**Before the**

**Federal Communications Commission**

**Washington, D.C. 20554**

+----------------------------------+----+------------------------------+
| In the Matters of                | *  | WC Docket No. 04-36          |
|                                  | *) |                              |
| IP-Enabled Services              | ** | WT Docket No. 96-198         |
|                                  |    |                              |
| Implementation of Sections 255   | *  | CG Docket No. 03-123         |
| and 251(a)(2) of The             | *) |                              |
| Communications Act of 1934, as   | ** | CC Docket No. 92-105         |
| Enacted by The                   |    |                              |
| Telecommunications Act of 1996:  | *  |                              |
| Access to Telecommunications     | *) |                              |
| Service, Telecommunica-tions     | ** |                              |
| Equipment and Customer Premises  |    |                              |
| Equip-ment by Persons with       | *  |                              |
| Disabilities                     | *) |                              |
|                                  | ** |                              |
| Telecommunications Relay         |    |                              |
| Services and Speech-to-Speech    | *  |                              |
| Services for Individuals with    | *) |                              |
| Hearing and Speech Disabilities  | ** |                              |
|                                  |    |                              |
| The Use of N11 Codes and Other   | *  |                              |
| Abbreviated Dialing Arrangements | *) |                              |
|                                  | ** |                              |
|                                  |    |                              |
|                                  | *  |                              |
|                                  | *) |                              |
|                                  | ** |                              |
|                                  |    |                              |
|                                  | *  |                              |
|                                  | *) |                              |
|                                  | ** |                              |
|                                  |    |                              |
|                                  | *  |                              |
|                                  | *) |                              |
|                                  | ** |                              |
|                                  |    |                              |
|                                  | *  |                              |
|                                  | *) |                              |
|                                  | ** |                              |
|                                  |    |                              |
|                                  | *  |                              |
|                                  | *) |                              |
|                                  | ** |                              |
|                                  |    |                              |
|                                  | *  |                              |
|                                  | *) |                              |
|                                  | ** |                              |
|                                  |    |                              |
|                                  | *  |                              |
|                                  | *) |                              |
|                                  | ** |                              |
|                                  |    |                              |
|                                  | *  |                              |
|                                  | *) |                              |
|                                  | ** |                              |
|                                  |    |                              |
|                                  | *  |                              |
|                                  | *) |                              |
|                                  | ** |                              |
|                                  |    |                              |
|                                  | *  |                              |
|                                  | *) |                              |
|                                  | ** |                              |
|                                  |    |                              |
|                                  | *  |                              |
|                                  | *) |                              |
|                                  | ** |                              |
|                                  |    |                              |
|                                  | *  |                              |
|                                  | *) |                              |
|                                  | ** |                              |
|                                  |    |                              |
|                                  | *  |                              |
|                                  | *) |                              |
|                                  | ** |                              |
+----------------------------------+----+------------------------------+

**REPORT AND ORDER**

**Adopted: May 31, 2007 Released: June 15, 2007**

By the Commission: **Chairman Martin and Commissioners Copps, Adelstein,
Tate and McDowell issuing separate statements.**

Table of Contents

Heading Paragraph \#

I. introduction 1

II\. BACKGROUND 2

A. Sections 255 and 251(a)(2) of the Communications Act of 1934
(Disability Access) 2

B. Section 225 of the Communications Act of 1934 (TRS) 7

C. Interconnected VoIP Services 9

III\. DISCUSSION 16

A. Disability Access Obligations of Interconnected VoIP Providers and
Manufacturers 17

1\. VoIP Services and Equipment to Which Disability Access Obligations
Apply 18

2\. Specific Disability Access Requirements of Covered Service Providers
and Manufacturers 25

3\. Designation of Agent for Service of Complaints and Inquiries 31

B. TRS Obligations of Interconnected VoIP Providers 32

1\. Application of Section 225 Requirements to Interconnected VoIP
Providers 32

2\. TRS Fund Contribution Obligation of Interconnected VoIP Providers 36

3\. 711 Abbreviated Dialing Requirements of Interconnected VoIP
Providers 42

IV\. PROCEDURAL MATTERS 44

A. Paperwork Reduction Act 44

B. Congressional Review Act 47

C. Accessible Formats 48

D. Regulatory Flexibility Analysis 49

V. ORDERING CLAUSES 50

APPENDIX A: List of Commenters

APPENDIX B: Final Rule Changes

APPENDIX C: Final Regulatory Flexibility Analysis

# introduction

1.  In this Report and Order (*Order*), we extend the disability access
    requirements that currently apply to telecommunications service
    providers and equipment manufacturers under section 255 of the
    Communications Act of 1934, as amended (the Act),[^1] to providers
    of "interconnected voice over Internet Protocol (VoIP) services," as
    defined by the Commission,[^2] and to manufacturers of specially
    designed equipment used to provide those services. We adopt this
    measure under our Title I ancillary jurisdiction in order to give
    full effect to the accessibility policies embodied in section 255,
    and to further our statutory mandate to make available a nationwide
    communications system that promotes the safety and welfare of all
    Americans. In addition, we extend the Telecommunications Relay
    Services (TRS)[^3] requirements contained in our regulations, 47
    C.F.R. §§ 64.601 *et seq.*, to providers of interconnected VoIP
    services, pursuant to section 225(b)(1) of the Act[^4] and our Title
    I ancillary jurisdiction. Among the TRS requirements that we extend
    to interconnected VoIP providers, we require such providers to
    contribute to the Interstate TRS Fund (Fund)[^5] under the
    Commission's existing contribution rules,[^6] and to offer 711
    abbreviated dialing for access to relay services.[^7] Together,
    these measures will ensure that, as more consumers migrate from
    traditional phone service to interconnected VoIP services, the
    disability access provisions mandated by Congress under sections 255
    and 225 will apply to, and benefit users of, interconnected VoIP
    services and equipment.

# BACKGROUND 

## Sections 255 and 251(a)(2) of the Communications Act of 1934 (Disability Access)

2.  In adopting section 255, Congress sought to ensure that *all*
    Americans, including the approximately 54 million Americans with
    disabilities, could benefit from advances in telecommunications
    services and equipment. Section 255 requires manufacturers of
    "telecommunications equipment or customer premises equipment"[^8] to
    ensure that such equipment is accessible to and usable by
    individuals with disabilities, if readily achievable, and requires
    providers of a "telecommunications service"[^9] to ensure that the
    service is accessible to and usable by individuals with
    disabilities, if readily achievable.[^10] Where such access is not
    readily achievable, the manufacturer or service provider must ensure
    that the equipment or service is "compatible with" existing
    peripheral devices or specialized customer premises equipment (CPE)
    commonly used by individuals with disabilities to achieve access, if
    such compatibility is readily achievable.[^11] Section 255(a)
    incorporates by reference the ADA definitions of the terms
    "disability" and "readily achievable."[^12] Section 255(e) directs
    the Architectural and Transportation Barriers Compliance Board
    (Access Board), "in conjunction with the Commission," to develop
    "guidelines for accessibility of telecommunications equipment and
    customer premises equipment."[^13] Finally, section 251(a)(2) of the
    Act, which appears among the general duties of telecommunications
    carriers, prohibits such carriers from installing "network features,
    functions, or capabilities that do not comply with the guidelines
    and standards established pursuant to section 255."[^14]

3.  On September 29, 1999, the Commission issued an order implementing
    the disability access provisions in sections 255 and 251(a)(2).[^15]
    Among other things, the Commission's section 255 rules: (1) require
    manufacturers of telecommunications *equipment* or *CPE* to ensure
    that their equipment is designed, developed and fabricated to be
    accessible to individuals with disabilities, if readily achievable
    and, where such accessibility is not readily achievable, to ensure
    that the equipment is compatible with existing peripheral devices or
    specialized CPE, if readily achievable;[^16] (2) require
    telecommunications *service* providers to ensure that their service
    is accessible to individuals with disabilities, if readily
    achievable and, where such accessibility is not readily achievable,
    to ensure that the service is compatible with existing peripheral
    devices or specialized CPE, if readily achievable;[^17] (3) prohibit
    telecommunications carriers from installing network features,
    functions, or capabilities that do not comply with the guidelines
    and standards established in the *Section 255 Order*;[^18] (4)
    require manufacturers and service providers to evaluate the
    accessibility, usability, and compatibility of covered services and
    equipment throughout the design and development process;[^19] (5)
    require manufacturers and service providers to ensure that
    information and documentation provided in connection with equipment
    or services be accessible to people with disabilities, where readily
    achievable, and that employee training, where provided at all,
    account for accessibility requirements;[^20] (6) incorporate, with
    minor modifications, the Access Board definition of the term
    \"accessible\" for both products and services, along with the list
    of actions the Access Board required manufacturers to undertake in
    order to render products accessible;[^21] and (7) define the term
    \"readily achievable,\" consistent with the ADA definition, as
    "easily accomplishable and able to be carried out without much
    difficulty or expense" and provide that determinations as to what is
    \"readily achievable\" be made on a case-by-case basis considering,
    among other factors, the cost and nature of the action and overall
    resources of the entity.[^22]

4.  In the *Section 255 Order*, the Commission also applied requirements
    "comparable to those under section 255" to two information services
    that it deemed "critical to making telecommunications accessible and
    usable by people with disabilities."[^23] In particular, the
    Commission's review of the record led it to conclude that its
    failure to ensure accessibility of voicemail and interactive menu
    services, and the related equipment that performs these functions,
    would "seriously undermine the accessibility and usability of the
    telecommunications services covered by sections 255 and
    251(a)(2)."[^24] Thus, the Commission asserted ancillary
    jurisdiction to extend the accessibility requirements to providers
    of voicemail and interactive menu services and to the manufacturers
    of related equipment.[^25]

5.  The *Section 255 Order* included a Notice of Inquiry (*NOI*), which
    sought comment on applying accessibility requirements to "IP
    telephony" and "computer-based equipment that replicates
    telecommunications functionality."[^26] The *NOI* sought comment on
    the extent to which Internet telephony was impairing access to
    communications services among people with disabilities, the efforts
    that manufacturers were taking to render new technologies
    accessible, and the degree to which these technologies should be
    subjected to the same disability access requirements as traditional
    telephony facilities.[^27]

6.  In response to the *NOI*, disability advocates generally argued that
    manufacturers and providers will not voluntarily remedy
    accessibility issues unless compelled to do so by regulation.[^28]
    Several commenters specifically pointed to the need for mandatory
    standards to ensure that IP telephony is compatible with TTYs.[^29]
    They argued that if IP telephony is not accessible to those with
    disabilities, the purposes of section 255 would be thwarted.[^30]
    Several industry commenters argued that the Commission should not
    extend the requirements of section 255 to IP-telephony under its
    ancillary jurisdiction absent evidence of widespread use of
    IP-telephony and evidence that the service is an "essential
    component of telecommunications."[^31] Industry commenters also
    pointed to the voluntary development of accessibility standards by a
    number of standards-setting organizations as evidence that
    regulatory intervention is not needed.[^32]

## Section 225 of the Communications Act of 1934 (TRS)

7.  Title IV of the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990 (ADA), which
    added section 225 to the Act,[^33] instructs the Commission to
    ensure that TRS is available, "to the extent possible and in the
    most efficient manner," to persons with hearing or speech
    disabilities in the United States.[^34] The statute requires each
    common carrier offering "telephone voice transmission services" to
    offer TRS to persons with hearing and speech disabilities that is
    "functionally equivalent" to voice telephone service.[^35] When
    section 225 was first implemented, TRS calls were placed using a
    TTY[^36] connected to the public switched telephone network
    (PSTN).[^37] Since then, the Commission has recognized other forms
    of TRS, including Speech-to-Speech, and captioned telephone service,
    as well as several Internet-based forms of TRS such as Video Relay
    Service (VRS), IP Relay, and IP captioned telephone service.[^38]

8.  Section 225 creates a cost recovery regime under which providers of
    TRS are compensated for their reasonable costs of providing
    TRS.[^39] Specifically, section 225 provides that the "costs caused
    by" the provision of *interstate* TRS "shall be recovered from all
    subscribers for every interstate service," and the "costs caused by"
    the provision of *intrastate* TRS "shall be recovered from the
    intrastate jurisdiction."[^40] With respect to interstate TRS, there
    are two components to the cost recovery framework set forth in the
    Commission's rules: (1) collecting contributions from common
    carriers providing interstate telecommunications services to create
    a fund from which eligible TRS providers may be compensated;[^41]
    and (2) compensating eligible TRS providers from the fund for the
    costs of providing eligible TRS services.[^42] Under Commission
    rules, interstate telecommunications carriers contribute to the
    Interstate TRS Fund based on a percentage of their interstate
    end-user telecommunications revenues.[^43] All contributions are
    placed in the Fund, which is administered by the TRS Fund
    administrator, currently the National Exchange Carrier Association,
    Inc. (NECA). The TRS Fund administrator uses these funds to
    compensate eligible TRS providers for the costs of providing
    TRS.[^44]

## Interconnected VoIP Services

9.  On March 10, 2004, the Commission initiated a rulemaking proceeding
    to examine issues relating to services and applications that use
    Internet Protocol (IP), including but not limited to VoIP
    services[^45] (collectively, "IP-enabled services").[^46] The
    Commission noted that some IP-enabled services, to the extent that
    they are viewed as "replacements for traditional voice
    telephony\[,\]" raise "social policy concerns" relating to emergency
    services, law enforcement, disabilities access, consumer protection,
    and universal service.[^47] It further considered whether a
    service's functional equivalence to, or substitutability for,
    traditional telephony provides a basis for determining the
    appropriate regulatory treatment of that service.[^48]

10. With regard to disability access requirements, the Commission sought
    comment on "how we should apply the disability accessibility
    requirements set forth in sections 255 and 251(a)(2) to any
    providers of VoIP or other IP-enabled services."[^49] Noting that
    the Commission previously had relied on its ancillary authority
    under Title I of the Act to apply section 255 obligations to
    providers of voicemail and interactive menu services, both of which
    were deemed "information services" under the Act, the Commission
    asked whether that approach would be "appropriate with regard to any
    providers of VoIP or other IP-enabled services" that the Commission
    ultimately may deem to be information services.[^50]

11. The Commission also sought comment on "how migration to IP-enabled
    services will affect our statutory obligation to ensure that
    interstate and intrastate telecommunications relay services are
    available to hearing-impaired and speech-impaired individuals."[^51]
    More specifically, the Commission sought comment on how "other
    decisions" it may make in the *IP-Enabled Services* proceeding
    "might affect contributions to the Interstate TRS Fund" and whether,
    in this regard, the Commission "should amend its \[TRS\] rules in
    light of the increasing use of IP-enabled services."[^52]

12. In response to the *IP-Enabled Services NPRM*, a majority of
    commenters addressing these issues recommended that the Commission
    apply "social policy" regulations, such as disability access and TRS
    contribution requirements, to VoIP services and other IP-enabled
    services, whether those services are deemed to be an "information
    service" or a "telecommunication service" under the Act.[^53] Other
    commenters argued, however, that social policy considerations would
    be best addressed by competitive market forces and therefore urged
    the Commission to defer regulation until it is demonstrated that the
    market will not address these issues.[^54]

13. Shortly after the release of the *IP-Enabled Services NPRM*, the
    Commission hosted a "Solutions Summit" at which members of the
    disability community, industry representatives, and Commission staff
    discussed ways to address problems of disabilities access as
    communications services increasingly move to Internet-based
    platforms.[^55] The information gathered at this forum has informed
    the Commission's understanding of various advancements, innovations,
    and disabilities access issues relating to VoIP services for
    purposes of our *IP-Enabled Services* rulemaking proceeding.[^56]

14. Subsequently, the Commission addressed issues relating to the
    provision and regulation of interconnected VoIP services in a number
    of proceedings. First, on November 9, 2004, the Commission adopted
    the *Vonage Order*,[^57] in which it addressed the scope of the
    Commission's regulatory authority over an interconnected VoIP
    service that contained both intrastate and interstate components.
    The Commission preempted an order of the Minnesota Public Utilities
    Commission that applied Minnesota\'s traditional "telephone company"
    regulations to Vonage\'s DigitalVoice service \-- an interconnected
    VoIP service under the definition subsequently adopted by the
    Commission.[^58] Without classifying Vonage\'s service as either an
    "information service" or a "telecommunications service" under the
    Act, the Commission held that DigitalVoice cannot be separated into
    interstate and intrastate communications for compliance with
    Minnesota\'s requirements without negating valid federal policies
    and rules.[^59] The *Vonage Order* made "clear that this Commission,
    not the state commissions, has the responsibility and obligation to
    decide whether certain regulations apply to DigitalVoice and other
    IP-enabled services having the same capabilities."[^60] The
    Commission further indicated that it intended to resolve "important
    regulatory matters with respect to IP-enabled services" in the
    *IP-Enabled Services* rulemaking proceeding.[^61]

15. On three occasions, the Commission has extended certain Title II
    obligations to interconnected VoIP providers.[^62] On May 19, 2005,
    the Commission asserted its ancillary jurisdiction under Title I of
    the Act and its authority under section 251(e) to require
    interconnected VoIP providers to supply 911 emergency calling
    capabilities to their customers for services that utilize the
    PSTN.[^63] On June 21, 2006, the Commission in the *2006 Interim
    Contribution Methodology Order*, among other things, established
    universal service contribution obligations for interconnected VoIP
    providers based on its permissive authority under section 254(d) and
    its ancillary jurisdiction under Title I of the Act.[^64] On March
    13, 2007, the Commission extended section 222's customer proprietary
    network information obligations to interconnected VoIP providers
    using its Title I authority.[^65]

# DISCUSSION

16. We require providers of "interconnected VoIP service," as defined by
    the Commission,[^66] and manufacturers of equipment or CPE that is
    specially designed to provide this service, to comply with
    disability access requirements mirroring those in section 255 and in
    the Commission's section 255 rules.[^67] This conclusion is
    consistent with the objective identified by the Commission in the
    *IP-Enabled Services NPRM* of facilitating the deployment of
    broadband services and applications, relying "wherever possible" on
    competition and applying "discrete" regulatory requirements only
    where such requirements are "necessary to fulfill important policy
    objectives."[^68] We also require providers of interconnected VoIP
    service to comply with the TRS requirements contained in our
    regulations, 47 C.F.R. §§ 64.601 *et seq*. Among the TRS
    requirements that we extend to interconnected VoIP providers, we
    require such providers to contribute to the Interstate TRS Fund
    under the Commission's existing contribution rules, and to offer 711
    abbreviated dialing for access to relay services.[^69] We conclude
    that the actions we take today are necessary to give full effect to
    the accessibility objectives embodied in sections 255 and 225, and
    to fulfill our statutory mandate to make available a nationwide
    communications system that promotes the safety and welfare of all
    Americans.[^70]

## Disability Access Obligations of Interconnected VoIP Providers and Manufacturers

17. Although VoIP industry commenters contend that voluntary measures
    and market-based approaches will ensure reliable access to VoIP
    services and products for people with disabilities,[^71] the record
    reveals a gap between emerging technologies and the implementation
    of features needed to render those technologies accessible.[^72] As
    a result, as increasing numbers of consumers replace their
    traditional circuit-switched phone service with interconnected VoIP
    service,[^73] the health, safety, and livelihood of individuals with
    disabilities may be placed at risk by lack of ready and reliable
    access to interconnected VoIP service. In particular, although
    individuals with disabilities may subscribe to an accessible
    telecommunications service at home, such a service increasingly may
    not be available when the individual needs to place or receive a
    call at a location outside of the home, including a workplace or
    other public venue, or in the home of a family member or friend. In
    addition, the record is clear that, even where a fully accessible
    landline phone is available to an individual with a disability, the
    accurate and reliable transmission of information between the
    individual and a called party *via*, for example, a TTY, may not be
    assured if the called party is a VoIP service customer using a VoIP
    service that is not accessible.[^74] For these reasons, where
    interconnected VoIP service substitutes for traditional phone
    service, the same disability access protections that currently apply
    to telecommunications services and equipment must apply to
    interconnected VoIP service and equipment. Because consumers have a
    reasonable expectation that interconnected VoIP services are
    replacements for traditional phone service, the same disability
    access protections that currently apply to telephony must apply to
    interconnected VoIP. Since its enactment in 1996, section 255 has
    created heightened awareness and expertise by service providers and
    manufacturers in matters relating to accessible telecommunications
    services. Section 255 also has served as an impetus for
    collaboration between industry and disability rights groups with
    respect to developing accessibility standards and technologies that
    have made possible greater participation in our society by
    individuals with disabilities.[^75] Absent regulatory intervention,
    newly emerging interconnected VoIP services that hold the promise of
    independence and even fuller participation in our society by those
    with disabilities may instead result in their further alienation and
    exclusion within our society and place these individuals at
    increased risk in emergency situations.[^76]

### VoIP Services and Equipment to Which Disability Access Obligations Apply

18. ***Covered Entities.*** We require providers of "interconnected VoIP
    service" to comply with the disability access requirements we adopt
    today.[^77] Consistent with our findings in the *VoIP 911 Order*, we
    conclude that the services for which section 255 accessibility
    obligations are most relevant include those that permit users to
    receive calls that originate on the PSTN and to terminate calls to
    the PSTN.[^78] It is appropriate, in our view, to extend disability
    access obligations to interconnected VoIP services because these
    services increasingly are used to replace analog voice service.[^79]
    From a disabilities standpoint, we agree with CSD that the
    applicability of disability access obligations should turn on the
    functionalities of a service, "not on the nature of its underlying
    transmissions or the technologies used to send those
    transmissions."[^80]

19. Limiting the application of the rules we adopt today to providers
    offering service that is increasingly used to replace analog voice
    service balances the statutory imperative of making available a
    national communications network "to all the people of the United
    States"[^81] with the goal of relying "wherever possible" on
    competition and applying "discrete" regulatory requirements only
    where "necessary to fulfill important policy objectives."[^82] By
    limiting the application of our rules to those VoIP communications
    that use an interconnected VoIP service (and, thus, permit users to
    receive calls from *and* terminate calls to the PSTN), this approach
    ensures that, from the consumer's perspective, services that are
    perceived and used as a substitute for traditional telephony are
    subject to the same obligations that apply to traditional
    telephony.[^83] In addition, given that much of the appeal of
    interconnected VoIP services to consumers derives from the ability
    to place calls to and receive calls from the PSTN, providers of
    these services benefit directly from their interconnection with the
    PSTN.[^84] In light of this benefit and the related benefit of
    expanded PSTN subscribership made possible by section 255's
    disability access requirements, we find it reasonable to extend the
    disability access requirements that, until now, have generally
    applied only to telecommunications service providers, to providers
    of interconnected VoIP services. Finally, because the approach we
    adopt here minimizes the likelihood that providers with disability
    access obligations will compete directly with providers without such
    obligations, principles of competitive neutrality are served by
    extending these obligations to interconnected VoIP providers.[^85]

20. We also apply disability access obligations mirroring those under
    section 255 to any equipment or CPE specially designed to provide
    interconnected VoIP service and that is needed to effectively use an
    interconnected VoIP service.[^86] Because such specialized equipment
    and CPE are integral to the provision of interconnected VoIP
    service, we conclude that the disability access goals embodied in
    section 255 are best served by applying the section 255 requirements
    both to providers of interconnected VoIP service and to
    manufacturers of equipment that is specifically designed for that
    service, including specially designed software, hardware, and
    network equipment.[^87] The additional qualification that covered
    equipment and CPE be limited to that needed to effectively use
    interconnected VoIP service also fulfills the underlying purpose of
    section 255 by avoiding applying our rules to products or features
    that, while popular, are not strictly needed to effectively use
    interconnected VoIP service. As the Commission found when it
    extended the accessibility requirements of section 255 to
    manufacturers of equipment and CPE used to provide voicemail and
    interactive menu services, we find that the failure to require
    accessibility of interconnected VoIP equipment would seriously
    undermine the accessibility and usability of interconnected VoIP
    services.[^88]

21. ***Legal Authority.*** We exercise our Title I ancillary
    jurisdiction to establish a regulatory framework applying disability
    access requirements to all interconnected VoIP providers and related
    equipment manufacturers. Therefore, even if interconnected VoIP
    services ultimately are determined to be information services rather
    than telecommunications services, Title I provides authority for the
    actions the Commission takes in this *Order*.[^89] We note that the
    action we take here is consistent with that taken by the Commission
    in the *Section 255 Order*, in which it determined that it has Title
    I authority to regulate information services and equipment
    manufacturers and, on that basis, extended the section 255
    obligations to providers of voicemail and interactive menu services
    and to the manufacturers of equipment needed to offer those
    services.[^90]

22. Ancillary jurisdiction may be employed, in the Commission\'s
    discretion, when Title I of the Act gives the agency subject matter
    jurisdiction over the service to be regulated and the assertion of
    jurisdiction is "reasonably ancillary to the effective performance
    of \[its\] various responsibilities."[^91] First, we find that we
    have subject matter jurisdiction over interconnected VoIP services.
    As the Commission found in the *VoIP 911*, *2006 Interim
    Contribution Methodology*, and *CPNI* proceedings, interconnected
    VoIP service is covered by the Commission\'s general jurisdictional
    grant under sections 1 and 2(a) of the Act, coupled with the
    definitions set forth in section 3(33) ("radio communication")[^92]
    and section 3(52) ("wire communication").[^93] The Act gives the
    Commission subject matter jurisdiction over "all interstate and
    foreign commerce in communication by wire or radio"and "all persons
    engaged within the United States in such communication."[^94]
    Interconnected VoIP services, as the Commission determined in the
    *VoIP 911*, *2006 Interim Contribution Methodology*, and *CPNI*
    orders, are covered by the statutory definitions of "wire
    communication" and/or "radio communication" because they involve
    "transmission of \[voice\] by aid of wire, cable, or other like
    connection" and/or "transmission by radio" of voice, and the *Vonage
    Order* confirmed that interconnected VoIP services are subject to
    the Commission's interstate jurisdiction.[^95] As such, we conclude
    that these services fall under the subject matter jurisdiction
    granted the Commission under the Act.

23. We similarly find that we have subject matter jurisdiction over
    equipment and CPE that is specially designed to provide
    interconnected VoIP service and that is needed to effectively use
    interconnected VoIP service. As noted above, the Act gives the
    Commission subject matter jurisdiction over "all interstate and
    foreign commerce in communication by wire or radio" and "all persons
    engaged within the United States in such communication."[^96]
    Because the statutory definitions of "radio communication" and "wire
    communication" include not only transmission, but also the
    "instrumentalities, facilities, \[and\] apparatus" incidental to
    such transmission, we conclude that our subject matter jurisdiction
    over interconnected VoIP service extends to interconnected VoIP
    service equipment and CPE as well.[^97] Because equipment that is
    specially designed to provide interconnected VoIP service
    constitutes an integral and necessary part of any interconnected
    VoIP service communication, such equipment is properly viewed as
    "incidental to such transmission" within the meaning of the
    statute.[^98]

24. Second, we find that the disability access obligations adopted here
    are "reasonably ancillary" to the Commission\'s responsibility to
    implement section 255 and to give full effect to the accessibility
    policies embodied in section 255. To the extent that consumers are
    replacing their traditional phone service with interconnected VoIP
    service, we believe it is critical that the disability safeguards
    afforded by Congress with respect to legacy telecommunications
    services and equipment be carried forward to interconnected VoIP
    services and equipment.[^99] Disability access regulation also is
    reasonably ancillary to the Commission\'s obligation to make
    available "to all the people of the United States...a rapid,
    efficient, Nation-wide, and world-wide wire and radio communication
    service with adequate facilities at reasonable charges\...for the
    purpose of promoting safety of life and property through the use of
    wire and radio communications."[^100] Given that accessible
    interconnected VoIP services may facilitate communications by
    individuals with disabilities who otherwise would not have access to
    a communications service of this, or any other, type and, therefore,
    result in increased subscribership, the extension of disability
    access requirements to interconnected VoIP services will further
    this statutory objective as well.[^101] Finally, we conclude that
    imposing these requirements on manufacturers of equipment that is
    specially designed to provide interconnected VoIP service is
    reasonably ancillary to the Commission's responsibilities under
    section 255 given Congress's clearly expressed desire in the
    analogous telecommunications context to apply disability access
    requirements both to service providers and to equipment
    manufacturers, and in light of the Commission's finding, addressed
    above, that extending disability access obligations to
    interconnected VoIP equipment is critical to ensuring the
    accessibility of interconnected VoIP services.[^102]

### Specific Disability Access Requirements of Covered Service Providers and Manufacturers

25. We apply our section 255 rules and requirements, without substantive
    modification, to interconnected VoIP providers and related equipment
    manufacturers.[^103] We note that the Commission adopted this
    approach in applying accessibility requirements to providers of
    voicemail and interactive menu services and to related equipment
    manufacturers.[^104]

26. The Commission's section 255 rules and requirements are essentially
    performance criteria that focus on certain outcomes, as opposed to
    specifying exactly how access must be achieved. The rules do not
    specify particular standards that must be employed or particular
    technologies that must be used, which likely would vary across
    different products and services. Instead, they detail the operating
    characteristics and product capabilities necessary for
    accessibility. Because this approach has been effective in advancing
    the objectives of section 255 in other contexts, we conclude that it
    is appropriate to apply the current requirements to interconnected
    VoIP providers and equipment manufacturers.[^105] The following
    reviews the Commission's current section 255 rules and requirements,
    which we now apply to interconnected VoIP providers and equipment
    manufacturers.

27. If "readily achievable," a covered interconnected VoIP *provider*
    must ensure that its service is accessible to and usable by
    individuals with disabilities. Whenever this requirement is not
    readily achievable, the provider must ensure that the service is
    compatible with existing peripheral devices or specialized CPE
    commonly used by individuals with disabilities to achieve access, if
    readily achievable. A covered provider also must ensure that
    information and documentation provided in connection with an
    interconnected VoIP service is accessible, if readily achievable.

28. If "readily achievable," a covered *manufacturer* *of equipment* or
    *CPE* that is specially designed to provide interconnected VoIP
    service must ensure that the equipment is designed, developed, and
    fabricated so that any portion of the equipment that is used for
    interconnected VoIP service is accessible to and usable by
    individuals with disabilities, if readily achievable. Whenever this
    requirement is not readily achievable, the manufacturer must ensure
    that the equipment is compatible with existing peripheral devices or
    specialized CPE commonly used by individuals with disabilities to
    achieve access, if readily achievable. A covered manufacturer also
    must ensure that information and documentation provided in
    connection with covered interconnected VoIP equipment or CPE is
    accessible, if readily achievable.

29. *All* covered entities subject to the rules and requirements adopted
    herein (*i.e.*, interconnected VoIP providers and interconnected
    VoIP equipment and CPE manufacturers) also are required to: (1)
    consider accessibility of covered equipment and services throughout
    their design, development, and fabrication, as early and
    consistently as possible; (2) where employee training is provided,
    consider accessibility issues in the development of such training;
    and (3) maintain records of the entity's accessibility efforts
    demonstrating compliance with section 255 that can be presented to
    the Commission in the event that consumers with disabilities file
    complaints.[^106]

30. Some commenters suggest we convene a working group or advisory
    committee to make recommendations regarding interconnected
    VoIP-specific standards and requirements.[^107] We decline to do so
    at this time. Once the rules and requirements adopted herein have
    taken effect, we will consider whether to convene a working group or
    advisory committee comprised of stakeholders to determine if
    standards or requirements beyond those provided here are needed. For
    example, to the extent that there are technical and operational
    problems concerning real-time text use over IP networks, it may be
    appropriate to convene a working group or advisory committee to
    examine this and other areas where additional or more specific
    standards or requirements may be needed.[^108] We note that as we
    move from PSTN to VoIP, we need reliable, real-time text capability
    that is supported throughout the VoIP system so that people who rely
    on text and text intermixed with speech in order to converse can use
    the next generation phone system.[^109] We further note that most of
    the VoIP-specific standards recommended by commenters regarding how
    providers and manufacturers must achieve accessibility, if readily
    achievable, will be addressed by the existing rules, to the extent
    that these rules focus on certain outcomes, as opposed to specifying
    exactly how access must be achieved.[^110] Because the determination
    of what is readily achievable is entity specific, we do not adopt
    general standards applicable to all interconnected VoIP providers
    and manufacturers governing how entities must achieve accessibility,
    as was requested by various commenters.[^111]

### Designation of Agent for Service of Complaints and Inquiries

31. As in the *Section 255 Order*, we recognize the need to ensure that
    consumers can readily obtain information identifying the points of
    contact for manufacturers and service providers covered by these
    rules.[^112] Accordingly, we require each covered manufacturer and
    interconnected VoIP provider to designate an agent for receipt and
    handling of accessibility complaints and inquiries, and to send this
    information to the Commission's Consumer & Governmental Affairs
    Bureau *via* email within thirty days after the effective date of
    the rules adopted herein.[^113] All point of contact information
    (including name of designated agent, company name, mailing address,
    email address, telephone number, and facsimile number) should be
    emailed to <SECTION255_POC@fcc.gov>. In identifying a point of
    contact, parties must clearly indicate whether the individual
    identified represents a covered manufacturer or a covered service
    provider. The Commission will add this information to a website
    currently maintained by the Consumer & Governmental Affairs Bureau
    on which contact information for manufacturers and service providers
    presently subject to the disability access requirements of section
    255 appears.[^114] We also strongly encourage manufacturers and
    interconnected VoIP providers to employ their own measures to inform
    consumers about how to contact the appropriate offices within their
    companies regarding accessibility barriers or concerns.

## TRS Obligations of Interconnected VoIP Providers

### Application of Section 225 Requirements to Interconnected VoIP Providers

32. For the reasons set forth below, we extend the section 225
    requirements contained in our rules to providers of interconnected
    VoIP services. Section 225 directs the Commission to ensure that TRS
    is available, "to the extent possible and in the most efficient
    manner," to persons with hearing or speech disabilities.[^115] The
    statute further requires that TRS facilitate the ability of
    individuals with hearing or speech disabilities to engage in
    "communication by wire or radio" in a manner that is "functionally
    equivalent" to that of individuals who do not have such
    disabilities,[^116] and requires each "common carrier providing
    telephone voice transmission services" to offer TRS.[^117]

33. Consistent with our recent orders and with the disability access
    requirements adopted above, we apply the TRS requirements set forth
    in Subpart F of the Commission's Part 64 rules to providers of
    "interconnected VoIP services."[^118] It is appropriate, in our
    view, to apply these requirements to interconnected VoIP services
    given that these services are increasingly used to replace analog
    voice service and because consumers reasonably perceive them as
    substitutes for analog voice service. Extending the TRS requirements
    to providers of interconnected VoIP services also ensures that
    providers of competing services are subject to comparable regulatory
    obligations.[^119] Finally, extending these requirements to
    interconnected VoIP providers is appropriate inasmuch as
    interconnected VoIP providers benefit from their interconnection
    with the PSTN and from the expanded network-wide subscribership that
    is made possible by the TRS rules and requirements.[^120]

34. We rely on our Title I ancillary jurisdiction to extend the TRS
    requirements in Subpart F to interconnected VoIP providers.[^121] As
    noted above, ancillary jurisdiction may be employed, in the
    Commission\'s discretion, when Title I of the Act gives the agency
    subject matter jurisdiction over the service to be regulated and the
    assertion of jurisdiction is "reasonably ancillary to the effective
    performance of \[its\] various responsibilities."[^122] In the
    previous discussion, we noted that the Act gives the Commission
    subject matter jurisdiction over "all interstate and foreign
    commerce in communication by wire or radio" and "all persons engaged
    within the United States in such communication" and found that
    interconnected VoIP services are covered by the statutory
    definitions of "wire" and "radio" communication.[^123] Based on this
    analysis, we found that the Commission's general grant of
    jurisdiction encompasses the regulation of interconnected VoIP
    services.[^124]

35. We find that the TRS obligations adopted here are "reasonably
    ancillary" to the Commission\'s responsibility to ensure the
    availability of TRS under section 225(b)(1), and will give full
    effect to the purposes underlying section 225(b)(1), as enumerated
    in that section. Specifically, section 225(b)(1) imposes on the
    Commission a duty to ensure the availability of TRS in order to: (1)
    "carry out the purposes established under \[section 1 of the
    Act\];" (2) make available to "all" individuals in the United States
    a rapid, efficient nationwide communication service; and (3)
    "increase the utility of the telephone system" in the United
    States.[^125] Extending the TRS requirements to interconnected VoIP
    providers will further the first two objectives articulated in
    section 225(b)(1) of making available to "all" persons a "rapid,
    efficient \[nationwide\] communication service."[^126] Moreover, the
    action we take here will promote the third objective of section
    225(b)(1) to "increase the utility of the telephone system" by
    making possible increased access to the telephone system by TRS
    users.[^127] In sum, we find that extending the TRS requirements to
    interconnected VoIP providers will serve the core objectives of
    section 225 and our TRS rules by making TRS widely available and by
    providing functionally equivalent services for the benefit of
    individuals with hearing or speech disabilities.

### TRS Fund Contribution Obligation of Interconnected VoIP Providers

36. Among the TRS requirements described above, we require providers of
    interconnected VoIP services to contribute to the TRS Fund. We
    conclude that this action will help to ensure the availability of
    TRS by creating a broader-based and more stable TRS funding
    mechanism.[^128] In adopting section 225, Congress specifically
    contemplated that costs "caused by" interstate TRS would be
    recovered from "all subscribers for every interstate service."[^129]
    As increasing numbers of consumers replace their traditional analog
    phone service with interconnected VoIP service,[^130] we are
    concerned that fewer overall interstate telecommunications revenues
    will be available to support TRS.[^131] At the same time, growing
    popularity of more expensive forms of TRS, such as VRS, has
    increased overall Fund requirements in recent years, placing upward
    pressure on the contribution factor that is used to calculate
    carrier assessments and payments into the Fund.[^132] Increasing
    demand for VRS is likely to continue as Internet usage expands and
    consumers become more familiar with the service. If these trends
    continue as anticipated, providers of interstate telecommunications
    will be forced to shoulder an increasing share of the TRS funding
    obligation as a percentage of their interstate end-user revenues.
    This situation is untenable both for individual contributors and for
    the Fund as a whole. Therefore, consistent with our statutory
    obligation to ensure the availability of TRS "to the extent possible
    and in the most efficient manner" to persons with hearing or speech
    disabilities, we extend the contribution requirements to
    interconnected VoIP providers.[^133]

37. In addition to relying on our Title I ancillary authority, as
    discussed above, we also rely on the express authority of section
    225(d)(3)(B) of the Act, which specifically addresses funding of
    TRS. That provision directs the Commission to issue regulations that
    "shall generally provide that costs caused by interstate relay
    services shall be recovered *from all subscribers for every
    interstate service*."[^134] As noted previously, the Commission has
    found that an interconnected VoIP provider provides "interstate"
    telecommunications because its "jurisdictionally mixed" services
    carry both interstate and intrastate calls.[^135] Following from the
    Commission's determination that interconnected VoIP services are
    properly classified as interstate, section 225(d)(3)(B) supports the
    extension of the TRS contribution requirements to providers of these
    services.[^136]

38. Section 64.604(c)(5)(iii)(A) of the Commission's rules requires that
    every carrier "providing interstate telecommunications services
    shall contribute to the TRS Fund on the basis of interstate end-user
    telecommunications revenues as described herein."[^137] The amount
    of each carrier's contribution is the product of the carrier's
    interstate end-user telecommunications revenues and a contribution
    factor determined annually by the Commission.[^138] These carriers
    are required to file with the Universal Service Administrative
    Corporation (USAC)[^139] each year a completed Telecommunications
    Reporting Worksheet (FCC Form 499-A).[^140] The data reported by
    each carrier on FCC Form 499-A is used to calculate the carrier's
    contribution to the TRS Fund, the Universal Service Fund, and the
    cost recovery mechanisms for numbering administration and long-term
    number portability.[^141]

39. We note that interconnected VoIP providers (except those that
    qualify for the *de minimis* or other exemptions) currently report
    their annual historic interstate end-user telecommunications revenue
    information for purposes of the universal service contribution
    requirements on FCC Form 499-A.[^142] In the *2006 Interim
    Contribution Methodology Order*, the Commission recognized that some
    interconnected VoIP providers may have difficulty complying with the
    reporting requirement because they do not currently have the ability
    to identify whether customer calls are interstate.[^143] As a
    result, the Commission established an interim safe harbor for
    interconnected VoIP services, reflected as an estimate of the
    percentage of interconnected VoIP revenues attributable to
    interstate telecommunications.[^144] In light of evidence in the
    record of extensive interstate use of interconnected VoIP services,
    the Commission determined that the closest analogue to this service
    was "wireline toll service," which "similarly offers interstate,
    intrastate toll, and international services."[^145] Consequently,
    the Commission set the interim safe harbor for interconnected VoIP
    services at 64.9 percent, representing the average percentage of
    interstate revenues that wireline toll providers have reported to
    the Commission.[^146] The Commission held, however, that if the safe
    harbor percentage overstates an interconnected VoIP provider's
    actual interstate revenues, the provider may instead contribute to
    the USF on the basis of actual revenue allocations or by conducting
    a traffic study.[^147]

40. To ensure that interconnected VoIP providers' contributions for the
    TRS Fund are allocated properly, interconnected VoIP providers
    should include in their annual FCC Form 499-A filing, historical
    revenue information for the relevant Fund year.[^148] The Commission
    will revise FCC Form 499-A at a later date, consistent with the
    rules and policies outlined in this *Order*.[^149] Interconnected
    VoIP providers, however, should familiarize themselves with the
    TRS-specific portions of FCC Form 499-A and the accompanying
    instructions in preparation for this filing.[^150] Contributions by
    each interconnected VoIP provider to the TRS and universal service
    funding mechanisms will be calculated by the respective fund
    administrator on the basis of any end-user revenues that the
    provider may derive from providing interstate interconnected VoIP
    services.[^151] An interconnected VoIP provider may report its
    interstate end-user revenues in FCC Form 499-A by using actual
    revenues, using a traffic study, or using the interim safe harbor
    percentage adopted in the *2006 Interim Contribution Methodology
    Order*.[^152] The contribution obligations adopted here will
    commence upon the effective date of the TRS rule revisions adopted
    herein. We anticipate that interconnected VoIP providers will begin
    making TRS contributions on a pro-rated basis in the latter half of
    calendar year 2007 for the 2007-2008 TRS Fund Year. The TRS Fund
    Administrator will bill interconnected VoIP providers on a pro-rated
    basis, based on the end-user revenue data reported on the FCC Form
    499-A that is filed with USAC.

41. Finally, we delegate authority to the Commission's Wireline
    Competition Bureau, in consultation with the Consumer & Governmental
    Affairs Bureau, to make any revisions to the FCC Form 499-A or its
    instructions that may be necessary to effectuate the purposes and
    directives set forth herein.

### 711 Abbreviated Dialing Requirements of Interconnected VoIP Providers

42. As part of interconnected VoIP providers' obligations under our
    section 225 rules, we require providers of such services, in
    addition to common carriers providing telephone voice transmission
    services, to offer 711 abbreviated dialing for access to relay
    services.[^153] In the *711 Order*, the Commission adopted 711
    abbreviated dialing requirements for "common carriers" that provide
    voice transmission services in order to enable TRS users "to
    initiate a TRS call from any telephone, anywhere in the United
    States," by dialing 711.[^154] We similarly find that abbreviated
    711 dialing requirements for interconnected VoIP providers are
    needed to ensure that TRS calls can be made from any telephone,
    anywhere in the United States, and that such calls will be properly
    routed to the appropriate relay center.[^155] In particular, to the
    extent that interconnected VoIP providers currently are not legally
    obligated to support 711 calls placed by TRS users, we fear that 711
    dialed calls will simply be dropped instead of routing them to the
    appropriate relay center. Thus, as more consumers give up their
    analog phone service for interconnected VoIP service upon the belief
    that the latter represents a substitute for their existing phone
    service, we are concerned that, absent regulatory intervention, TRS
    users, including voice telephone users initiating a TRS call, will
    be unable to readily access the appropriate relay center.

43. In adopting the 711 abbreviated dialing requirements for TRS in the
    *711 Order*, the Commission permitted covered entities to "select
    the most economical and efficient means of implementing 711 access,
    based on their network architecture."[^156] We conclude that the
    same technical and operational flexibility should be extended to
    interconnected VoIP providers. For this reason, we do not mandate
    any particular technology for implementing 711 access to TRS. This
    approach will allow interconnected VoIP providers to choose
    solutions that avoid or minimize operational concerns as they
    prepare for 711 access. Finally, consistent with the Commission's
    TRS rules, we require interconnected VoIP providers to conduct
    ongoing education and outreach programs that publicize the
    availability of 711 access to TRS in a manner reasonably designed to
    reach the largest number of consumers possible.[^157]

# PROCEDURAL MATTERS 

## Paperwork Reduction Act

44. The Report and Order contains 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 (PRA), Public Law 104-13. Public
    and agency comments are due 60 days after the date of publication of
    this document in the Federal Register. Comments should address: (a)
    whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the
    proper performance of the functions of the Commission, including
    whether the information shall have practical utility; (b) the
    accuracy of the Commission's burden estimates; (c) ways to enhance
    the quality, utility, and clarity of the information collected;
    and (d) ways to minimize the burden of the collection of information
    on the respondents, including the use of automated collection
    techniques or other forms of information technology.

45. 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."

46. In this present document, we have assessed the effects of imposing
    disability access requirements on interconnected VoIP providers and
    manufacturers, and of imposing TRS contribution requirements on
    interconnected VoIP providers, and find that there may be an
    increased administrative burden on businesses with fewer than 25
    employees. We have taken steps to minimize the information
    collection burden for small business concerns, including those with
    fewer than 25 employees. For example, although we require covered
    entities to maintain records of their accessibility efforts that can
    be presented to the Commission to demonstrate compliance, we do not
    delineate specific documentation or certification requirements for
    "readily achievable" analyses. In addition, by adopting general
    performance criteria, as opposed to accessibility standards or
    performance measurements specifying exactly how access must be
    achieved, our rules provide small entities flexibility in
    determining how best to manage their compliance with these rules.
    Moreover, by adopting the "readily achievable" standard that
    currently applies to telecommunications service providers and
    manufacturers, covered interconnected VoIP providers and
    manufacturers are required to render their services or products
    accessible only if doing so is "easily accomplishable and able to be
    carried out without much difficulty or expense." Finally, because
    the information interconnected VoIP providers currently provide on
    the Telecommunications Reporting Worksheet (FCC Form 499-A) for
    purposes of the USF reporting requirements also will be used to
    determine these entities' TRS contribution, there will be no
    increased reporting burden on small businesses. These measures
    should substantially alleviate any burdens on businesses with fewer
    than 25 employees.

## Congressional Review Act

47. The Commission will send a copy of this Report and Order in a report
    to be sent to Congress and the Government Accountability Office
    pursuant to the Congressional Review Act, *see* 5 U.S.C. §
    801(a)(1)(A).

## Accessible Formats

48. To request materials in accessible formats for people with
    disabilities (Braille, large print, electronic files, audio format),
    send an e-mail to <fcc504@fcc.gov> or call the Consumer &
    Governmental Affairs Bureau at (202) 418-0530 (voice) or (202)
    418-0432 (TTY). This Report and Order can also be downloaded in Word
    and Portable Document Format (PDF) at http://www.fcc.gov/cgb/policy.

## Regulatory Flexibility Analysis

49. Pursuant to the Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980, as
    amended,[^158] the Commission has prepared a Final Regulatory
    Flexibility Analysis (FRFA) of the possible significant economic
    impact on small entities of the policies and rules addressed in this
    document. The FRFA is set forth in Appendix C.

# ORDERING CLAUSES

50. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that, pursuant to the authority contained
    in sections 1-4, 225, 251, 255, and 303(r) of the Communications Act
    of 1934, as amended; 47 U.S.C. §§ 151-154, 225, 251, 255, and
    303(r), the REPORT AND ORDER IS ADOPTED.

51. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that, pursuant to the authority contained in
    sections 1-4, 225, 251, 255, and 303(r) of the Communications Act of
    1934, as amended; 47 U.S.C. §§ 151-154, 225, 251, 255, and 303(r),
    Part 6 of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. Part 6 IS AMENDED, as
    set forth in Appendix B.

52. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that, pursuant to the authority contained in
    sections 1-4, 225, 251, 255, and 303(r) of the Communications Act of
    1934, as amended; 47 U.S.C. §§ 151-154, 225, 251, 255, and 303(r),
    Part 64 of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. Part 64, IS AMENDED, as
    set forth in Appendix B.

53. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED THAT the rules contained herein SHALL BECOME
    EFFECTIVE 60 days after publication of the Report and Order in the
    Federal Register, except for the rules containing information
    collection requirements subject to the Paperwork Reduction Act SHALL
    BECOME EFFECTIVE upon OMB approval of such requirements. The
    Commission will publish a document in the Federal Register
    announcing the effective date of these rules.

54. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Commission's Consumer & Governmental
    Affairs Bureau, Reference Information Center, SHALL SEND a copy of
    the Report and Order, including the Final Regulatory Flexibility
    Analysis, to the Chief Counsel for Advocacy of the Small Business
    Administration.

FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION

Marlene H. Dortch

Secretary

**APPENDIX A**

**List of Commenters**

**Commenters in WC Docket No. 04-36**

+----------------------------------------+-----------------------------+
| **[Comments]{.underline}**             | **[                         |
|                                        | Abbreviation]{.underline}** |
+----------------------------------------+-----------------------------+
| 8X8, Inc.                              | 8X8                         |
+----------------------------------------+-----------------------------+
| AARP                                   | AARP                        |
+----------------------------------------+-----------------------------+
| ACN Communications Services, Inc.      | CAN                         |
+----------------------------------------+-----------------------------+
| Ad Hoc Telecommunications Users        | Ad Hoc                      |
| Committee                              |                             |
+----------------------------------------+-----------------------------+
| Alcatel North America                  | Alcatel                     |
+----------------------------------------+-----------------------------+
| Alliance for Public Technology         | APT                         |
+----------------------------------------+-----------------------------+
| America's Rural Consortium             | ARC                         |
+----------------------------------------+-----------------------------+
| American Foundation for the Blind      | AFB                         |
+----------------------------------------+-----------------------------+
| American Public Communications Council | APCC                        |
+----------------------------------------+-----------------------------+
| Amherst, Massachusetts Cable Advisory  | Amherst CAC                 |
| Committee                              |                             |
+----------------------------------------+-----------------------------+
| Arizona Corporation Commission         | Arizona Commission          |
+----------------------------------------+-----------------------------+
| Artic Slope Telephone Association      | Artic Slope *et al.*        |
| Cooperative, Inc.                      |                             |
|                                        |                             |
| > Cellular Mobile Systems of St.       |                             |
| > Cloud, LLC d/b/a Cellular 2000       |                             |
| >                                      |                             |
| > Comanche County Telephone, Inc.      |                             |
| >                                      |                             |
| > DeKalb Telephone Cooperative, Inc.   |                             |
| > d/b/a DTC Communications             |                             |
| >                                      |                             |
| > Grand River Mutual Telephone         |                             |
| > Corporation                          |                             |
| >                                      |                             |
| > Interstate 35 Telephone Company      |                             |
| >                                      |                             |
| > KanOkla Telephone Association, Inc.  |                             |
| >                                      |                             |
| > Siskiyou Telephone Company           |                             |
| >                                      |                             |
| > Uintah Basin Telecommunications      |                             |
| > Association, Inc.                    |                             |
| >                                      |                             |
| > Vermont Telephone Company, Inc.      |                             |
| >                                      |                             |
| > Wheat State Telephone, Inc.          |                             |
+----------------------------------------+-----------------------------+
| Association for Communications         | ACUTA                       |
| Technology Professionals in Higher     |                             |
| Education                              |                             |
+----------------------------------------+-----------------------------+
| Association for Local                  | ALTS                        |
| Telecommunications Services            |                             |
+----------------------------------------+-----------------------------+
| Association of Public-Safety           | APCO                        |
| Communications                         |                             |
| Officials-International, Inc.          |                             |
+----------------------------------------+-----------------------------+
| AT&T Corp.                             | AT&T                        |
+----------------------------------------+-----------------------------+
| Attorney General of the State of New   | New York Attorney General   |
| York                                   |                             |
+----------------------------------------+-----------------------------+
| Avaya, Inc.                            | Avaya                       |
+----------------------------------------+-----------------------------+
| BellSouth Corporation                  | BellSouth                   |
+----------------------------------------+-----------------------------+
| Bend Broadband                         | Bend Broadband *et al.*     |
|                                        |                             |
| > Cebridge Connections, Inc.           |                             |
| >                                      |                             |
| > Insight Communications Company, Inc. |                             |
| >                                      |                             |
| > Susquehanna Communication            |                             |
+----------------------------------------+-----------------------------+
| Boulder Regional Emergency Telephone   | BRETSA                      |
| Service Authority                      |                             |
+----------------------------------------+-----------------------------+
| BT Americas Inc.                       | BTA                         |
+----------------------------------------+-----------------------------+
| Cablevision Systems Corp.              | Cablevision                 |
+----------------------------------------+-----------------------------+
| Callipso Corporation                   | Callipso                    |
+----------------------------------------+-----------------------------+
| Cbeyond Communications, LLC            | Cbeyond *et al.*            |
|                                        |                             |
| > GlobalCom, Inc.                      |                             |
| >                                      |                             |
| > MPower Communications, Corp.         |                             |
+----------------------------------------+-----------------------------+
| CenturyTel, Inc.                       | CenturyTel                  |
+----------------------------------------+-----------------------------+
| Charter Communications                 | Charter                     |
+----------------------------------------+-----------------------------+
| Cheyenne River Sioux Tribe Telephone   | Cheyenne Telephone          |
| Authority                              | Authority                   |
+----------------------------------------+-----------------------------+
| Cisco Systems, Inc.                    | Cisco                       |
+----------------------------------------+-----------------------------+
| Citizens Utility Board                 | CUB                         |
+----------------------------------------+-----------------------------+
| City and County of San Francisco       | San Francisco               |
+----------------------------------------+-----------------------------+
| City of New York                       | New York City               |
+----------------------------------------+-----------------------------+
| Comcast Corporation                    | Comcast                     |
+----------------------------------------+-----------------------------+
| Communication Service for the Deaf,    | CSD                         |
| Inc.                                   |                             |
+----------------------------------------+-----------------------------+
| Communications Workers of America      | CWA                         |
+----------------------------------------+-----------------------------+
| CompTel/ASCENT                         | CompTel                     |
+----------------------------------------+-----------------------------+
| Computer & Communications Industry     | CCIA                        |
| Association                            |                             |
+----------------------------------------+-----------------------------+
| Computing Technology Industry          | CompTIA                     |
| Association                            |                             |
+----------------------------------------+-----------------------------+
| Consumer Electronics Association       | CEA                         |
+----------------------------------------+-----------------------------+
| Covad Communications                   | Covad                       |
+----------------------------------------+-----------------------------+
| Cox Communications, Inc.               | Cox                         |
+----------------------------------------+-----------------------------+
| CTIA-The Wireless Association          | CTIA                        |
+----------------------------------------+-----------------------------+
| Department of Homeland Security        | DHS                         |
+----------------------------------------+-----------------------------+
| DialPad Communication, Inc.            | Dialpad *et al.*            |
|                                        |                             |
| > ICG Communications, Inc.             |                             |
| >                                      |                             |
| > Qovia, Inc.                          |                             |
| >                                      |                             |
| > VoicePulse, Inc.                     |                             |
+----------------------------------------+-----------------------------+
| DJE Teleconsulting, LLC                | DJE                         |
+----------------------------------------+-----------------------------+
| Donald Clark Jackson                   | Jackson                     |
+----------------------------------------+-----------------------------+
| EarthLink, Inc.                        | EarthLink                   |
+----------------------------------------+-----------------------------+
| EDUCAUSE                               | EDUCAUSE                    |
+----------------------------------------+-----------------------------+
| Electronic Frontier Foundation         | EFF                         |
+----------------------------------------+-----------------------------+
| Enterprise Communications Association  | ECA                         |
+----------------------------------------+-----------------------------+
| Federation for Economically Rational   | FERUP                       |
| Utility Policy                         |                             |
+----------------------------------------+-----------------------------+
| Francois D. Menard                     | Menard                      |
+----------------------------------------+-----------------------------+
| Frontier and Citizens Telephone        | Frontier/Citizens           |
| Companies                              |                             |
+----------------------------------------+-----------------------------+
| General Communications, Inc.           | GCI                         |
+----------------------------------------+-----------------------------+
| Global Crossing North America, Inc.    | Global Crossing             |
+----------------------------------------+-----------------------------+
| GVNW Consulting, Inc.                  | GVNW                        |
+----------------------------------------+-----------------------------+
| ICORE, Inc.                            | ICORE                       |
+----------------------------------------+-----------------------------+
| IEEE-USA                               | IEEE-USA                    |
+----------------------------------------+-----------------------------+
| Illinois Commerce Commission           | Illinois Commerce           |
|                                        | Commission                  |
+----------------------------------------+-----------------------------+
| Inclusive Technologies                 | Inclusive Technologies      |
+----------------------------------------+-----------------------------+
| Independent Telephone &                | ITTA                        |
| Telecommunications Alliance            |                             |
+----------------------------------------+-----------------------------+
| Information Technology Association of  | ITAA                        |
| America                                |                             |
+----------------------------------------+-----------------------------+
| Information Technology Industry        | ITIC                        |
| Council                                |                             |
+----------------------------------------+-----------------------------+
| Interstate Telcom Consulting, Inc.     | ITCI                        |
+----------------------------------------+-----------------------------+
| Ionary Consulting                      | Ionary                      |
+----------------------------------------+-----------------------------+
| Iowa Utilities Board                   | Iowa Commission             |
+----------------------------------------+-----------------------------+
| King County E911 Program               | King County                 |
+----------------------------------------+-----------------------------+
| Level 3 Communications LLC             | Level 3                     |
+----------------------------------------+-----------------------------+
| Lucent Technologies Inc.               | Lucent Technologies         |
+----------------------------------------+-----------------------------+
| Maine Public Utilities Commissioners   | Maine Commissioners         |
+----------------------------------------+-----------------------------+
| MCI                                    | MCI                         |
+----------------------------------------+-----------------------------+
| Microsoft Corporation                  | Microsoft                   |
+----------------------------------------+-----------------------------+
| Minnesota Public Utilities Commission  | Minnesota Commission        |
+----------------------------------------+-----------------------------+
| Montana Public Service Commission      | Montana Commission          |
+----------------------------------------+-----------------------------+
| Motorola, Inc.                         | Motorola                    |
+----------------------------------------+-----------------------------+
| National Association of Regulatory     | NARUC                       |
| Utility Commission                     |                             |
+----------------------------------------+-----------------------------+
| National Association of State Utility  | NASUCA                      |
| Consumer Advocates                     |                             |
+----------------------------------------+-----------------------------+
| National Association of                | NATOA *et al.*              |
| Telecommunications Officers and        |                             |
| Advisors                               |                             |
|                                        |                             |
| > National League of Cities            |                             |
| >                                      |                             |
| > National Association of Counties     |                             |
| >                                      |                             |
| > U.S. Conference of Mayors            |                             |
| >                                      |                             |
| > National Association of Towns and    |                             |
| > Townships                            |                             |
| >                                      |                             |
| > Texas Coalition of Cities for        |                             |
| > Utility Issues                       |                             |
| >                                      |                             |
| > Washington Association of            |                             |
| > Telecommunications Officers and      |                             |
| > Advisors                             |                             |
| >                                      |                             |
| > Greater Metro Telecommunications     |                             |
| > Consortium                           |                             |
| >                                      |                             |
| > Mr. Hood Cable Regulatory Commission |                             |
| >                                      |                             |
| > Metropolitan Washington Council of   |                             |
| > Governments                          |                             |
| >                                      |                             |
| > Rainier Communications Commission    |                             |
| >                                      |                             |
| > City of Philadelphia                 |                             |
| >                                      |                             |
| > City of Tacoma, Washington           |                             |
| >                                      |                             |
| > Montgomery County, Maryland          |                             |
+----------------------------------------+-----------------------------+
| National Cable & Telecommunications    | NCTA                        |
| Association                            |                             |
+----------------------------------------+-----------------------------+
| National Consumers League              | NCL                         |
+----------------------------------------+-----------------------------+
| National Emergency Number Association  | NENA                        |
+----------------------------------------+-----------------------------+
| National Exchange Carrier Association, | NECA                        |
| Inc.                                   |                             |
+----------------------------------------+-----------------------------+
| National Governors Association         | NGA                         |
+----------------------------------------+-----------------------------+
| National Grange                        | National Grange             |
+----------------------------------------+-----------------------------+
| National Telecommunications            | NTCA                        |
| Cooperative Association                |                             |
+----------------------------------------+-----------------------------+
| Nebraska Public Service Commission     | Nebraska Commission         |
+----------------------------------------+-----------------------------+
| Nebraska Rural Independent Companies   | Nebraska Rural Independent  |
|                                        | Companies                   |
+----------------------------------------+-----------------------------+
| Net2Phone, Inc.                        | Net2Phone                   |
+----------------------------------------+-----------------------------+
| New Jersey Board of Public Utilities   | New Jersey Commission       |
+----------------------------------------+-----------------------------+
| New Jersey Division of the Ratepayer   | New Jersey Ratepayer        |
| Advocate                               | Advocate                    |
+----------------------------------------+-----------------------------+
| New York State Department of Public    | New York Commission         |
| Service                                |                             |
+----------------------------------------+-----------------------------+
| NexVortex, Inc.                        | nexVortex                   |
+----------------------------------------+-----------------------------+
| Nortel Networks                        | Nortel                      |
+----------------------------------------+-----------------------------+
| Nuvio Corporation                      | Nuvio                       |
+----------------------------------------+-----------------------------+
| Office of Advocacy, U.S. Small         | SBA                         |
| Business Administration                |                             |
+----------------------------------------+-----------------------------+
| Office of the Attorney General of      | Texas Attorney General      |
| Texas                                  |                             |
+----------------------------------------+-----------------------------+
| Office of the People's Counsel for the | D.C. Counsel                |
| District of Columbia                   |                             |
+----------------------------------------+-----------------------------+
| Ohio Public Utilities Commission       | Ohio Commission             |
+----------------------------------------+-----------------------------+
| Omnitor                                | Omnitor                     |
+----------------------------------------+-----------------------------+
| Organization for the Promotion and     | OPASTCO                     |
| Advancement of Small                   |                             |
| Telecommunications Companies           |                             |
+----------------------------------------+-----------------------------+
| Pac-West Telecomm, Inc.                | Pac-West                    |
+----------------------------------------+-----------------------------+
| People of the State of California and  | California Commission       |
| the California Public Utilities        |                             |
| Commission                             |                             |
+----------------------------------------+-----------------------------+
| Public Service Commission of the State | Missouri Commission         |
| of Missouri                            |                             |
+----------------------------------------+-----------------------------+
| Pulver.com                             | Pulver.com                  |
+----------------------------------------+-----------------------------+
| Qwest Communications International     | Qwest                       |
| Inc.                                   |                             |
+----------------------------------------+-----------------------------+
| Rehabilitation Engineering Research    | RERCTA                      |
| Center on Telecommunications Access    |                             |
+----------------------------------------+-----------------------------+
| Rural Independent Competitive Alliance | RICA                        |
+----------------------------------------+-----------------------------+
| SBC Communications, Inc.               | SBC                         |
+----------------------------------------+-----------------------------+
| Self Help for Hard of Hearing People   | SHHHP                       |
+----------------------------------------+-----------------------------+
| Skype, Inc.                            | Skype                       |
+----------------------------------------+-----------------------------+
| Sonic.net, Inc.                        | Sonic.net                   |
+----------------------------------------+-----------------------------+
| SPI Solutions, Inc.                    | SPI Solutions               |
+----------------------------------------+-----------------------------+
| Spokane County 911 Communications      | Spokane County 911          |
+----------------------------------------+-----------------------------+
| Sprint Corporation                     | Sprint                      |
+----------------------------------------+-----------------------------+
| TCA, Inc. -- Telecom Consulting        | TCA                         |
| Associates                             |                             |
+----------------------------------------+-----------------------------+
| Telecommunications for the Deaf, Inc   | TDI                         |
+----------------------------------------+-----------------------------+
| Telecommunications Industry            | TIA                         |
| Association                            |                             |
+----------------------------------------+-----------------------------+
| Tellme Networks, Inc                   | Tellme Networks             |
+----------------------------------------+-----------------------------+
| Tennessee Regulatory Authority         | TRA                         |
+----------------------------------------+-----------------------------+
| Texas Coalition of Cities for Utility  | TCCFUI                      |
| Issues                                 |                             |
+----------------------------------------+-----------------------------+
| Texas Commission on State Emergency    | TCSEC                       |
| Communications.                        |                             |
+----------------------------------------+-----------------------------+
| Texas Department of Information        | Texas DIR                   |
| Resources                              |                             |
+----------------------------------------+-----------------------------+
| Time Warner Inc.                       | Time Warner                 |
+----------------------------------------+-----------------------------+
| Time Warner Telecom                    | TWTC                        |
+----------------------------------------+-----------------------------+
| TracFone Wireless, Inc.                | TracFone                    |
+----------------------------------------+-----------------------------+
| UniPoint Enhanced Services Inc. d/b/a  | PointOne                    |
| PointOne                               |                             |
+----------------------------------------+-----------------------------+
| United States Conference of Catholic   | USCCB *et al.*              |
| Bishops                                |                             |
|                                        |                             |
| > Alliance for Community Media         |                             |
| >                                      |                             |
| > Appalachian People's Actions         |                             |
| > Coalition                            |                             |
| >                                      |                             |
| > Center for Digital Democracy         |                             |
| >                                      |                             |
| > Consumer Action                      |                             |
| >                                      |                             |
| > Edgemont Neighborhood Coalition      |                             |
| >                                      |                             |
| > Migrant Legal Action Program         |                             |
+----------------------------------------+-----------------------------+
| United States Department of Justice    | DOJ                         |
+----------------------------------------+-----------------------------+
| United States Telecom Association      | USTA                        |
+----------------------------------------+-----------------------------+
| United Telecom Council                 | UTC *et al.*                |
|                                        |                             |
| > The United Power Line Council        |                             |
+----------------------------------------+-----------------------------+
| USA Datanet Corporation                | USAD Datanet                |
+----------------------------------------+-----------------------------+
| Utah Division of Public Utilities      | Utah Commission             |
+----------------------------------------+-----------------------------+
| Valor Telecommunications of Texas,     | Valor *et al.*              |
| L.P. and Iowa Telecommunications       |                             |
| Services, Inc.                         |                             |
+----------------------------------------+-----------------------------+
| VeriSign, Inc.                         | VeriSign                    |
+----------------------------------------+-----------------------------+
| Verizon Telephone Company              | Verizon                     |
+----------------------------------------+-----------------------------+
| Vermont Public Service Board           | Vermont                     |
+----------------------------------------+-----------------------------+
| Virgin Mobile USA, LLC                 | Virgin Mobile               |
+----------------------------------------+-----------------------------+
| Virginia State Corporation Commission  | Virginia Commission         |
+----------------------------------------+-----------------------------+
| Voice on the Net Coalition             | VON Coalition               |
+----------------------------------------+-----------------------------+
| Vonage Holdings Corp                   | Vonage                      |
+----------------------------------------+-----------------------------+
| Western Telecommunications Alliance    | WTA                         |
+----------------------------------------+-----------------------------+
| WilTel Communications, LLC             | WilTel                      |
+----------------------------------------+-----------------------------+
| Wisconsin Electric Power Company       | Wisconsin Electric *et al.* |
|                                        |                             |
| > Wisconsin Gas                        |                             |
+----------------------------------------+-----------------------------+
| Yellow Pages Integrated Media          | YPIMA                       |
| Association                            |                             |
+----------------------------------------+-----------------------------+
| Z-Tel Communications, Inc.             | Z-Tel                       |
+----------------------------------------+-----------------------------+

**Reply Commenters in WC Docket No. 04-36**

+----------------------------------------+-----------------------------+
| **[Reply Comments]{.underline}**       | **[                         |
|                                        | Abbreviation]{.underline}** |
+----------------------------------------+-----------------------------+
| 8X8, Inc.                              | 8X8                         |
+----------------------------------------+-----------------------------+
| Ad Hoc Telecom Manufacturer Coalition  | Ad Hoc Telecom              |
|                                        | Manufacturers Coalition     |
+----------------------------------------+-----------------------------+
| Ad Hoc Telecommunications Users        | Ad Hoc                      |
| Committee                              |                             |
+----------------------------------------+-----------------------------+
| Adam D. Thierer, Director of           | Thierer                     |
| Telecommunications Studies, Cato       |                             |
| Institute                              |                             |
+----------------------------------------+-----------------------------+
| Alcatel North America                  | Alcatel                     |
+----------------------------------------+-----------------------------+
| Alliance for Public Technology et al.  | APT *et al.*                |
+----------------------------------------+-----------------------------+
| American Cable Association             | ACA                         |
+----------------------------------------+-----------------------------+
| American Electric Power Service        | American Electric Power *et |
| Corporation                            | al.*                        |
|                                        |                             |
| > Duke Energy Corporation              |                             |
| >                                      |                             |
| > Xcel Energy Inc.                     |                             |
+----------------------------------------+-----------------------------+
| Association for Local                  | ALTS                        |
| Telecommunications Services            |                             |
+----------------------------------------+-----------------------------+
| AT&T Corp.                             | AT&T                        |
+----------------------------------------+-----------------------------+
| Avaya Inc.                             | Avaya                       |
+----------------------------------------+-----------------------------+
| BellSouth Corporation                  | BellSouth                   |
+----------------------------------------+-----------------------------+
| Broadband Service Providers            | BSPA                        |
| Association                            |                             |
+----------------------------------------+-----------------------------+
| Cablevision Systems Corp.              | Cablevision                 |
+----------------------------------------+-----------------------------+
| Callipso Corporation                   | Callipso                    |
+----------------------------------------+-----------------------------+
| Central Station Alarm Association      | CSAA                        |
+----------------------------------------+-----------------------------+
| Cingular Wireless LLC                  | Cingular                    |
+----------------------------------------+-----------------------------+
| Cisco Systems, Inc.                    | Cisco                       |
+----------------------------------------+-----------------------------+
| City and County of San Francisco       | San Francisco               |
+----------------------------------------+-----------------------------+
| Comcast Corporation                    | Comcast                     |
+----------------------------------------+-----------------------------+
| CompTel/Ascent                         | CompTel                     |
+----------------------------------------+-----------------------------+
| Consumer Electronics Association       | CEA                         |
+----------------------------------------+-----------------------------+
| Consumer Federation of America         | CFA *et al.*                |
|                                        |                             |
| > Consumers Union                      |                             |
+----------------------------------------+-----------------------------+
| Covad Communications                   | Covad                       |
+----------------------------------------+-----------------------------+
| CTC Communications Corp.               | CTS                         |
+----------------------------------------+-----------------------------+
| CTIA-The Wireless Association          | CTIA                        |
+----------------------------------------+-----------------------------+
| Department of Defense                  | DoD                         |
+----------------------------------------+-----------------------------+
| Donald Clark Jackson                   | Jackson                     |
+----------------------------------------+-----------------------------+
| EarthLink, Inc.                        | EarthLink                   |
+----------------------------------------+-----------------------------+
| Educause                               | Educause                    |
+----------------------------------------+-----------------------------+
| Enterprise Communications Association  | ECA                         |
+----------------------------------------+-----------------------------+
| Ericsson Inc.                          | Ericsson                    |
+----------------------------------------+-----------------------------+
| Florida Public Service Commission      | Florida Commission          |
+----------------------------------------+-----------------------------+
| Francois D. Menard                     | Menard                      |
+----------------------------------------+-----------------------------+
| General Communication, Inc.            | GCI                         |
+----------------------------------------+-----------------------------+
| Global Crossing North America, Inc.    | Global Crossing             |
+----------------------------------------+-----------------------------+
| Independent Telephone &                | ITTA                        |
| Telecommunications Alliance            |                             |
+----------------------------------------+-----------------------------+
| Information Technology Association of  | Information Technology      |
| America                                | Association of America      |
+----------------------------------------+-----------------------------+
| Intergovernmental Advisory Committee   | IAC                         |
+----------------------------------------+-----------------------------+
| Intrado Inc.                           | Intrado                     |
+----------------------------------------+-----------------------------+
| Knology, Inc.                          | Knology                     |
+----------------------------------------+-----------------------------+
| Level 3 Communications LLC             | Level 3                     |
+----------------------------------------+-----------------------------+
| Massachusetts Office of the Attorney   | Massachusetts Attorney      |
| General                                | General                     |
+----------------------------------------+-----------------------------+
| MCI                                    | MCI                         |
+----------------------------------------+-----------------------------+
| Montana Public Service Commission      | Montana Commission          |
+----------------------------------------+-----------------------------+
| Motorola, Inc.                         | Motorola                    |
+----------------------------------------+-----------------------------+
| National Association of State Utility  | NASUCA                      |
| Consumer Advocates                     |                             |
+----------------------------------------+-----------------------------+
| National Association of                | NATOA *et al.*              |
| Telecommunications Officers and        |                             |
| Advisors                               |                             |
|                                        |                             |
| > National League of Cities            |                             |
| >                                      |                             |
| > National Association of Counties     |                             |
| >                                      |                             |
| > U.S. Conference of Mayors            |                             |
| >                                      |                             |
| > National Association of Towns and    |                             |
| > Townships                            |                             |
| >                                      |                             |
| > Texas Coalition of Cities for        |                             |
| > Utility Issues                       |                             |
| >                                      |                             |
| > Washington Association of            |                             |
| > Telecommunications Officers and      |                             |
| > Advisors                             |                             |
| >                                      |                             |
| > Greater Metro Telecommunications     |                             |
| > Consortium                           |                             |
| >                                      |                             |
| > Mr. Hood Cable Regulatory Commission |                             |
| >                                      |                             |
| > Metropolitan Washington Council of   |                             |
| > Governments                          |                             |
| >                                      |                             |
| > Rainier Communications Commission    |                             |
| >                                      |                             |
| > City of Philadelphia                 |                             |
| >                                      |                             |
| > City of Tacoma, Washington           |                             |
| >                                      |                             |
| > Montgomery County, Maryland          |                             |
+----------------------------------------+-----------------------------+
| National Cable & Telecommunications    | NCTA                        |
| Association                            |                             |
+----------------------------------------+-----------------------------+
| National Emergency Number Association  | NENA                        |
+----------------------------------------+-----------------------------+
| National Exchange Carrier Association, | NECA                        |
| Inc.                                   |                             |
+----------------------------------------+-----------------------------+
| Nebraska Public Service Commission     | Nebraska Commission         |
+----------------------------------------+-----------------------------+
| Nebraska Rural Independent Companies   | Nebraska Rural Independent  |
|                                        | Companies                   |
+----------------------------------------+-----------------------------+
| Net2Phone, Inc.                        | Net2Phone                   |
+----------------------------------------+-----------------------------+
| New Jersey Division of the Ratepayer   | New Jersey Ratepayer        |
| Advocate                               | Advocate                    |
+----------------------------------------+-----------------------------+
| New York State Department of Public    | New York Commission         |
| Service                                |                             |
+----------------------------------------+-----------------------------+
| Nextel Communications, Inc.            | Nextel                      |
+----------------------------------------+-----------------------------+
| Nuvio Corporation                      | Nuvio                       |
+----------------------------------------+-----------------------------+
| Office of the People's Counsel for the | D.C. Counsel                |
| District of Columbia                   |                             |
+----------------------------------------+-----------------------------+
| Organization for the Promotion and     | OPASTCO                     |
| Advancement of Small                   |                             |
| Telecommunications Companies           |                             |
+----------------------------------------+-----------------------------+
| Pac-West Telecomm, Inc.                | Pac-West                    |
+----------------------------------------+-----------------------------+
| Pennsylvania Public Utility Commission | Pennsylvania Commission     |
+----------------------------------------+-----------------------------+
| Public Service Commission of Wisconsin | Wisconsin Commission        |
+----------------------------------------+-----------------------------+
| Qwest Communications International     | Qwest                       |
| Inc.                                   |                             |
+----------------------------------------+-----------------------------+
| Regulatory Studies Program (RSP) of    | Mercatus Center             |
| the Mercatus Center at George Mason    |                             |
| University                             |                             |
+----------------------------------------+-----------------------------+
| Rehabilitation Engineering Research    | RERCTA                      |
| Center on Telecommunications Access    |                             |
+----------------------------------------+-----------------------------+
| RNKL, Inc. d/b/a RNK Telecom           | RNK                         |
+----------------------------------------+-----------------------------+
| Rural Independent Competitive Alliance | RICA                        |
+----------------------------------------+-----------------------------+
| SBC Communications Inc.                | SBC                         |
+----------------------------------------+-----------------------------+
| Skype, Inc.                            | Skype                       |
+----------------------------------------+-----------------------------+
| Southern Communications Services, Inc. | Southern LINC               |
| d/b/a Southern LINC                    |                             |
+----------------------------------------+-----------------------------+
| Sprint Corporation                     | Sprint                      |
+----------------------------------------+-----------------------------+
| Telecommunications Industry            | TIA                         |
| Association                            |                             |
+----------------------------------------+-----------------------------+
| Tellme Networks, Inc                   | Tellme Networks             |
+----------------------------------------+-----------------------------+
| Texas Statewide Telephone Cooperative, | Texas Statewide Telephone   |
| Inc.                                   | Cooperative                 |
+----------------------------------------+-----------------------------+
| Time Warner Telecom, Inc.              | Time Warner Telecom         |
+----------------------------------------+-----------------------------+
| T-Mobile USA, Inc.                     | T-Mobile                    |
+----------------------------------------+-----------------------------+
| TracFone Wireless, Inc.                | TracFone                    |
+----------------------------------------+-----------------------------+
| United States Conference of Catholic   | USCCB *et al.*              |
| Bishops                                |                             |
|                                        |                             |
| > Alliance for Community Media         |                             |
| >                                      |                             |
| > Appalachian Peoples' Action          |                             |
| > Coalition                            |                             |
| >                                      |                             |
| > Center for Digital Democracy         |                             |
| >                                      |                             |
| > Consumer Action                      |                             |
| >                                      |                             |
| > Edgemont Neighborhood Coalition      |                             |
| >                                      |                             |
| > Migrant Legal Action Program         |                             |
+----------------------------------------+-----------------------------+
| United States Department of Justice    | DOJ                         |
+----------------------------------------+-----------------------------+
| United States Telecom Association      | USTA                        |
+----------------------------------------+-----------------------------+
| USA Datanet Corporation                | USA Datanet                 |
+----------------------------------------+-----------------------------+
| Utah Division of Public Utilities      | Utah Commission             |
+----------------------------------------+-----------------------------+
| VeriSign, Inc.                         | VeriSign                    |
+----------------------------------------+-----------------------------+
| Verizon Telephone Companies            | Verizon                     |
+----------------------------------------+-----------------------------+
| Voice on the Net Coalition             | VON Coalition               |
+----------------------------------------+-----------------------------+
| Wisconsin Department of Public         | Wisconsin Department of     |
| Instruction                            | Public Instruction          |
+----------------------------------------+-----------------------------+

**Commenters in WT Docket No. 96-198 (Further NOI)**

  ---------------------------------------- --------------------------------
  **[Comments]{.underline}**               **[Abbreviation]{.underline}**

  American Foundation for the Blind        AFB

  AT&T Corp.                               AT&T

  Bell Atlantic                            

  Commercial Internet eXchange Association CIX

  Dana Mulvany                             

  GTE                                      

  iBasis, Inc.                             iBasis, Inc.

  Inclusive Technologies                   

  James R. Fruchterman                     

  Level 3 Communications, LLC              Level 3

  MCI WorldCom, Inc.                       MCI WorldCom

  Microsoft Corporation                    Microsoft

  Multi-Media Telecommunications           MMTA
  Association                              

  National Association of the Deaf         NAD

  Ronald Vickery                           

  Self Help for Hard of Hearing People     SHHH

  Telecommunications for the Deaf, Inc.    TDI

  Teleglobe Communications Corporation     TCC

  TRACE/Gallaudet                          TRACE

  Voice On the Net Coalition               VON Coalition
  ---------------------------------------- --------------------------------

**Reply Commenters in WT Docket No. 96-198 (Further NOI)**

  ---------------------------------------- --------------------------------
  **[Reply Comments]{.underline}**         **[Abbreviation]{.underline}**

  American Foundation for the Blind        AFB

  AT&T Corp.                               AT&T

  Bell Atlantic                            

  Competitive Telecommunications           CTA
  Association                              

  Information Technology Industry Council  ITI

  Level 3 Communications, LLC              Level 3

  MCI WorldCom, Inc.                       MCI WorldCom

  Motorola, Inc.                           Motorola

  National Association of the Deaf         NAD

  Net2Phone, Inc.                          Net2Phone

  Telecommunications Industry Association  TIA

  Voice On the Net Coalition               VON Coaltion
  ---------------------------------------- --------------------------------

**APPENDIX B**

**Final Rule Changes**

**Part 6 of Title 47 of the Code of Federal Regulations is amended as
follows:**

1\. The authority citation for Part 6 is amended to read as follows:

47 U.S.C. 151-154, 251, 255, and 303(r).

2\. Section 6.1 of Subpart A is amended by revising paragraph (c) and
adding paragraphs (d) and (e) to read as follows:

**Subpart A. Scope\--Who Must Comply with These Rules?**

**§ 6.1 Applicability.**

The rules in this part apply to:\
\
\*\*\*\*\*

\(d\) Any provider of interconnected Voice over Internet Protocol (VoIP)
service, as that term is defined in section 9.3 of these rules; and

\(e\) Any manufacturer of equipment or customer premises equipment that
is specially designed to provide interconnected VoIP service and that is
needed for the effective use of an interconnected VoIP service.

3\. Section 6.3 of Subpart B is amended by revising paragraph (c);
redesignating paragraphs (e)-(k) as paragraphs (f)-(l), respectively;
adding a new paragraph (e); and revising redesignated paragraphs (j) and
(k) to read as follows:

**Subpart B. Definitions**\
\
[**§ 6.3
Definitions.**](http://web2.westlaw.com/find/default.wl?rp=%2Ffind%2Fdefault.wl&vc=0&DB=CFR&DocName=LK(47CFRS6.3)&FindType=l&AP=&fn=_top&rs=WLW7.04&mt=Westlaw&vr=2.0&sv=Split)[\
]{.underline}

\*\*\*\*\*

\(c\) The term customer premises equipment shall mean equipment employed
on the premises of a person (other than a carrier) to originate, route,
or terminate telecommunications. For purposes of this Part, the term
customer premises equipment shall include equipment employed on the
premises of a person (other than a carrier) that is specially designed
to provide interconnected VoIP service and that is needed for the
effective use of an interconnected VoIP service.

\*\*\*\*\*

\(e\) The term interconnected VoIP service shall have the same meaning
as in section 9.3 of this chapter.

\*\*\*\*\*

\(j\) The term telecommunications equipment shall mean equipment, other
than customer premises equipment, used by a carrier to provide
telecommunications services, and includes software integral to such
equipment (including upgrades). For purposes of this Part, the term
telecommunications equipment shall include equipment that is specially
designed to provide interconnected VoIP service and that is needed for
the effective use of an interconnected VoIP service as that term is
defined in section 9.3 of this chapter.

\(k\) The term telecommunications service shall mean the offering of
telecommunications for a fee directly to the public, or to such classes
of users as to be effectively available directly to the public,
regardless of the facilities used. For purposes of this Part, the term
telecommunications service shall include "interconnected VoIP service"
as that term is defined in section 9.3 of this chapter.

\*\*\*\*\*

**Subpart F of Part 64 of Title 47 of the Code of Federal Regulations is
amended as follows:**

6\. An authority citation for Subpart F is added to read as follows:

47 U.S.C. 151-154, 225, 255, and 303(r).

7\. Section 64.601 of Subpart F is amended by revising the section
heading; redesignating the definitional section as paragraph (a);
redesignating the definitions in subparagraphs (9)-(18) as subparagraphs
(10)-(19), respectively; adding a new definition in subparagraph (9);
and adding a new paragraph (b) to read as follows:

**§ 64.601 Definitions and Provisions of General Applicability.**

\(a\) As used in this subpart, the following definitions apply:

\*\*\*\*\*

\(9\) Interconnected VoIP service. An interconnected Voice over Internet
protocol (VoIP) service is a service that: (i) Enables real-time,
two-way voice communications; (ii) Requires a broadband connection from
the user\'s location; (iii) Requires Internet protocol-compatible
customer premises equipment (CPE); and (iv) Permits users generally to
receive calls that originate on the public switched telephone network
and to terminate calls to the public switched telephone network.

\*\*\*\*\*

\(b\) For purposes of this subpart, all regulations and requirements
applicable to common carriers shall also be applicable to providers of
interconnected VoIP service.

**APPENDIX C**

**Final Regulatory Flexibility Analysis**

1.  As required by the Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980, as amended
    (RFA),[^159] an Initial Regulatory Flexibility Analysis (IRFA) was
    included in the *IP-Enabled Services NPRM* in WC Docket 04-36.[^160]
    The Commission sought written public comment on the proposals in the
    notice, including comment on the IRFA.[^161] The Commission received
    three comments on the IRFA, which are discussed below. This Final
    Regulatory Flexibility Analysis (FRFA) conforms to the RFA.[^162]

## Need for, and Objectives of, the Rules

55. Today\'s *Order* strengthens the Commission\'s disability access
    rules. [Section
    2](http://web2.westlaw.com/find/default.wl?tf=-1&rs=WLW7.04&fn=_top&sv=Split&tc=-1&findtype=L&docname=47USCAS222&db=1000546&vr=2.0&rp=%2Ffind%2Fdefault.wl&mt=Westlaw)55
    of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (the Act), requires
    telecommunications service providers and equipment manufacturers to
    render their services or equipment accessible to persons with
    disabilities, if readily achievable. This *Order* extends the
    disability access requirements that currently apply to
    telecommunications service providers and equipment manufacturers
    under section 255, to providers of interconnected VoIP services and
    to manufacturers of specially designed equipment used to provide
    those services. In addition, the *Order* extends the TRS
    requirements contained in the Commission's regulations, 47 C.F.R. §§
    64.601 *et seq.*, to providers of interconnected VoIP services.
    Among the TRS requirements extended to interconnected VoIP
    providers, the Commission requires such providers to contribute to
    the Interstate TRS Fund under the Commission's existing contribution
    rules,[^163] and to offer 711 abbreviated dialing for access to
    relay services.[^164] Together, these measures will ensure that, as
    more consumers migrate from traditional phone service to
    interconnected VoIP services, the disability access provisions
    mandated by Congress under sections 255 and 225 will apply to, and
    benefit users of, interconnected VoIP services and equipment.

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

56. *Comments Received in Response to the IP-Enabled Services NPRM*. In
    this section, we respond to comments filed in response to the
    IRFA.[^165] To the extent we received comments raising general small
    business concerns during this proceeding, those comments have been
    addressed in the *Order*. We disagree with SBA and Menard that the
    Commission should postpone acting in this proceeding \-- thereby
    postponing extending the application of the disability access and
    TRS contribution rules to interconnected VoIP providers \-- and
    instead should reevaluate the economic impact and the compliance
    burdens on small entities and issue a further notice of proposed
    rulemaking in conjunction with a supplemental IRFA identifying and
    analyzing the economic impacts on small entities and less burdensome
    alternatives.[^166] We believe the additional steps suggested by SBA
    and Menard are unnecessary because small entities already have
    received sufficient notice of the issues addressed in today\'s
    *Order*.[^167] We note that a number of small entities submitted
    comments in this proceeding. The Commission has considered the
    economic impact on small entities as well as ways to minimize the
    burdens imposed on those entities, and, to the extent feasible, has
    implemented those less burdensome alternatives.[^168]

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

57. The RFA directs agencies to provide a description of and, where
    feasible, an estimate of the number of small entities that may be
    affected by the rules adopted herein.[^169] The RFA generally
    defines the term "small entity" as having the same meaning as the
    terms "small business," "small organization," and "small
    governmental jurisdiction."[^170] In addition, the term "small
    business" has the same meaning as the term "small business concern"
    under the Small Business Act.[^171] A small business concern is one
    which: (1) is independently owned and operated; (2) is not dominant
    in its field of operation; and (3) satisfies any additional criteria
    established by the Small Business Administration (SBA).[^172]

58. *Small Businesses.* Nationwide, there are a total of approximately
    22.4 million small businesses, according to SBA data.[^173]

59. *Small Organizations*. Nationwide, there are approximately 1.6
    million small organizations.[^174]

60. *Small Governmental Jurisdictions.* The term "small governmental
    jurisdiction" is defined generally as "governments of cities, towns,
    townships, villages, school districts, or special districts, with a
    population of less than fifty thousand."[^175] Census Bureau data
    for 2002 indicate that there were 87,525 local governmental
    jurisdictions in the United States.[^176] We estimate that, of this
    total, 84,377 entities were "small governmental
    jurisdictions."[^177] Thus, we estimate that most governmental
    jurisdictions are small.

### Telecommunications Service Entities

#### Wireline Carriers and Service Providers

61. We have included small incumbent local exchange carriers in this
    present RFA analysis. As noted above, a "small business" under the
    RFA is one that, *inter alia*, meets the pertinent small business
    size standard (*e.g*., a telephone communications business having
    1,500 or fewer employees), and "is not dominant in its field of
    operation."[^178] The SBA's Office of Advocacy contends that, for
    RFA purposes, small incumbent local exchange carriers are not
    dominant in their field of operation because any such dominance is
    not "national" in scope.[^179] We have therefore included small
    incumbent local exchange carriers in this RFA analysis, although we
    emphasize that this RFA action has no effect on Commission analyses
    and determinations in other, non-RFA contexts.

62. *Wired Telecommunications Carriers*. The SBA has developed a small
    business size standard for wireline firms within the broad economic
    census category, \"Wired Telecommunications Carriers.\"[^180] Under
    this category, the SBA deems a wireline business to be small if it
    has 1,500 or fewer employees. Census Bureau data for 2002 show that
    there were 2,432 firms in this category that operated for the entire
    year.[^181] Of this total, 2,395 firms had employment of 999 or
    fewer employees, and 37 firms had employment of 1,000 employees or
    more.[^182] Thus, under this category and associated small business
    size standard, the majority of firms can be considered small.

63. *Incumbent Local Exchange Carriers (LECs)*. Neither the Commission
    nor the SBA has developed a small business size standard
    specifically for incumbent local exchange services. The appropriate
    size standard under SBA rules is for the category Wired
    Telecommunications Carriers. Under that size standard, such a
    business is small if it has 1,500 or fewer employees.[^183]
    According to Commission data,[^184] 1,307 carriers have reported
    that they are engaged in the provision of incumbent local exchange
    services. Of these 1,307 carriers, an estimated 1,019 have 1,500 or
    fewer employees and 283 have more than 1,500 employees.
    Consequently, the Commission estimates that most providers of
    incumbent local exchange service are small businesses that may be
    affected by our action.

64. *Competitive Local Exchange Carriers, Competitive Access Providers
    (CAPs), "Shared-Tenant Service Providers," and "Other Local Service
    Providers."* Neither the Commission nor the SBA has developed a
    small business size standard specifically for these service
    providers. The appropriate size standard under SBA rules is for the
    category Wired Telecommunications Carriers. Under that size
    standard, such a business is small if it has 1,500 or fewer
    employees.[^185] According to Commission data,[^186] 859 carriers
    have reported that they are engaged in the provision of either
    competitive access provider services or competitive local exchange
    carrier services. Of these 859 carriers, an estimated 741 have 1,500
    or fewer employees and 118 have more than 1,500 employees. In
    addition, 16 carriers have reported that they are "Shared-Tenant
    Service Providers," and all 16 are estimated to have 1,500 or fewer
    employees. In addition, 44 carriers have reported that they are
    "Other Local Service Providers." Of the 44, an estimated 43 have
    1,500 or fewer employees and one has more than 1,500 employees.
    Consequently, the Commission estimates that most providers of
    competitive local exchange service, competitive access providers,
    "Shared-Tenant Service Providers," and "Other Local Service
    Providers" are small entities that may be affected by our action.

65. *Local Resellers.* The SBA has developed a small business size
    standard for the category of Telecommunications Resellers. Under
    that size standard, such a business is small if it has 1,500 or
    fewer employees.[^187] According to Commission data,[^188] 184
    carriers have reported that they are engaged in the provision of
    local resale services. Of these, an estimated 181 have 1,500 or
    fewer employees and three have more than 1,500 employees.
    Consequently, the Commission estimates that the majority of local
    resellers are small entities that may be affected by our action.

66. *Toll Resellers.* The SBA has developed a small business size
    standard for the category of Telecommunications Resellers. Under
    that size standard, such a business is small if it has 1,500 or
    fewer employees.[^189] According to Commission data,[^190] 881
    carriers have reported that they are engaged in the provision of
    toll resale services. Of these, an estimated 853 have 1,500 or fewer
    employees and 28 have more than 1,500 employees. Consequently, the
    Commission estimates that the majority of toll resellers are small
    entities that may be affected by our action.

67. *Payphone Service Providers (PSPs)*. Neither the Commission nor the
    SBA has developed a small business size standard specifically for
    payphone services providers. The appropriate size standard under SBA
    rules is for the category Wired Telecommunications Carriers. Under
    that size standard, such a business is small if it has 1,500 or
    fewer employees.[^191] According to Commission data,[^192] 657
    carriers have reported that they are engaged in the provision of
    payphone services. Of these, an estimated 653 have 1,500 or fewer
    employees and four have more than 1,500 employees. Consequently, the
    Commission estimates that the majority of payphone service providers
    are small entities that may be affected by our action.

68. *Interexchange Carriers (IXCs).* Neither the Commission nor the SBA
    has developed a small business size standard specifically for
    providers of interexchange services. The appropriate size standard
    under SBA rules is for the category Wired Telecommunications
    Carriers. Under that size standard, such a business is small if it
    has 1,500 or fewer employees.[^193] According to Commission
    data,[^194] 330 carriers have reported that they are engaged in the
    provision of interexchange service. Of these, an estimated 309 have
    1,500 or fewer employees and 21 have more than 1,500 employees.
    Consequently, the Commission estimates that the majority of IXCs are
    small entities that may be affected by our action.

69. *Operator Service Providers (OSPs).* Neither the Commission nor the
    SBA has developed a small business size standard specifically for
    operator service providers. The appropriate size standard under SBA
    rules is for the category Wired Telecommunications Carriers. Under
    that size standard, such a business is small if it has 1,500 or
    fewer employees.[^195] According to Commission data,[^196] 23
    carriers have reported that they are engaged in the provision of
    operator services. Of these, an estimated 22 have 1,500 or fewer
    employees and one has more than 1,500 employees. Consequently, the
    Commission estimates that the majority of OSPs are small entities
    that may be affected by our action.

70. *Prepaid Calling Card Providers.* Neither the Commission nor the SBA
    has developed a small business size standard specifically for
    prepaid calling card providers. The appropriate size standard under
    SBA rules is for the category Telecommunications Resellers. Under
    that size standard, such a business is small if it has 1,500 or
    fewer employees.[^197] According to Commission data,[^198] 104
    carriers have reported that they are engaged in the provision of
    prepaid calling cards. Of these, 102 are estimated to have 1,500 or
    fewer employees and two have more than 1,500 employees.
    Consequently, the Commission estimates that all or the majority of
    prepaid calling card providers are small entities that may be
    affected by our action.

71. *800 and 800-Like Service Subscribers.*[^199] Neither the Commission
    nor the SBA has developed a small business size standard
    specifically for 800 and 800-like service ("toll free") subscribers.
    The appropriate size standard under SBA rules is for the category
    Telecommunications Resellers. Under that size standard, such a
    business is small if it has 1,500 or fewer employees.[^200] The most
    reliable source of information regarding the number of these service
    subscribers appears to be data the Commission collects on the 800,
    888, and 877 numbers in use.[^201] According to this source, as of
    the end of June, 2006, the number of 800 numbers assigned was
    7,647,941, the number of 888 numbers assigned was 5,318,667, the
    number of 877 numbers assigned was 4,431,162, and the number of 866
    numbers assigned was 6,008,976. We do not have data specifying the
    number of these subscribers that are not independently owned and
    operated or have more than 1,500 employees, and thus are unable at
    this time to estimate with greater precision the number of toll free
    subscribers that would qualify as small businesses under the SBA
    size standard. Consequently, we estimate that there are
    approximately 7,647,941 small entity 800 subscribers, approximately
    5,318,667 small entity 888 subscribers, approximately 4,431,162
    small entity 877 subscribers, and approximately 6,008,976 small
    entity 866 subscribers.

#### International Service Providers

72. The Commission has not developed a small business size standard
    specifically for providers of international service. The appropriate
    size standards under SBA rules are for the two broad census
    categories of "Satellite Telecommunications" and "Other
    Telecommunications." Under both categories, such a business is small
    if it has \$12.5 million or less in average annual receipts.[^202]

73. The first category of Satellite Telecommunications "comprises
    establishments primarily engaged in providing point-to-point
    telecommunications services to other establishments in the
    telecommunications and broadcasting industries by forwarding and
    receiving communications signals via a system of satellites or
    reselling satellite telecommunications."[^203] For this category,
    Census Bureau data for 2002 show that there were a total of 371
    firms that operated for the entire year.[^204] Of this total, 307
    firms had annual receipts of under \$10 million, and 26 firms had
    receipts of \$10 million to \$24,999,999.[^205] Consequently, we
    estimate that the majority of Satellite Telecommunications firms are
    small entities that might be affected by our action.

74. The second category of Other Telecommunications "comprises
    establishments primarily engaged in (1) providing specialized
    telecommunications applications, such as satellite tracking,
    communications telemetry, and radar station operations; or (2)
    providing satellite terminal stations and associated facilities
    operationally connected with one or more terrestrial communications
    systems and capable of transmitting telecommunications to or
    receiving telecommunications from satellite systems."[^206] For this
    category, Census Bureau data for 2002 show that there were a total
    of 332 firms that operated for the entire year.[^207] Of this total,
    259 firms had annual receipts of under \$10 million and 15 firms had
    annual receipts of \$10 million to \$24,999,999.[^208] Consequently,
    we estimate that the majority of Other Telecommunications firms are
    small entities that might be affected by our action.

#### Wireless Telecommunications Service Providers

75. Below, for those services subject to auctions, we note 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. Also, the
    Commission does not generally track subsequent business size unless,
    in the context of assignments or transfers, unjust enrichment issues
    are implicated.

76. *Wireless Service Providers.* The SBA has developed a small business
    size standard for wireless firms within the two broad economic
    census categories of "Paging"[^209] and "Cellular and Other Wireless
    Telecommunications."[^210] Under both SBA categories, a wireless
    business is small if it has 1,500 or fewer employees. For the census
    category of Paging, Census Bureau data for 2002 show that there were
    807 firms in this category that operated for the entire year.[^211]
    Of this total, 804 firms had employment of 999 or fewer employees,
    and three firms had employment of 1,000 employees or more.[^212]
    Thus, under this category and associated small business size
    standard, the majority of firms can be considered small. For the
    census category of Cellular and Other Wireless Telecommunications,
    Census Bureau data for 2002 show that there were 1,397 firms in this
    category that operated for the entire year.[^213] Of this total,
    1,378 firms had employment of 999 or fewer employees, and 19 firms
    had employment of 1,000 employees or more.[^214] Thus, under this
    second category and size standard, the majority of firms can, again,
    be considered small.

77. *Cellular Licensees.* The SBA has developed a small business size
    standard for wireless firms within the broad economic census
    category "Cellular and Other Wireless Telecommunications."[^215]
    Under this SBA category, a wireless business is small if it has
    1,500 or fewer employees. For the census category of Cellular and
    Other Wireless Telecommunications, Census Bureau data for 2002 show
    that there were 1,397 firms in this category that operated for the
    entire year.[^216] Of this total, 1,378 firms had employment of 999
    or fewer employees, and 19 firms had employment of 1,000 employees
    or more.[^217] Thus, under this category and size standard, the
    great majority of firms can be considered small. Also, according to
    Commission data, 432 carriers reported that they were engaged in the
    provision of cellular service, Personal Communications Service
    (PCS), or Specialized Mobile Radio (SMR) Telephony services, which
    are placed together in the data.[^218] We have estimated that 221 of
    these are small, under the SBA small business size standard.[^219]

78. *Common Carrier Paging.* The SBA has developed a small business size
    standard for wireless firms within the broad economic census
    category, "Cellular and Other Wireless Telecommunications."[^220]
    Under this SBA category, a wireless business is small if it has
    1,500 or fewer employees. For the census category of Paging, Census
    Bureau data for 2002 show that there were 807 firms in this category
    that operated for the entire year.[^221] Of this total, 804 firms
    had employment of 999 or fewer employees, and three firms had
    employment of 1,000 employees or more.[^222] Thus, under this
    category and associated small business size standard, the majority
    of firms can be considered small. In the Paging *Third Report and
    Order*, we developed a small business size standard for "small
    businesses" and "very small businesses" for purposes of determining
    their eligibility for special provisions such as bidding credits and
    installment payments.[^223] A "small business" is an entity that,
    together with its affiliates and controlling principals, has average
    gross revenues not exceeding \$15 million for the preceding three
    years. Additionally, a "very small business" is an entity that,
    together with its affiliates and controlling principals, has average
    gross revenues that are not more than \$3 million for the preceding
    three years.[^224] The SBA has approved these small business size
    standards.[^225] An auction of Metropolitan Economic Area licenses
    commenced on February 24, 2000, and closed on March 2, 2000.[^226]
    Of the 985 licenses auctioned, 440 were sold. Fifty-seven companies
    claiming small business status won. Also, according to Commission
    data, 375 carriers reported that they were engaged in the provision
    of paging and messaging services.[^227] Of those, we estimate that
    370 are small, under the SBA-approved small business size
    standard.[^228]

79. *Wireless Communications Services*. This service can be used for
    fixed, mobile, radiolocation, and digital audio broadcasting
    satellite uses. The Commission established small business size
    standards for the wireless communications services (WCS) auction. A
    "small business" is an entity with average gross revenues of \$40
    million for each of the three preceding years, and a "very small
    business" is an entity with average gross revenues of \$15 million
    for each of the three preceding years. The SBA has approved these
    small business size standards.[^229] The Commission auctioned
    geographic area licenses in the WCS service. In the auction, there
    were seven winning bidders that qualified as "very small business"
    entities, and one that qualified as a "small business" entity.

80. *Wireless Telephony*. Wireless telephony includes cellular, personal
    communications services (PCS), and specialized mobile radio (SMR)
    telephony carriers. As noted earlier, the SBA has developed a small
    business size standard for "Cellular and Other Wireless
    Telecommunications" services.[^230] Under that SBA small business
    size standard, a business is small if it has 1,500 or fewer
    employees.[^231] According to Commission data, 432 carriers reported
    that they were engaged in the provision of cellular service,
    Personal Communications Service (PCS), or Specialized Mobile Radio
    (SMR) Telephony services, which are placed together in the
    data.[^232] We have estimated that 221 of these are small, under the
    SBA small business size standard.[^233]

81. *Broadband Personal Communications Service*. The broadband Personal
    Communications Service (PCS) spectrum is divided into six frequency
    blocks designated A through F, and the Commission has held auctions
    for each block. The Commission defined "small entity" for Blocks C
    and F as an entity that has average gross revenues of \$40 million
    or less in the three previous calendar years.[^234] For Block F, an
    additional classification for "very small business" was added and is
    defined as an entity that, together with its affiliates, has average
    gross revenues of not more than \$15 million for the preceding three
    calendar years."[^235] These standards defining "small entity" in
    the context of broadband PCS auctions have been approved by the
    SBA.[^236] No small businesses, within the SBA-approved small
    business size standards bid successfully for licenses in Blocks A
    and B. There were 90 winning bidders that qualified as small
    entities in the Block C auctions. A total of 93 small and very small
    business bidders won approximately 40 percent of the 1,479 licenses
    for Blocks D, E, and F.[^237] On March 23, 1999, the Commission
    re-auctioned 347 C, D, E, and F Block licenses. There were 48 small
    business winning bidders. On January 26, 2001, the Commission
    completed the auction of 422 C and F Broadband PCS licenses in
    Auction No. 35. Of the 35 winning bidders in this auction, 29
    qualified as "small" or "very small" businesses. Subsequent events,
    concerning Auction 35, including judicial and agency determinations,
    resulted in a total of 163 C and F Block licenses being available
    for grant.

82. *Narrowband Personal Communications Services.* To date, two auctions
    of narrowband personal communications services (PCS) licenses have
    been conducted. For purposes of the two auctions that have already
    been held, "small businesses" were entities with average gross
    revenues for the prior three calendar years of \$40 million or less.
    Through these auctions, the Commission has awarded a total of 41
    licenses, out of which 11 were obtained by small businesses. To
    ensure meaningful participation of small business entities in future
    auctions, the Commission has adopted a two-tiered small business
    size standard in the *Narrowband PCS Second Report and Order*.[^238]
    A "small business" is an entity that, together with affiliates and
    controlling interests, has average gross revenues for the three
    preceding years of not more than \$40 million. A "very small
    business" is an entity that, together with affiliates and
    controlling interests, has average gross revenues for the three
    preceding years of not more than \$15 million. The SBA has approved
    these small business size standards.[^239] In the future, the
    Commission will auction 459 licenses to serve Metropolitan Trading
    Areas (MTAs) and 408 response channel licenses. There is also one
    megahertz of narrowband PCS spectrum that has been held in reserve
    and that the Commission has not yet decided to release for
    licensing. The Commission cannot predict accurately the number of
    licenses that will be awarded to small entities in future auctions.
    However, four of the 16 winning bidders in the two previous
    narrowband PCS auctions were small businesses, as that term was
    defined. The Commission assumes, for purposes of this analysis that
    a large portion of the remaining narrowband PCS licenses will be
    awarded to small entities. The Commission also assumes that at least
    some small businesses will acquire narrowband PCS licenses by means
    of the Commission's partitioning and disaggregation rules.

83. *220 MHz Radio Service -- Phase I Licensees.* The 220 MHz service
    has both Phase I and Phase II licenses. Phase I licensing was
    conducted by lotteries in 1992 and 1993. There are approximately
    1,515 such non-nationwide licensees and four nationwide licensees
    currently authorized to operate in the 220 MHz band. The Commission
    has not developed a small business size standard for small entities
    specifically applicable to such incumbent 220 MHz Phase I licensees.
    To estimate the number of such licensees that are small businesses,
    we apply the small business size standard under the SBA rules
    applicable to "Cellular and Other Wireless Telecommunications"
    companies. This category provides that a small business is a
    wireless company employing no more than 1,500 persons.[^240] For the
    census category of Cellular and Other Wireless Telecommunications,
    Census Bureau data for 2002 show that there were 1,397 firms in this
    category that operated for the entire year.[^241] Of this total,
    1,378 firms had employment of 999 or fewer employees, and 19 firms
    had employment of 1,000 employees or more.[^242] Thus, under this
    second category and size standard, the majority of firms can, again,
    be considered small. Assuming this general ratio continues in the
    context of Phase I 220 MHz licensees, the Commission estimates that
    nearly all such licensees are small businesses under the SBA's small
    business size standard.

84. *220 MHz Radio Service -- Phase II Licensees.* The 220 MHz service
    has both Phase I and Phase II licenses. The Phase II 220 MHz service
    is a new service, and is subject to spectrum auctions. In the *220
    MHz Third Report and Order*, we adopted a small business size
    standard for "small" and "very small" businesses for purposes of
    determining their eligibility for special provisions such as bidding
    credits and installment payments.[^243] This small business size
    standard indicates that a "small business" is an entity that,
    together with its affiliates and controlling principals, has average
    gross revenues not exceeding \$15 million for the preceding three
    years.[^244] A "very small business" is an entity that, together
    with its affiliates and controlling principals, has average gross
    revenues that do not exceed \$3 million for the preceding three
    years. The SBA has approved these small business size
    standards.[^245] Auctions of Phase II licenses commenced on
    September 15, 1998, and closed on October 22, 1998.[^246] In the
    first auction, 908 licenses were auctioned in three different-sized
    geographic areas: three nationwide licenses, 30 Regional Economic
    Area Group (EAG) Licenses, and 875 Economic Area (EA) Licenses. Of
    the 908 licenses auctioned, 693 were sold.[^247] Thirty-nine small
    businesses won licenses in the first 220 MHz auction. The second
    auction included 225 licenses: 216 EA licenses and 9 EAG licenses.
    Fourteen companies claiming small business status won 158
    licenses.[^248]

85. *800 MHz and 900 MHz Specialized Mobile Radio Licenses.* The
    Commission awards "small entity" and "very small entity" bidding
    credits in auctions for Specialized Mobile Radio (SMR) geographic
    area licenses in the 800 MHz and 900 MHz bands to firms that had
    revenues of no more than \$15 million in each of the three previous
    calendar years, or that had revenues of no more than \$3 million in
    each of the previous calendar years, respectively.[^249] These
    bidding credits apply to SMR providers in the 800 MHz and 900 MHz
    bands that either hold geographic area licenses or have obtained
    extended implementation authorizations. The Commission does not know
    how many firms provide 800 MHz or 900 MHz geographic area SMR
    service pursuant to extended implementation authorizations, nor how
    many of these providers have annual revenues of no more than \$15
    million. One firm has over \$15 million in revenues. The Commission
    assumes, for purposes here, that all of the remaining existing
    extended implementation authorizations are held by small entities,
    as that term is defined by the SBA. The Commission has held auctions
    for geographic area licenses in the 800 MHz and 900 MHz SMR bands.
    There were 60 winning bidders that qualified as small or very small
    entities in the 900 MHz SMR auctions. Of the 1,020 licenses won in
    the 900 MHz auction, bidders qualifying as small or very small
    entities won 263 licenses. In the 800 MHz auction, 38 of the 524
    licenses won were won by small and very small entities.

86. *700 MHz Guard Band Licensees.* In the *700 MHz Guard Band Order*,
    we adopted a small business size standard for "small businesses" and
    "very small businesses" for purposes of determining their
    eligibility for special provisions such as bidding credits and
    installment payments.[^250] A "small business" as an entity that,
    together with its affiliates and controlling principals, has average
    gross revenues not exceeding \$15 million for the preceding three
    years. Additionally, a "very small business" is an entity that,
    together with its affiliates and controlling principals, has average
    gross revenues that are not more than \$3 million for the preceding
    three years. An auction of 52 Major Economic Area (MEA) licenses
    commenced on September 6, 2000, and closed on September 21,
    2000.[^251] Of the 104 licenses auctioned, 96 licenses were sold to
    nine bidders. Five of these bidders were small businesses that won a
    total of 26 licenses. A second auction of 700 MHz Guard Band
    licenses commenced on February 13, 2001 and closed on February
    21, 2001. All eight of the licenses auctioned were sold to three
    bidders. One of these bidders was a small business that won a total
    of two licenses.[^252]

87. *Rural Radiotelephone Service.* The Commission has not adopted a
    size standard for small businesses specific to the Rural
    Radiotelephone Service.[^253] A significant subset of the Rural
    Radiotelephone Service is the Basic Exchange Telephone Radio System
    (BETRS).[^254] The Commission uses the SBA's small business size
    standard applicable to "Cellular and Other Wireless
    Telecommunications," *i.e.*, an entity employing no more than 1,500
    persons.[^255] There are approximately 1,000 licensees in the Rural
    Radiotelephone Service, and the Commission estimates that there are
    1,000 or fewer small entity licensees in the Rural Radiotelephone
    Service that may be affected by the rules and policies adopted
    herein.

88. *Air-Ground Radiotelephone Service.* The Commission has not adopted
    a small business size standard specific to the Air-Ground
    Radiotelephone Service.[^256] We will use SBA's small business size
    standard applicable to "Cellular and Other Wireless
    Telecommunications," *i.e.*, an entity employing no more than 1,500
    persons.[^257] There are approximately 100 licensees in the
    Air-Ground Radiotelephone Service, and we estimate that almost all
    of them qualify as small under the SBA small business size standard.

89. *Aviation and Marine Radio Services.* Small businesses in the
    aviation and marine radio services use a very high frequency (VHF)
    marine or aircraft radio and, as appropriate, an emergency
    position-indicating radio beacon (and/or radar) or an emergency
    locator transmitter. The Commission has not developed a small
    business size standard specifically applicable to these small
    businesses. For purposes of this analysis, the Commission uses the
    SBA small business size standard for the category "Cellular and
    Other Telecommunications," which is 1,500 or fewer employees.[^258]
    Most applicants for recreational licenses are individuals.
    Approximately 581,000 ship station licensees and 131,000 aircraft
    station licensees operate domestically and are not subject to the
    radio carriage requirements of any statute or treaty. For purposes
    of our evaluations in this analysis, we estimate that there are up
    to approximately 712,000 licensees that are small businesses (or
    individuals) under the SBA standard. In addition, between December
    3, 1998 and December 14, 1998, the Commission held an auction of 42
    VHF Public Coast licenses in the 157.1875-157.4500 MHz (ship
    transmit) and 161.775-162.0125 MHz (coast transmit) bands. For
    purposes of the auction, the Commission defined a "small" business
    as an entity that, together with controlling interests and
    affiliates, has average gross revenues for the preceding three years
    not to exceed \$15 million dollars. In addition, a "very small"
    business is one that, together with controlling interests and
    affiliates, has average gross revenues for the preceding three years
    not to exceed \$3 million dollars.[^259] There are approximately
    10,672 licensees in the Marine Coast Service, and the Commission
    estimates that almost all of them qualify as "small" businesses
    under the above special small business size standards.

90. *Offshore Radiotelephone Service.* This service operates on several
    UHF television broadcast channels that are not used for television
    broadcasting in the coastal areas of states bordering the Gulf of
    Mexico.[^260] There are presently approximately 55 licensees in this
    service. We are unable to estimate at this time the number of
    licensees that would qualify as small under the SBA's small business
    size standard for "Cellular and Other Wireless Telecommunications"
    services.[^261] Under that SBA small business size standard, a
    business is small if it has 1,500 or fewer employees.[^262]

91. *39 GHz Service.* The Commission created a special small business
    size standard for 39 GHz licenses -- an entity that has average
    gross revenues of \$40 million or less in the three previous
    calendar years.[^263] An additional size standard for "very small
    business" is: an entity that, together with affiliates, has average
    gross revenues of not more than \$15 million for the preceding three
    calendar years.[^264] The SBA has approved these small business size
    standards.[^265] The auction of the 2,173 39 GHz licenses began on
    April 12, 2000 and closed on May 8, 2000. The 18 bidders who claimed
    small business status won 849 licenses.

92. *Wireless Cable Systems.* Wireless cable systems use 2 GHz band
    frequencies of the Broadband Radio Service ("BRS"), formerly
    Multipoint Distribution Service ("MDS"),[^266] and the Educational
    Broadband Service ("EBS"), formerly Instructional Television Fixed
    Service ("ITFS"),[^267] to transmit video programming and provide
    broadband services to residential subscribers.[^268] These services
    were originally designed for the delivery of multichannel video
    programming, similar to that of traditional cable systems, but over
    the past several years licensees have focused their operations
    instead on providing two-way high-speed Internet access
    services.[^269] We estimate that the number of wireless cable
    subscribers is approximately 100,000, as of March 2005. Local
    Multipoint Distribution Service ("LMDS") is a fixed broadband
    point-to-multipoint microwave service that provides for two-way
    video telecommunications.[^270] As described below, the SBA small
    business size standard for the broad census category of Cable and
    Other Program Distribution, which consists of such entities
    generating \$13.5 million or less in annual receipts, appears
    applicable to MDS, ITFS and LMDS.[^271] Other standards also apply,
    as described.

93. The Commission has defined small MDS (now BRS) and LMDS entities in
    the context of Commission license auctions. In the 1996 MDS
    auction,[^272] the Commission defined a small business as an entity
    that had annual average gross revenues of less than \$40 million in
    the previous three calendar years.[^273] This definition of a small
    entity in the context of MDS auctions has been approved by the
    SBA.[^274] In the MDS auction, 67 bidders won 493 licenses. Of the
    67 auction winners, 61 claimed status as a small business. At this
    time, the Commission estimates that of the 61 small business MDS
    auction winners, 48 remain small business licensees. In addition to
    the 48 small businesses that hold BTA authorizations, there are
    approximately 392 incumbent MDS licensees that have gross revenues
    that are not more than \$40 million and are thus considered small
    entities.[^275] MDS licensees and wireless cable operators that did
    not receive their licenses as a result of the MDS auction fall under
    the SBA small business size standard for Cable and Other Program
    Distribution. Information available to us indicates that there are
    approximately 850 of these licensees and operators that do not
    generate revenue in excess of \$13.5 million annually. Therefore, we
    estimate that there are approximately 850 small entity MDS (or BRS)
    providers, as defined by the SBA and the Commission's auction rules.

94. Educational institutions are included in this analysis as small
    entities; however, the Commission has not created a specific small
    business size standard for ITFS (now EBS).[^276] We estimate that
    there are currently 2,032 ITFS (or EBS) licensees, and all but 100
    of the licenses are held by educational institutions. Thus, we
    estimate that at least 1,932 ITFS licensees are small entities.

95. In the 1998 and 1999 LMDS auctions,[^277] the Commission defined a
    small business as an entity that has annual average gross revenues
    of less than \$40 million in the previous three calendar
    years.[^278] Moreover, the Commission added an additional
    classification for a "very small business," which was defined as an
    entity that had annual average gross revenues of less than \$15
    million in the previous three calendar years.[^279] These
    definitions of "small business" and "very small business" in the
    context of the LMDS auctions have been approved by the SBA.[^280] In
    the first LMDS auction, 104 bidders won 864 licenses. Of the 104
    auction winners, 93 claimed status as small or very small
    businesses. In the LMDS re-auction, 40 bidders won 161 licenses.
    Based on this information, we believe that the number of small LMDS
    licenses will include the 93 winning bidders in the first auction
    and the 40 winning bidders in the re-auction, for a total of 133
    small entity LMDS providers as defined by the SBA and the
    Commission's auction rules.

96. *Local Multipoint Distribution Service.* Local Multipoint
    Distribution Service (LMDS) is a fixed broadband point-to-multipoint
    microwave service that provides for two-way video
    telecommunications.[^281] The auction of the 1,030 Local Multipoint
    Distribution Service (LMDS) licenses began on February 18, 1998 and
    closed on March 25, 1998. The Commission established a small
    business size standard for LMDS licenses as an entity that has
    average gross revenues of less than \$40 million in the three
    previous calendar years.[^282] An additional small business size
    standard for "very small business" was added as an entity that,
    together with its affiliates, has average gross revenues of not more
    than \$15 million for the preceding three calendar years.[^283] The
    SBA has approved these small business size standards in the context
    of LMDS auctions.[^284] There were 93 winning bidders that qualified
    as small entities in the LMDS auctions. A total of 93 small and very
    small business bidders won approximately 277 A Block licenses and
    387 B Block licenses. On March 27, 1999, the Commission re-auctioned
    161 licenses; there were 40 winning bidders. Based on this
    information, we conclude that the maximum number of small LMDS
    licensees consists of the 93 winning bidders in the first auction
    and the 40 winning bidders in the re-auction, for a total of 133
    small entity LMDS providers.

97. *218-219 MHz Service.* The first auction of 218-219 MHz spectrum
    resulted in 170 entities winning licenses for 594 Metropolitan
    Statistical Area (MSA) licenses. Of the 594 licenses, 557 were won
    by entities qualifying as a small business. For that auction, the
    small business size standard was an entity that, together with its
    affiliates, has no more than a \$6 million net worth and, after
    federal income taxes (excluding any carry over losses), has no more
    than \$2 million in annual profits each year for the previous two
    years.[^285] In the *218-219 MHz Report and Order and Memorandum
    Opinion and Order*, we established a small business size standard
    for a "small business" as an entity that, together with its
    affiliates and persons or entities that hold interests in such an
    entity and their affiliates, has average annual gross revenues not
    to exceed \$15 million for the preceding three years.[^286] A "very
    small business" is defined as an entity that, together with its
    affiliates and persons or entities that hold interests in such an
    entity and its affiliates, has average annual gross revenues not to
    exceed \$3 million for the preceding three years.[^287] These
    special small business size standards will be used, as appropriate,
    in future auctions of 218-219 MHz spectrum.

98. *24 GHz -- Incumbent Licensees.* This analysis may affect incumbent
    licensees who were relocated to the 24 GHz band from the 18 GHz
    band, and applicants who wish to provide services in the 24 GHz
    band. The applicable SBA small business size standard is that of
    "Cellular and Other Wireless Telecommunications" companies. This
    category provides that such a company is small if it employs no more
    than 1,500 persons.[^288] For the census category of Cellular and
    Other Wireless Telecommunications, Census Bureau data for 2002 show
    that there were 1,397 firms in this category that operated for the
    entire year.[^289] Of this total, 1,378 firms had employment of 999
    or fewer employees, and 19 firms had employment of 1,000 employees
    or more.[^290] Thus, under this second category and size standard,
    the majority of firms can, again, be considered small. These broader
    census data notwithstanding, we believe that there are only two
    licensees in the 24 GHz band that were relocated from the 18 GHz
    band, Teligent[^291] and TRW, Inc. It is our understanding that
    Teligent and its related companies have less than 1,500 employees,
    though this may change in the future. TRW is not a small entity.
    Thus, only one incumbent licensee in the 24 GHz band is a small
    business entity.

99. *24 GHz -- Future Licensees.* With respect to new applicants in the
    24 GHz band, the small business size standard for "small business"
    is an entity that, together with controlling interests and
    affiliates, has average annual gross revenues for the three
    preceding years not in excess of \$15 million.[^292] "Very small
    business" in the 24 GHz band is an entity that, together with
    controlling interests and affiliates, has average gross revenues not
    exceeding \$3 million for the preceding three years.[^293] The SBA
    has approved these small business size standards.[^294] These size
    standards will apply to the future auction, if held.

### Cable and OVS Operators

100. *Cable and Other Program Distribution*. The Census Bureau defines
     this category as follows: "This industry comprises establishments
     primarily engaged as third-party distribution systems for broadcast
     programming. The establishments of this industry deliver visual,
     aural, or textual programming received from cable networks, local
     television stations, or radio networks to consumers via cable or
     direct-to-home satellite systems on a subscription or fee basis.
     These establishments do not generally originate programming
     material."[^295] The SBA has developed a small business size
     standard for Cable and Other Program Distribution, which is: all
     such firms having \$13.5 million or less in annual receipts.[^296]
     According to Census Bureau data for 2002, there were a total of
     1,191 firms in this category that operated for the entire
     year.[^297] Of this total, 1,087 firms had annual receipts of under
     \$10 million, and 43 firms had receipts of \$10 million or more but
     less than \$25 million.[^298] Thus, under this size standard, the
     majority of firms can be considered small.

101. *Cable Companies and Systems.* The Commission has also developed
     its own small business size standards, for the purpose of cable
     rate regulation. Under the Commission's rules, a "small cable
     company" is one serving 400,000 or fewer subscribers,
     nationwide.[^299] Industry data indicate that, of 1,076 cable
     operators nationwide, all but eleven are small under this size
     standard.[^300] In addition, under the Commission's rules, a "small
     system" is a cable system serving 15,000 or fewer
     subscribers.[^301] Industry data indicate that, of 7,208 systems
     nationwide, 6,139 systems have under 10,000 subscribers, and an
     additional 379 systems have 10,000-19,999 subscribers.[^302] Thus,
     under this second size standard, most cable systems are small.

102. *Cable System Operators*. The Communications Act of 1934, as
     amended, also contains a size standard for small cable system
     operators, which is "a cable operator that, directly or through an
     affiliate, serves in the aggregate fewer than 1 percent of all
     subscribers in the United States and is not affiliated with any
     entity or entities whose gross annual revenues in the aggregate
     exceed \$250,000,000."[^303] The Commission has determined that an
     operator serving fewer than 677,000 subscribers shall be deemed a
     small operator, if its annual revenues, when combined with the
     total annual revenues of all its affiliates, do not exceed \$250
     million in the aggregate.[^304] Industry data indicate that, of
     1,076 cable operators nationwide, all but ten are small under this
     size standard.[^305] We note that the Commission neither requests
     nor collects information on whether cable system operators are
     affiliated with entities whose gross annual revenues exceed \$250
     million,[^306] and therefore we are unable to estimate more
     accurately the number of cable system operators that would qualify
     as small under this size standard.

103. *Open Video Services.* Open Video Service (OVS) systems provide
     subscription services.[^307] The SBA has created a small business
     size standard for Cable and Other Program Distribution.[^308] This
     standard provides that a small entity is one with \$13.5 million or
     less in annual receipts. The Commission has certified approximately
     25 OVS operators to serve 75 areas, and some of these are currently
     providing service.[^309] Affiliates of Residential Communications
     Network, Inc. (RCN) received approval to operate OVS systems in New
     York City, Boston, Washington, D.C., and other areas. RCN has
     sufficient revenues to assure that they do not qualify as a small
     business entity. Little financial information is available for the
     other entities that are authorized to provide OVS and are not yet
     operational. Given that some entities authorized to provide OVS
     service have not yet begun to generate revenues, the Commission
     concludes that up to 24 OVS operators (those remaining) might
     qualify as small businesses that may be affected by the rules and
     policies adopted herein.

### Internet Service Providers

104. *Internet Service Providers.* The SBA has developed a small
     business size standard for Internet Service Providers (ISPs). ISPs
     "provide clients access to the Internet and generally provide
     related services such as web hosting, web page designing, and
     hardware or software consulting related to Internet
     connectivity."[^310] Under the SBA size standard, such a business
     is small if it has average annual receipts of \$23 million or
     less.[^311] According to Census Bureau data for 2002, there were
     2,529 firms in this category that operated for the entire year.
     [^312] Of these, 2,437 firms had annual receipts of under \$10
     million, and an additional 47 firms had receipts of between \$10
     million and \$24, 999,999. Consequently, we estimate that the
     majority of these firms are small entities that may be affected by
     our action.

### Other Internet-Related Entities

105. *Web Search Portals.* Our action pertains to VoIP services, which
     could be provided by entities that provide other services such as
     email, online gaming, web browsing, video conferencing, instant
     messaging, and other, similar IP-enabled services. The Commission
     has not adopted a size standard for entities that create or provide
     these types of services or applications. However, the Census Bureau
     has identified firms that "operate web sites that use a search
     engine to generate and maintain extensive databases of Internet
     addresses and content in an easily searchable format. Web search
     portals often provide additional Internet services, such as e-mail,
     connections to other web sites, auctions, news, and other limited
     content, and serve as a home base for Internet users."[^313] The
     SBA has developed a small business size standard for this category;
     that size standard is \$6.5 million or less in average annual
     receipts.[^314] According to Census Bureau data for 2002, there
     were 342 firms in this category that operated for the entire
     year.[^315] Of these, 303 had annual receipts of under \$5 million,
     and an additional 15 firms had receipts of between \$5 million and
     \$9,999,999. Consequently, we estimate that the majority of these
     firms are small entities that may be affected by our action.

106. *Data Processing, Hosting, and Related* Services. Entities in this
     category "primarily ... provid\[e\] infrastructure for hosting or
     data processing services."[^316] The SBA has developed a small
     business size standard for this category; that size standard is
     \$23 million or less in average annual receipts.[^317] According to
     Census Bureau data for 2002, there were 6,877 firms in this
     category that operated for the entire year.[^318] Of these, 6,418
     had annual receipts of under \$10 million, and an additional 251
     firms had receipts of between \$10 million and \$24,999,999.
     Consequently, we estimate that the majority of these firms are
     small entities that may be affected by our action.

107. *All Other Information Services*. "This industry comprises
     establishments primarily engaged in providing other information
     services (except new syndicates and libraries and archives)."[^319]
     Our action pertains to VoIP services, which could be provided by
     entities that provide other services such as email, online gaming,
     web browsing, video conferencing, instant messaging, and other,
     similar IP-enabled services. The SBA has developed a small business
     size standard for this category; that size standard is \$6.5
     million or less in average annual receipts.[^320] According to
     Census Bureau data for 2002, there were 155 firms in this category
     that operated for the entire year.[^321] Of these, 138 had annual
     receipts of under \$5 million, and an additional four firms had
     receipts of between \$5 million and \$9,999,999. Consequently, we
     estimate that the majority of these firms are small entities that
     may be affected by our action.

108. *Internet Publishing and Broadcasting.* "This industry comprises
     establishments engaged in publishing and/or broadcasting content on
     the Internet exclusively. These establishments do not provide
     traditional (non-Internet) versions of the content that they
     publish or broadcast."[^322] The SBA has developed a small business
     size standard for this census category; that size standard is 500
     or fewer employees.[^323] According to Census Bureau data for 2002,
     there were 1,362 firms in this category that operated for the
     entire year.[^324] Of these, 1,351 had employment of 499 or fewer
     employees, and six firms had employment of between 500 and 999.
     Consequently, we estimate that the majority of these firms small
     entities that may be affected by our action.

109. *Software Publishers.* These companies may design, develop or
     publish software and may provide other support services to software
     purchasers, such as providing documentation or assisting in
     installation. The companies may also design software to meet the
     needs of specific users.[^325] The SBA has developed a small
     business size standard of \$23 million or less in average annual
     receipts for all of the following pertinent categories: Software
     Publishers, Custom Computer Programming Services, and Other
     Computer Related Services.[^326] For Software Publishers, Census
     Bureau data for 2002 indicate that there were 6,155 firms in the
     category that operated for the entire year.[^327] Of these, 7,633
     had annual receipts of under \$10 million, and an additional 403
     firms had receipts of between \$10 million and \$24, 999,999. For
     providers of Custom Computer Programming Services, the Census
     Bureau data indicate that there were 32,269 firms that operated for
     the entire year.[^328] Of these, 31,416 had annual receipts of
     under \$10 million, and an additional 565 firms had receipts of
     between \$10 million and \$24,999,999. For providers of Other
     Computer Related Services, the Census Bureau data indicate that
     there were 6,357 firms that operated for the entire year.[^329] Of
     these, 6,187 had annual receipts of under \$10 million, and an
     additional 101 firms had receipts of between \$10 million and
     \$24,999,999. Consequently, we estimate that the majority of the
     firms in each of these three categories are small entities that may
     be affected by our action.

### Equipment Manufacturers

110. The disability access requirements we adopt today apply to
     manufacturers of specialized VoIP equipment and CPE. The following
     entities include those that may be affected by the actions we take
     in this *Order*.

111. *Telephone Apparatus Manufacturing*. The Census Bureau defines this
     category as follows: "This industry comprises establishments
     primarily engaged in manufacturing wire telephone and data
     communications equipment. These products may be standalone or
     board-level components of a larger system. Examples of products
     made by these establishments are central office switching
     equipment, cordless telephones (except cellular), PBX equipment,
     telephones, telephone answering machines, LAN modems, multi-user
     modems, and other data communications equipment, such as bridges,
     routers, and gateways."[^330] The SBA has developed a small
     business size standard for Telephone Apparatus Manufacturing, which
     is: all such firms having 1,000 or fewer employees.[^331] According
     to Census Bureau data for 2002, there were a total of 518
     establishments in this category that operated for the entire
     year.[^332] Of this total, 511 had employment of under 1,000, and
     an additional 7 had employment of 1,000 to 2,499.[^333] Thus, under
     this size standard, the majority of firms can be considered small.

112. *Radio and Television Broadcasting and Wireless Communications
     Equipment Manufacturing.* The Census Bureau defines this category
     as follows: "This industry comprises establishments primarily
     engaged in manufacturing radio and television broadcast and
     wireless communications equipment. Examples of products made by
     these establishments are: transmitting and receiving antennas,
     cable television equipment, GPS equipment, pagers, cellular phones,
     mobile communications equipment, and radio and television studio
     and broadcasting equipment."[^334] The SBA has developed a small
     business size standard for Radio and Television Broadcasting and
     Wireless Communications Equipment Manufacturing, which is: all such
     firms having 750 or fewer employees.[^335] According to Census
     Bureau data for 2002, there were a total of 1,041 establishments in
     this category that operated for the entire year.[^336] Of this
     total, 1,010 had employment of under 500, and an additional 13 had
     employment of 500 to 999.[^337] Thus, under this size standard, the
     majority of firms can be considered small.

113. *Other Communications Equipment Manufacturing.* The Census Bureau
     defines this category as follows: "This industry comprises
     establishments primarily engaged in manufacturing communications
     equipment (except telephone apparatus, and radio and television
     broadcast, and wireless communications equipment)."[^338] The SBA
     has developed a small business size standard for Other
     Communications Equipment Manufacturing, which is: all such firms
     having 750 or fewer employees.[^339] According to Census Bureau
     data for 2002, there were a total of 503 establishments in this
     category that operated for the entire year.[^340] Of this total,
     493 had employment of under 500, and an additional 7 had employment
     of 500 to 999.[^341] Thus, under this size standard, the majority
     of firms can be considered small.

114. SBA small business size standards are given in terms of "firms."
     Census Bureau data concerning computer manufacturers, on the other
     hand, are given in terms of "establishments." We note that the
     number of "establishments" is a less helpful indicator of small
     business prevalence in this context than would be the number of
     "firms" or "companies," because the latter take into account the
     concept of common ownership or control. Any single physical
     location for an entity is an establishment, even though that
     location may be owned by a different establishment. Thus, the
     census numbers provided below may reflect inflated numbers of
     businesses in the given category, including the numbers of small
     businesses.

115. *Electronic Computer Manufacturing*. This category "comprises
     establishments primarily engaged in manufacturing and/or assembling
     electronic computers, such as mainframes, personal computers,
     workstations, laptops, and computer servers."[^342] The SBA has
     developed a small business size standard for this category of
     manufacturing; that size standard is 1,000 or fewer
     employees.[^343] According to Census Bureau data, there were 485
     establishments in this category that operated with payroll during
     2002.[^344] Of these, 476 had employment of under 1,000, and an
     additional four establishments had employment of 1,000 to 2,499.
     Consequently, we estimate that the majority of these establishments
     are small entities.

116. *Computer Storage Device Manufacturing.* These establishments
     manufacture "computer storage devices that allow the storage and
     retrieval of data from a phase change, magnetic, optical, or
     magnetic/optical media."[^345] The SBA has developed a small
     business size standard for this category of manufacturing; that
     size standard is 1,000 or fewer employees.[^346] According to
     Census Bureau data, there were 170 establishments in this category
     that operated with payroll during 2002.[^347] Of these, 164 had
     employment of under 500, and five establishments had employment of
     500 to 999. Consequently, we estimate that the majority of these
     establishments are small entities

117. *Computer Terminal Manufacturing*. "Computer terminals are
     input/output devices that connect with a central computer for
     processing."[^348] The SBA has developed a small business size
     standard for this category of manufacturing; that size standard is
     1,000 or fewer employees.[^349] According to Census Bureau data,
     there were 71 establishments in this category that operated with
     payroll during 2002, and all of the establishments had employment
     of under 1,000.[^350] Consequently, we estimate that all of these
     establishments are small entities.

118. *Other Computer Peripheral Equipment Manufacturing.* Examples of
     peripheral equipment in this category include keyboards, mouse
     devices, monitors, and scanners.[^351] The SBA has developed a
     small business size standard for this category of manufacturing;
     that size standard is 1,000 or fewer employees.[^352] According to
     Census Bureau data, there were 860 establishments in this category
     that operated with payroll during 2002.[^353] Of these, 851 had
     employment of under 1,000, and an additional five establishments
     had employment of 1,000 to 2,499. Consequently, we estimate that
     the majority of these establishments are small entities.

119. *Audio and Video Equipment Manufacturing.* These establishments
     manufacture "electronic audio and video equipment for home
     entertainment, motor vehicle, public address and musical instrument
     amplifications."[^354] The SBA has developed a small business size
     standard for this category of manufacturing; that size standard is
     750 or fewer employees.[^355] According to Census Bureau data,
     there were 571 establishments in this category that operated with
     payroll during 2002.[^356] Of these, 560 had employment of under
     500, and ten establishments had employment of 500 to 999.
     Consequently, we estimate that the majority of these establishments
     are small entities.

120. *Electron Tube Manufacturing.* These establishments are "primarily
     engaged in manufacturing electron tubes and parts (except glass
     blanks)."[^357] The SBA has developed a small business size
     standard for this category of manufacturing; that size standard is
     750 or fewer employees.[^358] According to Census Bureau data,
     there were 102 establishments in this category that operated with
     payroll during 2002.[^359] Of these, 97 had employment of under
     500, and one establishment had employment of 500 to 999.
     Consequently, we estimate that the majority of these establishments
     are small entities.

121. *Bare Printed Circuit Board Manufacturing.* These establishments
     are "primarily engaged in manufacturing bare (i.e., rigid or
     flexible) printed circuit boards without mounted electronic
     components."[^360] The SBA has developed a small business size
     standard for this category of manufacturing; that size standard is
     500 or fewer employees.[^361] According to Census Bureau data,
     there were 936 establishments in this category that operated with
     payroll during 2002.[^362] Of these, 922 had employment of under
     500, and 12 establishments had employment of 500 to 999.
     Consequently, we estimate that the majority of these establishments
     are small entities.

122. *Semiconductor and Related Device Manufacturing.* Examples of
     manufactured devices in this category include "integrated circuits,
     memory chips, microprocessors, diodes, transistors, solar cells and
     other optoelectronic devices."[^363] The SBA has developed a small
     business size standard for this category of manufacturing; that
     size standard is 500 or fewer employees.[^364] According to Census
     Bureau data, there were 1,032 establishments in this category that
     operated with payroll during 2002.[^365] Of these, 950 had
     employment of under 500, and 42 establishments had employment of
     500 to 999. Consequently, we estimate that the majority of these
     establishments are small entities.

123. *Electronic Capacitor Manufacturing.* These establishments
     manufacture "electronic fixed and variable capacitors and
     condensers."[^366] The SBA has developed a small business size
     standard for this category of manufacturing; that size standard is
     500 or fewer employees.[^367] According to Census Bureau data,
     there were 104 establishments in this category that operated with
     payroll during 2002.[^368] Of these, 101 had employment of under
     500, and two establishments had employment of 500 to 999.
     Consequently, we estimate that the majority of these establishments
     are small entities.

124. *Electronic Resistor Manufacturing.* These establishments
     manufacture "electronic resistors, such as fixed and variable
     resistors, resistor networks, thermistors, and varistors."[^369]
     The SBA has developed a small business size standard for this
     category of manufacturing; that size standard is 500 or fewer
     employees.[^370] According to Census Bureau data, there were 79
     establishments in this category that operated with payroll during
     2002.[^371] All of these establishments had employment of
     under 500. Consequently, we estimate that all of these
     establishments are small entities.

125. *Electronic Coil, Transformer, and Other Inductor Manufacturing.*
     These establishments manufacture "electronic inductors, such as
     coils and transformers."[^372] The SBA has developed a small
     business size standard for this category of manufacturing; that
     size standard is 500 or fewer employees.[^373] According to Census
     Bureau data, there were 365 establishments in this category that
     operated with payroll during 2002.[^374] All of these
     establishments had employment of under 500. Consequently, we
     estimate that all of these establishments are small entities.

126. *Electronic Connector Manufacturing.* These establishments
     manufacture "electronic connectors, such as coaxial, cylindrical,
     rack and panel, pin and sleeve, printed circuit and fiber
     optic."[^375] The SBA has developed a small business size standard
     for this category of manufacturing; that size standard is 500 or
     fewer employees.[^376] According to Census Bureau data, there were
     321 establishments in this category that operated with payroll
     during 2002.[^377] Of these, 315 had employment of under 500, and
     three establishments had employment of 500 to 999. Consequently, we
     estimate that the majority of these establishments are small
     entities.

127. *Printed Circuit Assembly (Electronic Assembly) Manufacturing.*
     These are establishments "primarily engaged in loading components
     onto printed circuit boards or who manufacture and ship loaded
     printed circuit boards."[^378] The SBA has developed a small
     business size standard for this category of manufacturing; that
     size standard is 500 or fewer employees.[^379] According to Census
     Bureau data, there were 868 establishments in this category that
     operated with payroll during 2002.[^380] Of these, 839 had
     employment of under 500, and 18 establishments had employment of
     500 to 999. Consequently, we estimate that the majority of these
     establishments are small entities.

128. *Other Electronic Component Manufacturing.*[^381] The SBA has
     developed a small business size standard for this category of
     manufacturing; that size standard is 500 or fewer employees.[^382]
     According to Census Bureau data, there were 1,627 establishments in
     this category that operated with payroll during 2002.[^383] Of
     these, 1,616 had employment of under 500, and eight establishments
     had employment of 500 to 999. Consequently, we estimate that the
     majority of these establishments are small entities.

129. *Fiber Optic Cable Manufacturing.* These establishments manufacture
     "insulated fiber-optic cable from purchased fiber-optic
     strand."[^384] The SBA has developed a small business size standard
     for this category of manufacturing; that size standard is 1,000 or
     fewer employees.[^385] According to Census Bureau data, there were
     96 establishments in this category that operated with payroll
     during 2002.[^386] Of these, 95 had employment of under 1,000, and
     one establishment had employment of 1,000 to 2,499. Consequently,
     we estimate that the majority or all of these establishments are
     small entities.

130. *Other Communication and Energy Wire Manufacturing.* These
     establishments manufacture "insulated wire and cable of nonferrous
     metals from purchased wire."[^387] The SBA has developed a small
     business size standard for this category of manufacturing; that
     size standard is 1,000 or fewer employees.[^388] According to
     Census Bureau data, there were 356 establishments in this category
     that operated with payroll during 2002.[^389] Of these, 353 had
     employment of under 1,000, and three establishments had employment
     of 1,000 to 2,499. Consequently, we estimate that the majority or
     all of these establishments are small entities.

## Description of Projected Reporting, Recordkeeping and Other Compliance Requirements

131. *Disability Access Requirements.*[^390] We require providers of
     interconnected VoIP service and specialized equipment and CPE
     manufacturers to maintain records pertaining to their disability
     access compliance efforts and to designate, and submit contact
     information for, an agent for service of disability access-related
     inquiries or complaints. In addition, the rules we adopt today: (1)
     require *manufacturers* of specialized interconnected VoIP
     equipment or CPE to ensure that their equipment is designed,
     developed and fabricated to be accessible to individuals with
     disabilities, if readily achievable and, where such accessibility
     is not readily achievable, to ensure that the equipment is
     compatible with existing peripheral devices or specialized CPE, if
     readily achievable; (2) require interconnected VoIP *providers* to
     ensure that their service is accessible to individuals with
     disabilities, if readily achievable and, where such accessibility
     is not readily achievable, to ensure that the service is compatible
     with existing peripheral devices or specialized CPE, if readily
     achievable; (3) require covered manufacturers and service providers
     to evaluate the accessibility, usability, and compatibility of
     covered services and equipment throughout the design and
     development process; and (4) require covered manufacturers and
     service providers to ensure that information and documentation
     provided in connection with equipment or services be accessible to
     people with disabilities, where readily achievable, and that
     employee training, where provided at all, account for accessibility
     requirements.

132. *TRS Requirements.*[^391] We require providers of interconnected
     VoIP service to comply with the TRS requirements contained in our
     regulations, 47 C.F.R. §§ 64.601 *et seq*. Among the TRS
     requirements that we extend to interconnected VoIP providers, we
     require such providers to contribute to the Interstate TRS Fund
     under the Commission's existing contribution rules, and to offer
     711 abbreviated dialing for access to relay services. These
     providers will contribute to the Interstate TRS Fund through
     monthly or annual payments into the Fund as specified in the
     Commission's TRS rules. Interconnected VoIP provider payments into
     the Fund will be assessed on the basis of revenue information these
     providers currently submit to USAC on the FCC Form 499-A.

## Steps Taken to Minimize Significant Economic Impact on Small Entities, and Significant Alternatives Considered

133. The RFA requires an agency to describe any significant alternatives
     that it has considered in reaching its proposed approach, which may
     include (among others) the following four alternatives: (1) the
     establishment of differing compliance or reporting requirements or
     timetables that take into account the resources available to small
     entities; (2) the clarification, consolidation, or simplification
     of compliance or reporting requirements under the rule for small
     entities; (3) the use of performance, rather than design,
     standards; and (4) an exemption from coverage of the rule, or any
     part thereof, for small entities.[^392]

134. The Commission has considered how best to minimize any significant
     economic impact on small entities and, in today's *Order*, has
     attempted to impose minimal regulation on small entities to the
     extent consistent with its goal of ensuring that individuals with
     disabilities have access to critical "POTS-like" communications
     services and equipment. We have taken several steps to minimize the
     economic impact on small entities. For example, although we require
     covered entities to maintain records of their accessibility efforts
     that can be presented to the Commission to demonstrate compliance,
     we do not delineate specific documentation or certification
     requirements for "readily achievable" analyses. In addition, by
     adopting general performance criteria, as opposed to accessibility
     standards or performance measurements specifying exactly how access
     must be achieved, our rules provide small entities flexibility in
     determining how best to manage their compliance with these rules.
     Moreover, by adopting the "readily achievable" standard that
     currently applies to telecommunications service providers and
     manufacturers, covered interconnected VoIP providers and
     manufacturers are required to render their services or products
     accessible only if doing so is "easily accomplishable and able to
     be carried out without much difficulty or expense." Inasmuch as
     interconnected VoIP providers will be permitted to file the
     identical Telecommunications Reporting Worksheet (FCC Form 499-A)
     for the TRS reporting requirements that these providers currently
     file in connection with the USF reporting requirements, there will
     be no increased reporting burden on small businesses. Finally,
     interconnected VoIP providers whose interstate end-user revenues
     are deemed *de minimis* under the Commission's TRS rules and
     procedures in a given Fund year, will be required to contribute
     only \$25 for that year. These measures should substantially
     alleviate any economic burdens on small entities.

135. In taking the actions described above, the Commission undertook to
     assess the interests of small businesses in light of the overriding
     public interest in, and statutory goal of, making critical
     communications services accessible by and to all Americans.
     Therefore, the Commission concluded that it was important for *all*
     providers of interconnected VoIP service and covered manufacturers,
     including small businesses, to comply with the rules we adopt
     today, and we rejected alternative solutions that would have
     exempted small businesses from these requirements. The record
     indicated that exempting small carriers from these requirements
     would compromise the Commission's goal of ensuring access to
     critical communications services for *all* Americans.

136. **[Report to Congress]{.underline}:** The Commission will send a
     copy of the *Order*, including this FRFA, in a report to be sent to
     Congress and the Government Accountability Office pursuant to the
     Congressional Review Act.[^393] In addition, the Commission will
     send a copy of the *Order*, including this FRFA, to the Chief
     Counsel for Advocacy of the SBA. A copy of the Order and FRFA (or
     summaries thereof) will also be published in the Federal
     Register.[^394]

**STATEMENT OF**

**CHAIRMAN KEVIN J. MARTIN**

*Re: In the Matter of IP-Enabled Services; Implementation of Sections
255 and 251(a)(2) of the Communications Act of 1934, as Enacted by the
Telecommunications Act of 1996: Access to Telecommunications Service,
Telecommunications Equipment and Customer Premises Equipment by Persons
with Disabilities, WC Docket No. 04-36, WT Docket No. 96-198.*

Congress mandated that all Americans, including those with disabilities,
benefit from advances in telecommunications services and equipment.
Nearly eight years ago, the Commission adopted rules to ensure that both
telecommunications equipment manufacturers and service providers develop
and offer equipment and services in a manner that is accessible to
individuals with disabilities. Telecommunications service providers are
obligated to contribute to the Telecommunications Relay Services Fund,
supporting interstate relay services that help to provide functionally
equivalent communications services for individuals with disabilities.
Today, we extend these important accessibility and contribution
obligations to the provision of interconnected VoIP.

The Commission repeatedly has found that VoIP services are increasingly
being marketed and used as a substitute for traditional landline phones.
While technologies will continue to evolve, core social goals in the Act
regarding the provision of communications services to all remain
unchanged.

Since I became Chairman, the Commission has consistently acted to define
the appropriate social obligations that apply to evolving classes of
broadband services, including VoIP. In 2005, the Commission determined
to extend to interconnected VoIP providers E911 obligations, vital to
public safety. The Commission also ensured that law enforcement
surveillance obligations apply to new, as well as traditional
communications services, including interconnected VoIP and broadband. We
have also addressed appropriate application of the obligation to
contribute to the support of the universal service programs, helping to
ensure that communications services are available to all Americans. And
earlier this year, the Commission extended obligations to interconnected
VoIP providers to protect the privacy of customer information. Today, I
am pleased that we extend the important disabilities accessibility and
program support obligations in the Act to interconnected VoIP.

Although today's item does not address all of the remaining policy
goals, it is a critically important step. We continue to evaluate the
remaining obligations including: numbering (access to numbering
resources, number portability obligations, and numbering support
obligations) and consumer protection issues (service discontinuance
notifications, slamming, and billing issues, etc). I hope that by
addressing these obligations, the Commission will be able to continue to
protect the interests of consumers and establish a competitively neutral
playing field for competing services.

**STATEMENT OF**

**COMMISSIONER MICHAEL J. COPPS**

 

Re:       *In the Matters of IP-Enabled Services*, WC Docket No. 04-36;
*Implementation of Sections 255 and 251(a)(2) of the Communications Act
of 1934, as Enacted by the Telecommunications Act of 1996:  Access to
Telecommunications Service, Telecommunications Equipment and Customer
Premises Equipment by Persons with Disabilities*, WT Docket No. 96-198;
*Telecommunications Relay Services and Speech-to-Speech Services for
Individuals with Hearing and Speech Disabilities*, CG Docket No. 03-123;
*The Use of N11 Codes and Other Abbreviated Dialing Arrangements,* CC
Docket No. 92-105.

 

I am pleased to support today's Order because it takes a good step
forward to assist the disability community to take full advantage of the
services and equipment becoming available in an IP-based world.
Improvements in communications technologies, such as cell phones, email,
text messaging and videoconferencing, have made the quality of our daily
lives better in so many ways for most of us.  But these improvements
that so many of us take for granted can often be absolutely
life-altering for people with disabilities.  If they have these new
technologies and services available, they have a much better chance to
get connected and stay connected with first responders, doctors,
employers, family and friends.  So we help meet our statutory mission
here to ensure that ***all*** Americans, and that certainly includes
some 54 million Americans with disabilities, benefit from advances in
telecommunications.

 

When consumers pick up a phone, they don't worry about whether it is an
interconnected VOIP service or a traditional phone service -- nor should
there be any concern.  Therefore it makes sense for the Commission to
extend the requirements of section 255 to interconnected VOIP service
providers and equipment manufacturers.  Section 255 requires, among
other things, that equipment manufacturers design and develop their
equipment to be accessible for persons with disabilities and that
providers ensure that their services are available to this community.  I
see no reason why these responsibilities should apply any differently to
VOIP.  We first teed up this question when the Commission adopted its
disability access rules in 1999 and again in an NPRM in 2004.  Services
delayed are services denied, to paraphrase an old aphorism, so clearly
it is time for us to act. 

 

I commend the Chairman for getting this Order across the finish
line and for working with us to address our concern that the
responsibilities set forth in section 225 be required of
interconnected VOIP providers, including making 7-1-1 services available
for those with hearing and speech disabilities and requiring providers
to contribute to the TRS fund.  I also appreciate his willingness
to recognize in the Order that other issues remain to be addressed as
the disabilities community relies on new IP technologies like real time
text for both personal and emergency services.  Finally, it is my hope
that this Order will inspire the VOIP industry to meet and even to go
beyond the requirements in this order and inspire the Commission to move
quickly on the other important issues in our IP-enabled Services docket
which continue to go unaddressed.  That said, this is a good Order and I
am pleased to support it.

Some of our good friends from the disabilities communities are here with
us this afternoon, others were here for this morning's scheduled meeting
but had to leave to meet other commitments when our computers all went
down, but I want to thank them all for their work on this and the other
items before us today and for their tireless engagement in helping us
see the light and do the right thing.

**STATEMENT OF**

**COMMISSIONER JONATHAN S. ADELSTEIN**

*Re: IP-Enabled Services; Implementation of Sections 255 and 251(a)(2)
of the Communications Act of 1934, as Enacted by the Telecommunications
Act of 1996: Access to Telecommunications Service, Telecommunications
Equipment and Customer Premises Equipment by Persons with Disabilities;
The Use of N11 Codes and Other Abbreviated Dialing Arrangements,* WC
Docket No. 04-36, WT Docket No. 96-198, CG Docket No. 03-123, CC Docket
No. 92-105.

In this Order, we take important steps to implement Congress' vision
that the promise of new communications technology should benefit all
Americans, including those with disabilities. We advance that vision by
extending the disability access requirements of the Act to providers of
interconnected VoIP services and equipment, and by ensuring that
interconnected VoIP providers contribute to the interstate TRS Fund.

Through sections 225 and 255 of the Act, Congress codified important
principles that have ensured access to functionally-equivalent services
for persons with disabilities. I strongly believe that we must extend
the ADA's important protections beyond the world of narrowband telephone
service, so I am pleased to support this item.

With consumers and businesses increasingly migrating to interconnected
VoIP, we must ensure that providers of those services and manufacturers
of equipment or CPE that is specially designed to provide them comply
with the requirements of section 255. Particularly as many consumers
forego the use of their traditional phone service and as VoIP is
embraced in the workplace, these new services must provide for
"reasonably achievable" accessibility. Millions of Americans with
disabilities should not have to worry if their phone service will work
in the manner in which they have come to expect, such as supporting the
use of TTYs and shortened dialing codes like 711. This accessibility is
critical in order to promote the independence of persons with
disabilities, participation in our society, and critical access in
emergency situations.

Indeed, Americans with disabilities can benefit from widely-available
and accessible interconnected VoIP services. More broadly, IP protocols
are increasingly allowing services to combine voice, video, and text in
ways that will allow persons with disabilities to communicate far more
effectively. Applying section 255 to interconnected VoIP services and
equipment will help ensure that accessibility issues are considered
early in the development process, which should lessen the need to
retrofit regulatory and technical protections after the-fact. At the
same time, there is much work to be done to develop specific standards,
so I encourage all parties to continue to work toward the common goals
of accessibility, functional equivalence, and innovation.

This Order also correctly concludes that providers of interconnected
VoIP services should contribute to the TRS Fund. If an interconnected
VoIP service provider shares in the benefits of having the ability to
access and use TRS or Video Relay Service (VRS), which draws more
customers to their service, they should also share in the burdens by
contributing to the fund. This action provides a broader and more
sustainable base of contributors to the TRS Fund, but it is worth noting
that we have more work to do. Particularly as we come to the close of
the current funding year, it is important that we move forward with our
review of the rate-setting mechanisms and that we work to inject more
transparency and predictability in that process.

I want to thank the Chairman and the Bureau for their hard work on this
item, and I look forward to working with them, my colleagues, and the
disability community as we turn to the challenges ahead.

**STATEMENT OF**

**COMMISSIONER DEBORAH TAYLOR TATE**

*Re: IP-Enabled Services; Implementation of Sections 255 and 251(a)(2)
of the Communications Act of 1934, as Enacted by the Telecommunications
Act of 1996: Access to Telecommunications Service, Telecommunications
Equipment and Customer Premises Equipment by Persons with Disabilities;
The Use of N11 Codes and Other Abbreviated Dialing Arrangements,* WC
Docket No. 04-36, WT Docket No. 96-198, CG Docket No. 03-123, CC Docket
No. 92-105.

Congress intended for *all* Americans to benefit from advances in
telecommunications services and equipment, and this item does just that,
both by stabilizing the funding base for TRS services and by extending
accessibility requirements to the interconnected VoIP services which
millions of Americans are now substituting for traditional voice
service. Given the rapid marketplace adoption of interconnected VoIP, I
am pleased that we are making these obligations clear at an early stage
so that we avoid unnecessary market distortion. While I continue to
advocate a light regulatory touch for developing services like
interconnected VoIP, it is essential that important goals like universal
access by all our citizens are implemented in an equitable and
non-discriminatory manner across platforms and service-providers.

**STATEMENT OF**

**COMMISSIONER ROBERT M. McDOWELL**

*Re: IP-Enabled Services; Implementation of Sections 255 and 251 (a)(2)
of the Communications Act of 1934, as Enacted by the Telecommunications
Act of 1996: Access to Telecommunications Service, Telecommunications
Equipment and Customer Premises Equipment by Persons with Disabilities;
Telecommunications Relay Services and Speech-to-Speech Services for
Individuals with Hearing and Speech Disabilities, The Use of N11 Codes
and Other Abbreviated Dialing Arrangements,* WC Docket No. 04-36, WT
Docket No. 96-198, CG Docket No. 03-123, CC Docket No. 92-105.

The fundamental mission of government is to help those who can't help
themselves in the absence of a private sector solution. Today we do just
that. Our action helps Americans with disabilities access communications
services and equipment needed to improve the quality of their lives, or
perhaps to save their lives.

Today, we appropriately extend Section 255 obligations of accessibility
for individuals with disabilities to providers of interconnected VoIP
services and manufacturers of specialized interconnected VoIP equipment
and CPE. Similarly, we require providers of interconnected VoIP services
to provide Telecommunications Relay Services (TRS) and 711 abbreviated
dialing for TRS access, as well as to contribute to the Interstate TRS
Fund. These actions are consistent with the letter and spirit of
Sections 225 and 255.

The Commission, under the leadership of Chairman Martin and with the
able assistance of the Consumer and Governmental Affairs Bureau, has
consistently and diligently worked to carry out the directives of the
Communications Act that the hearing and speech impaired community have
available "functionally equivalent" communications services. Because
VoIP services are rapidly becoming a substitute for traditional phone
service in the marketplace, it is imperative that we extend
accessibility obligations to those services. Also, today's action is
consistent with previous Commission decisions to assure that the
ever-increasing number of VoIP service customers have the same
protections, accessibility and features as traditional telephone
service, such as emergency 911calling capabilities, universal service
contribution obligations, and customer proprietary network information
protections.

I wholeheartedly support this effort to improve the availability and
choices of services that allow the hearing and speech impaired community
to obtain "functionally equivalent" communications services.

[^1]: *See* 47 U.S.C. § 255. Section 255 was added to the Communications
    Act by the Telecommunications Act of 1996. Telecommunications Act of
    1996, Pub. L. 104-104, 110 Stat. 56 (1996). *See also* 47 C.F.R. §§
    6.1-6.23 (Commission rules implementing section 255).

[^2]: *See* 47 C.F.R. §§ 9.3, 54.5 (defining "interconnected VoIP
    service" and "interconnected VoIP provider").

[^3]: TRS, created by Title IV of the Americans with Disabilities Act of
    1990 (ADA), enables a person with a hearing or speech disability to
    access the nation's telephone system to communicate with voice
    telephone users through a relay provider and a Communications
    Assistant (CA). *See* Pub. L. No. 101-336, § 401, 104 Stat. 327,
    336-69 (1990); 47 U.S.C. § 225(a)(3); 47 C.F.R. § 64.601(14)
    (defining TRS).

[^4]: *See* 47 U.S.C. § 225(b)(1).

[^5]: As discussed below, the Fund compensates providers of eligible
    interstate TRS services, and other TRS services not compensated by
    the states, for their reasonable costs of providing service. *See*
    47 C.F.R. § 64.604(c)(5)(iii)(E).

[^6]: 47 C.F.R. § 64.604(c)(5)(iii)(A), (B).

[^7]: *See* 47 C.F.R. § 64.603.

[^8]: For ease of reference, we will use the term "equipment"
    hereinafter to refer both to "equipment" and "CPE" unless otherwise
    specified.

[^9]: "The term 'telecommunications service' means the offering of
    telecommunications for a fee directly to the public, or to such
    classes of users as to be effectively available directly to the
    public, regardless of the facilities used." 47 U.S.C. § 153(46).

[^10]: 47 U.S.C. § 255(b) ("A manufacturer of telecommunications
    equipment or \[CPE\] shall ensure that the equipment is designed,
    developed, and fabricated to be accessible to and usable by
    individuals with disabilities, if readily achievable."); 47 U.S.C. §
    255(c) ("A provider of telecommunications service shall ensure that
    the service is accessible to and usable by individuals with
    disabilities, if readily achievable.").

[^11]: 47 U.S.C. § 255(d) ("Whenever the requirements of subsections (b)
    and (c) are not readily achievable, such a manufacturer or provider
    shall ensure that the equipment or service is compatible with
    existing peripheral devices or specialized \[CPE\] commonly used by
    individuals with disabilities to achieve access, if readily
    achievable.").

[^12]: "Disability" is defined to include "a physical or mental
    impairment that substantially limits one or more of the major life
    activities of such individual," "a record of such impairment," or
    the state of "being regarded as having such an impairment." 42
    U.S.C. § 12102(2); *see* 47 U.S.C. § 255(a)(1) (adopting definition
    set forth in 42 U.S.C. § 12102(2)(A)); "Readily achievable" means
    "easily accomplishable and able to be carried out without much
    difficulty or expense." 42 U.S.C. § 12181(9); *see* 47 U.S.C. §
    255(a)(2) (adopting definition set forth in 42 U.S.C. § 12181(9)).
    In determining whether an action is readily achievable, the ADA
    lists factors to be considered, including the nature and cost of the
    action, and the financial resources of the covered entity, among
    others. 42 U.S.C. § 12181(9)(A)-(D).

[^13]: 47 U.S.C. § 255(e). The Access Board is an independent federal
    regulatory agency created under section 502 of the Rehabilitation
    Act of 1973, 29 U.S.C. § 792, to enforce the Architectural Barriers
    Act of 1968, 42 U.S.C. §§ 4151-4157. It consists of 25 members -- 12
    federal agency representatives and 13 members appointed by the
    President of the United States from the general public of whom at
    least a majority shall be individuals with disabilities.

[^14]: 47 U.S.C. § 251(a)(2).

[^15]: *Implementation of Sections 255 and 251(a)(2) of the
    Communications Act of 1934, as Enacted by the Telecommunications Act
    of 1996*, WT Docket No. 96-198, Report and Order and Further Notice
    of Inquiry, 16 FCC Rcd 6417 (July 14, 1999) (*Section 255 Order*);
    *see also* 47 C.F.R. §§ 6.1-6.23 (implementing rules).

[^16]: 47 C.F.R. § 6.5(a)(1)-(2) (delineating accessibility obligations
    of manufacturers).

[^17]: 47 C.F.R. § 6.5(b)(1)-(2) (delineating accessibility obligations
    of service providers).

[^18]: 47 C.F.R. § 6.5(c) (implementing 47 U.S.C. § 251(a)(2)).

[^19]: 47 C.F.R. § 6.7(a) ("Manufacturers and service providers shall
    evaluate the accessibility, usability, and compatibility of
    equipment and services covered by this part and shall incorporate
    such evaluation throughout product design, development, and
    fabrication, as early and consistently as possible. Manufacturers
    and service providers shall identify barriers to accessibility and
    usability as part of such a product design and development
    process").

[^20]: 47 C.F.R. § 6.11(a) (detailing methods by which manufacturers and
    service providers shall ensure access to information and
    documentation it provides to its customers, if readily achievable);
    47 C.F.R. § 6.11(c) (addressing training requirements).

[^21]: 47 C.F.R. § 6.3(a) (defining "accessible").

[^22]: 47 C.F.R. § 6.3(g) (defining "readily achievable").

[^23]: *Section 255 Order*, 16 FCC Rcd at 6455, para. 93.

[^24]: *Section 255 Order*, 16 FCC Rcd at 6459, para. 103.

[^25]: *Id.*, 16 FCC Rcd at 6455-62, para. 108; *see also* 47 C.F.R. §§
    7.1-7.23.

[^26]: *Section 255 Order*, 16 FCC Rcd at 6483-84, paras. 173-76.

[^27]: *Id.*, 16 FCC Rcd at 6484-86, paras. 177-185.

[^28]: *See*, *e.g.*, Comments of The American Foundation for the Blind
    at 20 (Jan. 13, 2000); Comments of Trace/Gallaudet at 9 (Jan. 13,
    2000).

[^29]: *See*, *e.g.*, Comments of The National Association of the Deaf
    at 11-19 (Jan. 13, 2000). A "TTY," or text telephone, is a device
    that sends text over the telephone network. *See* 47 C.F.R. §
    64.601(15) (defining TTY).

[^30]: *See*, *e.g.*, Comments of The National Association of the Deaf
    at 11 (Jan. 13, 2000).

[^31]: *See*, *e.g.*, Reply Comments of MCI at 6 (Feb. 14, 2000); *see
    also* Comments of Microsoft at 11-12 (Jan. 13, 2000).

[^32]: *See*, *e.g.*, Comments of VON Coalition at 5-11 (Jan. 13, 2000)
    (describing various industry standards targeted at improving
    accessibility for the hearing impaired and identifying potential
    solutions).

[^33]: Pub. L. No. 101-336, § 401, 104 Stat. 327, 336-69 (1990); 47
    U.S.C. § 225.

[^34]: 47 U.S.C. § 225(b)(1).

[^35]: 47 U.S.C. § 225(a)(3), (c). As defined in section 225, the term
    \"telecommunications relay services\" means "telephone transmission
    services that provide the ability for an individual who has a
    hearing impairment or speech impairment to engage in communication
    by wire or radio with a hearing individual in a manner that is
    functionally equivalent to the ability of an individual who does not
    have a hearing impairment or speech impairment to communicate using
    voice communication services by wire or radio. Such term includes
    services that enable two-way communication between an individual who
    uses a TDD or other nonvoice terminal device and an individual who
    does not use such a device." 47 U.S.C. § 225(a)(3)*.*

[^36]: *See* 47 C.F.R. § 64.601(15) (defining TTY).

[^37]: *Telecommunications Relay Services and Speech-to-Speech Services
    for Individuals with Hearing and Speech Disabilities*, CC Docket
    Nos. 90-571, 98-67; CG Docket No. 03-123, Report and Order, Order on
    Reconsideration, and Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, 19 FCC
    Rcd 12475, 12479, para. 3 n.18 (June 30, 2004) (*2004 TRS Report &
    Order*) (describing how a traditional TRS call works).

[^38]: *See generally* *Telecommunications Relay Services and
    Speech-to-Speech Services for Individuals with Hearing and Speech
    Disabilities*, CG Docket No. 03-123, Further Notice of Proposed
    Rulemaking, 21 FCC Rcd 8379, 8381-82, para. 3 (July 20, 2006)
    (describing various forms of TRS).

[^39]: 47 U.S.C. § 225(d)(3). Congress directed that TRS users cannot be
    required to pay rates "greater than the rates paid for functionally
    equivalent voice communication services." 47 U.S.C. §
    225(d)(1)(D)*.*

[^40]: 47 U.S.C. § 225(d)(3)(B); *see also* 47 C.F.R. §
    64.604(c)(5)(ii). The costs of intrastate TRS generally are
    recovered by the states through rate adjustments or surcharges on
    local phone bills. Currently, the costs of all IP Relay, VRS, and IP
    captioned telephone service calls are compensated from the Fund.

[^41]: 47 C.F.R. § 64.604(c)(5)(iii)(A).

[^42]: 47 C.F.R. § 64.604(c)(5)(iii)(E).

[^43]: 47 C.F.R. § 64.604(c)(5)(iii)(A), (B).

[^44]: Contributors to the Interstate TRS Fund annually must file with
    the Universal Service Administrative Company a completed
    Telecommunications Reporting Worksheet (FCC Form 499-A). The revenue
    data reported on this form is used by NECA to calculate carriers'
    TRS Fund obligations.

[^45]: The Commission has not formally defined the term "VoIP" but has
    stated that its use of the term generally encompasses "any
    IP-enabled services offering real-time, multidirectional voice
    functionality, including, but not limited to, services that mimic
    traditional telephony." *See IP-Enabled Services*, WC Docket No.
    04-36, Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, 19 FCC Rcd 4863, 4866, para. 3
    n.7 (March 10, 2004) (*IP-Enabled Services NPRM*). VoIP services
    include "interconnected VoIP services," defined at 47 C.F.R. § 9.3.
    *See* note 2 *supra*.

[^46]: *IP-Enabled Services NPRM*, 19 FCC Rcd 4863.

[^47]: *Id.*, 19 FCC Rcd at 4886-87, para. 36.

[^48]: *Id.*, 19 FCC Rcd at 4887, para. 37.

[^49]: *Id.*, 19 FCC Rcd at 4901-03, paras. 58-60.

[^50]: *Id.*, 19 FCC Rcd at 4902, para. 58. The Commission has issued
    two pronouncements in recent years concerning the appropriate legal
    classification of particular IP-enabled services as
    "telecommunications service\[s\]" or "information service\[s\]"
    under the Act. *See* *Petition for Declaratory Ruling that
    Pulver.com's Free World Dialup is Neither Telecommunications Nor a
    Telecommunications Service*, WC Docket No. 03-45, Order, 19 FCC Rcd
    3307 (2004); *Petition for Declaratory Ruling that AT&T's
    Phone-to-Phone IP Telephony Services are Exempt from Access
    Charges*, WC Docket No. 03-45, Order, 19 FCC Rcd 7457 (Feb. 19,
    2004). The ultimate classification of these services as
    telecommunications services or information services is significant
    to the extent that "telecommunications services" generally are
    subject to a comprehensive regulatory regime under Title II of the
    Act (including section 255), while "information services" fall under
    the Commission's Title I jurisdiction and generally are subject to
    more limited regulation by the Commission. The actions we take today
    do not prejudge the Commission's ultimate classification of
    interconnected VoIP service as a "telecommunications service" or as
    an "information service" under the statutory definitions of those
    terms.

[^51]: *IP-Enabled Services NPRM*, 19 FCC Rcd at 4903, para. 60.

[^52]: *Id.*

[^53]: *See*, *e.g.*, Comments of Communication Service for the Deaf at
    5-9 (May 28, 2004).

[^54]: *See*, *e.g.*, Comments of Motorola at 14-15 (May 28, 2004).

[^55]: *FCC Internet Policy Working Group To Hold Second "Solutions
    Summit" On Friday, May 7, 2004 to Focus on Disabilities Access
    Issues Associated With Internet-based Communications Services*,
    Public Notice, WC Docket No. 04-36 (rel. March 11, 2004).

[^56]: *See* Voice over IP (VoIP) Summit, May 7, 2004 *at*
    <http://www.fcc.gov/voip/voipsummit.html> (containing links to
    summit presentations).

[^57]: *Vonage Holdings Corp. Petition for Declaratory Ruling Concerning
    an Order of the Minnesota Pub. Util. Commn.*, Order, 19 FCC Rcd
    22404 (2004) (*Vonage Order*), *aff'd*, *Minnesota Pub. Util.
    Comm'n. v. FCC*, 483 F.3d 570 (8th Cir. Mar. 21, 2007).

[^58]: *See* *IP-Enabled Services; E911 Requirements for IP-Enabled
    Service Providers*, WC Docket Nos. 04-36, 05-196, First Report and
    Order and Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, 20 FCC Rcd 10245, 10257-58,
    para. 24 (June 3, 2005) (*VoIP 911 Order*) (defining "interconnected
    VoIP service"), *aff'd*, *Nuvio Corp. v. FCC*, 473 F.3d 302 (D.C.
    Cir. 2006); 47 C.F.R. § 9.3 (definition of "interconnected VoIP
    service" adopted in *VoIP 911 Order*).

[^59]: *Vonage Order*, 19 FCC Rcd at 22411-12, para. 14.

[^60]: *Id.*, 19 FCC Rcd at 22405, para. 1.

[^61]: *Id.*, 19 FCC Rcd at 22411, n. 46 & 22432, para. 44.

[^62]: Additionally, on August 5, 2005, the Commission determined that
    providers of interconnected VoIP services are subject to the
    Communications Assistance for Law Enforcement Act (CALEA). *See
    Communications Assistance for Law Enforcement Act and Broadband
    Access and Services*, ET Docket No. 04-295, RM-10865, First Report
    and Order and Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, [20 FCC Rcd
    14989, 14991-92, para. 8
    (2005)](https://web2.westlaw.com/find/default.wl?tf=-1&rs=WLW7.02&referencepositiontype=S&serialnum=2007368220&fn=_top&sv=Split&tc=-1&findtype=Y&referenceposition=14991&db=4493&vr=2.0&rp=%2Ffind%2Fdefault.wl&mt=Westlaw)
    (*CALEA First Report and Order*), *aff\'d*, *American Council on
    Education v. FCC*, 451 F.3d 226 (D.C. Cir. 2006).

[^63]: *See VoIP 911 Order*, 20 FCC Rcd at 10246, para. 1.

[^64]: *See Universal Service Contribution Methodology*, WC Docket No.
    06-122; CC Docket Nos. 96-45, 98-171, 90-571, 92-237; NSD File No.
    L-00-72; CC Docket Nos. 99-200, 95-116, 98-170; WC Docket No. 04-36,
    Report and Order and Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, 21 FCC Rcd 7518,
    7538-43, paras. 38-49 (rel. June 27, 2006) (*2006 Interim
    Contribution Methodology Order*), *aff'd in relevant part*, *Vonage
    Holdings Corp., v. FCC*, 2007 WL 1574611 (D.C. Cir. June 1, 2007).

[^65]: *See Implementation of the Telecommunications Act of 1996;
    Telecommunications Carriers' Use of Customer Proprietary Network
    Information and Other Customer Information; IP-Enabled Services*, CC
    Docket No. 96-115; WC Docket No. 04-36, Report and Order and Further
    Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, FCC 07-22 (rel. April 2, 2007) (*CPNI
    Order*).

[^66]: *See* 47 C.F.R. § 9.3 (defining "interconnected VoIP service").

[^67]: Nothing in this *Order* alters telecommunications carriers' duty
    "not to install network features, functions, or capabilities that do
    not comply with the guidelines and standards established pursuant to
    section 255." *See* 47 U.S.C. § 251(a)(2).

[^68]: *IP-Enabled Services NPRM*, 19 FCC Rcd at 4867, para. 5.

[^69]: *See* 47 C.F.R. § 64.603.

[^70]: 47 U.S.C. §§ 151, 255.

[^71]: *See*, *e.g.*, Comments of 8x8, Inc. at 20-22 (March 28, 2004)
    (regulatory intervention is unwarranted because competitive forces
    are providing solutions to disabilities access problems); Comments
    of VON Coalition at 1, 25 (March 28, 2004) (asserting that
    disabilities access should result from voluntary agreements, rather
    than regulation).

[^72]: *See*, *e.g.*, National Council on Disability, "The Need for
    Federal Legislation and Regulation Prohibiting Telecommunications
    and Information Services Discrimination," at 4-8 (Dec. 19, 2006)
    (noting that the lack of disability safeguards for Internet-based
    and other emerging technologies is "beginning to take their toll" as
    reflected in the emergence of "inaccessible user interfaces on
    consumer equipment" and "a lack of interoperable and reliable text
    transmissions," among others); Comments of The American Foundation
    for the Blind at 2 (May 28, 2004) ("Voluntary measures and
    market-based approaches have not, and will not, ensure reliable
    access to IP-enabled communication for people with disabilities.");
    Comments of Inclusive Technology at 7-11 (May 27, 2004) (enumerating
    barriers faced by persons with disabilities in the use of VoIP
    services today, including software applications that are
    incompatible with screen readers and that provide no support for
    "screen magnification utilities;" and the use of touchscreens to
    navigate through software without an alternative modality such as
    voice commands).

[^73]: *See 2006 Interim Contribution Methodology Order*, 21 FCC Rcd at
    7528-29, para. 19 (noting that the number of interconnected VoIP
    subscribers had grown from 150,000 in 2003 to 4.2 million by the end
    of 2005). *See also* *VoIP Service Revenue Doubles in North America,
    Europe, Asia Pacific in 2005*, Infonetics Press Release (July 26,
    2006) *at*
    <http://www.infonetics.com/resources/purple.shtml?ms06.vip.nr.shtml>;
    *March Broadband Buzz*, Bear Stearns (March 12, 2007); *Cable
    Telephone Subscriptions Growth Accelerates*, IP Media Monitor (March
    12, 2007) *at* <http://ipmediamonitor.com/>.

[^74]: *See*, *e.g*., Comments of The National Association of the Deaf
    at 11-19 (Jan. 13, 2000) (describing barriers to achieving
    compatibility between TTY and IP technologies); *see also* National
    Council on Disability, "The Need for Federal Legislation and
    Regulation Prohibiting Telecommunications and Information Services
    Discrimination," at 33 (Dec. 19, 2006) ("\[C\]oncerns exist about
    the extent to which TTY signals are accurately transmitted over the
    packet-switching technology used by Internet technologies. Although
    some packet loss that naturally occurs in Internet transmissions
    will not affect voice conversations, even low levels of packet loss
    can produce TTY garbling and other transmission errors. In addition,
    compression technologies often used over the Internet can distort
    TTY signals. So long as certain individuals remain dependent on this
    technology and TTYs continue to provide the only effective text
    method of communicating with emergency authorities, it will be
    necessary for IP text communications to support compatibility with
    analog TTY products, to the same extent that IP voice telephony
    products are compatible with analog PSTN voice telephony
    products.").

[^75]: In addition, we note that the Access Board has convened the
    Telecommunications and Electronic and Information Technology
    Advisory Committee (TEITAC) to provide recommended updates of
    accessibility standards and guidelines issued under section 255 of
    the Act and section 508 of the Rehabilitation Act. *See* 47 U.S.C. §
    255, 29 U.S.C. § 794(d). We will review any final guidelines
    concerning these issues and assess, at that time, if any amendments
    to our section 255 rules would be appropriate.

[^76]: *See*, *e.g.*, National Council on Disability, "The Need for
    Federal Legislation and Regulation Prohibiting Telecommunications
    and Information Services Discrimination," at 6 (Dec. 19, 2006)
    ("\[H\]igh-speed broadband Internet technologies can provide users
    with multiple options for conversing, the ability to perform
    numerous functions through a single device, 'always on' service,
    clear video communications, and software solutions for redundant
    interfaces and operational controls. However, these benefits will
    only accrue to people with disabilities if laws requiring the
    incorporation of accessible design are adopted now, when the costs
    and efforts associated with providing this access are still a mere
    fraction of the costs of producing mainstream products and
    services."); *see also* Suzanne Robitaille, "How VoIP Can Connect
    the Disabled," Business Week Online (April 28, 2004), *available at*
    <http://www.businessweek.com/technology/content/apr2004tc20040428_4395_tc116.htm>.

[^77]: *See* 47 C.F.R. §§ 9.3, 54.5 (defining "interconnected VoIP
    service"); *see also* *VoIP 911 Order*, 20 FCC Rcd at 10257-58,
    para. 24; *2006 Interim Contribution Methodology Order*, 21 FCC Rcd
    at 7537, para. 36; *CPNI Order*, 2007 WL 983953, para. 54 n.170.

[^78]: *VoIP 911 Order*, 20 FCC Rcd at 10256, para. 23 (in determining
    which IP-enabled services should be subject to regulation, "\[w\]e
    begin by limiting our inquiry to VoIP services, for which some type
    of 911 capability is most relevant").

[^79]: *Accord* Comments of ITAA at 9-11 (May 28, 2004) (arguing that
    only VoIP services that are "POTS-equivalent" should be subject to
    "social regulation"). The acronym "POTS" stands for "plain old
    telephone service."

[^80]: Comments of Communication Service for the Deaf, Inc. at ii-iii,
    5-7 (May 28, 2004) (urging Commission to classify IP-enabled
    services that are functionally equivalent to traditional telephony
    or that provide a substitute for traditional telephony as
    telecommunications services for purposes of disability access
    mandates). As noted in our recent orders, an interconnected VoIP
    service offers the *capability* for users to receive calls from and
    terminate calls to the PSTN; the obligations we establish apply to
    all VoIP communications made using an interconnected VoIP service,
    even those that do not involve the PSTN. Furthermore, these
    obligations apply regardless of how an interconnected VoIP provider
    achieves access to and from the PSTN, whether directly or through a
    third party. *2006 Interim Contribution Methodology Order*, 21 FCC
    Rcd at 7537, para. 36; *see also* *CALEA Order*, 20 FCC Rcd at
    15008, para. 39; *CPNI Order*, 2007 WL 983953, n.180.

[^81]: 47 U.S.C. § 151.

[^82]: *IP-Enabled Services NPRM*, 19 FCC Rcd at 4867, para. 5.

[^83]: *Accord 2006 Interim Contribution Methodology Order*, 21 FCC Rcd
    at 7537, para. 36. As the Commission had noted, however, the
    category of providers subject to these obligations may need to
    expand as new VoIP services increasingly substitute for traditional
    phone service. *Id. See also* Comments of SBC at 110 (May 28, 2004)
    (because calls move seamlessly between the PSTN and IP networks,
    both networks must afford adequate accessibility in order for
    explicit accessibility obligations upon telecommunications services
    to be effective).

[^84]: *See 2006 Interim Contribution Methodology Order*, 21 FCC Rcd at
    7540, para. 43.

[^85]: *Id.*, 21 FCC Rcd at 7541, para. 44. By adopting the definition
    of "interconnected VoIP service" that we adopted in the *VoIP 911*,
    *2006 Interim Contribution Methodology*, and *CPNI* orders and that
    is codified in sections 9.3 and 54.5 of the Commission's rules, we
    anticipate that there will be less confusion among service providers
    and within the disability community regarding which entities are
    subject to these obligations. For this additional reason, we reject
    commenter suggestions to identify a subset of VoIP services other
    than the category we have identified here. *See*, *e.g*., Comments
    of NCTA at 7-9 (May 28, 2004) (proposing similar four-part test for
    identifying which VoIP services should be subject to access
    requirements).

[^86]: *See*, *e.g*., Comments of The National Association of the Deaf
    at 20 (Jan. 13, 2000) (asserting that manufacturers of hardware used
    to create IP telephony gateways, makers of private branch exchanges,
    gatekeepers, IP telephony software manufacturers, relay service
    equipment vendors and associated CPE manufacturers should be subject
    to disability access rules).

[^87]: Section 255(b) requires manufacturers of telecommunications
    equipment and CPE to implement "readily achievable" measures to
    ensure that their equipment is designed, developed, and fabricated
    to be accessible to and usable by individuals with disabilities, if
    readily achievable. 47 U.S.C. § 255(b). Whenever this requirement is
    not readily achievable, the manufacturer must ensure that the
    equipment is compatible with existing peripheral devices or
    specialized customer premises equipment commonly used by individuals
    with disabilities to achieve access, if readily achievable. 47
    U.S.C. § 255(d). In the *Section 255 Order*, the Commission
    determined that the terms "telecommunications equipment" and
    "customer premises equipment" have the meanings set forth in section
    3 of the Act, and include software integral to the equipment\'s
    operation. *Section 255 Order*, 16 FCC Rcd at 6425, para. 12.

[^88]: *Section 255 Order*, 16 FCC Rcd at 6455-62, paras. 93-108.

[^89]: To the extent the Commission later finds that interconnected VoIP
    services are telecommunications services, these disability access
    obligations would, of course, be imposed by the express language of
    section 255.

[^90]: *Section 255 Order*, 16 FCC Rcd at 6461, para. 106 ("Where, as
    here, we have subject matter jurisdiction over the services and
    equipment involved, and the record demonstrates that implementation
    of the statute will be thwarted absent use of our ancillary
    jurisdiction, our assertion of jurisdiction is warranted. Our
    authority should be evaluated against the backdrop of an expressed
    congressional policy favoring accessibility for persons with
    disabilities. This backdrop serves to buttress the actions taken
    today, not limit it."). We also note that the Commission's ancillary
    jurisdiction under Title I to impose regulatory obligations on
    broadband Internet access service providers was recently recognized
    by the Supreme Court. *NCTA v. Brand X Internet Services*, 545 U.S.
    967, 996 (2005) (stating that after designating cable modem service
    an information service, "the Commission remains free to impose
    special regulatory duties on facilities-based \[information service
    providers\] under its Title I ancillary jurisdiction").

[^91]: *See* *United States v. Southwestern Cable Co.*, 392 U.S. 157,
    177-78 (1968). *Southwestern Cable*, the lead case on the ancillary
    jurisdiction doctrine, upheld certain regulations applied to cable
    television systems at a time before the Commission had an express
    congressional grant of regulatory authority over that medium. *See
    id*., 392 U.S. at 170-71. In *Midwest Video I*, the Supreme Court
    expanded upon its holding in *Southwestern Cable*. The plurality
    stated that "the critical question in this case is whether the
    Commission has reasonably determined that its origination rule will
    'further the achievement of long-established regulatory goals in the
    field of television broadcasting by increasing the number of outlets
    for community self-expression and augmenting the public\'s choice of
    programs and types of services.'" *Midwest Video I*, 406 U.S. 649,
    667-68 (1972) (quoting *Amendment of Part 74, Subpart K, of the
    Commission\'s Rules and Regulations Relative to Community Antenna
    Television Systems; and Inquiry into the Development of
    Communications Technology and Services to Formulate Regulatory
    Policy and Rulemaking and/or Legislative Proposals,* Docket No.
    18397, First Report and Order, 20 FCC 2d 201, 202 (1969) (*CATV
    First Report and Order*)). The Court later restricted the scope of
    *Midwest Video I* by finding that if the basis for jurisdiction over
    cable is that the authority is ancillary to the regulation of
    broadcasting, the cable regulation cannot be antithetical to a basic
    regulatory parameter established for broadcast. *See Midwest Video
    II*, 440 U.S. 689, 700 (1979).

[^92]: Section 3(33) of the Act defines "radio communication" as "the
    transmission by radio of writing, signs, signals, pictures, and
    sounds of all kinds, including all instrumentalities, facilities,
    apparatus, and services (among other things, the receipt,
    forwarding, and delivery of communications) incidental to such
    transmission." 47 U.S.C. § 153(33).

[^93]: Section 3(52) of the Act defines the term "wire communication" or
    "communication by wire" to mean "the transmission of writing, signs,
    signals, pictures, and sounds of all kinds by aid of wire, cable, or
    other like connection between the points of origin and reception of
    such transmission, including all instrumentalities, facilities,
    apparatus, and services (among other things, the receipt,
    forwarding, and delivery of communications) incidental to such
    transmission." 47 U.S.C. § 153(52).

[^94]: 47 U.S.C. § 152(a); *see also* 47 U.S.C. § 151 (setting forth
    Commission\'s obligation to make available "to all the people of the
    United States...a rapid, efficient, Nation-wide, and world-wide wire
    and radio communication service with adequate facilities at
    reasonable charges\...for the purpose of promoting safety of life
    and property through the use of wire and radio communication").

[^95]: The Commission did not formally define the term "interconnected
    VoIP service" until the *VoIP 911 Order*. *See VoIP 911 Order*, 20
    FCC Rcd at 10257-58, para. 24. In that order, the Commission noted
    that Vonage's Digital Voice service, which was at issue in the
    *Vonage Order*, was, in fact, an "interconnected VoIP service."
    *Id*., 20 FCC Rcd at 10246-47, para. 3.

[^96]: 47 U.S.C. § 152(a); *see also* 47 U.S.C. § 151 (setting forth
    Commission\'s obligation to make available "to all the people of the
    United States...a rapid, efficient, Nation-wide, and world-wide wire
    and radio communication service with adequate facilities at
    reasonable charges\...for the purpose of promoting safety of life
    and property through the use of wire and radio communication").

[^97]: *See* 47 U.S.C. § 153(33) (defining "radio communication"); *see
    also* 47 U.S.C. § 153(52) (defining "wire communication"). In
    addition, we note that section 255(b) applies, on its face, to
    manufacturers of telecommunications equipment and CPE and does not
    limit itself to equipment used for telecommunications services. 47
    U.S.C. § 255(b).

[^98]: We note that in *American Library Association v. FCC*, 406 F.3d
    689 (D.C. Cir. 2005), the court held that the Commission lacked
    authority to impose broadcast content redistribution rules on
    equipment manufacturers using ancillary jurisdiction because the
    rules at issue had no effect until after the regulated transmission
    was complete. The court reasoned that the television receivers and
    other "demodulators" that were the subject of the contested rules
    were not engaged in the process of radio or wire transmission when
    processing a specified indicator within the television signal
    (called a "broadcast flag") to the extent that the required
    processing would have taken place after the completion of a
    broadcast transmission. 406 F.3d at 700. In contrast, the rules we
    adopt today specifying the actions that must be taken with respect
    to the design, development, and fabrication of specialized
    interconnected VoIP equipment are intended to act directly on
    equipment that is an integral and necessary part of any
    interconnected VoIP service communication. Moreover, these rules
    apply to specialized equipment that is used during the course of the
    transmission or receipt of an interconnected VoIP service
    communication, not after the completion of a transmission, as was
    the determining factor for the court in *American Library
    Association*.

[^99]: We do not adopt commenter suggestions to classify all VoIP
    services or some subset thereof, for purposes of this proceeding or
    more generally, as "telecommunications services" within the meaning
    of section 3 of the Act, which would allow us to rely directly on
    section 255 to impose accessibility obligations on those VoIP
    providers. We will address the regulatory classification of
    IP-enabled services, including VoIP services, in a separate
    rulemaking proceeding and we make no findings here regarding the
    appropriate regulatory classification of interconnected VoIP
    services. *See* note 50 *supra*.

[^100]: 47 U.S.C. § 151; *see also VoIP 911 Order*, 20 FCC Rcd at 10262,
    para. 29.

[^101]: 47 U.S.C. § 151. As noted in the *VoIP 911 Order*, 20 FCC Rcd at
    10262, para. 29, the Commission has previously relied on Title I to
    satisfy both prongs of the standard for asserting ancillary
    jurisdiction (1) subject matter jurisdiction; and (2) the statutory
    goal furthered by the regulation. In *Rural Telephone Coalition v.
    FCC*, *e.g.*, the D.C. Circuit upheld the Commission\'s assertion of
    ancillary jurisdiction to establish a funding mechanism to support
    universal service in the absence of specific statutory authority as
    ancillary to its responsibilities under section 1 of the Act to
    "further the objective of making communications service available to
    all Americans at reasonable charges." *Rural Tel. Coalition v. FCC*,
    838 F.2d 1307, 1315 (D.C. Cir. 1988).

[^102]: The rules we adopt today, which apply to interconnected VoIP
    providers and to manufacturers of specially designed VoIP equipment
    and CPE, are reasonably ancillary to our responsibilities under
    section 255 and under Title I of the Act for the additional reasons
    set forth in paragraph 17 *supra.*

[^103]: *Section 255 Order*, 16 FCC Rcd 6417.

[^104]: 47 C.F.R. Part 7 (applying disability access requirements,
    without modification, to providers of voicemail and interactive menu
    services and related equipment manufacturers).

[^105]: *Accord* Comments of the American Foundation for the Blind at 4
    (May 28, 2004) (noting that accessibility problems faced by people
    who are blind or vision impaired are "strikingly similar" to those
    that section 255 already has attempted to address and urging
    Commission adoption of section 255's "carefully constructed basis
    for defining equipment and services and implementing
    accessibility"); Comments of the New Jersey Division of the
    Ratepayer Advocate at 26-28 (May 28, 2004).

[^106]: As in the *Section 255 Order*, we do not delineate specific
    documentation requirements for "readily achievable" analyses. We
    fully expect, however, that manufacturers and service providers, in
    the ordinary course of business, will maintain complete records of
    the specific actions taken to comply with the disability access
    requirements that can be filed with the Commission in the event
    consumers with disabilities file complaints.

[^107]: *See*, *e.g.*, Comments of the National Association of State
    Utility Consumer Advocates at 64 (May 28, 2004) ("NASUCA has no
    recommendation at this time on specific compliance standards, but
    recommends that these standards be created through IP industry and
    disabilities working groups, through the use of access guidelines
    issued by the Architectural and Transportation Barriers Compliance
    Board and other disabilities compliance organizations, and through
    government-sponsored meetings such as the Commission's 'Solutions
    Summit' of May 7, 2004").

[^108]: *See* National Council on Disability, "The Need for Federal
    Legislation and Regulation Prohibiting Telecommunications and
    Information Services Discrimination," at 30 (December 19, 2006)
    (noting that the IP industry has not yet developed a consistent and
    reliable protocol for carrying real-time interactive text).

[^109]: *See* Letter from Karen Peltz Strauss, Rehabilitation
    Engineering Research Center on Telecommunications Access, to Marlene
    Dortch, FCC (dated May 23, 2007).

[^110]: *See*, *e.g.*, Comments of the Rehabilitation Research Center on
    Telecommunications Access at ii (Aug. 15, 2005).

[^111]: *See*, *e.g.*, Comments of Avaya at 13-17 (May 28, 2004)
    (listing potential accessibility barriers and opportunities
    associated with VoIP).

[^112]: This information may be needed by consumers who wish to obtain
    information from, or present disability related concerns or
    complaints to, a covered manufacturer or service provider.

[^113]: We note that this requirement is in addition to the requirement
    that providers annually complete and regularly update FCC Form
    499-A, including maintaining accurate designated agent information
    in Block 2-B of that form.

[^114]: *See* FCC Disabilities Issues Link Page *at*
    <http://www.fcc.gov/cgb/dro/section255_manu.html> (list of section
    255 equipment manufacturers); FCC Section 255 Service Providers *at*
    <http://www.fcc.gov/cgb/dro/service_providers.html> (list of section
    255 service providers).

[^115]: 47 U.S.C. § 225(b)(1).

[^116]: 47 U.S.C. § 225(a)(3).

[^117]: 47 U.S.C. § 225(c).

[^118]: *See* 47 C.F.R. §§ 9.3, 54.5 (defining "interconnected VoIP
    service"); *see also* *VoIP 911 Order*, 20 FCC Rcd at 10257-58,
    para. 24; *2006 Interim Contribution Methodology Order*, 21 FCC Rcd
    at 7537, para. 36; *CPNI Order*, 2007 WL 983953, para. 54 n.170.

[^119]: *Accord* Comments of ITAA at 9-11 (May 28, 2004) (arguing that
    only VoIP services that are "POTS-equivalent" should be subject to
    "social regulation").

[^120]: *Federal-State Joint Board on Universal Service, Smith Bagley,
    Inc. Petition for Waiver of Section 54.400(e) of the Commission's
    Rules*, Memorandum Opinion and Order, 20 FCC Rcd 7701, 7707, para.
    15 (March 30, 2005) (discussing how increased subscribership
    enhances the value of a communications network). TRS increases
    subscribership to the extent that it permits individuals with
    hearing or speech disabilities who otherwise would not be able to
    access communications services to do so.

[^121]: *Accord* Comments of SBC Communications at 104-112 (urging
    Commission to exercise ancillary authority to extend TRS obligations
    to interconnected VoIP providers).

[^122]: *Southwestern Cable*, 392 U.S. at 177-78; *see also VoIP 911
    Order*, 20 FCC Rcd at 10261-66, paras. 26-35.

[^123]: *See* para. 22 *supra*. *See also* 47 U.S.C. § 152(a); 47 U.S.C.
    § 151 (setting forth Commission\'s obligation to make available "to
    all the people of the United States...a rapid, efficient,
    Nation-wide, and world-wide wire and radio communication service
    with adequate facilities at reasonable charges\...for the purpose of
    promoting safety of life and property through the use of wire and
    radio communication").

[^124]: *See* para. 22 *supra*.

[^125]: 47 U.S.C. § 225(b)(1).

[^126]: 47 U.S.C. § 225(b)(1); 47 U.S.C. § 151.

[^127]: 47 U.S.C. § 225(b)(1). As noted above, the Commission also
    relied on its ancillary jurisdiction in requiring interconnected
    VoIP providers to handle emergency 911 calls. *See* paras. 22-24
    *supra*.

[^128]: *Accord* Comments of National Consumers League at 6 (May 28,
    2004) (VoIP providers should be required to contribute to TRS
    because, without their participation, there will be fewer resources
    to make access to relay services available); Comments of
    Telecommunications for the Deaf at 8-9 (May 28, 2004) (regardless of
    regulatory classification, VoIP providers must contribute to TRS
    since failure to do so will threaten continued viability of TRS
    Fund); *but see* Comments of Nuvio at 10 (May 28, 2004) (opposing
    extension of TRS or other common carrier mandates to VoIP providers
    on basis that market forces will result in improved disability
    access).

[^129]: 47 U.S.C. § 225(d)(3)(B).

[^130]: *See 2006 Interim Contribution Methodology Order*, 21 FCC Rcd at
    7536, para. 34. *See also* *VoIP Service Revenue Doubles in North
    America, Europe, Asia Pacific in 2005*, Infonetics Press Release
    (July 26, 2006) *at*
    <http://www.infonetics.com/resources/purple.shtml?ms06.vip.nr.shtml>
    (projecting that between 2005 and 2009, VoIP service revenues in
    North America will increase from \$2.6 billion to \$13.3 billion);
    *March Broadband Buzz*, Bear Stearns (March 12, 2007); *Cable
    Telephone Subscriptions Growth Accelerates*, IP Media Monitor (March
    12, 2007) *at* <http://ipmediamonitor.com/>.

[^131]: We note that the interstate revenue base, which stood at a high
    of approximately \$81 billion for the 2003-2004 Fund year, has
    dropped to approximately \$77 billion for the 2007-2008 Fund year.
    *See* Relay Services' Reimbursement Rate, Contribution Factor & Fund
    Size History (prepared by the TRS Fund Administrator) *at*
    <http://www.neca.org/images/RELAYRATESHISTORY_REVISED_08_21_06.pdf>;
    *see also* Interstate Telecommunications Relay Services Fund Payment
    Formula and Fund Size Estimate, CC Docket 03-123, Report, at 3
    (filed by the TRS Fund Administrator May 1, 2007)**.**

[^132]: *See* Relay Services' Reimbursement Rate, Contribution Factor &
    Fund Size History *at*
    <http://www.neca.org/images/RELAYRATESHISTORY_REVISED_08_21_06.pdf>
    . Since 2000, the TRS Fund has grown from approximately \$60 million
    to over \$400 million, largely due to the rapid growth in the use of
    VRS.

[^133]: 47 U.S.C. § 225(b)(1).

[^134]: 47 U.S.C. § 225(d)(3)(B) (emphasis added).

[^135]: *Vonage Order*, 19 FCC Rcd at 22413, para. 18.

[^136]: While we recognize that interconnected VoIP services are not the
    only IP-enabled services that may be characterized as "interstate,"
    the word "generally" in section 225(d)(3)(B) leads us to conclude
    that Congress intended to give the Commission a measure of
    discretion in identifying entities to which the requirement should
    apply. *See* 47 U.S.C. § 225(d)(3)(B) (directing the Commission to
    issue regulations that "shall *generally* provide that costs caused
    by interstate relay services shall be recovered from all subscribers
    for every interstate service") (emphasis added). At a minimum, it is
    well settled that the Commission, in issuing an order addressing a
    particular problem, need not address all aspects of the problem
    simultaneously. *See*, *e.g*., *Brand X*, 547 U.S. at 1001-02.

[^137]: 47 C.F.R. § 64.604(c)(5)(iii)(A).

[^138]: 47 C.F.R. § 64.604(c)(5)(iii)(B). Each subject carrier is
    required to contribute to the TRS Fund a minimum of \$25 per year.
    *Id.*

[^139]: USAC serves as the Revenue Data Collection Agent for the
    universal service and TRS funds, as well as for the support
    mechanisms for the North American Number Plan and local number
    portability administration.

[^140]: *See* Telecommunications Reporting Worksheet, FCC Form 499-A
    (2007) *at* <http://www.fcc.gov/formpage.html>.

[^141]: *See* Instructions to the Telecommunications Reporting
    Worksheet, FCC Form 499-A (2007), at 1.

[^142]: *See 2006 Interim Contribution Methodology Order*, 21 FCC Rcd at
    7544-47, paras. 50-62 (discussing revenue reporting issues and
    requirements applicable to interconnected VoIP providers' USF
    contribution obligation).

[^143]: *See id.*, 21 FCC Rcd at 7546, para. 56.

[^144]: *See id.*, 21 FCC Rcd at 7544-45, para. 53.

[^145]: *See id.*, 21 FCC Rcd at 7545, para. 53.

[^146]: *See id.* At the same time, the Commission sought comment on
    whether to eliminate or modify this interim safe harbor. *Id.*, 21
    FCC Rcd at 7551, para. 69. We note that in the recent *Vonage
    Holdings Corp*. case, the court of appeals affirmed the portion of
    the Commission's *2006 Interim Contribution Methodology Order* in
    which the Commission had analogized VoIP to wireline toll service
    for purposes of setting the presumptive percentage of VoIP revenues
    that are generated interstate and internationally. *Id.*, 2007 WL
    1574611, at \*\*8-9.

[^147]: *See id.*, 21 FCC Rcd at 7545, para. 54. The Commission's 2006
    order required interconnected VoIP providers planning to use traffic
    studies for purposes of calculating their interstate revenues to
    obtain prior Commission approval of "any traffic study on which an
    interconnected VoIP provider proposes to rely." *Id.*, 21 FCC Rcd at
    7547, para. 57. In *Vonage Holdings Corp*., the court of appeals
    vacated the portion of the Commission's *2006 Interim Contribution
    Methodology Order* in which the Commission had required
    interconnected VoIP providers to obtain pre-approval of VoIP traffic
    studies. *Id.*, 2007 WL 1574611, at \*10. In particular, the court
    held that the Commission had not adequately explained how its
    determination to apply a pre-approval requirement to interconnected
    VoIP services but not to wireless services was consistent with the
    statutory directive that USF contributions be made on "an equitable
    and nondiscriminatory basis." *Id.* (quoting 47 U.S.C. § 254(d)).

[^148]: We note that, although interconnected VoIP providers also file
    the FCC Form 499-Q in connection with the Commission's USF
    contribution requirements, this form is not required for purposes of
    the Commission's TRS Fund contribution requirements.

[^149]: *See Federal-State Joint Board on Universal Service*, CC Docket
    Nos. 96-45, 98-171, 90-571, 92-237, 99-200, 95-116, 98-170, NSD File
    No. L-00-72, Report and Order and Second Further Notice of Proposed
    Rulemaking, 17 FCC Rcd 24952, 24972, n.103 (2002); *see also 2006
    Interim Contribution Methodology Order*, 21 FCC Rcd at 7548-49,
    paras. 60-61.

[^150]: FCC Form 499-A and its instructions are located on the
    Commission's form page *at* <http://www.fcc.gov/formpage.html>, and
    on the Universal Service Administrative Company's (USAC's) form page
    at <http://www.usac.org/fund-administration/forms/default.aspx>.

[^151]: FCC Form 499-A and Instructions to FCC Form 499-A (2007).

[^152]: In light of the recent decision in *Vonage Holdings Corp*., 2007
    WL 1574611, at \*10, interconnected VoIP providers that elect to
    rely upon a traffic study for this purpose need not obtain prior
    Commission approval of such study at this time. *See* n. 147
    *supra*.

[^153]: 47 C.F.R. § 64.603.

[^154]: *The Use of N11 Codes and Other Abbreviated Dialing
    Arrangements*, CC Docket No. 92-105, Second Report and Order, 15 FCC
    Rcd 15188, 15191, para. 3 (Aug. 9, 2000) (*711 Order*); *see also*
    47 C.F.R. § 64.603 ("each common carrier providing telephone voice
    transmission services shall provide, not later than October 1, 2001,
    access via the 711 dialing code to all relay services as a toll free
    call"); 47 C.F.R. § 64.601(1) (defining "711" as "\[t\]he
    abbreviated dialing code for accessing all types of relay services
    anywhere in the United States"). The Commission adopted 711 dialing
    access so that TRS users could initiate a call, anywhere in the
    United States, without having to remember and dial a 7 or 10-digit
    toll free number, and without having to obtain different numbers to
    access local TRS providers when traveling from state to state. *711
    Order*, 15 FCC Rcd at 15191, para. 3.

[^155]: *See generally* *711 Order*, 15 FCC Rcd 15196, para. 13.

[^156]: *711 Order*, 15 FCC Rcd at 15200, para. 22.

[^157]: *See 711 Order*, 15 FCC Rcd at 15217-18, paras. 61-64
    (addressing 711 outreach).

[^158]: 5 U.S.C. §§ 601 *et seq.*

[^159]: *See* 5 U.S.C. § 603. The RFA, *see* 5 U.S.C. §§ 601-12, has
    been amended by the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness
    Act of 1996 (SBREFA), Pub. L. No. 104-121, Title II, 110 Stat. 857
    (1996).

[^160]: *IP-Enabled Services NPRM*, 19 FCC Rcd at 4917, para. 91 &
    Appendix A.

[^161]: *Id.*

[^162]: *See* 5 U.S.C. § 604.

[^163]: 47 C.F.R. § 64.604(c)(5)(iii)(A), (B).

[^164]: *See* 47 C.F.R. § 64.603.

[^165]: *See* Comments of SBA (May 28, 2004); Comments of Menard (May
    28, 2004); Reply of Menard (July 15, 2004).

[^166]: *See* Comments of SBA at 2, 4, 6 (May 28, 2004); Comments of
    Menard at 2-5 (May 28, 2004); Reply of Menard at 4 (July 15, 2004).

[^167]: The *IP-Enabled Services NPRM* specifically sought comment on
    whether the disability access requirements should apply to providers
    of IP-enabled services, including VoIP services, and on whether the
    Commission should amend its TRS rules in light of increasing use of
    IP-enabled services. *See IP-Enabled Services NPRM*, 19 FCC Rcd at
    4901-03, paras. 58-60. The Commission published a summary of the
    *NPRM* in the Federal Register. *See* [*Regulatory Requirements*
    *for IP-Enabled* *Services*, WC Docket No. 04-36, Notice of Proposed
    Rulemaking, 69 Fed. Reg. 16193-01 (Mar. 29,
    2004)](http://web2.westlaw.com/find/default.wl?rs=WLW7.04&serialnum=0297568218&fn=_top&sv=Split&tc=-1&findtype=Y&tf=-1&db=0001037&vr=2.0&rp=%2Ffind%2Fdefault.wl&mt=Westlaw).
    In addition, as noted above, the *Section 255 NOI* sought comment on
    applying accessibility requirements to "IP telephony" and
    "computer-based equipment that replicates telecommunications
    functionality." *Section 255 NOI*, 16 FCC Rcd at 6483-84, paras.
    173-76.

[^168]: *See* section E of this Appendix.

[^169]: 5 U.S.C. §§ 603(b)(3), 604(a)(3).

[^170]: 5 U.S.C. § 601(6).

[^171]: 5 U.S.C. § 601(3) (incorporating by reference the definition of
    "small business concern" in the Small Business Act, 15 U.S.C.
    § 632). Pursuant to 5 U.S.C. § 601(3), the statutory definition of a
    small business applies "unless an agency, after consultation with
    the Office of Advocacy of the Small Business Administration and
    after opportunity for public comment, establishes one or more
    definitions of such terms which are appropriate to the activities of
    the agency and publishes such definitions(s) in the Federal
    Register."

[^172]: 15 U.S.C. § 632.

[^173]: *See* SBA, Programs and Services, SBA Pamphlet No. CO-0028, at
    page 40 (July 2002).

[^174]: Independent Sector, The New Nonprofit Almanac & Desk Reference
    (2002).

[^175]: 5 U.S.C. § 601(5).

[^176]: U.S. Census Bureau, Statistical Abstract of the United States:
    2006, Section 8, page 272, Table 415.

[^177]: We assume that the villages, school districts, and special
    districts are small, and total 48,558. *See* U.S. Census Bureau,
    Statistical Abstract of the United States: 2006, section 8, page
    273, Table 417. For 2002, Census Bureau data indicate that the total
    number of county, municipal, and township governments nationwide was
    38,967, of which 35,819 were small. *Id.*

[^178]: 15 U.S.C. § 632.

[^179]: Letter from Jere W. Glover, Chief Counsel for Advocacy, SBA, to
    William E. Kennard, Chairman, FCC (May 27, 1999). The Small Business
    Act contains a definition of "small-business concern," which the RFA
    incorporates into its own definition of "small business." *See* 15
    U.S.C. § 632(a) (Small Business Act); 5 U.S.C. § 601(3) (RFA). SBA
    regulations interpret "small business concern" to include the
    concept of dominance on a national basis. *See* 13 C.F.R. §
    121.102(b).

[^180]: 13 C.F.R. § 121.201, NAICS code 517110.

[^181]: U.S. Census Bureau, 2002 Economic Census, Subject Series:
    Information, "Establishment and Firm Size (Including Legal Form of
    Organization," Table 5, NAICS code 517110 (issued Nov. 2005).

[^182]: *Id.* The census data do not provide a more precise estimate of
    the number of firms that have employment of 1,500 or fewer
    employees; the largest category provided is for firms with "1000
    employees or more."

[^183]: 13 C.F.R. § 121.201, NAICS code 517110.

[^184]: FCC, Wireline Competition Bureau, Industry Analysis and
    Technology Division, "Trends in Telephone Service" at Table 5.3,
    page 5-5 (Feb. 2007) ("Trends in Telephone Service"). This source
    uses data that are current as of October 20, 2005.

[^185]: 13 C.F.R. § 121.201, NAICS code 517110 (changed from 513310 in
    Oct. 2002).

[^186]: "Trends in Telephone Service" at Table 5.3.

[^187]: 13 C.F.R. § 121.201, NAICS code 517310.

[^188]: "Trends in Telephone Service" at Table 5.3.

[^189]: 13 C.F.R. § 121.201, NAICS code 517310.

[^190]: "Trends in Telephone Service" at Table 5.3.

[^191]: 13 C.F.R. § 121.201, NAICS code 517110.

[^192]: "Trends in Telephone Service" at Table 5.3.

[^193]: 13 C.F.R. § 121.201, NAICS code 517110.

[^194]: "Trends in Telephone Service" at Table 5.3.

[^195]: 13 C.F.R. § 121.201, NAICS code 517110.

[^196]: "Trends in Telephone Service" at Table 5.3.

[^197]: 13 C.F.R. § 121.201, NAICS code 517310.

[^198]: "Trends in Telephone Service" at Table 5.3.

[^199]: We include all toll-free number subscribers in this category,
    including those for 888 numbers.

[^200]: 13 C.F.R. § 121.201, NAICS code 517310.

[^201]: "Trends in Telephone Service" at Tables 18.4-18.7.

[^202]: 13 C.F.R. § 121.201 , NAICS codes 517410 and 517910.

[^203]:  U.S. Census Bureau, "2002 NAICS Definitions: 517410 Satellite
    Telecommunications" ([www.census.gov](http://www.census.gov/),
    visited Feb. 2006).

[^204]:  U.S. Census Bureau, 2002 Economic Census, Subject Series:
    Information, "Establishment and Firm Size (Including Legal Form of
    Organization)," Table 4, NAICS code 517410 (issued Nov. 2005).

[^205]: *Id*. An additional 38 firms had annual receipts of \$25 million
    or more.

[^206]: U.S. Census Bureau, "2002 NAICS Definitions: 517910 Other
    Telecommunications" ([www.census.gov](http://www.census.gov/),
    visited Feb. 2006).

[^207]:  U.S. Census Bureau, 2002 Economic Census, Subject Series:
    Information, "Establishment and Firm Size (Including Legal Form of
    Organization)," Table 4, NAICS code 517910 (issued Nov. 2005).

[^208]: *Id*. An additional 14 firms had annual receipts of \$25 million
    or more.

[^209]: 13 C.F.R. § 121.201, NAICS code 517211.

[^210]: 13 C.F.R. § 121.201, NAICS code 517212.

[^211]: U.S. Census Bureau, 2002 Economic Census, Subject Series:
    "Information," Table 5, Employment Size of Firms for the United
    States: 2002, NAICS code 517211 (issued November 2005).

[^212]: *Id.* The census data do not provide a more precise estimate of
    the number of firms that have employment of 1,500 or fewer
    employees; the largest category provided is firms with "1000
    employees or more."

[^213]: U.S. Census Bureau, 2002 Economic Census, Subject Series:
    "Information," Table 5, Employment Size of Firms for the United
    States: 2002, NAICS code 517212 (issued November 2005).

[^214]: *Id.* The census data do not provide a more precise estimate of
    the number of firms that have employment of 1,500 or fewer
    employees; the largest category provided is firms with "1000
    employees or more."

[^215]: 13 C.F.R. § 121.201, NAICS code 517212.

[^216]: U.S. Census Bureau, 2002 Economic Census, Subject Series:
    "Information," Table 5, Employment Size of Firms for the United
    States: 2002, NAICS code 517212 (issued November 2005).

[^217]: *Id.* The census data do not provide a more precise estimate of
    the number of firms that have employment of 1,500 or fewer
    employees; the largest category provided is firms with "1000
    employees or more."

[^218]: "Trends in Telephone Service" at Table 5.3.

[^219]: *Id.*

[^220]: 13 C.F.R. § 121.201, NAICS code 517212.

[^221]: U.S. Census Bureau, 2002 Economic Census, Subject Series:
    "Information," Table 5, Employment Size of Firms for the United
    States: 2002, NAICS code 517211 (issued November 2005).

[^222]: *Id.* The census data do not provide a more precise estimate of
    the number of firms that have employment of 1,500 or fewer
    employees; the largest category provided is firms with "1000
    employees or more."

[^223]: *Amendment of Part 90 of the Commission's Rules to Provide for
    the Use of the 220-222 MHz Band by the Private Land Mobile Radio
    Service*, PR Docket No. 89-552, Third Report and Order and Fifth
    Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, 12 FCC Rcd 10943, 11068-70, paras.
    291-295, 62 FR 16004 (Apr. 3, 1997).

[^224]: *See* Letter to Amy Zoslov, Chief, Auctions and Industry
    Analysis Division, Wireless Telecommunications Bureau, FCC, from A.
    Alvarez, Administrator, SBA (Dec. 2, 1998) (SBA Dec. 2, 1998
    Letter).

[^225]: *Revision of Part 22 and Part 90 of the Commission's Rules to
    Facilitate Future Development of Paging Systems*, Memorandum Opinion
    and Order on Reconsideration and Third Report and Order, 14 FCC Rcd
    10030, 10085-87, paras. 98-107 (1999).

[^226]: *Id.* at 10085, para. 98.

[^227]: "Trends in Telephone Service" at Table 5.3.

[^228]: *Id.*

[^229]: SBA Dec. 2, 1998 letter.

[^230]: 13 C.F.R. § 121.201, NAICS code 517212.

[^231]: *Id.*

[^232]: "Trends in Telephone Service" at Table 5.3.

[^233]: *Id.*

[^234]: *See Amendment of Parts 20 and 24 of the Commission's Rules --
    Broadband PCS Competitive Bidding and the Commercial Mobile Radio
    Service Spectrum Cap*, WT Docket No. 96-59, Report and Order, 11 FCC
    Rcd 7824, 61 FR 33859 (July 1, 1996) (*PCS Order*); *see also* 47
    C.F.R. § 24.720(b).

[^235]: *See PCS Order*, 11 FCC Rcd 7824.

[^236]: *See, e.g*., *Implementation of Section 309(j) of the
    Communications Act -- Competitive Bidding*, PP Docket No. 93-253,
    Fifth Report and Order, 9 FCC Rcd 5332, 59 FR 37566 (July 22, 1994).

[^237]: FCC News, Broadband PCS, D, E and F Block Auction Closes, No.
    71744 (rel. Jan. 14, 1997); *see also Amendment of the Commission's
    Rules Regarding Installment Payment Financing for Personal
    Communications Services (PCS) Licenses*, WT Docket No. 97-82, Second
    Report and Order, 12 FCC Rcd 16436, 62 FR 55348 (Oct. 24, 1997).

[^238]: *Amendment of the Commission's Rules to Establish New Personal
    Communications Services, Narrowband PCS*, Docket No. ET 92-100,
    Docket No. PP 93-253, Second Report and Order and Second Further
    Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, 15 FCC Rcd 10456, 65 FR 35875 (June
    6, 2000).

[^239]: *See* SBA Dec. 2, 1998 Letter.

[^240]: 13 C.F.R. § 121.201, NAICS code 513322 (changed to 517212 in
    October 2002).

[^241]: U.S. Census Bureau, 2002 Economic Census, Subject Series:
    "Information," Table 5, Employment Size of Firms for the United
    States: 2002, NAICS code 517212 (issued November 2005).

[^242]: *Id.* The census data do not provide a more precise estimate of
    the number of firms that have employment of 1,500 or fewer
    employees; the largest category provided is firms with "1000
    employees or more."

[^243]: *220 MHz Third Report and Order*, 12 FCC Rcd 10943, 11068-70,
    paras. 291-295 (1997).

[^244]: *Id.* at 11068, para. 291.

[^245]: *See* Letter to D. Phythyon, Chief, Wireless Telecommunications
    Bureau, Federal Communications Commission, from A. Alvarez,
    Administrator, Small Business Administration (Jan. 6, 1998).

[^246]: *See generally* Public Notice, "220 MHz Service Auction Closes,"
    14 FCC Rcd 605 (1998).

[^247]: *See, e.g.,* Public Notice, "FCC Announces It is Prepared to
    Grant 654 Phase II 220 MHz Licenses After Final Payment is Made," 14
    FCC Rcd 1085 (1999).

[^248]: Public Notice, "Phase II 220 MHz Service Spectrum Auction
    Closes," 14 FCC Rcd 11218 (1999).

[^249]: 47 C.F.R. § 90.814(b)(1).

[^250]: *See* *Service* *Rules for the 746-764 MHz Bands, and Revisions
    to Part 27 of the Commission's Rules*, WT Docket No. 99-168, Second
    Report and Order, 65 FR 17599 (Apr. 4, 2000).

[^251]: *See generally* Public Notice, "220 MHz Service Auction Closes,"
    Report No. WT 98-36 (Oct. 23, 1998).

[^252]: Public Notice, "700 MHz Guard Band Auction Closes," DA 01-478
    (rel. Feb. 22, 2001).

[^253]: The service is defined in section 22.99 of the Commission's
    Rules, 47 C.F.R. § 22.99.

[^254]: BETRS is defined in sections 22.757 and 22.759 of the
    Commission's Rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 22.757 and 22.759.

[^255]: 13 C.F.R. § 121.201, NAICS code 517212.

[^256]: The service is defined in section 22.99 of the Commission's
    Rules, 47 C.F.R. § 22.99.

[^257]: 13 C.F.R. § 121.201, NAICS code 517212.

[^258]: 13 C.F.R. § 121.201, NAICS code 517212.

[^259]: *Amendment of the Commission's Rules Concerning Maritime
    Communications*, PR Docket No. 92-257, Third Report and Order and
    Memorandum Opinion and Order, 13 FCC Rcd 19853 (1998).

[^260]: This service is governed by Subpart I of Part 22 of the
    Commission's rules. *See* 47 C.F.R. §§ 22.1001-22.1037.

[^261]: 13 C.F.R. § 121.201, NAICS code 517212.

[^262]: *Id*.

[^263]: *See Amendment of the Commission's Rules Regarding the 37.0-38.6
    GHz and 38.6-40.0 GHz Bands*, ET Docket No. 95-183, Report and
    Order, 63 Fed. Reg. 6079 (Feb. 6, 1998).

[^264]: *Id.*

[^265]: *See* Letter to Kathleen O'Brien Ham, Chief, Auctions and
    Industry Analysis Division, Wireless Telecommunications Bureau, FCC,
    from Aida Alvarez, Administrator, SBA (Feb. 4, 1998).

[^266]: MDS, also known as Multichannel Multipoint Distribution Service
    ("MMDS"), is regulated by Part 21 of the Commission's rules; *see*
    47 C.F.R. Part 21, subpart K; and has been renamed the Broadband
    Radio Service (BRS); *see* *Amendment of Parts 1, 21, 73, 74 and 101
    of the Commission's Rules to Facilitate the Provision of Fixed and
    Mobile Broadband Access, Educational and Other Advanced Services in
    the 2150-2162 and 2500-2690 MHz Bands; Part 1 of the Commission\'s
    Rules - Further Competitive Bidding Procedures; Amendment of Parts
    21 and 74 to Enable Multipoint Distribution Service and the
    Instructional Television Fixed Service Amendment of Parts 21 and 74
    to Engage in Fixed Two-Way Transmissions; Amendment of Parts 21 and
    74 of the Commission\'s Rules With Regard to Licensing in the
    Multipoint Distribution Service and in the Instructional Television
    Fixed Service for the Gulf of Mexico*, 19 FCC Rcd 14165 (2004)
    (*MDS/ITFS Order*).

[^267]: ITFS systems are regulated by Part 74 of the Commission's rules;
    *see* 47 C.F.R. Part 74, subpart I. ITFS, an educational service,
    has been renamed the Educational Broadband Service (EBS); *see*
    *MDS/ITFS Order*, 19 FCC Rcd 14165. ITFS licensees, however, are
    permitted to lease spectrum for MDS operation.

[^268]: *See* *Annual Assessment of the Status of Competition in the
    Market for the Delivery of Video Programming, Eleventh Annual
    Report,* 20 FCC Rcd 2507, 2565, para. 131 (2006) ("*2006 Cable
    Competition Report*").

[^269]: *Id*.

[^270]: *See* Local Multipoint Distribution Service, 12 FCC Rcd 12545
    (1997).

[^271]: 13 C.F.R. § 121.201, NAICS code 517510.

[^272]: MDS Auction No. 6 began on November 13, 1995, and closed on
    March 28, 1996 (67 bidders won 493 licenses).

[^273]: 47 C.F.R. § 21.961(b)(1).

[^274]: *See ITFS* *Order*, 10 FCC Rcd at 9589.

[^275]: 47 U.S.C. § 309(j). Hundreds of stations were licensed to
    incumbent MDS licensees prior to implementation of Section 309(j) of
    the Communications Act of 1934, 47 U.S.C. § 309(j). For these
    pre-auction licenses, the applicable standard is SBA's small
    business size standards for "other telecommunications" (annual
    receipts of \$13.5 million or less). *See* 13 C.F.R. § 121.201,
    NAICS code 517910.

[^276]: In addition, the term "small entity" under SBREFA applies to
    small organizations (nonprofits) and to small governmental
    jurisdictions (cities, counties, towns, townships, villages, school
    districts, and special districts with populations of less than
    50,000). 5 U.S.C. §§ 601(4)-(6). We do not collect annual revenue
    data on ITFS licensees.

[^277]: The Commission has held two LMDS auctions: Auction 17 and
    Auction 23. Auction No. 17, the first LMDS auction, began on
    February 18, 1998, and closed on March 25, 1998. (104 bidders won
    864 licenses.) Auction No. 23, the LMDS re-auction, began on April
    27, 1999, and closed on May 12, 1999. (40 bidders won 161 licenses.)

[^278]: *See LMDS* *Order,* 12 FCC Rcd at 12545.

[^279]: *Id.*

[^280]: *See* Letter to Daniel Phythyon, Chief, Wireless
    Telecommunications Bureau (FCC) from A. Alvarez, Administrator, SBA
    (January 6, 1998).

[^281]: *See Local Multipoint Distribution Service*, Second Report and
    Order, 12 FCC Rcd 12545 (1997).

[^282]: *Id.*

[^283]: *See* *id*.

[^284]: *See* Letter to Dan Phythyon, Chief, Wireless Telecommunications
    Bureau, FCC, from Aida Alvarez, Administrator, SBA (Jan. 6, 1998).

[^285]: *Implementation of Section 309(j) of the Communications Act --
    Competitive Bidding*, PP Docket No. 93-253, Fourth Report and Order,
    59 Fed. Reg. 24947 (May 13, 1994).

[^286]: *Amendment of Part 95 of the Commission's Rules to Provide
    Regulatory Flexibility in the 218-219 MHz Service*, WT Docket No.
    98-169, Report and Order and Memorandum Opinion and Order, 64 Fed.
    Reg. 59656 (Nov. 3, 1999).

[^287]: *Amendment of Part 95 of the Commission's Rules to Provide
    Regulatory Flexibility in the 218-219 MHz Service*, WT Docket No.
    98-169, Report and Order and Memorandum Opinion and Order, 64 Fed.
    Reg. 59656 (Nov. 3, 1999).

[^288]: 13 C.F.R. § 121.201, NAICS code 513322 (changed to 517212 in
    October 2002).

[^289]: U.S. Census Bureau, 2002 Economic Census, Subject Series:
    "Information," Table 5, Employment Size of Firms for the United
    States: 2002, NAICS code 517212 (issued November 2005).

[^290]: *Id.* The census data do not provide a more precise estimate of
    the number of firms that have employment of 1,500 or fewer
    employees; the largest category provided is firms with "1000
    employees or more."

[^291]: Teligent acquired the DEMS licenses of FirstMark, the only
    licensee other than TRW in the 24 GHz band whose license has been
    modified to require relocation to the 24 GHz band.

[^292]: *Amendments to Parts 1,2, 87 and 101 of the Commission's Rules
    to License Fixed Services at 24 GHz*, Report and Order, 15 FCC Rcd
    16934, 16967 (2000); *see also* 47 C.F.R. § 101.538(a)(2).

[^293]: *Amendments to Parts 1,2, 87 and 101 of the Commission's Rules
    to License Fixed Services at 24 GHz*, Report and Order, 15 FCC Rcd
    16934, 16967 (2000); *see also* 47 C.F.R. § 101.538(a)(1).

[^294]: *See* Letter to Margaret W. Wiener, Deputy Chief, Auctions and
    Industry Analysis Division, Wireless Telecommunications Bureau, FCC,
    from Gary M. Jackson, Assistant Administrator, SBA (July 28, 2000).

[^295]: U.S. Census Bureau, 2002 NAICS Definitions, "517510 Cable and
    Other Program Distribution";
    <http://www.census.gov/epcd/naics02/def/NDEF517.HTM>.

[^296]: 13 C.F.R. § 121.201, NAICS code 517510.

[^297]: U.S. Census Bureau, 2002 Economic Census, Subject Series:
    Information, Table 4, Receipts Size of Firms for the United States:
    2002, NAICS code 517510 (issued November 2005).

[^298]: *Id*. An additional 61 firms had annual receipts of \$25 million
    or more.

[^299]: 47 C.F.R. § 76.901(e). The Commission determined that this size
    standard equates approximately to a size standard of \$100 million
    or less in annual revenues. *Implementation of Sections of the 1992
    Cable Act: Rate Regulation,* Sixth Report and Order and Eleventh
    Order on Reconsideration, 10 FCC Rcd 7393, 7408 (1995).

[^300]: These data are derived from: R.R. Bowker, *Broadcasting & Cable
    Yearbook 2006*, "Top 25 Cable/Satellite Operators," pages A-8 & C-2
    (data current as of June 30, 2005); Warren Communications News,
    *Television & Cable Factbook 2006*, "Ownership of Cable Systems in
    the United States," pages D-1805 to D-1857.

[^301]: 47 C.F.R. § 76.901(c).

[^302]: Warren Communications News, *Television & Cable Factbook 2006*,
    "U.S. Cable Systems by Subscriber Size," page F-2 (data current as
    of Oct. 2005). The data do not include 718 systems for which
    classifying data were not available.

[^303]: 47 U.S.C. § 543(m)(2); *see* 47 C.F.R. § 76.901(f) & nn. 1-3.

[^304]: 47 C.F.R. § 76.901(f); *see* Public Notice*, FCC Announces New
    Subscriber Count for the Definition of Small Cable Operator*, DA
    01‑158 (Cable Services Bureau, Jan. 24, 2001).

[^305]: These data are derived from: R.R. Bowker, *Broadcasting & Cable
    Yearbook 2006*, "Top 25 Cable/Satellite Operators," pages A-8 & C-2
    (data current as of June 30, 2005); Warren Communications News,
    *Television & Cable Factbook 2006*, "Ownership of Cable Systems in
    the United States," pages D-1805 to D-1857.

[^306]: The Commission does receive such information on a case-by-case
    basis if a cable operator appeals a local franchise authority's
    finding that the operator does not qualify as a small cable operator
    pursuant to § 76.901(f) of the Commission's rules. *See* 47 C.F.R. §
    76.909(b).

[^307]: *See* 47 U.S.C. § 573.

[^308]: 13 C.F.R. § 121.201, NAICS code 517510.

[^309]: *See* \<http://www.fcc.gov/csb/ovs/csovscer.html\> (current as
    of March 2002).

[^310]: U.S. Census Bureau, "2002 NAICS Definitions: 518111 Internet
    Service Providers";
    <http://www.census.gov/epcd/naics02/def/NDEF518.HTM>.

[^311]: 13 C.F.R. § 121.201, NAICS code 518111.

[^312]: U.S. Census Bureau, 2002 Economic Census, Subject Series:
    Information, "Establishment and Firm Size (Including Legal Form of
    Organization)," Table 4, NAICS code 518111 (issued Nov. 2005).

[^313]: U.S. Census Bureau, "2002 NAICS Definitions: 518112 Web Search
    Portals"; <http://www.census.gov/epcd/naics02/def/NDEF518.HTM>.

[^314]: 13 C.F.R. § 121.201, NAICS code 518112.

[^315]: U.S. Census Bureau, 2002 Economic Census, Subject Series:
    Information, "Establishment and Firm Size (Including Legal Form of
    Organization)," Table 4, NAICS code 518112 (issued Nov. 2005).

[^316]: U.S. Census Bureau, "2002 NAICS Definitions: 518210 Data
    Processing, Hosting, and Related Services";
    <http://www.census.gov/epcd/naics02/def/NDEF518.HTM>.

[^317]: 13 C.F.R. § 121.201, NAICS code 518210.

[^318]: U.S. Census Bureau, 2002 Economic Census, Subject Series:
    Information, "Establishment and Firm Size (Including Legal Form of
    Organization)," Table 4, NAICS code 518210 (issued Nov. 2005).

[^319]: U.S. Census Bureau, "2002 NAICS Definitions: 519190 All Other
    Information Services";
    <http://www.census.gov/epcd/naics02/def/NDEF519.HTM>.

[^320]: 13 C.F.R. § 121.201, NAICS code 519190.

[^321]: U.S. Census Bureau, 1997 Economic Census, Subject Series:
    Information, "Establishment and Firm Size (Including Legal Form of
    Organization)," Table 4, NAICS code 519190 (issued Nov. 2005).

[^322]: U.S. Census Bureau, "2002 NAICS Definitions: 516110 Internet
    Publishing and Broadcasting";
    <http://www.census.gov/epcd/naics02/def/NDEF516.HTM>.

[^323]: 13 C.F.R. § 121.201, NAICS code 516110.

[^324]: U.S. Census Bureau, 2002 Economic Census, Subject Series:
    Information, "Establishment and Firm Size (Including Legal Form of
    Organization)," Table 5, NAICS code 516110 (issued Nov. 2005).

[^325]: *See* U.S. Census Bureau, "2002 NAICS Definitions: 511210
    Software Publishers";
    <http://www.census.gov/epcd/naics02/def/NDEF511.HTM>.

[^326]: 13 C.F.R. § 121.201, NAICS codes 511210, 541511, and 541519.

[^327]: U.S. Census Bureau, 2002 Economic Census, Subject Series:
    Information, "Establishment and Firm Size (Including Legal Form of
    Organization)," Table 4, NAICS code 511210 (issued Nov. 2005).

[^328]: U.S. Census Bureau, 2002 Economic Census, Subject Series:
    Professional, Scientific, and Technical Services, "Establishment and
    Firm Size (Including Legal Form of Organization)," Table 4, NAICS
    code 541511 (issued Nov. 2005).

[^329]: U.S. Census Bureau, 2002 Economic Census, Subject Series:
    Professional, Scientific, and Technical Services, "Establishment and
    Firm Size (Including Legal Form of Organization)," Table 4, NAICS
    code 541519 (issued Nov. 2005).

[^330]: U.S. Census Bureau, 2002 NAICS Definitions, "334210 Telephone
    Apparatus Manufacturing";
    <http://www.census.gov/epcd/naics02/def/NDEF334.HTM#N3342>.

[^331]: 13 C.F.R. § 121.201, NAICS code 334210.

[^332]: U.S. Census Bureau, American FactFinder, 2002 Economic Census,
    Industry Series, Industry Statistics by Employment Size, NAICS code
    334210 (released May 26, 2005);
    [http://factfinder.census.gov](http://factfinder.census.gov/). The
    number of "establishments" is a less helpful indicator of small
    business prevalence in this context than would be the number of
    "firms" or "companies," because the latter take into account the
    concept of common ownership or control. Any single physical location
    for an entity is an establishment, even though that location may be
    owned by a different establishment. Thus, the numbers given may
    reflect inflated numbers of businesses in this category, including
    the numbers of small businesses. In this category, the Census
    breaks-out data for firms or companies only to give the total number
    of such entities for 2002, which was 450.

[^333]: *Id*. An additional 4 establishments had employment of 2,500 or
    more.

[^334]: U.S. Census Bureau, 2002 NAICS Definitions, "334220 Radio and
    Television Broadcasting and Wireless Communications Equipment
    Manufacturing";
    <http://www.census.gov/epcd/naics02/def/NDEF334.HTM#N3342>.

[^335]: 13 C.F.R. § 121.201, NAICS code 334220.

[^336]: U.S. Census Bureau, American FactFinder, 2002 Economic Census,
    Industry Series, Industry Statistics by Employment Size, NAICS code
    334220 (released May 26, 2005);
    [http://factfinder.census.gov](http://factfinder.census.gov/). The
    number of "establishments" is a less helpful indicator of small
    business prevalence in this context than would be the number of
    "firms" or "companies," because the latter take into account the
    concept of common ownership or control. Any single physical location
    for an entity is an establishment, even though that location may be
    owned by a different establishment. Thus, the numbers given may
    reflect inflated numbers of businesses in this category, including
    the numbers of small businesses. In this category, the Census breaks
    out data for firms or companies only to give the total number of
    such entities for 2002, which was 929.

[^337]: *Id*. An additional 18 establishments had employment of 1,000 or
    more.

[^338]: U.S. Census Bureau, 2002 NAICS Definitions, "334290 Other
    Communications Equipment Manufacturing";
    <http://www.census.gov/epcd/naics02/def/NDEF334.HTM#N3342>.

[^339]: 13 C.F.R. § 121.201, NAICS code 334290.

[^340]: U.S. Census Bureau, American FactFinder, 2002 Economic Census,
    Industry Series, Industry Statistics by Employment Size, NAICS code
    334290 (released May 26, 2005);
    [http://factfinder.census.gov](http://factfinder.census.gov/). The
    number of "establishments" is a less helpful indicator of small
    business prevalence in this context than would be the number of
    "firms" or "companies," because the latter take into account the
    concept of common ownership or control. Any single physical location
    for an entity is an establishment, even though that location may be
    owned by a different establishment. Thus, the numbers given may
    reflect inflated numbers of businesses in this category, including
    the numbers of small businesses. In this category, the Census breaks
    out data for firms or companies only to give the total number of
    such entities for 2002, which was 471.

[^341]: *Id*. An additional 3 establishments had employment of 1,000 or
    more.

[^342]: U.S. Census Bureau, 2002 NAICS Definitions, "334111 Electronic
    Computer Manufacturing";
    <http://www.census.gov/epcd/naics02/def/ND334111.HTM#N334111>.

[^343]: 13 C.F.R. § 121.201, NAICS code 334111.

[^344]: U.S. Census Bureau, 2002 Economic Census, Industry Series:
    Manufacturing, "Electronic Computer Manufacturing," Table 4, NAICS
    code 334111 (issued Dec. 2004).

[^345]: U.S. Census Bureau, 2002 NAICS Definitions, "334112 Computer
    Storage Device Manufacturing";
    <http://www.census.gov/epcd/naics02/def/ND334112.HTM#N334112>.

[^346]: 13 C.F.R. § 121.201, NAICS code 334112.

[^347]: U.S. Census Bureau, 2002 Economic Census, Industry Series:
    Manufacturing, "Computer Storage Device Manufacturing," Table 4,
    NAICS code 334112 (issued Dec. 2004).

[^348]: U.S. Census Bureau, 2002 NAICS Definitions, "334113 Computer
    Terminal Manufacturing";
    <http://www.census.gov/epcd/naics02/def/ND334113.HTM#N334113>.

[^349]: 13 C.F.R. § 121.201, NAICS code 334113.

[^350]: U.S. Census Bureau, 2002 Economic Census, Industry Series:
    Manufacturing, "Computer Terminal Manufacturing," Table 4, NAICS
    code 334113 (issued Dec. 2004). In fact, all had employment of under
    500.

[^351]: U.S. Census Bureau, 2002 NAICS Definitions, "334119 Other
    Computer Peripheral Equipment Manufacturing";
    <http://www.census.gov/epcd/naics02/def/ND334119.HTM#N334119>.

[^352]: 13 C.F.R. § 121.201, NAICS code 334119.

[^353]: U.S. Census Bureau, 2002 Economic Census, Industry Series:
    Manufacturing, "Other Computer Peripheral Equipment Manufacturing,"
    Table 4, NAICS code 334119 (issued Dec. 2004).

[^354]: U.S. Census Bureau, 2002 NAICS Definitions, "334310 Audio and
    Video Equipment Manufacturing";
    <http://www.census.gov/epcd/naics02/def/ND334310.HTM#N334310>.

[^355]: 13 C.F.R. § 121.201, NAICS code 334310.

[^356]: U.S. Census Bureau, 2002 Economic Census, Industry Series:
    Manufacturing, "Audio and Video Equipment Manufacturing," Table 4,
    NAICS code 334310 (issued Dec. 2004).

[^357]: U.S. Census Bureau, 2002 NAICS Definitions, "334411 Electron
    Tube Manufacturing";
    <http://www.census.gov/epcd/naics02/def/ND334411.HTM#N334411>.

[^358]: 13 C.F.R. § 121.201, NAICS code 334411.

[^359]: U.S. Census Bureau, 2002 Economic Census, Industry Series:
    Manufacturing, "Electron Tube Manufacturing," Table 4, NAICS code
    334411 (issued Dec. 2004).

[^360]: U.S. Census Bureau, 2002 NAICS Definitions, "334412 Bare Printed
    Circuit Board Manufacturing";
    <http://www.census.gov/epcd/naics02/def/ND334412.HTM#N334412>.

[^361]: 13 C.F.R. § 121.201, NAICS code 334412.

[^362]: U.S. Census Bureau, 2002 Economic Census, Industry Series:
    Manufacturing, "Bare Printed Circuit Board Manufacturing," Table 4,
    NAICS code 334412 (issued Jan. 2005).

[^363]: U.S. Census Bureau, 2002 NAICS Definitions, "334413
    Semiconductor and Related Device Manufacturing";
    <http://www.census.gov/epcd/naics02/def/ND334413.HTM#N334413>.

[^364]: 13 C.F.R. § 121.201, NAICS code 334413.

[^365]: U.S. Census Bureau, 2002 Economic Census, Industry Series:
    Manufacturing, "Semiconductor and Related Device Manufacturing ,"
    Table 4, NAICS code 334413 (issued Jan. 2005).

[^366]: U.S. Census Bureau, 2002 NAICS Definitions, "334414 Electronic
    Capacitor Manufacturing";
    <http://www.census.gov/epcd/naics02/def/ND334414.HTM#N334414>.

[^367]: 13 C.F.R. § 121.201, NAICS code 334414.

[^368]: U.S. Census Bureau, 2002 Economic Census, Industry Series:
    Manufacturing, "Electronic Capacitor Manufacturing," Table 4, NAICS
    code 334414 (issued Jan. 2005).

[^369]: U.S. Census Bureau, 2002 NAICS Definitions, "334415 Electronic
    Resistor Manufacturing";
    <http://www.census.gov/epcd/naics02/def/ND334415.HTM#N334415>.

[^370]: 13 C.F.R. § 121.201, NAICS code 334415.

[^371]: U.S. Census Bureau, 2002 Economic Census, Industry Series:
    Manufacturing, "Electronic Resistor Manufacturing," Table 4, NAICS
    code 334415 (issued Jan. 2005).

[^372]: U.S. Census Bureau, 2002 NAICS Definitions, "334416 Electronic
    Coil, Transformer, and Other Inductor Manufacturing";
    <http://www.census.gov/epcd/naics02/def/ND334416.HTM#N334416>.

[^373]: 13 C.F.R. § 121.201, NAICS code 334416.

[^374]: U.S. Census Bureau, 2002 Economic Census, Industry Series:
    Manufacturing, "Electronic Coil, Transformer, and Other Inductor
    Manufacturing," Table 4, NAICS code 334416 (issued Jan. 2005).

[^375]: U.S. Census Bureau, 2002 NAICS Definitions, "334417 Electronic
    Connector Manufacturing";
    <http://www.census.gov/epcd/naics02/def/ND334417.HTM#N334417>.

[^376]: 13 C.F.R. § 121.201, NAICS code 334417.

[^377]: U.S. Census Bureau, 2002 Economic Census, Industry Series:
    Manufacturing, "Electronic Connector Manufacturing," Table 4, NAICS
    code 334417 (issued Jan. 2005).

[^378]: U.S. Census Bureau, 2002 NAICS Definitions, "334418 Printed
    Circuit Assembly (Electronic Assembly) Manufacturing";
    <http://www.census.gov/epcd/naics02/def/ND334418.HTM#N334418>.

[^379]: 13 C.F.R. § 121.201, NAICS code 334418.

[^380]: U.S. Census Bureau, 2002 Economic Census, Industry Series:
    Manufacturing, "Printed Circuit Assembly (Electronic Assembly)
    Manufacturing," Table 4, NAICS code 334418 (issued Jan. 2005).

[^381]: U.S. Census Bureau, 2002 NAICS Definitions, "334419 Other
    Electronic Component Manufacturing";
    <http://www.census.gov/epcd/naics02/def/ND334419.HTM#N334419>.

[^382]: 13 C.F.R. § 121.201, NAICS code 334419.

[^383]: U.S. Census Bureau, 2002 Economic Census, Industry Series:
    Manufacturing, "Other Electronic Component Manufacturing," Table 4,
    NAICS code 334419 (issued Jan. 2005).

[^384]: U.S. Census Bureau, 2002 NAICS Definitions, "335921 Fiber Optic
    Cable Manufacturing";
    <http://www.census.gov/epcd/naics02/def/ND335921.HTM#N335921>.

[^385]: 13 C.F.R. § 121.201, NAICS code 335921.

[^386]: U.S. Census Bureau, 2002 Economic Census, Industry Series:
    Manufacturing, "Fiber Optic Cable Manufacturing," Table 4, NAICS
    code 335921 (issued Dec. 2004).

[^387]: U.S. Census Bureau, 2002 NAICS Definitions, "335929 Other
    Communication and Energy Wire Manufacturing";
    <http://www.census.gov/epcd/naics02/def/ND335929.HTM#N335929>.

[^388]: 13 C.F.R. § 121.201, NAICS code 335929.

[^389]: U.S. Census Bureau, 2002 Economic Census, Industry Series:
    Manufacturing, "Other Communication and Energy Wire Manufacturing,"
    Table 4, NAICS code 335929 (issued Dec. 2004).

[^390]: *See Order* at paras. 16-20, 25-31.

[^391]: *See Order* at paras. 16, 32-33, 36-40.

[^392]: 5 U.S.C. § 603(c).

[^393]: *See* 5 U.S.C. § 801(a)(1)(A).

[^394]: *See* 5 U.S.C. § 604(b).