network performance and
pricing comparable to that of legacy voice services? If we adopt this
rule, what showing should we require carriers to make to satisfy this
prong of the test? The National Broadband Map reflects the coverage
mobile service providers report to the FCC as part of the Broadband
Data Collection. What data source(s), in addition to the availability
data depicted on the National Broadband Map, are available for
applicants and the Commission to use to determine whether a mobile
wireless service is available throughout the affected service area? For
example, can the Commission's publicly available mobile voice coverage
data be used to support a carrier's showing as to the availability of
mobile voice service in a given service area? Are there any cognizable
benefits of legacy voice service that are not met by mobile wireless
service? Are there services used by persons with disabilities that
cannot be replicated on mobile wireless services? We propose to exclude
from the purview of the proposed rule iterations of mobile services
earlier than 4G LTE. We seek comment on this proposal. Would
replacement of a legacy voice service by a facilities-based mobile
wireless service raise any concerns with respect to 911 emergency
services?
24. Adequacy of facilities-based voice services funded by
Commission modernized high-cost mechanisms. We seek comment on our
proposed rule stating that a facilities-based voice service provided
via funding from one of the Commission's modernized high-cost support
mechanisms is an adequate replacement for the purposes of eligibility
of streamlined processing. The federal universal service high-cost
program is designed to ensure that consumers in rural, insular, and
high-cost areas have access to modern communications networks capable
of providing voice and broadband service, both fixed and mobile, at
rates that are reasonably comparable to those in urban areas. The
program fulfills this universal service goal by allowing eligible
carriers that serve these areas to recover some of their costs from the
federal Universal Service Fund. The Commission began modernizing its
universal service high-cost support mechanisms in 2011 with the USF/ICC
Transformation Order (76 FR 76623 (12/08/2011)), which established the
Connect America Fund. In that Order (76 FR 76623 (12/08/2011)), the
Commission required support recipients to offer broadband service in
addition to the supported ``voice telephony'' service. The Commission
requires recipients of CAF Phase II support ``to offer broadband
service with latency suitable for real-time applications, including
Voice over internet Protocol [VoIP], and usage capacity that is
reasonably comparable to comparable offerings in urban areas, at rates
that are reasonably comparable to rates for comparable offerings in
urban areas. In the intervening years, the Commission established
additional mechanisms to support voice- and broadband-capable networks,
including, among others, the Rural Digital Opportunity Fund (RDOF) and
the 5G Fund. Support recipients of these mechanisms must offer voice
telephony at rates that are reasonably comparable to urban rates and
must report compliance with their deployment
[[Page 41947]]
obligations showing where they have built out the required facilities
and offer voice and broadband service. Do commenters agree that we
should adopt this rule? Should we limit the rule to voice service
provided through specific funding mechanisms? If so, which ones and
why? Is pricing for newly deployed services similar to what consumers
were paying for similar legacy services? We do not propose to extend
this option to include legacy high-cost support mechanisms that do not
contain the same deployment reporting obligations as the modernized
mechanisms. Do commenters agree with this limitation? Should we exclude
from consideration voice service provided pursuant to any other high-
cost support mechanisms, and if so, why? If we adopt this rule, what
data source(s) should the Commission and applicants use to determine
whether a particular area has voice service provided via funding from
one of the modernized high-cost support mechanisms?
25. Adequacy of a carrier's already available alternative voice
service. As noted above, our proposed rule states that where a carrier
has already made available its own alternative voice service throughout
the affected service area for a specific period of time, and for which
the carrier has at least a certain number of existing subscribers, the
service is an adequate replacement for the service being discontinued
in that area. We propose to conclude that a minimum time period of the
immediately preceding 6 months of service availability throughout the
affected service area would adequately balance the need to ensure a
service is stable and satisfactory to customers and the Commission's
goal of ensuring that carriers can rapidly transition their resources
and investments to such next-generation services. Do commenters agree
with this proposed conclusion? We propose to conclude that at least 50
percent of the carrier's total voice service customer base in the
affected service area must be subscribed to this already available
alternative voice service. Do commenters agree with this proposed
conclusion? Should the percentage instead be based on the total voice
lines in the affected service area regardless of provider? Should we
adopt a specific subscriber count for the replacement service rather
than a percentage of the carrier's total voice service customer base in
the affected service area? Should we limit the analysis to residential
subscribers or also include enterprise subscribers? How would this
approach affect smaller and larger carriers, and would it affect more
densely populated service areas differently than service areas with
lower population density? We propose, should we adopt such a rule, to
require carriers to describe the replacement service and certify that
it meets the time period and subscriber count or penetration
requirements.
26. Widely adopted alternative voice service. We seek comment on
our proposed rule stating that a widely adopted alternative voice
service that exists through an affected service area is an adequate
replacement for the purposes of eligibility of streamlined processing.
How should we define ``widely adopted'' for purposes of this rule?
Should ``widely adopted'' relate to the number of subscribers of a
given service, or a certain proportion of the service area's total
number of subscribers to voice services? Given that this test would
only apply in the case of a technology transition, should we make clear
that the relevant subscriber population in a given service area is the
population that subscribes to non-legacy voice services as measured by
living units, assuming such information can be easily extrapolated from
the Commission's collected data? What data sources would a provider use
to demonstrate that the alternative voice service is widely adopted? Do
commenters believe a different definition or measurement would be more
appropriate or less burdensome, such as whether a service is widely
available? If so, please provide as detailed an explanation as possible
of such alternative definition or measurement. In the case of a service
area that has a plurality of alternative voice services, what showing
should we require discontinuing carriers to make to meet the ``widely
adopted'' threshold? Should we instead require discontinuing carriers
to provide a showing that the proportion of total subscribers of voice
service in a given service area that subscribe to the discontinuing
service is a minority? What, if any, other limitations should we place
on such a rule?
27. Reliability and access to emergency services. We seek comment
on whether our proposed consolidated rule replacing the Adequate
Replacement Test and the Alternative Options Test should address the
reliability of the replacement service and its ability to provide
access to emergency services, including access by persons with
disabilities, and, if so, how. The Adequate Replacement Test includes
requirements that the replacement service ``offer[ ] substantially
similar levels of network infrastructure and service quality,'' and
``compl[y] with regulations regarding the availability and
functionality of 911 service for consumers and public safety answering
points.'' The Alternative Options Test addresses reliability by virtue
of the ``stand-alone'' requirement (currently waived by the Bureau) and
access to emergency services by virtue of its requirement that the
discontinuing carrier offer interconnected VoIP service, which is
subject to such requirements. Given advancements in technology and the
robust state of competition for next-generation services such as
interconnected VoIP, what concerns, if any, do commenters have
regarding the reliability of next-generation services? We note that
some next-generation services, such as interconnected VoIP, enable
advanced functionalities such as next-generation 911 (NG911). The
Commission has found that NG911 will help save lives by ensuring faster
call delivery to 911 call centers, improved service reliability, and
more accurate caller location as well as support the transmission of
text, photos, videos, and data. Do commenters have any concerns about
the quality, reliability, or 911 capabilities of interconnected VoIP,
mobile wireless, or satellite services specifically, as compared with
fixed wireline services? Should we adopt requirements regarding the
provision of access to emergency services? Given that providers of
interconnected VoIP and CMRS are already subject to our part 9 rules,
would adopting a requirement for end-user access to emergency services
capabilities for interconnected VoIP and CMRS be unnecessary? Why or
why not?
b. Eliminating the Technology Transitions Discontinuance Distinction
Entirely and Applying Streamlined Processing to All Discontinuance
Applications
28. As an alternative to our proposal to replace the Adequate
Replacement Test and Alternative Options Test with a single,
consolidated rule for technology transitions discontinuances, we seek
comment on whether we should instead eliminate the technology
transitions distinction entirely and make all technology transitions
discontinuance applications eligible for streamlined processing,
pursuant to Sec. 63.71(f)(1) of our rules. Streamlined treatment of a
discontinuance application entails the automatic grant of a
discontinuance application on a specific date unless the Bureau has
notified the applicant that the grant will not be automatically
effective. Under such streamlined processing, a discontinuance
application is
[[Page 41948]]
automatically granted on the 31st day (for non-dominant carriers) or
the 60th day (for dominant carriers) after the Bureau accepts the
application for filing. Customers that have concerns may still file
comments or objections to that carrier's discontinuance application,
and the Commission will evaluate those comments or objections to
determine whether to remove the application at issue from streamlined
processing for further evaluation under the traditional five-factor
test. Applications that are removed from streamlined processing are
subject to review under a five-factor balancing test. Before 2016, all
discontinuance applications were automatically eligible for streamlined
processing. As noted above, the Commission concluded in 2016 that
applications seeking to discontinue a legacy voice service warranted
enhanced scrutiny due to particular concerns regarding the availability
of an adequate replacement service. Does this reasoning apply today? Or
has the communications marketplace and the state of competition
sufficiently evolved such that the distinction between legacy voice
services and more advanced communications services has largely been
rendered unnecessary for purposes of evaluating the impact of a
discontinuance on the public convenience and necessity, such that all
discontinuance applications should be eligible for streamlined
processing under current Sec. 63.71(f)(1) of our rules?
c. Forbearance
29. As an alternative to revising our rules, we seek comment on
whether we should forbear, on our own motion, from applying section 214
discontinuance requirements with respect to the discontinuance of
legacy voice service in some or all of the following specific
instances: (1) where the discontinuing carrier has deployed a
replacement network, such as fiber or fixed wireless, in the affected
area over which it offers interconnected VoIP service; (2) where
interconnected VoIP service is available from either the discontinuing
carrier or a third-party provider throughout the affected area; (3)
where voice service is available from at least one facilities-based
mobile wireless service provider throughout the affected area; (4)
where the discontinuing carrier has deployed a replacement voice
service throughout the affected area for a specified period of time and
for which the carrier has a certain number of existing subscribers; (5)
where there is fixed terrestrial broadband with speeds of at least 25/3
Mbps and latency of no more than 100 milliseconds (ms) throughout the
affected area; and (6) where there is low earth orbit satellite
broadband service with speeds of at least 25/3 Mbps and latency of no
more than 100 ms throughout the affected area. The Commission has
previously found 25/3 Mbps and latency of no more than 100 ms
sufficient to support over-the-top VoIP. Over-the-top VoIP is a type of
VoIP traffic routed to or from an end user ``over the top'' of a
broadband connection provided by a third party. We also seek comment on
whether we should forbear from our section 214(a) discontinuance
requirements for resold services that are the subject of a technology
transitions discontinuance application from the originating provider.
Alternatively, should we forbear from applying the discontinuance
requirements in section 214 and our rules with respect to all
applications to discontinue any type of service, without qualification?
30. The Act requires us to forbear from applying any requirement of
the Act or of our regulations to a telecommunications carrier or
telecommunications service if we determine that: (1) enforcement of the
requirement is not necessary to ensure that the charges, practices,
classifications, or regulations by, for, or in connection with that
telecommunications carrier or telecommunications service are just and
reasonable and are not unjustly or unreasonably discriminatory; (2)
enforcement of that requirement is not necessary for the protection of
consumers; and (3) forbearance from applying that requirement is
consistent with the public interest. In making the public interest
determination, we must also consider, pursuant to section 10(b) of the
Act, ``whether forbearance from enforcing the provision or regulation
will promote competitive market conditions.'' We seek comment on
whether forbearing from all discontinuance requirements under section
214(a) and the Commission's implementing rules in any or all of the
situations described above would satisfy each of these statutory
criteria.
31. Ensuring practices are just and reasonable (section 10(a)(1)).
Is maintaining the requirement to obtain discontinuance authorization
in any or all of the scenarios laid out above necessary to ensure that
the charges, practices, classifications, or regulations by, for, or in
connection with that carrier or service are just and reasonable and are
not unjustly or unreasonably discriminatory? Is maintaining these
requirements necessary to ensure that the charges, practices,
classifications, and regulations by, for, or in connection with a
carrier or service are just and reasonable and not unjustly or
unreasonably discriminatory in some of the situations we have described
above, but not others? If so, for which of these scenarios is
maintaining the requirement to obtain discontinuance authorization
necessary, and for which is it unnecessary? Why?
32. We seek comment on whether, in instances where a replacement
service already exists throughout the affected service area, we should
conclude that it necessarily follows that section 214(a) discontinuance
processes are not required to ensure just and reasonable and
nondiscriminatory terms of service. In such instances, any customers of
the legacy voice services being discontinued are free to transition to
the replacement service offered by their existing carrier or a third-
party provider. Given the state of competition in the marketplace,
would a discontinuance involving any of these scenarios provide
incentives for new carriers to serve customers following the
discontinuance? Are there areas where, despite the broad scope of
wireless and satellite service offerings, no alternative services
exist, and if so, should the section 214 discontinuance process remain
unchanged for those areas?
33. Protection of consumers (section 10(a)(2)). Is enforcement of
section 214(a)'s requirements, as well as the requirements of the
Commission's implementing rules, necessary to protect consumers in any
or all of the situations described above? Is it necessary to maintain
any protections for consumers regarding the notice or amount of time
that must be allowed for customers to transition to alternative
services in response to a planned discontinuance? What if a replacement
service from the same carrier already exists? What if that replacement
service is interconnected VoIP, whether offered by the discontinuing
carrier or a third party? Would these circumstances ensure that
communities are not deprived of critical links to the larger public
communications infrastructure? What if the replacement service is
mobile wireless or satellite-based? How should consumers be advised of
the different technologies available to them? We seek comment on the
similarities and differences between either of these types of services
and interconnected VoIP services with respect to their respective
abilities to protect consumers. In particular, do these services
provide the same levels of reliability, disability access, and access
to emergency services? Are they comparable in price to legacy voice
services? Are there
[[Page 41949]]
material differences between various mobile wireless networks that we
would need to consider in granting forbearance based on the existence
of mobile wireless service in a particular geographic area? Does the
Commission's most recent Wireless E911 Location Accuracy Requirements
Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (90 FR 19374 (05/07/2025)) bear
on this analysis? To what extent does the high adoption rate of
wireless technologies and high percentage of wireless-only households
undercut arguments against the suitability of mobile wireless as a
replacement service? Should any forbearance based on the presence of
satellite-based replacement services be limited to services provisioned
by low-earth orbit satellites? Many markets have already made similar
transitions. Are there specific patterns of consumer protection issues
that arose during those transitions? If so, what steps can the
Commission take to mitigate those issues during future transitions?
Should issues arise in their transition to replacement services, what
avenues will consumers have to express their concerns? Would Commission
outreach and consumer education help to reduce the potential for
consumer harm during a transition?
34. Consistent with the public interest (section 10(a)(3)). Is
forbearance from applying these requirements in any or all of the
scenarios described above consistent with the public interest? In which
of those scenarios is it consistent with the public interest? In which
is it inconsistent? How should we ensure that the public has an
opportunity to raise objections or comments, if at all? Will
forbearance from applying these requirements help promote competitive
market conditions? We propose to conclude that forbearing from applying
our section 214 discontinuance requirements in instances where a
replacement service already exists will promote competitive market
conditions by eliminating superfluous regulations that slow the
transition to next-generation IP-based services and by enabling
carriers to redirect resources away from legacy voice services--which
are no longer competitive and are not in high demand--and toward
maintaining and building out the next-generation IP-based services that
consumers not only desire but have come to expect. We seek comment on
these proposed conclusions. Would forbearance from section 214(a)'s
discontinuance requirements in the context of any or all of the
scenarios described above help speed the continuing transition to next-
generation IP-based services and networks? Would forbearance from
applying these requirements reduce unnecessary costs and burdens
associated with discontinuing legacy voice networks and/or deploying
next-generation IP-based services? Why or why not? We also seek comment
on whether forbearance from applying section 214 requirements would
affect consumers' access to emergency services. For example, what, if
any, impact could it have on the delivery of 911 service to the extent
that carriers and 911 authorities are still relying on TDM-based
circuits and switches to route 911 calls during the transition to
NG911? What impact, if any, would forbearance have on the transition to
NG911 itself, and why? Would the forbearance impact critical
infrastructure industries and government agencies responsible for
providing or supporting critical operations or services?
35. Resold services. Would forbearance from our discontinuance
requirements for resold services that are the subject of a technology
transitions discontinuance by the wholesale provider be appropriate?
INCOMPAS asserts that ``a facilities-based carrier that seeks to cease
offering a service pursuant to a technology transition discontinuance
application is almost always the only entity capable of offering that
service in the geographic areas subject to the application'' and that
its ``members fear that if the Commission approves a facilities-based
carrier's technology transition discontinuance application, resellers
of the services subject to that application have no choice but to
discontinue the service to their customers.'' Are the facilities-based
carriers conducting technology transitions discontinuances usually or
always the only entity offering that service in the area? If so, how
frequently is this occurring? In those situations, are our
discontinuance requirements necessary for the protection of resellers'
customers? Should any customer notice requirements be uniform as
between facilities-based and resold services, or are there reasons that
such notices should be handled differently in the case of resold
services during a technology transition?
36. Forbearance conditions. Were we to grant forbearance relief in
any of the scenarios described above, should we condition that
forbearance in any respect? For example, in instances where the
discontinuing carrier has deployed a replacement service throughout the
affected area for a specified period of time and for which the carrier
has a certain number of existing subscribers or penetration rate in the
affected area, for what length of time should the replacement service
have to be in place for forbearance to apply? How many existing
subscribers or what penetration rate should the replacement service be
required to have in the affected area? Should any forbearance be
conditioned on ensuring that there are no disruptions to critical
infrastructure industry or government agency operations?
37. In instances where the discontinuing carrier has deployed a
replacement network, such as fiber or fixed wireless, throughout the
affected area over which it offers interconnected VoIP service, should
we require that services provisioned over such replacement network be
of comparable or superior quality to the service being discontinued?
How would we define what constitutes ``comparable or superior quality''
in such instances?
38. In instances where fixed terrestrial broadband service with
speeds of at least 25/3 Mbps and latency of no more than 100 ms is
available throughout the affected area, are there further requirements
we should consider, such as the length of time the fixed terrestrial
broadband service has been in place or the number of subscribers it
has?
39. In addition, or in the alternative, in any or all of the
scenarios we have described above, should carriers be required to send
notice to their customers informing them that their legacy voice
service is being discontinued and what sort of replacement services, if
any, are available throughout the affected area? Would any consumer
protection concerns be obviated were we to condition forbearance relief
on the requirement that resellers in such circumstances provide notice
to their customers? If so, should that notice be consistent with the
customer notice requirements set forth in Sec. 63.71(a), or should
they differ in some way? Should customer notices be transmitted via
traditional mail, email, or some alternative means? Should the form of
transmittal align with any communication preferences the consumer has
indicated to their current service provider, such as mode of
communication (e.g., via email), preferred language, or accessibility
needs? What information would be included in any such notice? How far
in advance of a planned discontinuance should the notice be sent to
consumers? Should carriers be required to furnish the Commission or
other governing bodies with some similar type of notice? What form
should that notice take? Should it be formal or informal?
[[Page 41950]]
2. Targeted Revisions to Existing Technology Transitions Discontinuance
Application Rules
40. In the event that we conclude that our proposal to replace both
the Adequate Replacement Test and Alternative Options Test with a
single, consolidated test for all technology transitions discontinuance
applications is not appropriate, we seek comment on whether we should
instead make more targeted revisions to either the Adequate Replacement
Test or Alternative Options Test, or both.
a. Adequate Replacement Test
41. We seek comment on whether, if we retain the Adequate
Replacement Test for streamlined processing of technology transitions
discontinuance applications, we should adopt certain revisions to that
test. As noted above, the Commission adopted this test because it found
that ``clear, streamlined criteria will eliminate uncertainty that
could potentially impede the industry from a prompt transition to newer
technologies.'' Do commenters agree that the test has had these
effects? If not, how has the test prevented the industry from
undertaking such a prompt transition? Do certain prongs of the test
pose barriers to rapidly seeking discontinuance authorizations for
legacy services? If so, which ones, and how? Are certain prongs of the
test unnecessary or redundant? If so, which ones, and how so?
42. Network Performance. We seek comment on whether we should
codify the Bureau's waiver in the May 2025 Grandfathering and Technical
Appendix Order and the Bureau's clarification in the Testing
Clarification Order for all applications relying on the Adequate
Replacement Test. Specifically, we seek comment on whether to eliminate
the specified testing methodology and parameters adopted in the 2016
Technology Transitions Order (81 FR 62632 (09/12/2016)) for carriers to
satisfy the test's network performance prong and instead codify the
standard that the carrier need only show, based on the results of the
carrier's routine internal testing or other types of network testing,
that ``the network still provides substantially similar performance and
availability as the service being discontinued.''
43. As noted above, Sec. 63.602(b)(1) of the Commission's rules
requires an applicant seeking streamlined processing of its technology
transitions discontinuance application to demonstrate, by either
certifying or showing, based on the totality of the circumstances, that
one or more replacement service(s) ``offers substantially similar
levels of network infrastructure and service quality as the service
being discontinued.'' The Commission adopted this prong of the Adequate
Replacement Test to ensure that a replacement service ``is performing
adequately enough to serve as a replacement for a legacy TDM service,''
and that the ``customer experience with the replacement service that is
substantially similar to the customer experience with the service being
discontinued.'' In doing so, the Commission acknowledged that ``a
comparison between a legacy voice service and its potential replacement
is not an apples-to-apples comparison,'' and that it would therefore
evaluate ``actual performance numbers . . . in a holistic manner to
determine the overall network performance.'' In light of the
developments in the voice services marketplace since the adoption of
the Adequate Replacement Test in 2016, is compliance with the specific
testing methodology and parameters in the Technical Appendix necessary
for carriers to ensure that the replacement service offers
``substantially similar levels of network infrastructure and service
quality as the service being discontinued?'' If so, why?
44. We alternatively seek comment on whether we should eliminate
the network performance prong of the Adequate Replacement Test
altogether. As noted above, the Commission adopted the first prong of
the Adequate Replacement Test to ensure that ``the replacement service
will perform as effectively as the legacy voice service.'' While the
Commission acknowledged that, ``[f]or most data communications, a
packet-switched network (i.e., an IP network) is more efficient than a
circuit-switched network (i.e., a TDM network) because a packet-
switched network does not dedicate capacity for the duration of a
particular call or session,'' it also cited a 2013 source that
suggested that `` `real-time applications proceed far more smoothly in
a circuit-switched environment, where bandwidth is guaranteed, than in
a . . . packet-switched environment,' where there is extensive and
constant competition for bandwidth.'' We seek comment on whether these
concerns about the transmission of voice calls over IP-based networks
still apply today. Are concerns regarding the specific network
performance benchmarks established in the 2016 Technology Transitions
Order (81 FR 62632 (09/12/2016)) still relevant given extensive
technological improvements in network infrastructure and design since
2016? On the whole, have advances in network infrastructure mitigated
these issues, and if so, how? Are latency and data loss still a
concern? As the copper networks providing most legacy TDM-based voice
connections become more and more outdated and as severe weather events
increase in frequency and severity, do the more advanced and resilient
networks, such as fiber, eliminate former concerns about a drop in
network performance when migrating to IP-based voice services? Given
the vast majority of voice service connections use interconnected
VoIP--a percentage that continues to grow rapidly--is this evidence
that consumers no longer expect or have a need for the network
performance characteristics of TDM-based legacy voice service? Do
consumers have any lingering concerns regarding the network performance
of advanced, next-generation IP-based voice services as compared to
legacy TDM voice service connections, or does the continuing growth of
interconnected VoIP indicate a consumer preference for the network
performance characteristics of IP-based voice services?
45. Interoperability requirement. We next seek comment on whether
we should eliminate the requirement that a technology transitions
discontinuance application certify or show that a replacement service
offers interoperability and compatibility with an enumerated list of
applications and functionalities determined to be key for consumers and
competitors.
46. The Commission adopted this third prong of the Adequate
Replacement Test because it recognized ``the importance of specified
key applications and functionalities that today are associated with
legacy voice services, while at the same time recognizing that consumer
preferences will evolve as part of technology transitions.'' The
Commission also made clear that ``carriers are not required to provide
access to these capabilities in perpetuity,'' and stated that, after
the planned sunset of its initial list of key applications in 2025,
``the interoperability requirement will no longer be part of our
Section 214 analysis.'' The Commission listed the following devices as
key applications for the purposes of the interoperability requirement:
fax machines, home security alarms, medical monitoring devices, analog-
only caption telephone sets, and point-of-sale terminals. The
Commission also described a framework for identifying whether other
applications or functionalities not specifically identified in the list
should receive similar status, and adopted a process for modifying the
list. The
[[Page 41951]]
Commission required applicants to ``certify or make an appropriate
showing that a replacement service offers interoperability and
compatibility . . . with the list of key applications and
functionalities.''
47. We seek comment on whether this prong of the Adequate
Replacement Test is needed or relevant today. Given consumers' rapid
shift away from TDM-based services to IP-based services capable of
supporting a vast array of applications, do consumers still have any
interoperability concerns? Are there any remaining TDM-based devices on
which consumers rely for any reason and which cannot be replaced by
effective IP-based solutions?
48. Are there specific concerns about using IP-based technologies,
such as real-time text (RTT), as a replacement for analog text-based
technologies, such as TTY, used by people with hearing or speech
disabilities? The Commission's rules require wireless providers to
comply with RTT-TTY interoperability requirements, but do not require
that all IP-based technologies support RTT. Are there measures the
Commission should take to promote the transition of all TTY users to
functionally equivalent IP solutions? Are there reasonably reliable
estimates of the approximate number of people in the United States, or
in particular jurisdictions, that still use TTY and other analog text-
based technologies? What are the primary barriers preventing their
migration to IP-based technologies? How should the Commission ensure
such users can continue to access telecommunications relay services
(TRS) in areas where legacy TDM services have been discontinued? How
should the Commission ensure that users of other analog forms of TRS
(e.g., Speech-to-Speech Relay and Captioned Telephone Service) are not
disconnected from services during a network transition? We note that,
in December 2024, the Consumer and Governmental Affairs Bureau issued a
public notice seeking comment on a White Paper submitted by State TRS
programs, Accessibility Organizations, and academics, which argued that
there is a ``current compelling need for Federal and state policymakers
to proactively adapt TRS obligations and programs to reflect the
evolution of the country's analog telecommunications networks to IP-
based networks.'' Comments to the public notice were mixed, with some
arguing that the use of legacy analog services is declining and the
transition poses minimal problems, while others argued that
transitioning to IP-based networks risks leaving some users behind.
Does the Adequate Replacement Test still hold relevance specifically
for users of analog TRS services? Are there other ways the Commission
can protect TTY users during the transition to IP-based networks?
49. Single-Service Requirement. We next seek comment on whether we
should remove the requirement that a single replacement service satisfy
all three prongs of the Adequate Replacement Test. Section 63.602(b) of
the Commission's rules requires applicants to show that a single
replacement service (whether offered by the carrier or a third party)
satisfies all three prongs of the test in order for the application to
be eligible for streamlined treatment.
50. On March 20, 2025, the Bureau adopted an order waiving this
requirement for a period of two years. The Bureau found that
developments in the voice service marketplace and the large-scale
adoption of broadband among consumers supported waiver of the single-
service requirement. Specifically, the Bureau noted that the ``shift
among consumers away from managed, stand-alone voice service to bundled
voice and broadband service, which supports a near-infinite variety of
over-the-top services, applications, and functionalities obviates the
need for a single voice service that satisfies all three prongs.'' The
Bureau also found that waiver of the single-service requirement serves
the public interest because it will help ``free up carrier resources to
devote to the development and deployment of next-generation networks.''
The Bureau also noted that the fact that some ``technologically
advanced VoIP services may only be available in bundles with broadband,
text messaging, or some other service'' should not preclude an adequate
replacement finding if, as is often the case, consumers would pay
either the same price or less for the bundle than they did for the
legacy voice service.
51. Do commenters agree with the Bureau's assessment? Have
consumers experienced cost savings when transitioning from a single
legacy voice service to a service bundle? How has the waiver of the
single-service requirement affected carriers' plans to discontinue
legacy voice services and transition customers to next-generation
replacement services? Given the ever-increasing availability of over-
the-top services, is it still reasonable for consumers `` `to expect a
single service to provide adequate network infrastructure and service
quality, performance from critical applications, and access to other
key applications and functionalities,' such as fax machines, home
security alarms, and analog-only caption telephone sets[?]'' We seek
comment on customer reactions to transitioning from a single service to
a service bundle. Have customers experienced difficulties in any of
these areas and, if so, what have those difficulties been? According to
recent Broadband Data Collection (BDC) data, 24 million Americans, or
7% of the nation's population, lack access to fixed broadband. For the
remaining consumers still without access to a broadband connection, how
will carriers ensure such consumers have access to an adequate
replacement service?
52. Ministerial updates to Sec. 63.602. If we retain the Adequate
Replacement Test, in addition to any revisions necessitated by the
approaches set forth above, we propose to amend Sec. 63.602 of the
Commission's rules to update outdated cross-references in paragraph
(b)(2)(i) of that rule. That rule currently provides that a carrier
must certify that the proposed replacement service ``[c]omplies with
regulations regarding the availability and functionality of 911 service
for consumers and public safety answering points (PSAPs), specifically
Sec. Sec. 1.7001 through .7002, 9.5, 12.4, 12.5, 20.18, 20.3, 64.3001
of this chapter.'' Updates would add references to Sec. Sec. 9.3, 9.4,
9.10, and 9.19, and eliminate the references to Sec. Sec. 12.4, 12.5,
20.18, and 64.3001 to account for intervening changes to the numbering
of the Commission's public safety-related rules. Assuming we retain the
Adequate Replacement Test, should we make any other changes to Sec.
63.602 and the second prong of the Adequate Replacement Test?
b. Alternative Options Test
53. We seek comment on whether, if we retain the Alternative
Options Test set forth in Sec. 63.71(f)(2)(ii), we should adopt
certain revisions to that test for streamlined processing of technology
transitions discontinuance applications. The Commission's stated goal
in adopting the Alternative Options Test was to ``provid[e] additional
opportunities to streamline the discontinuance process for legacy voice
services, with appropriate limitations to protect consumers and the
public interest, . . . allow[ing] carriers, including small carriers,
to more quickly redirect resources to next-generation networks, and the
public to receive the benefit of those new networks.'' Do carriers
agree that adoption of the test has had these effects? If not, how has
the test prevented the industry from undertaking such a prompt
transition? Do certain requirements of the Alternative Options Test
pose barriers to
[[Page 41952]]
rapidly seeking discontinuance authorizations for legacy services? If
so, which ones, and how? Are certain requirements of the test
unnecessary or redundant? If so, which ones, and how so?
54. Codify waiver of the stand-alone requirement. We seek comment
on whether we should remove the requirement that a replacement voice
service offered by the carrier or an unaffiliated provider be stand-
alone in order for a technology transitions discontinuance application
to be eligible for streamlined processing under the Alternative Options
Test.
55. Under Sec. 63.71(f)(2)(iii) of the Commission's rules, a
service is ``stand-alone'' if a customer is ``not required to purchase
a separate broadband service to access the voice service.'' On March
20, 2025, the Bureau, acting on delegated authority, granted
USTelecom's petition for waiver of the stand-alone requirement for a
period of two years, finding that, since the Alternative Options Test
was adopted, ``the technology has improved while the marketplace for
voice services, such as interconnected VoIP and mobile voice, has
vastly expanded and spurred the creation of new and innovative
communications technologies and bundled service offerings that benefit
consumers.'' Does the Bureau's rationale in granting the waiver relief
support removing the stand-alone requirement altogether? Do commenters
agree with the Bureau's assessment and characterization of the voice
service and broadband marketplace? How has the stand-alone requirement
affected carriers' plans to discontinue legacy voice services and
transition customers to next-generation replacement services?
56. USTelecom notes that ``stand-alone VoIP service typically
requires installation and maintenance of broadband equipment and
ongoing provision of transmission capability,'' which is costly for
carriers and requires ``system and IT support that is difficult to
justify for a product with relatively low demand.'' It adds that these
inefficiencies ``can raise costs for consumers and reduce capital
available for investment and innovation.'' Do commenters agree with
USTelecom's assessment that the stand-alone requirement is overly
burdensome to carriers? Has the waiver of the stand-alone requirement
alleviated these concerns and enabled carriers to rapidly discontinue
legacy voice service in favor of promoting next-generation IP-based
replacements? Will the proposed changes result in an increase in the
pace and frequency of carriers upgrading networks? Given the widespread
adoption of broadband connections today, do customers reasonably expect
or desire stand-alone voice service? How might removing the stand-alone
requirement affect consumers, positively or negatively? Have customers
that have transitioned from a stand-alone voice service to a bundled
voice service experienced any difficulties or increased costs? For
consumers that are transitioning, do carriers offer any introductory
promotions that help offset the cost of bundled voice service? We note
that consumers remain able to file comments or oppositions to
discontinuance applications. Does the comment procedure provide
adequate protection for consumers?
57. Expand availability of the Alternative Options Test. We seek
comment on whether we should expand the Alternative Options Test to
allow the existence of third-party, facilities-based interconnected
VoIP service to satisfy the first part of the test rather than
requiring the existence of facilities-based interconnected VoIP service
offered by the discontinuing carrier itself.
58. Under Sec. 63.71(f)(2)(ii)(A) of the Commission's rules, an
applicant seeking to discontinue a legacy voice service under the
Alternative Options Test must show that it offers a stand-alone
interconnected VoIP service throughout the affected service area. The
Commission required a showing that the discontinuing carrier itself
provides interconnected VoIP service in addition to the availability of
a voice service from an unaffiliated third party because it
``expect[ed] customers will benefit from competition between
facilities-based providers.'' This competition would effectively
replace the need for a discontinuing carrier to comply with the
specific testing methodology and parameters required under the Adequate
Replacement Test to ensure the adequacy of the replacement service.
59. How has this requirement inhibited the ability for carriers to
rapidly discontinue legacy voice services and transition subscribers to
next-generation IP-based voice services? How would revising the first
part of the test to include third-party facilities-based interconnected
VoIP services affect carriers and consumers? Assuming that competition
has indeed worked to ensure that available voice options are adequate
for consumers under the current test, and given that a carrier would
still need to show that at least one other alternative facilities-based
wireline or wireless voice service is available from another
unaffiliated provider throughout the affected service area under the
second part of the test, what effect, if any, would this change have on
the quality of replacement service options? In instances where
interconnected VoIP service is available from either the discontinuing
carrier or a third-party provider throughout the affected area, does it
matter whether the interconnected VoIP service is provided by the
discontinuing carrier or a third-party provider? Why or why not?
3. Additional Revisions to Sec. 63.71
60. We next consider whether to adopt a variety of targeted
proposals relating to our discontinuance rules under Sec. 63.71,
namely: (1) codifying the relief granted in the March 2025
Grandfathering Order and the May 2025 Grandfathering and Technical
Appendix Order; (2) granting forbearance relief from section 214(a)
requirements for all lower-speed data telecommunications services; (3)
eliminating the distinction between dominant and non-dominant providers
for purposes of the streamlined processing automatic grant period; and
(4) forbearing from the notice requirement to state Governors and the
United States Department of Defense.
a. Eliminating Grandfathering Filing Requirements for Certain Services
61. We propose to eliminate any application filing requirements
associated with grandfathering a legacy voice service, a lower-speed
data telecommunications service, defined as those operating at speeds
below 25/3 Mbps, or an interconnected VoIP service provisioned over
copper wire, thus codifying the relief granted by the Bureau in the
March 2025 Grandfathering Order and the May 2025 Grandfathering and
Technical Appendix Order. Specifically, we propose to replace the
requirements in Sec. 63.71(k) and (l) with a statement that,
notwithstanding any other provision of Sec. 63.71, a carrier is not
required to file an application to grandfather a legacy voice service,
a lower-speed data telecommunications service, or an interconnected
VoIP service provisioned over copper wire. We seek comment on this
proposal generally, and also seek comment on (i) whether we should
expand the definition of ``lower-speed data telecommunications
service,'' and (ii) whether we should extend the proposed to all
interconnected VoIP services without regard to transmission medium.
62. Lower-speed data telecommunications service. We seek comment on
our proposal to define ``lower-speed data telecommunications
[[Page 41953]]
service'' as a data telecommunications service operating under 25/3
Mbps. The Commission currently considers services that operate below
1.544 Mbps to be ``low-speed,'' and it provided for accelerated
streamlining of applications to grandfather low-speed services. In the
Second Wireline Infrastructure Order, the Commission extended that
accelerated streamlining to data telecommunications services operating
at speeds below 25/3 Mbps if the applicant was replacing them with a
service operating at speeds of at least 25/3 Mbps. We seek comment on
whether we should upwardly revise our proposed definition of lower-
speed data telecommunications service given the rapidly increasing
bandwidths of networks today. Specifically, should we define the term
using speeds at or below 45 Mbps symmetrical or some other threshold?
What are the benefits and drawbacks of using each speed tier in the
definition? We note that a definition using speeds at or below 45 Mbps
symmetrical would include Digital Signal 3 (DS3) service. How critical
is DS3 service for the provision of data telecommunications services to
current or future subscribers? Are alternatives, such as fiber-based
networks, readily available as alternatives in localities served by DS3
lines? What impact would the removal or replacement of DS3 lines have
on the continued availability of emergency services, including 911?
63. Grandfathering. A carrier currently has the option under the
Commission's rules to seek authorization to ``grandfather'' a service
rather than fully discontinue it. A carrier seeking to grandfather a
service requests authorization to stop accepting new customers for the
service while continuing to provide the service to existing customers.
Because grandfathering is a discontinuance of service offering to new
customers, grandfathering applications traditionally have been
processed in the same way as applications to fully discontinue a
service, thereby requiring carriers to file applications, pay
processing fees under the Commission's rules, and delay plans to
grandfather a service for new customers until they receive approval.
64. The Commission expedited the process for discontinuing legacy
services in 2017 in the First Wireline Infrastructure Order (82 FR
61520 (11/28/2017)), including legacy service grandfathering
applications, where it concluded that the then-existing rules governing
the discontinuance process ``impose[d] needless costs and delay on
carriers that wish to transition from legacy services to next-
generation, IP-based infrastructure and services.'' To that end, the
Commission established a more streamlined approval process for
discontinuance applications seeking to grandfather low-speed legacy
data services for existing customers, shortening the comment and
automatic grant periods for these applications. In doing so, the
Commission concluded that ``longer processing timelines for
grandfathering applications are unnecessary to protect consumers from
potential harm stemming from discontinuances, and that our current
discontinuance rules may unnecessarily impede the deployment of
advanced broadband networks by imposing costs on service providers who
seek to upgrade legacy infrastructure.''
65. The Commission took additional steps to expedite the
discontinuance process for legacy services the following year in the
Second Wireline Infrastructure Order (83 FR 31659 (07/09/2018)), where
it extended the same streamlined treatment to ``applications seeking to
grandfather data services with speeds below 25/3 Mbps, so long as the
applying carrier provides fixed replacement data services at speeds of
at least 25/3 Mbps throughout the affected service area.'' The
Commission concluded that by requiring carriers using this streamlined
process to provide replacement data services at speeds of at least 25/3
Mbps, customers were ensured to have access to adequate alternatives.
In that same Order (83 FR 31659 (07/09/2018)), the Commission extended
this streamlined processing to all applications seeking to grandfather
any legacy voice service, including legacy enterprise voice services.
In doing so, the Commission determined that existing customers would
not be harmed because they would be entitled to maintain their legacy
voice services until such time as the carrier seeks to fully
discontinue the grandfathered service.
66. In the March 2025 Grandfathering Order, the Bureau (1) granted
blanket section 214(a) authority for carriers to grandfather any legacy
voice or data service currently covered by Sec. 63.71(k) and (l) of
the rules, and (2) waived the requirement in the Commission's rules
that carriers file a section 214(a) discontinuance application seeking
Commission authorization in that scenario. The Bureau found such relief
to be warranted ``by extraordinary developments in communications
technologies and services'' since 2016, such as the rapid adoption of
interconnected VoIP services.
67. The Bureau subsequently issued the May 2025 Grandfathering and
Technical Appendix Order extending the relief granted in the March 2025
Grandfathering Order to include interconnected VoIP service provisioned
over copper lines, concluding that ``relief in this instance will
advance the Commission's overall policy of transitioning legacy
networks and services to next-generation networks and advanced
communications services, and that ``such relief furthers `the public
interest by freeing up carrier resources for the development and
deployment of those next-generation networks and services, to the
benefit of consumers.' ''
68. We seek comment on whether the waiver relief granted in the
March 2025 Grandfathering Order and the May 2025 Grandfathering and
Technical Appendix Order should be made permanent in our rules by
exempting grandfathering applications from any Commission filing
requirements. How, if at all, does the waiver relief granted in the
Orders reduce carriers' burdens? Given that consumers have an
opportunity to comment or object when the carrier later applies to
fully discontinue the grandfathered legacy service, are there any
benefits to retaining the grandfathering filing requirements? If not,
should we also eliminate the requirement in Sec. 63.71(a) to notify
customers when a carrier grandfathers a service? What are the benefits
and drawbacks of this approach? We also seek comment on whether we
should extend the blanket 214 authority granted in the March 2025
Grandfathering Order and the May 2025 Grandfathering and Technical
Appendix Order to the grandfathering of all services rather than limit
it solely to certain legacy services and interconnected VoIP service
provisioned over copper as the Bureau did in those Orders. Do the bases
on which the Bureau granted the relief in those Orders apply more
broadly to all services? Are there concerns that counsel against
granting blanket section 214(a) authority for carriers to grandfather
any service?
69. Rather than maintaining the grant of blanket 214 authority
granted in the March 2025 Grandfathering Order and the May 2025
Grandfathering and Technical Appendix Order, should we instead forbear
from section 214(a)'s discontinuance requirements with respect to the
grandfathering of the types of services addressed in those Orders? Is
maintaining the requirement to obtain Commission authorization before
grandfathering any or all of those services necessary to ensure that
the charges, practices, classifications, or regulations by, for, or in
connection with the grandfathering carrier or the grandfathered service
are just and
[[Page 41954]]
reasonable and are not unjustly or unreasonably discriminatory,
particularly given the rapid decline in customer demand for these
services? Is maintaining the section 214(a) discontinuance requirements
in these contexts necessary to protect consumers, particularly given
that existing customers would be able to retain the service at issue
after the service is grandfathered? Would forbearing from these
requirements in this context serve the public interest? For example,
would it speed up the development and deployment of next-generation
networks and advanced communications services by reducing regulatory
burdens and their attendant costs? Would it negatively impact critical
infrastructure industries or government agencies operations or
services?
b. Forbearance for Lower-Speed Data Telecommunications Services and
Interconnected VoIP Over Copper Services
70. We seek comment on whether we should forbear from all section
214(a) discontinuance requirements, including the Commission's
implementing rules, for all lower-speed data telecommunications
services. This alternative would not apply to the discontinuance of
legacy voice services, which are encompassed by Sections I.B.1-2. As
noted above, the Commission previously expedited the streamlined
processing of applications to grandfather services with speeds below
25/3 Mbps. We also sought comment above on how to define ``lower-speed
data telecommunications service'' for purposes of our proposed rules.
We now seek comment on whether forbearance would satisfy the criteria
set forth in section 10 of the Act.
71. Ensuring practices are just and reasonable (section 10(a)(1)).
Would maintaining the requirement to obtain discontinuance
authorization for all lower-speed data telecommunications services
still be necessary to ensure that the charges, practices,
classifications, or regulations by, for, or in connection with the
discontinuing carrier or discontinued service are just and reasonable
and are not unjustly or unreasonably discriminatory? As noted, the
Commission previously took action to expedite the streamlined
processing of applications to grandfather services with speeds below
25/3 Mbps. Given the rapid decline in customer demand for such lower-
speed services, are section 214(a) discontinuance requirements
necessary to ensure just and reasonable charges and practices given
that consumer demand for such lower-speed services is too small to
exert a meaningful influence on carrier charges and practices with
regards to such services? If not, please provide specific reasons. Does
this analysis change when considering a higher speed threshold for
lower-speed data telecommunications service, such as 45 Mbps
symmetrical, or some other threshold?
72. Ensuring protection of consumers (section 10(a)(2)). In light
of plummeting customer demand for lower-speed data telecommunications
services, such as those with speeds lower than 25/3 Mbps, we seek
comment on whether to conclude that section 214(a) discontinuance
requirements are not necessary to protect consumers. Do commenters
agree? Why or why not? Please provide specificity in responding to this
request for comment. Does this analysis differ for speeds higher than
25/3 Mbps, whether the upper limit is 45 Mbps symmetrical or some other
speed?
73. Consistent with the public interest (section 10(a)(3)). Do
commenters believe that forbearing from applying our discontinuance
approval requirements for lower-speed data telecommunications services
will serve the public interest by eliminating superfluous regulations
that slow the transition to next-generation IP-based services? Will
taking this action promote competitive market conditions by enabling
carriers to redirect resources away from lower speed data
telecommunications services that are no longer competitive nor in high
demand, and toward maintaining and building out the next-generation IP-
based services that consumers not only desire but have come to expect?
Again, please state with specificity why or why not. Do PSAPs or other
public safety entities rely on these low-speed data telecommunications
services to provide essential emergency services? If so, are there
ready market alternatives in place to substitute for these data
telecommunications services if they are discontinued? How do the prices
of any substitute services compare? What percentage of 911 traffic
currently flows over low-speed data telecommunications services, and
are carriers considering plans to migrate off those services short- or
long-term? Are there particular PSAPs or types of PSAPs, e.g., rural
PSAPs, that rely on low-speed data telecommunications services more
than others, and if so, how many? Do public safety entities or their
service providers have contractual notice rights that allow sufficient
time to arrange substitute data transmission services without a gap in
the provision of 911 service? Do the answers to any of these questions
differ depending on how we ultimately define lower-speed data
telecommunications services?
74. Will such forbearance foster advanced communications by
providing carriers with incentives to develop and deploy higher-speed
data telecommunications services? Will forbearance help promote
competition in the market for higher-speed replacement services? Will
granting such forbearance relief reduce unnecessary costs and burdens
associated with compliance with the Commission's discontinuance rules,
and free up capital needed for the deployment of next-generation
networks? Is this analysis dependent on how we ultimately define lower-
speed data telecommunications services and, if so, how?
75. Conditions. Are there further conditions for forbearance from
applying section 214(a)'s discontinuance requirements, as well as the
requirements of the Commission's implementing rules, that we should
implement in instances where carriers seek to discontinue lower-speed
data telecommunications services? For example, should we require that
the discontinuing carrier provide fixed replacement data
telecommunications service at a certain speed threshold? If so, what
should that threshold be? Would it be sufficient for a replacement
service to be mobile or provided via low earth orbit satellite so long
as it offers a specific minimum speed and latency of no more than 100
ms? Are there compelling reasons to require that such replacement
service be offered by the discontinuing carrier? Should we require that
any such replacement data telecommunications service be of ``equivalent
quality'' to the service being discontinued? How would we define what
constitutes ``equivalent quality'' in such instances? Should we require
that the discontinuing carrier ensure that there are no disruptions to
critical infrastructure industry or government agency operations?
76. In addition or in the alternative, should discontinuing
carriers be required to send notice to their customers informing them
of the planned discontinuance and any available replacement service in
the affected area? How might consumers be affected if a discontinuing
carrier does not provide a notice of planned discontinuance? What form
should such a notice take? Should it be transmitted via traditional
mail, email, or some alternative means? Should the form of transmittal
align with any communication preferences the
[[Page 41955]]
consumer has indicated to their current service provider? What
information would be included in any such notice? How far in advance of
a planned discontinuance should the notice be sent to consumers? Should
carriers be required to furnish the Commission or other governing
bodies with some similar type of notice? What form should that notice
take? Should it be formal or informal?
c. Apply the 31-Day Automatic Grant Period to All Discontinuance
Applications
77. We propose to extend the 31-day automatic grant period
applicable to applications to discontinue services for which a carrier
is non-dominant to apply to all instances in which a domestic carrier
submits a request to discontinue service. We seek comment on this
proposal.
78. Pursuant to Sec. 63.71(f)(1) of the Commission's rules, a non-
technology transitions discontinuance application--if filed by a
domestic, non-dominant carrier--shall be automatically granted on the
31st day after its filing with the Commission unless the Commission has
notified the applicant that the grant will not be automatically
effective. As discussed in Section I.B above, technology transitions
discontinuance applications currently are not automatically eligible
for streamlined processing, but rather must satisfy either the Adequate
Replacement Test or the Alternative Options Test in order to qualify
for such processing. For applications to discontinue a service for
which the provider is dominant, the automatic grant period is 60 days.
We propose to eliminate the distinction between dominant and non-
dominant carriers for purposes of discontinuance applications. In doing
so, we would apply the 31-day automatic grant period to any domestic
carrier who submits a request to discontinue any service.
79. We propose to conclude that there is no material reason to
limit application of the 31-day automatic grant period to non-dominant
carriers given the Commission's available discretion to remove an
application from streamlined processing at any time during those 31
days should it deem it appropriate to do so. We propose to conclude
that 31 days is sufficient time for the Commission to consider and come
to a determination as to whether a grant should be allowed to auto-
grant or, instead, whether the discontinuance raises sufficient
questions or concerns that it should be removed from streamlined
processing prior to the expiration of the automatic grant period. In
light of the backstop provided by the Commission, we propose to
conclude that expanding the applicability of the 31-day automatic grant
period to include all discontinuance applications is a prudent way of
reducing regulatory red tape and speeding the grant of discontinuance
requests while still complying with section 214(a)'s mandate to protect
the public interest. We seek comment on this proposal.
80. What are the benefits and costs of applying the 31-day
automatic grant period to all domestic carriers who submit a request to
discontinue service? What costs, whether in terms of money or time,
does the existing requirement impose on domestic carriers who are not
eligible for the 31-day automatic grant period? Is there any reason not
to extend the applicability of the 31-day automatic grant period to all
discontinuance applications? Does the 31-day automatic grant period
allow adequate time for the Commission to review discontinuance
applications? We take note of the Commission's 2016 Declaratory Ruling
in which it noted that ``regulatory changes have restructured the
marketplace in which incumbent LECs provide interstate switched access
services so as to deny them market power,'' leading it to ``declare
incumbent LECs non-dominant in their provision of interstate switched
access services.'' Are there particular services for which certain
carriers remain dominant that might warrant a longer Commission review
period for determining whether the application should be removed from
streamlined processing?
81. We also seek comment on the length of the existing automatic
grant period for non-dominant providers. Should the 31-day automatic
grant period be abbreviated to a shorter time frame? As we propose to
conclude that dominant and non-dominant providers be treated equally,
would commenters feel the same if we were to apply a shortened
automatic grant period to dominant and non-dominant providers alike? If
so, what should the automatic grant period be and why? Beyond expanding
the 31-day automatic grant period to apply to all discontinuance
applications, we seek comment on any additional steps we might take to
further streamline the automatic grant process for applications to
discontinue service.
d. Forbear From Requirement To Notify State Governor and Department of
Defense
82. We seek comment on whether we should forbear from section
214(b)'s requirement that domestic discontinuance applications be filed
with (1) the Governor of the state in which the discontinuance is
proposed, and (2) the Secretary of Defense, and that we eliminate this
same requirement from our implementing rules. We seek comment on this
proposal.
83. Section 214(b) of the Act requires that upon receipt of a
discontinuance application, ``the Commission shall cause notice thereof
to be given to, and shall cause a copy of such application to be filed
with, the Secretary of Defense, the Secretary of State (with respect to
such applications involving service to foreign points), and the
Governor of each State . . . in which such discontinuance, reduction,
or impairment of service is proposed.'' Relatedly, Sec. 63.71(a) of
the Commission's rules requires that any domestic carrier seeking to
discontinue service notify its customers and submit a copy of its
application to the public utility commission and to the Governor of the
State in which the discontinuance of service is proposed, to any
federally-recognized Tribal Nations with authority over the Tribal
lands in which the discontinuance is proposed, and to the Secretary of
Defense via the Special Assistant for Telecommunications, as well as
file an application with the Commission requesting said discontinuance.
We propose to conclude that while section 214(b) directs the Commission
to cause such notice to be given, that notice requirement concerns
applications to discontinue telecommunications services. In that sense,
our proposed forbearance, if adopted, would be forbearance from
applying section 214(b) to a telecommunications service within the
meaning of section 10. We seek comment on this proposed conclusion.
84. Ensuring practices are just and reasonable (section 10(a)(1)).
Is maintaining the requirement to file domestic discontinuance
applications with the Governor of the state in which the discontinuance
is proposed and the Secretary of Defense necessary to ensure that the
charges, practices, classifications, or regulations by, for, or in
connection with that carrier or service are just and reasonable and are
not unjustly or unreasonably discriminatory? Is maintaining these
requirements necessary to ensure that the charges, practices,
classifications, and regulations by, for, or in connection with a
carrier or service are just and reasonable and not unjustly or
unreasonably discriminatory? If so, why?
85. Protection of consumers (section 10(a)(2)). Is enforcement of
section 214(b)'s requirement to file domestic
[[Page 41956]]
discontinuance applications with the Governor of the state in which the
discontinuance is proposed and the Secretary of Defense necessary to
protect consumers? When seeking to discontinue a service, carriers must
notify state public utility commissions, the specific state entities
charged with their regulation. Would requiring carriers to file
discontinuance applications with other state or local authorities
better ensure consumers are protected during a transition? What
additional protection does notice to a Governor's office confer on
consumers? In this era of multitudinous communications options, what
protection does notice to the Secretary of Defense provide to
consumers?
86. Consistent with the public interest (section 10(a)(3)). Would
forbearing from applying the requirement in section 214(b) to file
domestic discontinuance applications with the Governor of the state in
which the discontinuance is proposed and the Secretary of Defense serve
the public interest? We propose to conclude that requiring notice to a
Governor's office imposes a redundant and superfluous requirement that
slows the transition to next-generation IP-based services by diverting
resources from development of next-generation networks and advanced
communications services. We also propose to conclude that the
requirement that carriers notify and submit a copy of their application
to the Governor of the state in which the discontinuance of service is
proposed and to the Secretary of Defense serves no purpose other than
to increase red tape and regulatory barriers, particularly in light of
the many and varied modes of communication available to today's
residential and businesses customers. We seek comment on these proposed
conclusions. Would the elimination of these notification requirements
be likely to save providers time and resources that would be better
spent investing in high-speed broadband infrastructure? Are
notifications to state Governors and the Secretary of Defense redundant
and irrelevant given the requirements to notify customers, state public
utility commissions, Tribal Nations, and the Commission? What are the
benefits of notifying state Governors and the Secretary of Defense that
cannot be achieved by notifying customers, state public utility
commissions, Tribal Nations, and the Commission? Are there compelling
policy reasons to retain the requirement to notify state Governors and
the Secretary of Defense?
4. Emergency Discontinuances
87. We propose to revise Sec. 63.63(b) to explicitly provide that
a carrier may permanently discontinue a service upon filing a
certification with the Commission that (1) the carrier has previously
obtained emergency discontinuance authority for the service in
question, (2) the service is one for which the requesting carrier has
had no customers or reasonable requests for service during the 60-day
period immediately preceding the permanent discontinuance, and (3) a
comparable service is available in the affected service area. We seek
comment on this proposal and on the processing of requests to
permanently discontinue a service under Sec. 63.63.
88. Section 63.63 of the Commission's rules sets forth procedures
carriers must follow when seeking authority for an emergency
discontinuance. Providers must submit an application for authority for
an emergency discontinuance of service as soon as practicable but not
later than 65 days following the occurrence of the conditions which
occasion the discontinuance. In the case of public coast stations,
notice must be given not later than 15 days following the occurrence of
the conditions leading to the discontinuance. Authority is deemed
granted as of the date the request is filed unless the Commission
notifies the carrier otherwise on or before the 15th day after the date
of filing, and our rules provide for renewal of such authority unless
``the same or comparable service is reestablished before the
termination of the emergency authorization'' or the carrier submits an
informal request for authorization to discontinue the service ``for an
indefinite period or permanently.''
89. Emergency discontinuances leading to no customers. We propose
to revise Sec. 63.63(b) to provide that a carrier may permanently
discontinue a service upon filing a certification that (1) it has
previously obtained emergency discontinuance authority, (2) the service
in question is one for which the requesting carrier has had no
customers or reasonable requests for service during the 60-day period
immediately preceding the planned permanent discontinuance, and (3) a
comparable service is available in the affected service area. In
instances where a carrier has previously filed for emergency
discontinuance authority, has had no customers nor reasonable requests
for service for a minimum of 60 days, and a comparable service is
available, we propose to conclude that there is little risk that an
emergency discontinuance of service is likely to affect any existing or
potential customers. We seek comment on this proposed conclusion.
90. We seek comment on the extent to which this would affect
consumers, if at all. We also seek comment on the extent to which this
would allow carriers to be more deft and responsive in reacting to
natural disasters and other emergencies, and to focus their rebuilding
efforts on modernized rather than legacy services. Should we leave the
requirement open-ended and require merely that a carrier have filed for
emergency discontinuance authority at any point in the past? Why or why
not? Alternatively, should we specify a particular time period during
which the carrier had to have previously filed for emergency
discontinuance authority? If so, what should that time period be?
91. Is the proposed 60-day period without a customer or a
reasonable request for service a reasonable period of time to justify
granting a carrier authority to carry out a permanent discontinuance of
service? When would the 60-day period commence? Does it differ
depending upon whether the permanent discontinuance request is
contained in the initial emergency discontinuance application? Is 60
days sufficient to ensure that most customers are likely to have
obtained substitute service, thereby obviating any resulting harm?
Should the 60-day period be extended? If so, why and by how much? We
note that the qualifying period for the exemption in Sec. 63.71(g)--
which governs non-emergency-related discontinuances by domestic
carriers of services with no customers or reasonable requests for
service--is only 30 days. In light of this, should the proposed 60-day
qualifying period for Sec. 63.63 be reduced? If so, why and by how
much? We encourage commenters to be specific in their suggestions and
to support their claims with as much evidence as is available.
92. Requests to permanently discontinue. We also seek comment on
the processing of requests to permanently discontinue a service under
Sec. 63.63. An emergency discontinuance application is deemed granted
upon filing unless the Commission notifies the carrier to the contrary
on or before the 15th day after filing. Grants of emergency
discontinuance authority are valid for 60 days, although a carrier may
seek renewal of that authority by informal request no later than 10
days prior to the expiration of the 60-day period. Both an original
emergency discontinuance application and a request for renewal are
required to contain demonstration that efforts are being made or have
been made ``to restore the original service or
[[Page 41957]]
establish comparable service.'' In either the initial emergency
discontinuance application or the renewal request, the carrier may
request authority to indefinitely or permanently discontinue the
service at issue.
93. We seek comment on how the Commission should process requests
to permanently discontinue service, either in an initial emergency
discontinuance application or in a later informal request. If a carrier
submits an emergency discontinuance application that also contains a
request to permanently discontinue the service at issue, should we
process such a request on a streamlined basis? What benefits or cost
savings would there be for carriers from this combined streamlined
application? If so, what should the length of that auto-grant period
be, and when should it commence? Should the auto-grant period be
separate from and subsequent to the 15-day auto-grant period for the
emergency discontinuance request, or should it run concurrently? What
types of information should such a permanent discontinuance request
contain? Should the carrier be required to indicate how the request
satisfies the traditional five factors the Commission considers when
evaluating a non-streamlined discontinuance application?
5. Reviewing Outdated Discontinuance Rules
94. We propose to eliminate a number of rules applicable to section
214(a) discontinuances that appear to be remnants of a bygone era. As
discussed above, the communications marketplace has evolved
significantly over the almost two decades since Congress last undertook
significant revisions to the Act, and a thorough review of all of the
Commission's rules pertaining to discontinuances is long overdue. We
seek comment on this proposal. We also seek comment on any other
revisions to our discontinuance rules warranted at this time.
95. Public toll stations. We propose to eliminate Sec. Sec.
63.60(f) and 63.504 of the Commission's rules, which pertain to the
closure of public toll stations and which we propose to conclude are no
longer relevant or necessary in today's communications marketplace. We
seek comment on this proposal.
96. Section 63.60(f) of the Commission's rules defines the meaning
of the term ``public toll station'' for purposes of part 63 of the
Commission's rules as a public telephone station, located in a
community, through which a carrier provides service to the public, and
which is connected directly to a toll line operated by such carrier.
Section 63.504 details the contents of an application to close a public
toll station where no other such toll station of the applicant will
continue service in the community and where telephone toll service is
not otherwise available to the public through a telephone exchange
connected with the toll lines of a carrier.
97. These rules were created more than six decades ago, at a time
when public toll stations were far more prevalent, personal landlines
far less prevalent, and mobile phones nonexistent. Now, with only
100,000 pay phones still remaining in America (a mere 5% of their peak
of 2 million in 1999), it no longer makes sense to treat applications
to discontinue this service distinctly from other types of service. We
thus propose that discontinuances of public toll stations should be
subject to the general provisions of Sec. 63.71 of the Commission's
rules and that we eliminate Sec. Sec. 63.60(f) and 63.504 as obsolete
and redundant. We seek comment on this proposal.
98. Telephone exchanges at military establishments. We propose to
eliminate the requirement that carriers file an informal request with
the Commission before altering service hours at telephone exchanges at
deactivated military establishments. We seek comment on our proposal.
99. Section 63.66 of the Commission's rules requires carriers to
``file in quintuplicate an informal request'' before closing or
reducing the ``hours of service at a telephone exchange at a military
establishment because of deactivation of the establishment.'' Authority
for the closure or reduction is deemed granted on the 15th day
following the filing of the request unless the Commission notifies the
carrier otherwise on or before the 15th day.
100. This rule was a reflection of Congress's concern when enacting
section 214 of the Act regarding ``loss or impairment of service
during'' wartime. ``Dominant carrier regulations include, among other
things, requirements arising under section 214 related to transfer of
control and discontinuance, cost-supported tariffing requirements, and
price regulation for services falling under the Commission's
jurisdiction.'' Given today's modern communications marketplace and the
plethora of communications services available to civilian and military
establishments alike, is there any need to maintain Sec. 63.66's
requirements? When is the last time a carrier filed an informal request
under Sec. 63.66? Should we retain Sec. 63.66, we seek comment on
requiring electronic filing of the request in the Commission's
Electronic Comment Filing System in lieu of filing ``in
quintuplicate.'' Is there any reason why electronic filing of such
requests would be impracticable?
101. Publication and posting of notices. We propose to eliminate
Sec. 63.90 of the Commission's rules. We seek comment on our proposal.
102. Section 63.90 requires providers filing an application or
information request to discontinue or reduce hours of service at a
telephone exchange to ``post a public notice at least 51 cm by 61 cm
(20 inches by 24 inches), with letter of commensurate size, in a
conspicuous place in the exchange affected, and also in the window of
any such exchange having window space fronting on a public street at
street level.'' Providers then must post a notice in a newspaper for
two weeks in the community where the telephone exchange is located. If
the provider seeks to close a public toll station, it must post a
public notice in a newspaper as well. Additionally, Sec. 63.90
requires providers to file a notice and copy of its request with the
State Commission of any state where discontinuance or reduction is
sought. Once a carrier has completed the requisite posting,
publication, and notification, Sec. 63.90 requires the carrier report
this fact to the Commission, with specific information regarding the
posting, publication, and notification.
103. Section 63.90 was enacted in 1980 as a part of the
Commission's effort to update domestic public message service rules.
Public message services encompass the ``variety of public record (or
message) offerings generally involving acceptance of a message from the
public, electronic transmission of the message, production of a
physical hard copy, and ultimately some form of delivery to its
recipient.'' Due to technological developments, firms began handling
public message services via telephone instead of in offices. The
Commission implemented requirements to ensure adequate public notice of
changes to office hours instead of requiring firms to seek Commission
approval prior to altering or discontinuing hours of service.
104. With the evolution of the communications marketplace over
those intervening four-plus decades, carriers and consumers alike have
access to a variety of modes of communication. Indeed, the Commission
in 2016 added email as an accepted means of providing notice to
customers of a planned discontinuance, noting that ``email is the
preferred method of notice for many carriers seeking discontinuance, as
well as for consumers.'' Are Sec. 63.90's requirements relevant today?
When was the last time a carrier posted a public
[[Page 41958]]
notice in the window of a telephone exchange? And when was the last
time a carrier posted these notices in newspapers? Is there any
continuing need to require providers to post notices in accordance with
Sec. 63.90? If we eliminate this rule, would a request to discontinue
or reduce hours of service at a telephone exchange be covered by Sec.
63.71 and its notice provisions?
105. Notification of service outage. We propose to eliminate Sec.
63.100 from the Commission's rules, which directs providers to part 4
of the Commission's rules for the requirements concerning notifications
of service outages. We seek comment on our proposal.
106. The Commission's rules did not set forth any specific
requirements for reporting outages or service disruptions until the
Commission enacted Sec. 63.100 in 1992. The Commission enacted Sec.
63.100 in response to widespread telephone outages, highlighting the
need to monitor outages in real time. However, the requirements
originally listed in Sec. 63.100 are now found in part 4 of the
Commission's rules, and Sec. 63.100 does not contain any substantive
regulations.
107. Given that Sec. 63.100 merely directs providers to look at
part 4 of the Commission's rules for the requirements pertaining to
notifications of service outages, is Sec. 63.100 still necessary?
Would eliminating Sec. 63.100 cause confusion among providers about
their service outage notification obligations?
108. Trunk lines and interchange of traffic with another carrier.
We seek comment on eliminating Sec. Sec. 63.500 and 63.501 of the
Commission's rules.
109. Section 63.500 sets forth the required contents of
applications to dismantle or remove a trunk line. Section 63.501 does
the same for applications to sever physical connection or to terminate
or suspend interchange of traffic with another carrier. These rules
were adopted at a time when copper was the dominant transmission
medium. That is no longer the case. Indeed, no domestic applications
relying on either of these provisions have been filed for at least two
decades. Given the ongoing network evolution and the constantly
decreasing reliance on copper lines, we seek comment on whether
separate rules governing the contents of applications addressing these
two specific situations remain necessary. Do Sec. Sec. 63.500 or
63.501, which pertain solely to contents of applications, retain any
relevance in today's communications marketplace? If we eliminate these
provisions, should we remove the references to these types of
discontinuances or these specific rule sections, or both, in Sec. Sec.
63.19 and 63.62 of our rules? Where fiber is the transmission medium
for interconnection trunks, would elimination of these rules permit
incumbent LECs to discontinue interconnection and 911 trunks without
filing an application? What impact would giving incumbent LECs the
ability to disconnect such trunks have on the delivery of E911 calls
and the universal availability of the public switched telephone
network?
110. Public coast stations. We propose to modify the Commission's
rules to remove references to public coast stations in Sec. Sec.
63.60(c) and 63.63 of the Commission's rules and eliminate Sec.
63.601, setting forth the requirements for the content of applications
seeking to impair or discontinue operation of public coast stations.
These provisions relate to other rules and policies regarding public
coast stations that the Commission previously eliminated. We propose to
conclude that the specific references to public coast stations in these
rules are unnecessary vestiges of that previous regulation, and no
longer serve any useful purpose. The remaining discontinuance
obligations of certain public coast stations are addressed exclusively
by other provisions of part 63 governing international service, in
conjunction with part 80 of the Commission's rules governing the
Maritime Radio Services including public coast stations. We seek
comment on this proposal.
111. Public coast stations, part of the oldest radio service
administered by the Commission, are commercial mobile radio service
(CMRS) providers of ship/shore radiotelephone and radiotelegraph
services, allowing ships along inland waterways, in coastal areas, and
on the high seas to send and receive messages and to interconnect with
the public switched telephone network. The Commission classified public
coast stations as part of CMRS in 1994, and at the same time exercised
its authority to forbear from section 214 with respect to
discontinuance of service of domestic CMRS stations. The Commission did
not include international CMRS in this forbearance, and thus public
coast stations providing international (high seas) service are still
subject to section 214, as non-dominant carriers, for the provision of
new service or discontinuance of existing service.
112. In keeping with that forbearance, the Commission modified part
63 of its rules to eliminate provisions addressing impairment or
discontinuance of public coast stations. While many references to
public coast stations were removed, the instant rule provisions
remained.
113. We tentatively conclude that these remaining provisions are no
longer necessary because the only public coast stations that remain
subject to section 214 and regulation under part 63 are those that
provide international service. Discontinuances of international
services are governed by Sec. 63.19, which specifically provides that
CMRS providers are not subject to the provisions of that section.
114. We also propose to delete the reference to ``public coast
stations'' in Sec. 63.63(a), applicable to emergency discontinuances.
CMRS service is no longer subject to international discontinuance
obligations under Sec. 63.19, and the Commission previously forbore
from discontinuance requirements for domestic CMRS service, making that
reference in Sec. 63.63(a) unnecessary and irrelevant. For the same
reasons, and because it relies upon a previously eliminated rule, we
also propose to delete Sec. 63.601.
115. We also propose to eliminate references to public coast
stations in the definitions in Sec. Sec. 63.60(b)(1) and (2) and
63.60(c). The references in Sec. 63.60(b)(1) and (2) appear to be
unnecessary to operation of the rules now applicable to public coast
stations providing international service. Moreover, the existing
references can be misleading. Section 63.60(b)(1) cross-references the
definition of public coast stations in Sec. 80.5 that is simply a
general description applicable to all public coast stations, without
any indication of the limitation for the purposes of part 63 to only
such stations providing international service. Section 63.60(c)
includes public coast stations in defining ``[e]mergency
discontinuance, reduction, or impairment of service'' and specifies a
``reasonable time'' for outage of public coast stations, at the same
time pertinent rule provisions applicable to international service are
in Sec. 63.25 (Special provisions relating to temporary or emergency
service by international carriers). We specifically seek comment on
whether the public coast stations provision of Sec. 63.60(c) conflicts
with Sec. 63.25 and should be deleted or modified, or whether it
should be retained. Also, is there any need to retain or value in
retaining the provision in Sec. 63.60(c), given the operations-
specific regulations governing public coast stations in part 80? These
regulations include Sec. 80.471 (discontinuance or impairment or
service of public coast stations), Sec. 80.47 (operation during
emergency), Sec. 80.90 (suspension of transmission), Sec. Sec. 80.105
and 80.106 (communication obligations of public coast stations), Sec.
80.121(b)(1) (watch requirement for public coast
[[Page 41959]]
stations when using telegraphy) and subpart G of part 80 (safety watch
requirements and procedures for public coast stations).
116. We seek comment on these proposed modifications, as well as
any specific suggestions of other modifications or alternatives that
would enhance the clarity of the rules on impairment or discontinuance
of service of public coast stations.
6. Other Issues
117. We seek general comment on any other potential revisions to
our section 214 discontinuance regulations that might help facilitate
the transition to next-generation networks and advanced communications
services. We also seek comment on any other Federal, state, or local
requirements that inhibit or impede the transition to next-generation
networks and services. For example, are there any state or local
requirements that would conflict with the Commission's goals of
accelerating this transition by, for example, compelling carriers to
continue providing legacy voice service or preventing carriers from
discontinuing such service? If so, how can the Commission address such
obstacles?
II. Initial Regulatory Flexibility Analysis
118. As required by the Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980, as
amended (RFA) the Federal Communications Commission (Commission) has
prepared this Initial Regulatory Flexibility Analysis (IRFA) of the
policies and rules proposed in this document assessing the possible
significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities.
The Commission requests written public comments on this IRFA. Comments
must be identified as responses to the IRFA and must be filed by the
deadlines for comments specified on the first page of the document. The
Commission will send a copy of the document, including this IRFA, to
the Chief Counsel for Advocacy of the Small Business Administration
(SBA). In addition, the document and IRFA (or summaries thereof) will
be published in the Federal Register.
A. Need for, and Objectives of, the Proposed Rules
119. The document seeks to eliminate regulatory burdens in an
effort to encourage providers to build, maintain, and upgrade their
networks to ensure that all consumers can benefit from today's advanced
communication services. Over the course of time, changes in the
communications marketplace have altered how providers deliver services
to consumers. To reduce regulatory burdens that hinder providers from
investing in and deploying next-generation networks, we propose to
eliminate all filing requirements in the Commission's network change
disclosure rules by codifying the Wireline Competition Bureau's (the
Bureau) NCD Waiver Order. Alternatively, we seek comment on whether the
communications marketplace is sufficiently competitive such that
incumbent local exchange carriers (LECs) no longer exert monopoly
control over the Nation's communications networks, and forbearing from
the Commission's network change disclosure rules altogether. The
document next proposes to simplify the discontinuance process for
technology transitions discontinuance applications by consolidating
rules governing discontinuance applications into one rule. We seek
comment on alternative actions, such as granting forbearance from
discontinuance obligations or through a targeted revision of our rules,
including codifying relief granted by the Bureau.
120. We next provide options for further revision of the
Commission's rules implementing the discontinuance requirements imposed
by section 214(a) of the Act. We propose to eliminate the requirement
that a carrier seeking to grandfather a legacy service file an
application with the Commission and alternatively seek comment on
extending this relief to the grandfathering of any service. We also
seek comment on forbearing from all discontinuance requirements for all
lower-speed data telecommunications services. Further, we propose to
expand the 31-day automatic grant period applicable to applications to
discontinue a service for which the discontinuing carrier is non-
dominant to extend to all discontinuance applications eligible for
streamlined processing regardless of carrier classification. In
addition, we seek comment on granting forbearance from the requirement
that domestic carriers seeking to discontinue a service notify the
relevant state Governor and Secretary of Defense. We also seek comment
on revising the emergency discontinuance requirements under Sec. 63.63
and requests made under that rule for permanent discontinuance. Lastly,
we propose to eliminate various discontinuance rules that are outdated
or redundant.
B. Legal Basis
121. The proposed action is authorized pursuant to sections 1-4,
214(a), 251(c)(5) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47
U.S.C. 151-54, 214(a), 251(c)(5).
C. Description and Estimate of the Number of Small Entities to Which
the Proposed Rules Will Apply
122. The RFA directs agencies to provide a description of and,
where feasible, an estimate of the number of small entities that may be
affected by the proposed rules, if adopted. The RFA generally defines
the term ``small entity'' as having the same meaning as the terms
``small business,'' ``small organization,'' and ``small governmental
jurisdiction.'' In addition, the term ``small business'' has the same
meaning as the term ``small business concern'' under the Small Business
Act.'' A ``small business concern'' is one which: (1) is independently
owned and operated; (2) is not dominant in its field of operation; and
(3) satisfies any additional criteria established by the SBA.
123. 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 three
broad groups of small entities that could be directly affected by our
actions. First, while there are industry specific size standards for
small businesses that are used in the regulatory flexibility analysis,
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 34.75 million
businesses. Next, ``small organizations'' are not-for-profit
enterprises that are independently owned and operated and not dominant
their field. While we do not have data regarding the number of non-
profits that meet that criteria, over 99 percent of nonprofits have
fewer than 500 employees. Finally, ``small governmental jurisdictions''
are defined as cities, counties, towns, townships, villages, school
districts, or special districts with populations of less than fifty
thousand. Based on the 2022 U.S. Census of Governments data, we
estimate that at least 48,724 out of 90,835 local government
jurisdictions have a population of less than 50,000.
1. Internet Access Service Providers
124. Wired Broadband internet Access Service Providers (Wired
ISPs). Providers of wired broadband internet access service include
various types of providers except dial-up internet access providers.
Wireline service that terminates at an end user location or
[[Page 41960]]
mobile device and enables the end user to receive information from and/
or send information to the internet at information transfer rates
exceeding 200 kilobits per second (kbps) in at least one direction is
classified as a broadband connection under the Commission's rules.
Wired broadband internet services fall in the Wired Telecommunications
Carriers industry. The SBA small business size standard for this
industry classifies firms having 1,500 or fewer employees as small.
U.S. Census Bureau data for 2017 show that there were 3,054 firms that
operated in this industry for the entire year. Of this number, 2,964
firms operated with fewer than 250 employees.
125. Additionally, according to Commission data on internet access
services as of June 30, 2024, nationwide there were approximately 2,204
providers of connections over 200 kbps in at least one direction using
various wireline technologies. The Commission does not collect data on
the number of employees for providers of these services, therefore, at
this time we are not able to estimate the number of providers that
would qualify as small under the SBA's small business size standard.
However, in light of the general data on fixed technology service
providers in the Commission's 2024 Communications Marketplace Report,
we believe that the majority of wireline internet access service
providers can be considered small entities.
126. Internet Service Providers (Non-Broadband). Internet access
service providers using client-supplied telecommunications connections
(e.g., dial-up ISPs) as well as VoIP service providers using client-
supplied telecommunications connections fall in the industry
classification of All Other Telecommunications. The SBA small business
size standard for this industry classifies firms with annual receipts
of $40 million or less as small. For this industry, U.S. Census Bureau
data for 2017 show that there were 1,079 firms in this industry that
operated for the entire year. Of those firms, 1,039 had revenue of less
than $25 million. Consequently, under the SBA size standard a majority
of firms in this industry can be considered small.
2. Wireline Service Providers
127. Wired Telecommunications Carriers. The U.S. Census Bureau
defines this industry as establishments primarily engaged in operating
and/or providing access to transmission facilities and infrastructure
that they own and/or lease for the transmission of voice, data, text,
sound, and video using wired communications networks. Transmission
facilities may be based on a single technology or a combination of
technologies. Establishments in this industry use the wired
telecommunications network facilities that they operate to provide a
variety of services, such as wired telephony services, including VoIP
services, wired (cable) audio and video programming distribution, and
wired broadband internet services. By exception, establishments
providing satellite television distribution services using facilities
and infrastructure that they operate are included in this industry.
Wired Telecommunications Carriers are also referred to as wireline
carriers or fixed local service providers.
128. The SBA small business size standard for Wired
Telecommunications Carriers classifies firms having 1,500 or fewer
employees as small. U.S. Census Bureau data for 2017 show that there
were 3,054 firms that operated in this industry for the entire year. Of
this number, 2,964 firms operated with fewer than 250 employees.
Additionally, based on Commission data in the 2022 Universal Service
Monitoring Report, as of December 31, 2021, there were 4,590 providers
that reported they were engaged in the provision of fixed local
services. Of these providers, the Commission estimates that 4,146
providers have 1,500 or fewer employees. Consequently, using the SBA's
small business size standard, most of these providers can be considered
small entities.
129. Local Exchange Carriers (LECs). Neither the Commission nor the
SBA has developed a size standard for small businesses specifically
applicable to local exchange services. Providers of these services
include both incumbent and competitive local exchange service
providers. Wired Telecommunications Carriers is the closest industry
with an SBA small business size standard. Wired Telecommunications
Carriers are also referred to as wireline carriers or fixed local
service providers. The SBA small business size standard for Wired
Telecommunications Carriers classifies firms having 1,500 or fewer
employees as small. U.S. Census Bureau data for 2017 show that there
were 3,054 firms that operated in this industry for the entire year. Of
this number, 2,964 firms operated with fewer than 250 employees.
Additionally, based on Commission data in the 2022 Universal Service
Monitoring Report, as of December 31, 2021, there were 4,590 providers
that reported they were fixed local exchange service providers. Of
these providers, the Commission estimates that 4,146 providers have
1,500 or fewer employees. Consequently, using the SBA's small business
size standard, most of these providers can be considered small
entities.
130. Incumbent Local Exchange Carriers (Incumbent LECs). Neither
the Commission nor the SBA have developed a small business size
standard specifically for incumbent local exchange carriers. Wired
Telecommunications Carriers is the closest industry with an SBA small
business size standard. The SBA small business size standard for Wired
Telecommunications Carriers classifies firms having 1,500 or fewer
employees as small. U.S. Census Bureau data for 2017 show that there
were 3,054 firms in this industry that operated for the entire year. Of
this number, 2,964 firms operated with fewer than 250 employees.
Additionally, based on Commission data in the 2022 Universal Service
Monitoring Report, as of December 31, 2021, there were 1,212 providers
that reported they were incumbent local exchange service providers. Of
these providers, the Commission estimates that 916 providers have 1,500
or fewer employees. Consequently, using the SBA's small business size
standard, the Commission estimates that the majority of incumbent local
exchange carriers can be considered small entities.
131. Competitive Local Exchange Carriers (CLECs). Neither the
Commission nor the SBA has developed a size standard for small
businesses specifically applicable to local exchange services.
Providers of these services include several types of competitive local
exchange service providers. Wired Telecommunications Carriers is the
closest industry with a SBA small business size standard. The SBA small
business size standard for Wired Telecommunications Carriers classifies
firms having 1,500 or fewer employees as small. U.S. Census Bureau data
for 2017 show that there were 3,054 firms that operated in this
industry for the entire year. Of this number, 2,964 firms operated with
fewer than 250 employees. Additionally, based on Commission data in the
2022 Universal Service Monitoring Report, as of December 31, 2021,
there were 3,378 providers that reported they were competitive local
service providers. Of these providers, the Commission estimates that
3,230 providers have 1,500 or fewer employees. Consequently, using the
SBA's small business size standard, most of these providers can be
considered small entities.
[[Page 41961]]
132. Interexchange Carriers (IXCs). Neither the Commission nor the
SBA have developed a small business size standard specifically for
Interexchange Carriers. Wired Telecommunications Carriers is the
closest industry with a SBA small business size standard. The SBA small
business size standard for Wired Telecommunications Carriers classifies
firms having 1,500 or fewer employees as small. U.S. Census Bureau data
for 2017 show that there were 3,054 firms that operated in this
industry for the entire year. Of this number, 2,964 firms operated with
fewer than 250 employees. Additionally, based on Commission data in the
2022 Universal Service Monitoring Report, as of December 31, 2021,
there were 127 providers that reported they were engaged in the
provision of interexchange services. Of these providers, the Commission
estimates that 109 providers have 1,500 or fewer employees.
Consequently, using the SBA's small business size standard, the
Commission estimates that the majority of providers in this industry
can be considered small entities.
133. 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 industry with a SBA
small business size standard is Wired Telecommunications Carriers. The
SBA small business size standard classifies a business as small if it
has 1,500 or fewer employees. U.S. Census Bureau data for 2017 show
that there were 3,054 firms in this industry that operated for the
entire year. Of this number, 2,964 firms operated with fewer than 250
employees. Additionally, based on Commission data in the 2022 Universal
Service Monitoring Report, as of December 31, 2021, there were 20
providers that reported they were engaged in the provision of operator
services. Of these providers, the Commission estimates that all 20
providers have 1,500 or fewer employees. Consequently, using the SBA's
small business size standard, all of these providers can be considered
small entities.
134. 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. Wired Telecommunications Carriers is the closest
industry with a SBA small business size standard. The SBA small
business size standard for Wired Telecommunications Carriers classifies
firms having 1,500 or fewer employees as small. U.S. Census Bureau data
for 2017 show that there were 3,054 firms in this industry that
operated for the entire year. Of this number, 2,964 firms operated with
fewer than 250 employees. Additionally, based on Commission data in the
2022 Universal Service Monitoring Report, as of December 31, 2021,
there were 90 providers that reported they were engaged in the
provision of other toll services. Of these providers, the Commission
estimates that 87 providers have 1,500 or fewer employees.
Consequently, using the SBA's small business size standard, most of
these providers can be considered small entities.
3. Wireless Providers--Fixed and Mobile
135. 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
SBA size standard for this industry classifies a business as small if
it has 1,500 or fewer employees. U.S. Census Bureau data for 2017 show
that there were 2,893 firms in this industry that operated for the
entire year. Of that number, 2,837 firms employed fewer than 250
employees. Additionally, based on Commission data in the 2022 Universal
Service Monitoring Report, as of December 31, 2021, there were 594
providers that reported they were engaged in the provision of wireless
services. Of these providers, the Commission estimates that 511
providers have 1,500 or fewer employees. Consequently, using the SBA's
small business size standard, most of these providers can be considered
small entities.
136. Wireless Communications Services. Wireless Communications
Services (WCS) can be used for a variety of fixed, mobile,
radiolocation, and digital audio broadcasting satellite services.
Wireless spectrum is made available and licensed for the provision of
wireless communications services in several frequency bands subject to
Part 27 of the Commission's rules. Wireless Telecommunications Carriers
(except Satellite) is the closest industry with an SBA small business
size standard applicable to these services. The SBA small business size
standard for this industry classifies a business as small if it has
1,500 or fewer employees. U.S. Census Bureau data for 2017 show that
there were 2,893 firms that operated in this industry for the entire
year. Of this number, 2,837 firms employed fewer than 250 employees.
Thus under the SBA size standard, the Commission estimates that a
majority of licensees in this industry can be considered small.
137. The Commission's small business size standards with respect to
WCS involve eligibility for bidding credits and installment payments in
the auction of licenses for the various frequency bands included in
WCS. When bidding credits are adopted for the auction of licenses in
WCS frequency bands, such credits may be available to several types of
small businesses based average gross revenues (small, very small and
entrepreneur) pursuant to the competitive bidding rules adopted in
conjunction with the requirements for the auction and/or as identified
in the designated entities section in Part 27 of the Commission's rules
for the specific WCS frequency bands.
138. In frequency bands where licenses were subject to auction, the
Commission notes that as a general matter, the number of winning
bidders that qualify as small businesses at the close of an auction
does not necessarily represent the number of small businesses currently
in service. Further, the Commission does not generally track subsequent
business size unless, in the context of assignments or transfers,
unjust enrichment issues are implicated. Additionally, since the
Commission does not collect data on the number of employees for
licensees providing these services, at this time we are not able to
estimate the number of licensees with active licenses that would
qualify as small under the SBA's small business size standard.
139. All Other Telecommunications. This industry is comprised of
establishments primarily engaged in providing specialized
telecommunications services, such as satellite tracking, communications
telemetry, and radar station operation. This industry also includes
establishments primarily engaged in providing satellite terminal
stations and associated facilities connected with one or more
terrestrial systems and capable of transmitting telecommunications to,
and receiving telecommunications from, satellite systems. Providers of
internet services (e.g. dial-up ISPs) or Voice over internet Protocol
(VoIP) services, via client-supplied telecommunications connections are
also included in this
[[Page 41962]]
industry. The SBA small business size standard for this industry
classifies firms with annual receipts of $40 million or less as small.
U.S. Census Bureau data for 2017 show that there were 1,079 firms in
this industry that operated for the entire year. Of those firms, 1,039
had revenue of less than $25 million. Based on this data, the
Commission estimates that the majority of ``All Other
Telecommunications'' firms can be considered small.
D. Description of Economic Impact and Projected Reporting,
Recordkeeping, and Other Compliance Requirements for Small Entities
140. The RFA directs agencies to describe the economic impact of
proposed rules on small entities, as well as projected reporting,
recordkeeping and other compliance requirements, including an estimate
of the classes of small entities which will be subject to the
requirements and the type of professional skills necessary for
preparation of the report or record.
141. The document seeks comment on proposals that we expect will
reduce reporting, recordkeeping, and other compliance requirements if
adopted, as small and other carriers would then be subject to fewer
regulatory burdens. In the document, we first propose to eliminate all
filing requirements in the Commission's network change disclosure
rules. We seek comment on forbearing from all of the Commission's
network change disclosure rules instead, including whether carriers
should remain obligated to provide public notice of network changes or
copper retirement. We then examine our rules governing the section
214(a) discontinuance process, with the goal of expediting the
transition from legacy services to next-generation IP networks, as well
as eliminating unnecessary burdens and costs on carriers. We propose to
simplify technology discontinuance applications by consolidating
existing rules governing the applications to one rule. Upon
application, carriers would be able to discontinue service so long as
they could certify that one of the following replacement services are
available in the affected service area: (1) a facilities-based
interconnected VoIP service; (2) a facilities-based mobile wireless
service; (3) a voice service offered pursuant to an obligation from one
of the Commission's modernized high-cost support programs; (4) a voice
service deployed by the applicant in the affected area for six months,
and for which the carrier has at least a certain number of existing
subscribers; or (5) a widely adopted alternative voice service. We seek
comment on our expectation that these four alternatives are adequate
replacements for purposes of eligibility for streamlined processing. We
also seek comment on two alternatives to this approach, (1) eliminating
the Adequate Replacement Test and Alternative Options test and the
technology transition discontinuance distinction; or (2) forbearing
from discontinuance obligations.
142. Next, we seek comment on a number of ways in which we might
further revise our discontinuance requirements, all of which would
reduce reporting and compliance requirements for small entities. This
would include eliminating the requirement that a discontinuation
application show that a replacement service offers interoperability and
compatibility with an enumerated list of applications and
functionalities determined to be key for consumers and competitors. We
also seek comment on whether to codify the waiver of rules requiring
carriers to provide a ``stand-alone'' voice service to customers which
would not require them to purchase a separate broadband service to
access the voice service. We further propose to eliminate the
requirement that a carrier seeking to grandfather a legacy service file
a 214(a) discontinuance application and seek comment on extending this
relief to all situations in which a carrier seeks to grandfather any
service. We next seek comment on whether to grant forbearance from the
requirement that carriers seeking to discontinue service notify the
Secretary of Defense and relevant state Governor. The document also
proposes to eliminate the distinction between dominant and non-dominant
carriers related to discontinuance applications, expanding the 31-day
automatic grant period to include any domestic carrier who submits a
request to discontinue any service. Lastly, concerning reporting,
recordkeeping, and compliance requirements, we seek comment on granting
forbearance to carriers the previously filed for emergency
discontinuance authority under Sec. 63.63 of the Commission's rules,
where the carrier has had no customers for the service during the
preceding 60 days.
143. We expect that the proposals in the document will decrease
regulatory burdens on small and other carriers by eliminating many of
the reporting and recordkeeping obligations mentioned above. While we
do not anticipate that these carriers will need to hire professionals
to comply with the proposals herein, we request comments specific to
any potential burdens or costs small entities may incur in connection
with these requirements.
E. Discussion of Significant Alternatives Considered That Minimize the
Significant Economic Impact on Small Entities
144. The RFA directs agencies to provide a description of any
significant alternatives to the proposed rules that would accomplish
the stated objectives of applicable statutes, and minimize any
significant economic impact on small entities. The discussion is
required to include alternatives such as: ``(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 and
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.''
145. The document seeks comment on proposals and alternatives that
we expect will positively impact small entities. We seek comment on
several alternatives to remove regulatory barriers and simplify
requirements so that carriers can develop and deploy next-generation
networks capable of supporting the advanced communication services
available today, such as forbearing from the Commission's network
change disclosure rules altogether. This would eliminate the need for
small and other providers to comply with the current filing and notice
requirements for a network change under the Commission's rules.
Regarding technology discontinuance applications, we seek comment on
the alternatives of forbearing from discontinuance obligations under
section 214(a) and the Commission's rules or revising the Commission's
rules through codifying relief previously granted by the Bureau to
entities that sought assistance. We also propose to replace both the
Adequate Replacement Test and the Alternative Options Test with one
consolidated rule applicable to all technology transitions
discontinuance applications, and seek comment this approach, or
alternatives such as targeted revisions to these tests instead.
146. To further revise the Commission's discontinuance rules, we
seek comment on the alternative of eliminating the need to file a
section 214(a) discontinuance application in all situations in which a
carrier intends to grandfather any service, instead of the current
process which requires
[[Page 41963]]
Commission authorization. We also consider whether we should forbear
from all section 214(a) discontinuance requirements for all lower-speed
data telecommunications services, including whether notice should be
required to consumers or the Commission and if so, what form that
notice should take. The document also considers whether to eliminate
the distinction between dominant and non-dominant carriers for purposes
of discontinuance applications, and requests comment on the alternative
of expanding the current 31-day automatic grant period for non-dominant
carriers to include any domestic carrier who submits a request to
discontinue any service. We also request comment on whether to grant
forbearance from the requirement that carriers seeking to discontinue a
service provide notice to both the Governor of the affected state and
to the Secretary of Defense. In addition, we seek comment on
alternatives to revising the emergency discontinuance requirements
under Sec. 63.63 and requests made under that rule for permanent
discontinuance. Lastly, we propose a number of alternatives to
eliminate various discontinuance rules that are outdated or redundant
given the current communications marketplace. We seek comment on
whether any of the burdens associated with alternatives that alter
current filing, recordkeeping, and reporting requirements described in
the document can be further minimized to lessen economic impact on
small entities.
147. The Commission will fully consider the economic impact on
small entities as it evaluates the comments filed in response to the
document, including comments related to costs and benefits. Alternative
proposals and approaches from commenters will further develop the
record and could help the Commission further minimize the economic
impact on small entities. The Commission's evaluation of the comments
filed in this proceeding will shape the final conclusions it reaches,
the final alternatives it considers, and the actions it ultimately
takes to minimize any significant economic impact that may occur on
small entities from the final rules.
F. Federal Rules That May Duplicate, Overlap, or Conflict With the
Proposed Rules
148. None.
III. Ordering Clauses
149. Accordingly, It Is Ordered that pursuant to sections 1-4,
214(a), 251(c)(5) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47
U.S.C. 151-54, 214(a), 251(c)(5), this document hereby is adopted.
150. It is further ordered that the Commission's Office of the
Secretary, shall send a copy of this document, including the Initial
Regulatory Flexibility Analysis, to the Chief Counsel for Advocacy of
the Small Business Administration.
List of Subjects
47 CFR Part 51
Communications, Communications common carriers, Telecommunications,
Telephone.
47 CFR Part 63
Authority delegations (government agencies), Cable television,
Communications, Communications common carriers, Organization and
functions (Government agencies), Radio, Reporting and recordkeeping
requirements, Telegraph, Telephone.
Federal Communications Commission.
Katura Jackson,
Federal Register Liaison Officer, Office of the Secretary.
Proposed Rules
For the reasons discussed in the preamble, the Federal
Communications Commission proposes to amend 47 CFR parts 51 and 63 as
follows:
PART 51--INTERCONNECTION
0
1. The authority citation for part 51 continues to read as follows:
Authority: 47 U.S.C. 151-55, 201-05, 207-09, 218, 225-27, 251-
52, 271, 332 unless otherwise noted.
0
2. Amend Sec. 51.329 by removing paragraph (c) and revising the
introductory text of paragraph (a) to read as follows:
Sec. 51.329 Notice of network changes: Methods for providing notice.
(a) An incumbent LEC shall provide the required notice to the
public of network changes through industry fora, industry publications,
or the carrier's publicly accessible internet site.
* * * * *
0
3. Amend Sec. 51.333 by revising paragraphs (a) and (b) to read as
follows:
Sec. 51.333 Notice of network changes: Short-term network changes and
copper retirement.
(a) Direct notice. If an incumbent LEC wishes to provide less than
six months' notice of planned network changes, or provide notice of a
planned copper retirement, the incumbent LEC must serve a copy of its
public notice upon each telephone exchange service provider that
directly interconnects with the incumbent LEC's network, provided that,
with respect to copper retirement notices, such service may be made by
postings on the incumbent LEC's website if the directly interconnecting
telephone exchange service provider has agreed to receive notice by
website postings. An incumbent LEC must provide the required direct
notice of a planned copper retirement at least ninety days prior to
implementation.
(b) Limited exemption from advance notice and timing requirements--
(1) Force majeure events.
(i) Notwithstanding the requirements of this section, if in
response to a force majeure event, an incumbent LEC invokes its
disaster recovery plan, the incumbent LEC will be exempted during the
period when the plan is invoked (up to a maximum 180 days) from all
advanced notice requirements under this section associated with network
changes that result from or are necessitated as a direct result of the
force majeure event.
(ii) As soon as practicable, during the exemption period, the
incumbent LEC must continue to comply with Sec. 51.325(a), include in
its public notice the date on which the carrier invoked its disaster
recovery plan, and must communicate with other directly interconnected
telephone exchange service providers to ensure that such carriers are
aware of any changes being made to their networks that may impact those
carriers' operations.
(2) Other events outside an incumbent LEC's control.
(i) Notwithstanding the requirements of this section, if in
response to circumstances outside of its control other than a force
majeure event addressed in paragraph (b)(1) of this section, an
incumbent LEC cannot comply with the timing requirement set forth in
paragraph (a)(1), the incumbent LEC must give notice of the network
change as soon as practicable.
(ii) A short-term network change or copper retirement notice
subject to paragraph (b)(2) of this section must include a brief
explanation of the circumstances necessitating the reduced waiting
period and how the incumbent LEC intends to minimize the impact of the
reduced waiting period on directly interconnected telephone exchange
service providers.
* * * * *
[[Page 41964]]
PART 63--EXTENSION OF LINES, NEW LINES, AND DISCONTINUANCE,
REDUCTION, OUTAGE AND IMPAIRMENT OF SERVICE BY COMMON CARRIERS; AND
GRANTS OF RECOGNIZED PRIVATE OPERATING AGENCY STATUS
0
4. The authority citation for part 63 continues to read as follows:
Authority: Sections 1, 4(i), 4(j), 10, 11, 201-205, 214, 218,
403 and 651 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C.
151, 154(i), 154(j), 160, 201-205, 214, 218, 403, and 571, unless
otherwise noted.
0
5. Amend Sec. 63.19 by revising the introductory text of paragraph (a)
and paragraph (b) to read as follows:
(a) With the exception of those international carriers described in
paragraphs (b) and (c) of this section, any international carrier that
seeks to discontinue, reduce, or impair service, including the retiring
of international facilities, dismantling or removing of international
trunk lines, shall be subject to the following procedures in lieu of
those specified in Sec. Sec. 63.61 through 63.505:
* * * * *
(b) The following procedures shall apply to any international
carrier that the Commission has classified as dominant in the provision
of a particular international service because the carrier possesses
market power in the provision of that service on the U.S. end of the
route. Any such carrier that seeks to retire international facilities,
dismantle or remove international trunk lines, but does not
discontinue, reduce or impair the dominant services being provided
through these facilities, shall only be subject to the notification
requirements of paragraph (a) of this section. If such carrier
discontinues, reduces or impairs the dominant service, or retires
facilities that impair or reduce the service, the carrier shall file an
application pursuant to Sec. Sec. 63.62 and 63.505.
* * * * *
0
6. Amend Sec. 63.60 by revising paragraphs (a), (b)(1) and (2), (c),
and (f) to read as follows:
Sec. 63.60 Definitions.
(a) For the purposes of Sec. Sec. 63.60 through 63.71, the term
``carrier,'' when used to refer either to all telecommunications
carriers or more specifically to non-dominant telecommunications
carriers, shall include interconnected VoIP providers.
(b) * * *
(1) The closure by a carrier of a telephone exchange rendering
interstate or foreign telephone toll service;
(2) The reduction in hours of service by a carrier at a telephone
exchange rendering interstate or foreign telephone toll service; the
term reduction in hours of service does not include a shift in hours
which does not result in any reduction in the number of hours of
service;
* * * * *
(c) Emergency discontinuance, reduction, or impairment of service
means any discontinuance, reduction, or impairment of the service of a
carrier occasioned by conditions beyond the control of such carrier
where the original service is not restored or comparable service is not
established within a reasonable time. For the purpose of this part, a
reasonable time shall be deemed to be a period not in excess of 60
days.
* * * * *
(f) For the purposes of Sec. Sec. 63.60 through 63.71, the term
``service,'' when used to refer to a real-time, two-way voice
communications service, shall include interconnected VoIP service as
that term is defined in Sec. 9.3 of this chapter but shall not include
any interconnected VoIP service that is a ``mobile service'' as defined
in Sec. 20.3 of this chapter.
0
7. Amend Sec. 63.62 by revising the introductory paragraph and
paragraphs (a), (b), (d), and (e) to read as follows:
Sec. 63.62 Type of discontinuance, reduction, or impairment of
telephone service requiring formal application.
Authority for the following types of discontinuance, reduction, or
impairment of service shall be requested by formal application
containing the information required by the Commission in the
appropriate sections to this part, including Sec. 63.505, except as
provided in paragraph (d) of this section, or in emergency cases (as
defined in Sec. 63.60(b)) as provided in Sec. 63.63:
(a) The dismantling or removal of a trunk line for all domestic
carriers and for dominant international carriers except as modified in
Sec. 63.19;
(b) The severance of physical connection or the termination or
suspension of the interchange of traffic with another carrier;
* * * * *
(d) The closure of a public toll station where no other such toll
station of the applicant in the community will continue service:
Provided, however, That no application shall be required under this
part with respect to the closure of a toll station located in a
community where telephone toll service is otherwise available to the
public through a telephone exchange connected with the toll lines of a
carrier;
(e) Any other type of discontinuance, reduction, or impairment of
telephone service not specifically provided set forth in paragraphs (a)
through (d) of this section;
* * * * *
0
8. Amend Sec. 63.63 by revising the introductory text of paragraph (a)
and adding a sentence to paragraph (b) to read as follows:
Sec. 63.63 Emergency discontinuance, reduction or impairment of
service.
(a) Application for authority for emergency discontinuance,
reduction, or impairment of service shall be made by electronically
filing an informal request through the ``Submit a Non-Docketed Filing''
module of the Commission's Electronic Comment Filing System. Such
requests shall be made as soon as practicable but not later than 65
days after the occurrence of the conditions which have occasioned the
discontinuance, reduction, or impairment. The request shall make
reference to this section and show the following:
* * * * *
(b) * * * However, the Commission may, upon specific request of the
carrier and upon a proper showing, contained in such informal request
or in the initial application, authorize such discontinuance,
reduction, or impairment of service for an indefinite period or
permanently; except that the carrier may permanently discontinue,
reduce, or impair a service, upon the filing of a certification showing
that (1) it has received authority for emergency discontinuance,
reduction, or impairment; (2) it has had no customers or reasonable
requests for service during the 60-day period immediately preceding the
stated planned permanent discontinuance date; and (3) a comparable
service is available in the affected service areas.
Sec. 63.66 [Removed]
0
9. Remove Sec. 63.66.
0
10. Amend Sec. 63.71 by revising the introductory text of paragraph
(a) and paragraphs (a)(5), (f)(1) and (2), and (i) to read as follows:
[[Page 41965]]
Sec. 63.71 Procedures for discontinuance, reduction or impairment of
service by domestic carriers.
(a) The carrier shall notify all affected customers of the planned
discontinuance, reduction, or impairment of service and shall notify
and submit a copy of its application to the public utility commission
of the State in which the discontinuance, reduction, or impairment of
service is proposed and to any federally-recognized Tribal Nations with
authority over the Tribal lands in which the discontinuance, reduction,
or impairment of service is proposed. A notice shall be in writing to
each affected customer unless the Commission authorizes in advance, for
good cause shown, another form of notice. For purposes of this section,
notice by email constitutes notice in writing. The notice shall include
the following:
* * * * *
(5) The notice shall state:
The FCC will normally authorize this proposed discontinuance of
service (or reduction or impairment) unless it is shown that customers
would be unable to receive service or a reasonable substitute from
another carrier or that the public convenience and necessity is
otherwise adversely affected. If you wish to object, you should file
your comments as soon as possible, but no later than 15 days after the
Commission releases public notice of the proposed discontinuance. You
may file your comments electronically through the FCC's Electronic
Comment Filing System using the docket number established in the
Commission's public notice for this proceeding, or you may address them
to the Federal Communications Commission, Wireline Competition Bureau,
Competition Policy Division, Washington, DC 20554, and include in your
comments a reference to the Sec. 63.71 Application of (carrier's
name). Comments should include specific information about the impact of
this proposed discontinuance (or reduction or impairment) upon you or
your company, including any inability to acquire reasonable substitute
service.
* * * * *
(f)
(1) The application to discontinue, reduce, or impair service that
does not constitute a technology transition or, if constituting a
technology transition, meets the requirements of paragraph (f)(2) of
this section, shall be automatically granted on the 31st day after its
filing with the Commission without any Commission notification to the
applicant unless the Commission has notified the applicant that the
grant will not be automatically effective. For purposes of this
section, an application will be deemed filed on the date the Commission
releases public notice of the filing.
(2) An application to discontinue, reduce, or impair an existing
retail service as part of a technology transition, as defined in Sec.
63.60(f), may be automatically granted only if the applicant certifies
that at least one of the following types of services, exists throughout
the affected service area:
(i) a facilities-based interconnected VoIP service, as defined in
Sec. 9.3 of this chapter;
(ii) a facilities-based mobile voice wireless service;
(iii) a voice service offered pursuant to an obligation from one of
the Commission's modernized high-cost support programs;
(iv) a voice service that has been available from the applicant in
the affected service area for a period of at least six months, and to
which at least 50 percent of the carrier's total voice service customer
base in the affected area are subscribed; or
(v) a widely adopted alternative service.
* * * * *
(i) Notwithstanding any other provision of this section, a carrier
is not required to file an application to grandfather a legacy voice or
lower-speed data telecommunications service, or an interconnected VoIP
service provisioned over copper wire. For purposes of this section, a
lower-speed data telecommunications service is a data
telecommunications service operating at speeds below 25/3 Mbps.
Sec. 63.90 [Removed]
0
11. Remove Sec. 63.90.
Sec. 63.100 [Removed]
0
12. Remove Sec. 63.100.
Sec. 63.504 [Removed]
0
13. Remove Sec. 63.504.
Sec. Sec. 63.601 and 63.602 [Removed]
0
14. Remove Sec. Sec. 63.601 and 63.602.
[FR Doc. 2025-16540 Filed 8-27-25; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6712-01-P