Before the

**Federal Communications Commission**

**Washington, D.C. 20554**

+----------------------------------+---+------------------------------+
| In the Matter of                 | * | CC Docket No. 99-301         |
|                                  | * |                              |
| Local Competition and Broadband  | ) |                              |
| Reporting                        | * |                              |
|                                  | * |                              |
|                                  |   |                              |
|                                  | * |                              |
|                                  | * |                              |
|                                  | ) |                              |
|                                  | * |                              |
|                                  | * |                              |
|                                  |   |                              |
|                                  | * |                              |
|                                  | * |                              |
|                                  | ) |                              |
|                                  | * |                              |
|                                  | * |                              |
|                                  |   |                              |
|                                  | * |                              |
|                                  | * |                              |
|                                  | ) |                              |
|                                  | * |                              |
|                                  | * |                              |
|                                  |   |                              |
|                                  | * |                              |
|                                  | * |                              |
|                                  | ) |                              |
|                                  | * |                              |
|                                  | * |                              |
+----------------------------------+---+------------------------------+

**REPORT AND ORDER**

**Adopted:** March 24, 2000 **Released:** March 30, 2000

By the Commission:

**TABLE OF CONTENTS** Paragraph

I. INTRODUCTION 1

II\. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY 7

III\. BACKGROUND 8

IV\. LOCAL COMPETITION AND BROADBAND REPORTING 11

A. Types of Entities That Must Report 19

1\. Background 19

2\. Overview 21

3\. Entities Reporting Broadband Data 22

4\. Entities Reporting Local Competition Data 28

B. Exempting Smaller Entities 34

1\. Background 34

2\. Overview 35

3\. Threshold for Broadband Reporting 39

4\. Threshold for Local Competition Reporting 41

C. Definition of Reporting Area 48

D. Frequency of Reports 55

E. Data to be Reported 60

1\. Background 60

2\. Overview 61

3\. Data on Broadband Deployment 66

4\. Data on Local Competition 75

F. Confidentiality of Data 86

G. Electronic Filing 97

H. Survey Modification and Termination 102

I. Outreach and Enforcement 105

V. PROCEDURAL MATTERS 108

A. Final Paperwork Reduction Act Analysis 108

B. Final Regulatory Flexibility Act Analysis 110

VI\. ORDERING CLAUSES 111

APPENDIX A - RULES AMENDED

APPENDIX B - LOCAL COMPETITION AND BROADBAND REPORTING FORM

APPENDIX C -- FINAL REGULATORY FLEXIBILITY ANALYSIS

APPENDIX D - LIST OF COMMENTERS

# INTRODUCTION 

1.  Number range level0Number range level1Number range level2Number
    range level3Number range level4Number range level5Number range
    level6Number range level7In this Report and Order, we adopt rules
    and a standardized form (FCC Form 477) to collect basic information
    about two critical and dynamic areas of the communications industry:
    the development of local telephone service competition and the
    deployment of broadband services. Access to this information will
    materially improve our ability to develop, evaluate, and revise
    policy in these rapidly changing areas and will provide valuable
    benchmarks for Congress, this Commission, other policy makers, and
    consumers. More broadly stated, we conclude that this information
    will make more effective our actions to implement the
    pro-competitive, deregulatory provisions of the Telecommunications
    Act of 1996 (1996 Act).[^1]

2.  The 1996 Act directs the Commission to take actions to open all
    telecommunications markets to competition and seeks to promote
    innovation and investment by all participants, including new
    entrants.[^2] A central task in creating this new framework is the
    opening of previously monopolized local telecommunications
    markets.[^3] By collecting timely and reliable information about the
    pace and extent of competition for local telephone service in
    different geographic areas \-- including rural areas \-- we
    significantly improve our ability to evaluate the effectiveness of
    actions the Commission and the states are taking to reduce economic
    and operational barriers to entry into those local markets. Such
    knowledge is a critical precursor to our ability to substantially or
    even totally deregulate as it becomes clear that markets are
    competitive.

3.  Moreover, this information collection program will also enable us to
    better assess the availability of broadband services such as
    high-speed Internet access, so that we can better satisfy our duty
    to encourage the deployment of advanced telecommunications
    capability as Congress directed us to do in section 706 of the 1996
    Act.[^4] We concluded our first report on the deployment of advanced
    telecommunications capability in February 1999, at which time we
    committed to monitoring advanced telecommunications deployment
    through annual reports.[^5] We also stated our intention to improve
    and expand upon the data that we receive.[^6]

4.  We recently initiated our second inquiry into the deployment of
    advanced telecommunications capability.[^7] In the *Second Advanced
    Telecommunications NOI*, we explicitly stated our intention to use
    information collected through this fact and data gathering program
    in the future section 706 reports. Indeed, it is our expectation
    that this data will enhance our subsequent annual reports and
    facilitate a more comprehensive understanding of the deployment of
    advanced telecommunications capabilities and broadband services,
    particularly in rural areas.[^8]

5.  Gathering data about the development of competition for local
    telephone service and broadband deployment will help us to achieve
    the complementary goal reflected in the 1996 Act of reducing
    government regulation wherever possible. For example, section 10(b)
    requires the Commission to \"consider whether forbearance from
    enforcing the provision or regulation will promote competitive
    market conditions, including the extent to which such forbearance
    will enhance competition among providers of telecommunications
    services.\"[^9] Similarly, section 11 requires the Commission to
    undertake regular reviews of our existing regulations with a view
    towards their elimination. In relevant part, section 11 directs the
    Commission to \"determine whether any . . . regulation is no longer
    necessary in the public interest as the result of meaningful
    economic competition between providers of such service.\"[^10] In
    order to satisfy these directives, we need a factual basis to
    evaluate the nature and impact of our existing regulation and, in
    particular, to identify areas where competition has developed
    sufficiently to justify deregulation. The data obtained in this
    collection will go far toward developing such an understanding.

6.  In crafting this information collection, we seek to minimize the
    burdens imposed and thus, we limit this effort to specifically
    targeted information. We focus on easily-quantifiable and
    readily-available statistics that will reflect the level of service
    \-- local telephony and broadband \-- that is actually provided by
    incumbents and new entrants. We also take steps to reduce the
    burdens associated with this request for small entities, for
    example, by exempting the smallest service providers from reporting.
    We also state our intention to work with small service providers, as
    issues arise, to facilitate reporting procedures that may have
    unanticipated, disparate effects on them. We rely heavily on the
    input of commenters, including many service providers that will
    report pursuant to this program, which has helped us to refine and
    clarify our data request. Indeed, we believe that the final rules we
    adopt here will present a significantly lower burden for service
    providers than the proposal offered in the Notice which initiated
    this proceeding.[^11] Although there may be additional information
    that could prove useful to our tasks, we understand that we cannot,
    in one data collection, gather all of the information relevant to
    every possible future proceeding. Instead, we expect to obtain a
    baseline of knowledge and understanding about the market for local
    telephony and broadband services that will both guide us in
    assessing the overall effectiveness of our actions and will enable
    us to ask for more specifically targeted information in discrete
    proceedings before this Commission. We believe that we have
    distilled our proposal down to that information which is most
    essential to tracking the development of local competition and the
    deployment of broadband service to American consumers. Moreover, and
    most telling about our goals for this proceeding, we also take
    affirmative steps to ensure that the information collection does not
    outlive its usefulness by adopting a sunset provision that will
    terminate the reporting requirement after five years, unless the
    Commission affirmatively acts to extend it.

7.  Finally, we express appreciation to our colleagues in state public
    utility commissions for their contributions to this effort, both by
    filing comments in this proceeding and through their close
    coordination with our staff. Through this partnership, we have
    developed a carefully tailored federal reporting requirement that we
    expect should be useful to the states in evaluating their own
    policies and, in coordination with the Section 706 Joint
    Conference[^12] and the state commissions, we hope to develop a
    "best practices" approach which will harmonize any reporting
    requirements adopted by the state commissions.

# EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

[Overview]{.underline}

-   We adopt a standardized form (FCC Form 477)[^13] for collecting this
    information. The form is structured to include separate sections on
    deployment of broadband services, local telephone service
    competition, and provision of mobile telephony services. We only
    require providers to complete the portions of the form for which
    they exceed the reporting thresholds.

-   We require service providers to report data, in accordance with the
    FCC Form 477, on a state-by-state basis. To develop a more nuanced
    understanding of local telephone competition and broadband
    deployment, we direct providers to compile a list of the Zip Codes
    in which they offer local telephony and broadband services for each
    state in which they complete a form.

-   We decide that we can best balance our need for timely information
    with our desire to minimize the reporting burden on respondents by
    requiring providers to report data on a semi-annual basis.

-   We conclude that we can exempt from reporting certain of the
    smallest service providers without materially affecting our ability
    to effectively assess the development of local telephone competition
    and the deployment of broadband services. We adopt separate
    thresholds for reporting data on competition for local telephone
    services and for reporting data on broadband services.

[Broadband Reporting]{.underline}

-   We require facilities-based providers of broadband services
    (including incumbent and competitive LECs, cable companies, MMDS
    providers, other fixed wireless providers, terrestrial and satellite
    mobile wireless providers, utilities, government entities, and
    others) to report data about the status of broadband deployment. We
    exclude resellers of broadband services from this information
    collection.

-   We decide that any facilities-based firm that provides at least 250
    full or one-way broadband service lines (or wireless channels) in a
    given state, or has at least 250 full or one-way broadband customers
    in a given state, should be required to complete applicable portions
    of the form for that state.

[Local Competition Reporting]{.underline}

-   We require incumbent and competitive local exchange carriers (LECs)
    to report data about their provision of local exchange and exchange
    access services. This obligation applies without regard to the type
    of technology utilized by the LEC in delivering these services and
    without regard to the carrier's use of entry strategy (i.e.,
    facilities-based, pure resale, or hybrid). We also require certain
    facilities-based providers of mobile telephony services to
    participate, to a limited extent, in this data collection program.

-   We decide, for purposes of reporting local competition data, that
    incumbent and competitive LECs need only complete forms for states
    in which they provide 10,000 or more voice-grade equivalent lines or
    wireless channels.

# BACKGROUND

8.  Notwithstanding the importance of gathering timely and reliable
    information about the development of local competition and broadband
    deployment, we have not, heretofore, imposed mandatory data
    reporting requirements. We have, however, undertaken several
    initiatives to enhance our general understanding of the evolving
    nature of local competition and on the deployment of broadband
    services.[^14] For example, the Common Carrier Bureau (Bureau)
    developed a short survey about the status of local competition and
    conducted several rounds of voluntary surveys, initially from a
    small group of incumbent LECs and eventually expanded to include
    more incumbents and a small number of competitive LECs.[^15]

9.  In the *First Advanced Telecommunications Report*, we sought to
    provide an objective and detailed snapshot of the broadband
    industry, at that point in its infancy, and an overview of the
    technical and public policy issues related to this dynamic market.
    Following release of the *First Advanced Telecommunications Report*,
    we have taken additional steps to improve our understanding of the
    broadband industry.[^16] For example, the Cable Services Bureau
    released a staff report on the state of the broadband industry based
    on monitoring sessions it held with key stakeholders, including
    representatives from Internet service providers, online service
    providers, local exchange carriers, long distance telephone
    companies, cable operators, community organizations, financial
    analysts, academics and local franchising authorities.[^17] **\
    **

10. On October 7, 1999, we proposed to formalize our monitoring efforts
    in the *Local Competition and Broadband Reporting Notice*, which
    initiated this proceeding.[^18] In that Notice, we proposed an
    information collection program that would allow us to gather
    comprehensive and reliable data about the status of local
    competition and the deployment of broadband services.[^19] We sought
    comment on all aspects of that proposal, including our tentative
    conclusions about the type of service providers that should report,
    exemptions for smaller entities, frequency of reporting, data to be
    reported, and even the methods (such as electronic filing) of
    reporting.[^20] In response to the Notice, we received comment from
    over forty parties, including comments from carriers and other
    non-carrier entities that fell within the scope of our proposed
    reporting requirement, state public utility commissions, and
    consumer advocates.[^21]

# LOCAL COMPETITION AND BROADBAND REPORTING

11. Based on our experience implementing the 1996 Act and our desire to
    develop a reliable and empirical understanding about the development
    of competition for local telephone service[^22] and the deployment
    of advanced telecommunications services, we conclude that gathering
    comprehensive and consistent information from local
    telecommunications and broadband service providers is critical to
    our regulatory responsibilities. Accordingly, we adopt rules that
    require certain providers of local telecommunications and broadband
    services to report about the status of their service
    deployment.[^23] As a vehicle for collecting this data consistently
    and efficiently, we also adopt a Local Competition and Broadband
    Reporting form, which is attached as Appendix B.[^24] In adopting
    these rules and this form, it is our overarching belief that access
    to this information will improve our ability to make an informed
    evaluation of what is actually happening in markets and, thus, to
    deregulate where possible.[^25]

```{=html}
<!-- -->
```
12. The record in this proceeding supports our view that the information
    collection program adopted here will directly and materially advance
    our ability to develop, evaluate, and revise broad policies and
    specific regulations affecting the development of local telephone
    competition and the deployment of broadband services.[^26] We
    conclude that a better understanding of the pattern and speed of
    local telephone competition should enable us to assess more
    precisely regulatory actions taken in connection with sections 251
    and 252 of the Act, including actions by the Commission and the
    states concerning the availability of unbundled network elements and
    the implementation of pricing methodologies. Similarly, we agree
    with the many commenters that note the value of this information in
    identifying situations where exercise of the Commission's
    forbearance authority may be appropriate.[^27] We disagree with
    AT&T's conclusion that the Commission should seek data on local
    telecommunications competition only in the context of discrete
    rulemaking proceedings.[^28] To the contrary, and in addition to the
    uses noted above, we conclude that the data collected in this
    proceeding will serve as a valuable benchmark for comparison with
    data filed by commenters \-- often with vested interest in
    particular outcomes \-- in discrete proceedings. We believe that the
    data collected here will improve and better inform our analysis in a
    variety of proceedings, such as applications for in-region,
    interLATA service under section 271,[^29] merger review and
    compliance,[^30] and pricing flexibility decisions.[^31]

13. Similarly, gathering data on broadband deployment in a systematic
    fashion should yield comparable benefits. Our Congressionally
    mandated efforts to assess the availability of advanced
    telecommunications capability to all Americans will be substantially
    aided by a regular and consistent survey of current broadband
    deployment. This collection will allow us to monitor broadband
    deployment by a wide variety of entities that might not otherwise
    participate in a section 706 proceeding and should provide us with a
    more objective and comprehensive view of broadband deployment.
    Moreover, we find support for our conclusions about the need for a
    mandatory collection program in the comments of many potential
    respondents.[^32] We recognize that additional inquiry will continue
    to be necessary, for example, through the *Second Advanced
    Telecommunications NOI* and through less formal processes, such as
    the monitoring sessions employed by the Cable Services Bureau in
    preparation for the recent *Broadband Today* report. For example,
    because this information collection focuses on actual provision of
    service, we may need to take additional steps to examine other
    aspects of broadband "deployment" and "availability," such as
    infrastructure deployment.[^33] We nevertheless expect that this
    reporting requirement will provide a baseline for understanding the
    state of the broadband market that will help refine those efforts.

14. We adopt our tentative conclusion that only a comprehensively
    imposed, mandatory data collection effort will provide us with a set
    of data of uniform quality and reliability.[^34] In our experience,
    other publicly available information sources present less than
    complete pictures of actual conditions and trends in developing
    local telephone service markets and in the deployment of broadband.
    Nor do we find, among the publicly available sources suggested by
    commenters, the type of regular, consistent and comprehensive data
    necessary to illustrate developments in these markets.[^35] Several
    commenters suggest, for example, that we rely on company reports to
    shareholders and to other regulatory agencies, or on the studies
    prepared by private consulting firms that are based on such company
    reports.[^36] We find these sources to be incomplete and
    inconsistent.[^37] Providers may rely on a variety of different
    measures that are not easily reconcilable in reporting information
    such as the number and capacity of lines in service.[^38] Among
    LECs, some may report information, such as the share of total access
    lines provided solely over their own facilities, in greater detail
    than other providers report.[^39] It is also our experience that
    publicly available reports often contain data reflecting incongruent
    time periods. For example, some publicly available reports are based
    on calendar year data, while others are based on fiscal year or
    other data. Moreover, financial and investment analysts tend to
    collect more complete information about publicly traded companies
    than about privately held companies, and may choose to analyze
    closely only a subset of companies.[^40] Perhaps as a result of this
    focus, analyst reports tend to lack data concerning developments in
    rural and underserved markets and by smaller companies.

15. We further conclude that voluntary surveys are an inadequate source
    of data, given our desire to obtain comprehensive information about
    the development of these markets that will be comparable over time.
    In this regard, we disagree with commenters that urge us to continue
    and expand the Bureau's prior voluntary survey.[^41] While the
    Bureau\'s voluntary surveys yielded some useful information about
    evolving patterns of local competition, we conclude that the
    benefits of a mandatory program far exceed the incremental costs of
    imposing such a requirement. The Notice described our concerns about
    the level of participation and, to some degree, the accuracy and
    consistency of the data filed in the voluntary program.[^42] We
    found, in particular, that competitive LECs declined to participate
    in the Bureau\'s voluntary survey. In the course of the four
    voluntary surveys in which the Bureau invited a dozen competitive
    LECs to participate, only one competitive LEC participated
    consistently, and three of the largest competitive LECs did not
    participate at all.[^43] The refusal of such a large portion of
    invited competitive LECs to provide data on a voluntary basis left
    significant gaps in the data obtained and limited our ability to
    draw meaningful conclusions about the development of competition for
    local telephone service. Moreover, we observed that even carriers
    that participated actively in the voluntary surveys informed us that
    they are not interested in participating in long-term voluntary
    efforts without the required participation of a more comprehensive
    set of providers.[^44] Thus, CompTel's assurances that competitive
    LECs would be willing to participate in a voluntary survey
    notwithstanding, we conclude that a mandatory requirement will lead
    to more consistent and accurate reporting.[^45] We expect that a
    mandatory information collection from a broad array of providers
    will enable us to draw specific, reliable, and accurate conclusions
    about the state of local competition and broadband deployment in
    particular geographic markets \-- conclusions that we can document
    over time.

16. Our conclusions about the need for a systematic data collection are
    bolstered by a February 1999 resolution of the National Association
    of Regulatory Utility Commissioners (NARUC), in which NARUC
    \"supports federal efforts to collect consistent data on local
    competition and broadband deployment on a state-by-state
    basis.\"[^46] NARUC observed, and we agree, that reliable
    information is required if state and federal regulators are to
    fashion consistent, harmonious policies to carry out Congress\'s
    directive to encourage local telephone competition and the
    widespread deployment of broadband services.[^47] We also note that
    NARUC has recently called again for a federal information collection
    about the status of local telephone competition and the deployment
    of broadband services.[^48] Indeed, given our commitment to work
    with state and local governments to develop policies to promote the
    deployment of advanced services,[^49] we take particular note of the
    supportive comments filed by the Arkansas Commission and the
    Tennessee Office of the Attorney General.

17. We find unpersuasive the arguments of some commenters that the
    Commission should rely on state data collection efforts, in lieu of
    creating a federal program.[^50] Again, we think that the resolution
    adopted by NARUC and the comments filed on behalf of state
    governments are telling about the need for a comprehensive *federal*
    program. We recognize that various states have implemented local
    competition reporting requirements and that some of these state
    programs ask for information similar to that we seek here.[^51]
    Nothing in the record, however, contradicts our understanding that
    these state programs are not uniform and differ sufficiently so that
    carriers serving different states may need to keep multiple sets of
    records in order to meet similar, but not identical, reporting
    requirements. We remain convinced that a properly designed federal
    program can complement state efforts and end up reducing the
    reporting burdens imposed, overall, on carriers. By making data
    available to state commissions pursuant to the procedures
    articulated in this Order,[^52] we hope to provide states with
    valuable empirical information about the status of local
    telecommunications competition and broadband deployment in their
    states. With access to this information, some states may find it
    possible to revise their existing reporting requirements or to
    refrain from adopting new or additional requirements. Moreover, we
    look forward to developing, in coordination with the Section 706
    Joint Conference and our colleagues in the state commissions, a
    "best practices" approach for uniform reporting data on the status
    of local competition and broadband deployment.[^53]

18. For all these reasons, we conclude that only a mandatory and
    systematic collection of local competition and broadband deployment
    information will provide the comprehensive and consistent set of
    data that we require to carry out our statutory mandates. While we
    fully intend to supplement this data with non-duplicative data from
    Commission, state and other public sources, we believe that the data
    gathered through this program is not available elsewhere and,
    moreover, will provide a necessary baseline for accurately analyzing
    the future development of local competition and broadband
    deployment. We set out below the individual elements of the data
    collection program, as formalized in our rules and as embodied in
    the attached form (FCC Form 477).

## Types of Entities That Must Report

### Background

19. In the Notice, we tentatively concluded that we should collect data
    from a wide range of broadband providers.[^54] We noted our earlier
    determination that, as the benchmark for assessing the availability
    of advanced telecommunications capability, we should define "full
    broadband" services as having information carrying capacity of over
    200 Kilobits per second (Kbps) in each direction,
    simultaneously.[^55] Using the benchmark, we proposed that any
    entity that either has a defined number of full broadband service
    lines (or wireless channels) nationwide, or has a defined number of
    full broadband subscribers nationwide, should be required to
    complete all relevant parts of the form, regardless of whether that
    entity meets the criteria for reporting local competition data.[^56]

20. In addition, we tentatively concluded that we should collect data
    concerning the development of competition for local telephone
    service from large and medium incumbent LECs[^57] -- as well as
    their wireline and fixed wireless competitors, and also their mobile
    wireless telephony potential competitors.[^58] Moreover, we
    tentatively concluded that the obligation to complete the form
    should not depend on the type of technology that an incumbent LEC or
    competitive LEC uses to provide local telephone service.[^59] We
    also tentatively decided to collect data from carriers that provide
    mobile telephony services because of their potential to become
    substitutes for wireline service.[^60]

### Overview

21. Based on our understanding of the development of competition for
    local telephone service and the deployment of broadband services, we
    adopt rules that identify which local telecommunications and
    broadband service providers must comply with this data collection
    program.[^61] In determining the reach of this reporting
    requirement, we balance our need to collect reliable and
    comprehensive data with our desire to minimize reporting burdens,
    particularly for smaller entities that may lack significant
    resources to devote to regulatory compliance.[^62] We are also
    mindful of differences in the development of competition for local
    exchange services and the deployment of broadband services. For
    example, section 706 requires us to monitor the deployment of
    advanced telecommunications capabilities regardless of the
    technology or transmission media employed,[^63] and we anticipate
    that some \-- if not many \-- broadband service providers will not
    provide telephone service. We thus contemplate that some entities
    will complete the broadband portion of the form, but will not need
    to complete the local competition portion of the form because they
    do not offer local exchange or exchange access services.
    Accordingly, we adopt a two-part reporting form pursuant to which
    carriers and other entities must complete applicable portions of the
    Local Competition and Broadband Reporting Form based on the type of
    services that they provide and the extent of their deployment of
    these services.[^64] We discuss the reporting requirements for
    broadband data and local telephone competition data, in turn.

### Entities Reporting Broadband Data

22. In determining what types of entities should report data about
    broadband deployment, we note that Congress has given the Commission
    a broad statutory mandate to evaluate the deployment of advanced
    telecommunications capabilities, that does not distinguish between
    the transmission media or technology employed.[^65] We are also
    mindful that the market for broadband services is rapidly changing,
    both in terms of the type of entities offering these services and in
    terms of the capability of the services offered.[^66] Accordingly,
    we decide, at this time, to collect data from facilities-based
    providers of "full broadband" and "one-way broadband" services.[^67]
    We choose to collect data from providers of "full broadband
    services" because that is the indicia that the Commission previously
    utilized when assessing the deployment and availability of advanced
    telecommunications capability pursuant to section 706.[^68] We also
    include providers of "one-way broadband services" because we believe
    that these services are an important stepping stone in the
    deployment of advanced telecommunications services and that these
    services may be priced to be particularly attractive to residential
    customers seeking, for example, high speed Internet access. Our
    decision to base the reporting threshold not only on full broadband
    lines, but also on one-way broadband lines was widely supported by
    commenters.[^69]

23. Given that the broadband market is still in its infancy, we expect
    that these services may be delivered by a wide variety of providers
    employing diverse technologies. We have seen evidence that providers
    of broadband services may include: LECs (incumbent and competitive),
    cable television companies, utilities, MMDS/MDS/\"wireless cable\"
    carriers, other fixed wireless providers, mobile wireless carriers
    (both terrestrial and satellite-based), government entities, and
    others.[^70] At this time it is not yet clear which broadband
    services, provided by means of which particular technologies and by
    what types of carriers, will be purchased in large numbers by
    American consumers. We believe that only by casting our net wide
    enough to include all such entities can we discern progress, or the
    lack of it, in meeting the goals stated in the *First Advanced
    Telecommunications Report*: a competitive broadband market with many
    providers, many competing technologies bringing broadband to
    consumers, and new technologies increasing the capacity of the
    consumer\'s broadband service and, in turn, creating demand among
    consumers for new applications.[^71] We note that this inclusive
    approach was supported by the majority of commenters.[^72]

24. By only requiring reporting from entities that are actually
    providing service to customers, we necessarily exclude certain
    entities that might become significant providers of broadband
    services in the future. We expect that some providers, such as
    utility companies in rural areas, may have significant
    broadband-capable infrastructure deployed and, thus, may have the
    potential to offer broadband services. While insight into this
    potential would be useful, we nevertheless exclude these providers
    and focus on actual service delivered because this focus will
    provide easily-quantifiable and easily-comparable data.[^73]

25. Similarly, we precisely target our information collection by only
    requiring broadband reporting from facilities-based providers.[^74]
    This program provides a unique opportunity to gather data about the
    development of the "last mile" of network which extends to the
    customer. As we observed in the *First Advanced Telecommunications
    Report*, broadband opens the possibility of new facilities to serve
    the last mile to the home because traditional telephone and cable
    networks may not be well suited for broadband.[^75] At the same
    time, by excluding from reporting entities that only resell
    broadband services we will exclude many entities that have not,
    heretofore, reported to the Commission on a regular basis. For
    example, Internet Service Providers (ISPs) that only obtain Digital
    Subscriber Line (DSL) service from telephone companies or high speed
    data services from cable companies that is incorporated into a
    premium (higher-speed) option for their Internet service will not
    report.[^76] As noted below, we have designed the form so that these
    services will be reported by the underlying provider of the
    broadband facilities.[^77]

26. We are persuaded that the threshold for reporting broadband data
    should be tied not only to full broadband services, but to the
    provision of either full or one-way broadband services.[^78] We
    agree with commenters who indicate that, at least in certain market
    segments, one-way broadband services may be more widely available
    than full broadband services.[^79] Thus, we require respondents to
    report information about their deployment of one-way broadband
    services. By tying the reporting requirement to both full and
    one-way broadband lines, however, we do not revisit our definition
    of advanced telecommunications capability in this proceeding.[^80]
    Rather, we simply expect to gather data about services that may be
    stepping stones to full broadband services and we expect that this
    information will be useful should the Commission decide, in the
    future, to revise its definition of advanced telecommunications
    capability in the context of future section 706 reports.[^81]

27. We reiterate our conclusion, stated as such in the Notice, that we
    need not decide broader questions about which broadband services
    constitute "telecommunications" within the precise terms of the
    Communications Act of 1934, as amended,[^82] in order to include
    those services within the scope of this data collection
    program.[^83] As we observed in the Notice,[^84] some broadband
    facilities and services may not be \"telecommunications\" within the
    meaning of the Act,[^85] but may as a practical matter be
    competitive with and substitutable for broadband
    telecommunications.[^86] Thus, for example, we will collect data
    from providers of broadband services delivered over cable television
    systems because these services compete directly with services that
    clearly are telecommunications, even though the Commission has not
    yet made a determination about the regulatory classification of
    these services.[^87]

### Entities Reporting Local Competition Data

28. We decide, based on our determination that we need comprehensive
    data about developing competition for local telephone service, that
    all local exchange carriers (LECs), both incumbent and competitive,
    should complete the form if they exceed our defined threshold for
    deployment of service.[^88] We also require certain providers of
    mobile telephony services to participate in this data collection
    program because of the potential of their services to become
    substitutes for the wireline-delivered local exchange services
    offered by incumbent and competitive LECs. We believe, as explained
    in more detail below, that only by collecting data from this broad
    range of market participants will we be able to gain a comprehensive
    understanding of the development of competition for local exchange
    and exchange access services. To advance our complementary goal of
    minimizing the burdens associated with this requirement, we exempt
    the smallest carriers \-- incumbent, competitive, and mobile \-- as
    discussed more fully in the following section.[^89]

29. By collecting data from both incumbent and competitive LECs, we
    expect to gain a comprehensive view of the current market for local
    exchange and exchange access services. In evaluating the status of
    local competition, the significance of collecting data from
    incumbent LECs is unchallenged by commenters.[^90] Indeed, based on
    revenues alone, incumbent LECs continued to claim well over 90% of
    the local telephony market in 1998.[^91] Moreover, incumbent LECs
    provide significant inputs to competitive LECs, both in terms of
    resale and unbundled network elements.[^92] Recognizing that many
    incumbent LECs offer, or will soon offer, local exchange and
    exchange access services outside of their traditional territories,
    we direct incumbent LECs to file separate copies of the form for
    their incumbent LEC and competitive LEC operations.[^93] By
    obtaining this data separately, we will gain greater insight into
    the degree of incumbent LEC expansion that would otherwise be
    undetectable, were they to report their incumbent and competitive
    LEC activities on the same form.

30. Collecting local competition data from competitive LECs is
    imperative, as well. Our experience with the voluntary surveys shows
    that we cannot get a reasonably accurate picture of the status of
    local competition from incumbent-provided information alone.[^94]
    For example, to the extent that a competing local telephone service
    provider supplies service to customers using its own facilities, its
    customer lines would not be included in reports of incumbent LECs.
    We have stated our expectation that, over time, competitors will
    deploy their own facilities in markets where it is economically
    feasible to do so, because it is only through owning and operating
    their own facilities that competitors have control over the
    competitive and operational characteristics of their service.[^95]
    Indeed, we have also stated our belief that, in some areas, the
    greatest benefits for consumers may be achieved through
    facilities-based competition.[^96] These expectations for facilities
    build-out strengthen our conclusion that we must collect data
    relating to all three of the competitive paths Congress set forth in
    section 251 and, thus, that competitive LECs must participate
    directly in this program.[^97] We make clear, moreover, that we
    require data on local telephone service not only from
    facilities-based LECs but from all LECs, *i.e.*, including firms
    that operate solely as resellers.[^98]

31. Through our previous efforts to monitor the status of competition
    for local exchange and exchange access services, we have seen ample
    evidence to suggest that both incumbent LECs and new entrants are
    exploring the use of non-wireline technologies to deliver local
    telephone service.[^99] Accordingly, we decide, as proposed in the
    Notice, that the obligation to complete the form should not depend
    on the type of technology that an incumbent LEC or a competitive LEC
    uses to provide local service. Thus, our rules require that all LECs
    of a defined size should report regardless of whether the LEC
    utilizes wireline or wireless technologies to provide local
    service.[^100] For example, competitive LECs which utilize fixed
    wireless technology to provide local exchange or exchange access
    services will be required to complete the form if they provide
    service above our defined threshold. Similarly, competitive LECs
    which provide local exchange or exchange access services over a
    hybrid fiber-coaxial platform will be required to complete the form
    if they otherwise qualify. We believe that only by establishing the
    scope of the reporting requirement to include these LECs will we be
    able to gain an adequate understanding of the changing dynamics of
    the market for local telephone service.

32. In addition to these providers of local telephone services, we
    require facilities-based providers of mobile telephony services to
    participate, to a limited extent,[^101] in this data collection
    program to the extent that they meet the local competition reporting
    threshold.[^102] The mobile telephony market generally includes
    facilities-based providers of cellular, broadband personal
    communications service (PCS), and specialized mobile radio (SMR)
    services that offer real-time, two-way switched voice service that
    is interconnected with the public switched network utilizing an
    in-network switching facility that enables the provider to reuse
    frequencies and accomplish seamless hand-offs of subscriber calls,
    as well as resellers of these services. In addition to terrestrial
    mobile providers, providers using satellite technology can also
    offer mobile telephony services.[^103]

33. As we have previously concluded in other contexts, certain providers
    of mobile telephony services have the potential to compete directly
    with traditional providers of wireline telephony services,[^104] and
    we have found that typical broadband PCS and cellular telephony
    services meet the statutory definition of "telephone exchange
    service" in section 3(47)(A) of the Act.[^105] We recognize, of
    course, that in the specific context of previous section 271
    applications, the Commission has articulated standards that restrict
    the consideration of mobile telephony services when determining the
    presence of a facilities-based competitor.[^106] We nevertheless
    conclude that, because of their practical potential as a substitute
    for wireline service,[^107] it will be valuable to obtain data on
    the deployment of mobile telephony services. We thus reject the
    suggestions of some commenters that data on mobile telephony
    subscribers will provide no insight into competition for local
    telephony services.[^108] To the contrary, we expect that even this
    limited data on mobile telephony subscribers will enhance our
    understanding of the developing potential of mobile telephony to
    substitute for wireline local service.[^109] At the same time, we
    consider that the limited amount of information sought from mobile
    service providers will impose the smallest burden on such carriers
    consistent with our need to have access to necessary
    information.[^110]

## Exempting Smaller Entities

### Background

34. We tentatively concluded, in the Notice, that we could exempt
    smaller entities from reporting without materially affecting our
    ability to effectively assess the development of local
    competition.[^111] We proposed to consider exemption criteria
    separately as applied to local competition and broadband service
    providers. We proposed, for purposes of reporting broadband data,
    that any firm that provides at least 1,000 full broadband service
    lines (or wireless channels) nationwide, or has at least 1,000 full
    broadband customers nationwide, should be required to complete
    applicable portions of the form.[^112] For purposes of reporting
    local competition data, we tentatively concluded that we should
    require local exchange carriers with 50,000 or more local access
    lines or channels (of any capacity)[^113] nationwide, and mobile
    telephony providers with 50,000 or more subscribers nationwide to
    comply with our proposed reporting requirement.[^114]

### Overview

35. We conclude that we can exempt from reporting certain of the
    smallest service providers without materially affecting our ability
    to effectively assess the development of local telephone competition
    and the deployment of broadband services. In setting these reporting
    thresholds, we balance our inclination to establish a more inclusive
    reporting requirement that will necessarily provide a more
    comprehensive understanding of competition for local telephone
    service and broadband deployment with our desire to exempt entities
    with the fewest resources to divert to reporting obligations.[^115]
    Weighing these priorities at this time, we are guided by our belief
    that many of the most underserved communities may be served by only
    the smallest providers, *i.e.*, those that are scaled to be
    financially successful in small markets.[^116] Indeed, by excluding
    any providers we necessarily face the possibility of understating
    the amount of competitive activity and broadband deployment in
    smaller, rural areas. Thus, we expect that these thresholds may
    require adjustment over time. We are committed to revising these
    thresholds (either upward or downward) should it be necessary based
    either on our experience or on changes in the relevant markets. We
    also state our intention to work with small providers of broadband
    and local telephony services as issues arise to facilitate reporting
    procedures that may have unanticipated, disparate effects on them.

36. As discussed below, we adopt a different threshold for providers of
    broadband services than we do for providers of local telephony
    services. By carefully tailoring the reporting requirement, we
    expect to satisfy the overlapping but particular needs for data on
    broadband deployment and the development of local competition. We do
    not adopt a proposal in the Notice to require local exchange
    carriers that fall below our local competition reporting threshold
    to nevertheless report local competition data if they exceed the
    threshold for broadband reporting.[^117] Thus, we accept the
    suggestions made by several commenters to apply these thresholds
    separately.[^118] This ensures that the entity reporting under
    either part of the form is a significant entrant in the market
    before it must comply with this reporting requirement.**\
    **

37. Applicable to both reporting thresholds, we make clear that the
    reporting thresholds should be calculated based collectively on all
    commonly-owned or commonly-controlled affiliates.[^119] That is, a
    provider should report for each state in which it and all affiliates
    collectively meet the reporting thresholds. We nevertheless permit
    such affiliates to file forms for such states either combined or
    separately. This approach will grant providers flexibility about
    whether to file at the holding company level or for each separate
    legal entity,[^120] yet will ensure that providers' decisions about
    how to report will not affect whether or not they must file.[^121]

38. We discuss, below, the specific reporting thresholds for the
    broadband and local competition portions of the form.

### Threshold for Broadband Reporting

39. With respect specifically to broadband service we note that Congress
    has directed us to track the deployment of advanced
    telecommunications capability to all Americans.[^122] Given the
    broad reach of this directive, we conclude that we should establish
    a more comprehensive reporting requirement for providers of
    broadband services to ensure that we do not miss broadband
    developments by smaller entities, for example, in rural areas. We
    decide, in particular, that any facilities-based firm that provides
    at least 250 full or one-way broadband service lines (or wireless
    channels) in a given state, or has at least 250 full or one-way
    broadband customers in a given state, should be required to complete
    applicable portions of the form for that state.[^123] By moving to a
    state-by-state threshold, we seek greater insight into the
    development of broadband markets within particular states and in
    specific geographical areas. We conclude that a state-level
    threshold will only require reporting from firms with significant
    presence in a particular state.

40. We conclude that a 250 broadband line or wireless channel threshold
    will best meet the Commission's needs. We are mindful in arriving at
    this threshold that the market for broadband services is relatively
    new, dynamic, and untested. Given the nascent state of broadband
    deployment and our particular interest in deployment of broadband
    services to rural and underserved areas, we think that a relatively
    low threshold is necessary to capture an accurate picture of the
    current state of deployment. Moreover, a threshold set too high
    might lead to a false conclusion about the deployment of broadband,
    particularly in rural areas. Even setting this relatively low
    reporting threshold, we note that for the median rural incumbent LEC
    to meet this reporting threshold, it would have to successfully
    deploy and market broadband to a fairly high percentage of (about
    10%) of its regular telephone customers.[^124] We emphasize,
    however, that to balance what we believe to be a very comprehensive
    reporting threshold, we have streamlined the broadband section of
    the reporting form so that it includes only the most essential
    information, in as simple a format as possible. Nevertheless, we
    state our intention to revisit the suitability of this threshold, in
    the future, should we determine that it either places undue burdens
    on responding entities or that it is set too high to include a
    significant portion of the broadband lines in service.

### Threshold for Local Competition Reporting

41. We decide, for purposes of reporting local competition data, that
    incumbent and competitive LECs need only complete forms for states
    in which they provide 10,000 or more voice-grade equivalent lines or
    wireless channels.[^125] In moving to a state-by-state reporting
    threshold, as opposed to a national threshold, we expect to gain a
    better understanding of the development of local competition in
    specific markets. Similarly, by adopting a threshold of 10,000
    voice-grade equivalent lines or wireless channels that is less than
    the threshold that we proposed in the Notice, we make special
    efforts to detect the presence of competition for local exchange and
    exchange access services in rural areas.[^126] In that regard, we
    disagree with National Rural Telecom Association (NRTA) to the
    extent that it suggests that the Commission should not monitor
    competition in rural areas at this time.[^127] At the same time,
    under this threshold we will still exclude from reporting the
    smallest carriers and, indeed, the vast majority of small
    LECs.[^128]

42. We conclude that a 10,000 voice grade line or wireless channel
    threshold will allow the Commission to collect data from the
    significant participants in most markets without imposing burdens on
    entities that are relatively small. We set the threshold for
    reporting local telephone service data at this level because we
    believe that we must collect data, in particular, from competitive
    LECs that are becoming significant market participants, but that may
    have very small portions of the overall market, at this time. Thus,
    we have set this threshold at a level that we expect will allow us
    to detect emerging market participants when they achieve a fairly
    significant presence in a given market.[^129] For example, a
    competitive LEC that targets residential customers in a state with a
    relatively small population, such as Wyoming, would have to attain a
    5% share of the residential market in the state, before
    reporting.[^130] Similarly, based on at least one definition of a
    rural incumbent LEC (50,000 local access lines nationwide), a
    competitive LEC would have to achieve a 20% market share in the
    territory of the largest rural incumbent LECs before it would be
    required to report.[^131] Among incumbents, we estimate that the
    vast majority will not have to report pursuant to this requirement,
    even though the vast majority of incumbent LEC lines will be
    accounted for in this information collection.[^132]

43. We decline to adopt NRTA's suggestion[^133] that we exempt from
    reporting any entity that satisfies the definition of a "rural
    telephone company" as set out in section 3 of the Act[^134] because
    we conclude that a more comprehensive reporting requirement is
    necessary to detect the development of competition for local
    telecommunications services, especially in rural areas. Section 3 of
    the Act offers multiple criteria, pursuant to which a LEC may
    qualify as a rural telephone company.[^135] Several of these
    provisions would exempt LECs that may serve a significant share of
    the local telecommunications market in a given state. For example,
    an exemption based on section 3(37)(C) would exempt LECs \-- both
    incumbent and competitive \-- providing local exchange service to
    any local exchange study area with up to 99,999 lines.[^136]
    Similarly, an exemption based on section 3(37)(B) \-- as proposed in
    the Notice \-- would exempt LECs that provide local exchange service
    to fewer than 50,000 local access lines nationwide.[^137] We
    conclude that such exemptions could leave large gaps in the data
    collected and would give us significantly less insight into the
    development of local telephone competition in any given state, and
    in rural areas in particular. In many states, a LEC, particularly a
    new entrant, with 50,000 lines would represent a significant market
    competitor. We also reject the suggestion of Roseville Telephone
    Company that we exempt all "rural carriers" as defined in section
    251(f)(2) of the Act.[^138] This section defines a "rural carrier"
    as "a local exchange carrier with fewer than 2 percent of the
    Nation's subscriber lines installed in the aggregate nationwide . .
    . ."[^139] Thus, an exemption based on this definition would exempt
    LECs with approximately 3.5 million lines.[^140] Much like the other
    commenter proposals rejected above, this proposal would
    significantly undermine our ability to monitor the development of
    local telephone competition. We agree that Congress did provide for
    special consideration of the rural telephone companies in the
    implementation of specific provisions of the 1996 Act.[^141] Nowhere
    in the Act, however, do we find any indication that Congress sought
    to prevent the development of competition in rural areas or expected
    that competition would not ever develop in those areas. We conclude
    that a 10,000 voice-grade equivalent line or wireless channel
    threshold best balances our competing goals of collecting
    comprehensive data, including data about development of local
    telephone competition in rural areas, and reducing burdens on the
    smallest entities.

44. We agree with those commenters that suggest that adopting a
    state-by-state reporting threshold will result in a more detailed
    and useful picture of the development of competition than would a
    national threshold.[^142] While a national threshold would enable us
    to obtain a snapshot of the relative success of the largest
    competitive carriers, we conclude that it is less desirable because
    it would provide little insight into the status of competition in
    any given state or smaller geographic market. For example, with a
    national threshold, we would exempt carriers with significant market
    presence in one state, while requiring reporting from carriers with
    very small operations in multiple states.[^143] In contrast, a
    state-by-state reporting threshold will enable us to collect data
    from significant competitors that have chosen to concentrate their
    operations in one state. Stated more broadly, a state-level
    threshold will enable this Commission and other policy makers to
    compare and contrast characteristics of different states in order to
    determine which characteristics seem to influence competition. We
    believe that this type of analysis will be extremely valuable both
    to the Commission and our colleagues in state commissions.

45. Among competitive LECs, we make special provision for cable
    companies providing local exchange telephony services, given their
    relative inexperience with reporting measures originally adopted for
    incumbent LECs. As with other LECs, such companies must report if
    they provide 10,000 or more voice-grade equivalent lines or wireless
    channels in a given state. While some cable companies that provide
    local telephony service already compile and report numbers of
    telephone lines or circuits provided,[^144] we recognize that cable
    companies historically have described their cable television service
    volume in terms of number of actual subscribers. Thus, we specify
    that cable companies providing local telephone services may
    consider, in determining whether they meet the reporting threshold,
    their local telephone subscribership in a given state, rather than
    voice-grade equivalent lines in a state, where the latter is
    unavailable.[^145] We note, however, that because many customers
    have more than one voice grade telephone line in service,
    information about numbers of telephone subscribers is generally less
    useful, for purposes of evaluating the status of local telephone
    service competition, than is information about numbers of lines (or
    equivalent circuits) in service. Thus, we permit cable companies
    providing local telephone service to report based on subscribers
    only where information on voice-grade equivalent lines in service is
    not available.

46. We decline to adopt a proposal to use the number of homes passed by
    cable telephony services \-- as opposed to actual local access lines
    provided or telephony subscribers served \-- as an alternative
    threshold for cable companies.[^146] Rather, we prefer to focus on
    the actual delivery of service because we conclude it provides a
    more accurate picture of the current state of competition for local
    telephony services. This focus reflects our understanding that the
    development of competition for local exchange and exchange access
    services depends not only on a firm's potential to offer these
    services at some point in the future, but also on the ability of
    these firms to configure their facilities in a manner that will
    allow them to deliver these services at prices \-- and with
    sufficient quality \-- to make their services attractive to
    customers.

47. We similarly clarify our rules for mobile telephony service
    providers to accommodate their practice of reporting number of
    subscribers, rather than voice grade lines or channels *per
    se*.[^147] Accordingly, our rules do not require mobile telephony
    providers to report for states in which they have fewer than 10,000
    subscribers.[^148] We do not know the precise number of mobile
    telephony providers with at least 10,000 subscribers in a given
    state, because mobile telephony providers currently do not report
    subscribership data to the Commission and reliable public data are
    sparse for facilities-based cellular operators with fewer than about
    300,000 subscribers.[^149] Thus, we expect that this threshold will
    allow us to obtain information about the presence in the market of
    mobile telephony providers that are serving a substantial number of
    customers and that may be best positioned to offer services as a
    substitute to wireline local exchange service.[^150]

## Definition of Reporting Area

### Background

48. In the Notice, we stated our view that for data to be useful it must
    be reported on a geographically coherent and consistent basis by all
    entities submitting data.[^151] We, therefore, tentatively concluded
    that we should, at a minimum, require data to be reported by state
    for both the broadband and local telephone competition portions of
    the form.[^152] We sought comment on whether the data should be
    collected, from some or all reporting entities, at some more
    narrowly defined geographic area, given that reporting by smaller
    geographic areas might yield sharper pictures of the extent and
    intensity of these developments.[^153]

### Discussion 

49. We require providers to report data, in accordance with the Local
    Competition and Broadband Reporting form attached, on a
    state-by-state basis. In reaching this decision, we balance our
    desire to collect data that will allow us to assess the state of
    competition for local telephone service and broadband deployment in
    discrete geographic areas of the country with our desire to minimize
    the burdens on the service providers that will report to us.[^154]
    As discussed above,[^155] we decide that reporting at a national
    level would provide little useful information about the development
    of competition in particular states and in finer geographic areas.
    Moreover, requiring state-by-state reporting from all reporting
    entities should facilitate meaningful comparison within different
    regions of the country and, we expect, should enable state
    commissions to compare and evaluate the effectiveness of the
    policies that they adopt.[^156] We also conclude that state-by-state
    data will be administratively easy for providers to compile and for
    Commission staff to analyze.

50. Indeed, we believe that compiling local competition and broadband
    deployment information by state will not be administratively
    difficult for any reporting entity, particularly in comparison with
    compiling information for smaller geographic areas on a consistent
    basis. We note that many commenters, including potential respondents
    to this information collection, support our proposal to collect data
    on a state-by-state basis[^157] and none take exception to our
    tentative conclusion that all carriers maintain state-by-state data
    for a variety of tax, regulatory, and other purposes.[^158]
    Moreover, no other geographic classification system appears to offer
    the same comparability and administrative ease. In the
    telecommunications industry, for example, new local service
    competitors need not use any of the geographic classification
    systems that are traditional in the industry, such as telephone
    exchanges, incumbent LEC study areas, or local access and transport
    areas (LATAs), although they must comply with requirements
    legitimately imposed by state regulatory authorities. Similarly,
    providers of terrestrial mobile wireless telephony services have
    received licenses to serve markets defined, variously, as Major
    Trading Areas, Basic Trading Areas, Metropolitan Statistical Areas,
    Rural Service Areas, and Economic Areas.[^159] The situation with
    respect to broadband services is even more complex,[^160] confirming
    our view that state reporting will provide the smallest common
    geographic denominator among these varied entities.[^161]

51. While state-by-state reporting will provide valuable data that is
    otherwise unavailable to us, we nevertheless conclude it necessary
    to develop even sharper pictures of the extent and intensity of
    local telephone competition and broadband deployment.[^162] In this
    regard, we share commenters' concerns that information collected on
    a state-by-state basis may not enable us to detect differences in
    competitive activity or broadband deployment among distinct
    communities within a given state. For example, such data might allow
    us to conclude that broadband is being deployed in a reasonable and
    timely manner in New Mexico as a whole, but may not permit us to
    find whether all such deployment is in Albuquerque while deployment
    in rural New Mexico may not be reasonable and timely. Such
    distinctions would be less apparent were we to allow providers to
    report at the national level. Thus, we decline to adopt our proposal
    to permit broadband entities that serve fewer than 2,000 subscribers
    nationwide to report on a nationwide, rather than a statewide,
    basis.[^163]

52. To develop this more nuanced understanding of local telephone
    competition and broadband deployment, we direct providers to compile
    a list of the Zip Codes in which they offer local telephony and
    broadband services for each state in which they complete Form 477.
    Such lists should be easily obtainable from companies' provisioning
    or billing databases and will give the Commission insight into the
    areas served by particular providers.[^164] By knowing whether any
    or multiple providers are serving a given Zip Code, the Commission
    will have a much clearer understanding of which customers have \--
    or are likely to have in the near future \-- a choice among service
    providers. We conclude that this data, used in conjunction with
    other publicly-available data, will enable the Commission and others
    to determine the availability of services and competition in
    discrete geographic areas, including rural areas and other
    traditionally underserved areas.

53. We thus decline the suggestions of some commenters that we require
    providers to complete and file forms at some finer geographic
    levels, such as the census block level or the Zip Code level.[^165]
    As described above, we conclude that completing forms at these finer
    levels of geographic granularity would be administratively more
    difficult for providers. Not only would providers have to identify
    data at those levels of detail, but we think that a reporting
    requirement that requires a national service provider to complete
    over 30,000 zip-code based forms would impose costs far greater than
    the benefits to be derived.[^166]

54. In order to further develop our understanding of local telephone
    competition and broadband deployment in discrete areas, we also plan
    to continue our efforts to locate and utilize data available from
    any alternative sources, such as numbering resources databases,
    number portability databases, or E-911 databases. It is our hope
    that these sources may eventually provide us with additional
    information about local telephone competition and broadband
    deployment at finer levels of geographic granularity.[^167]

## Frequency of Reports

### Background

55. We sought comment in the Notice about whether collecting data
    quarterly, semi-annually, or annually would best serve the goals of
    this data collection program.[^168] We further asked commenters
    whether we should apply the same frequency requirements for both
    local competition and broadband reporting.[^169]

### Discussion

56. We decide that we can best balance our need for timely information
    with our desire to minimize the reporting burden on respondents by
    requiring providers to report data on a semi-annual basis. Given
    that, from the perspective of most consumers, broadband deployment
    and competition for local telephone services are still at relatively
    early stages of development,[^170] we believe that it is vital to
    collect information about trends in this area on a frequent
    basis.[^171] With semi-annual reporting, we expect to develop a
    picture of local telecommunications competition and broadband
    deployment that will be, to our knowledge, the most accurate,
    comprehensive, and timely one available. Collecting data on a
    semi-annual basis will also enable us to quickly compose a baseline
    assessment of these markets. Moreover, we agree with those
    commenters, including many potential respondents to this information
    collection, that state that semi-annual filing will satisfy the
    Commission's needs without imposing an undue burden on
    providers.[^172]

57. We take seriously commenters' concerns about the level of burden
    produced by more frequent filing regimes, such as quarterly filing.
    With those concerns in mind, we have limited this information
    collection to readily available data that providers should be able
    to report with minimal burden. Indeed, we believe that we have
    significantly streamlined the information collection, as compared
    with the proposed form released with the Notice. For example, we
    have eliminated much of the detailed reporting about types of
    technology used in providing broadband services that providers
    stated was particularly burdensome for them to compile. Moreover, we
    note that many of the providers that will be part of this
    information collection do not have significant historical contacts
    with the Commission.[^173] Recognizing their relative inexperience
    with Commission reporting requirements, we adopt a less frequent
    reporting schedule than we otherwise might if this reporting
    requirement were limited to firms with more resources available for
    compliance matters.

58. We see no reason to adopt different reporting frequencies for the
    local competition and broadband portions of the form. A single
    timetable for reporting should be administratively easier and less
    confusing for potential respondents to both portions of the form. We
    necessarily decline those suggestions that we should only require
    broadband data on an annual basis. As the basis for this suggestion,
    several commenters cite the Commission's decision to issue annual
    reports pursuant to section 706 as evidence that we do not need more
    frequent data. Our commitment to issuing annual reports
    notwithstanding, we nevertheless conclude that that more frequent
    data on the state of broadband deployment will assist the Commission
    in a variety of other proceedings and uses. Finally, we decline
    TRA's suggestion that we require more frequent reporting by
    incumbent LECs.[^174] TRA has presented us with no compelling
    evidence to suggest that more frequent reporting by incumbent LECs
    is warranted.

59. We thus direct that providers of local telephone service and
    broadband service (that meet the defined thresholds) should complete
    and file the FCC Form 477 twice per year. Providers will report
    end-of-year data on March 1^st^ of the subsequent year and data on
    the first half of the year on September 1^st^ of that same year.
    However, given our desire to collect data to be used in the second
    Advanced Telecommunications Report, we direct that all respondents
    should file their end-of-year 1999 data on May 15, 2000.

## Data to be Reported

### Background

60. We set out, in the Notice, specific data items that we tentatively
    concluded would reveal the pattern and speed of development of local
    competition and broadband services as they evolve.[^175] We invited
    comment on whether those specific data items would be necessary and
    sufficient to describe and understand the state of local competition
    and deployment of broadband services in diverse areas of the nation
    and encouraged commenters to critique and suggest revisions to a
    proposed reporting form.[^176]

### Overview

61. Based on our experience with the Bureau's voluntary survey program,
    our *First Advanced Telecommunications Report*, and the extensive
    suggestions received in the record to this proceeding, we adopt the
    form attached in Appendix B to gather data on the status of local
    competition and the deployment of broadband services. With these
    experiences in mind, we select for this reporting program data that
    we believe will best complement the other information available to
    us. In combination with other data -- for example, revenue data from
    the universal service support mechanisms -- we expect to gain a
    comprehensive view of the development of local competition and
    broadband deployment as they evolve.[^177]

62. As detailed below, the data collection is designed to assess
    competition in local telecommunications markets by focusing on
    service actually provided to end users and by examining the type of
    end users served (*e.g.*, residential and small business *versus*
    large business, institutional, and government).[^178] The form also
    collects information about the relative importance of the three
    methods by which local exchange and exchange access services to an
    individual end user can be provided: solely over facilities the
    respondent has constructed; by using unbundled network elements
    provided by another LEC; and by reselling the services of another
    LEC. The data collection will further illuminate the pattern of
    local competition by asking about the presence of operational
    collocation arrangements in incumbent LEC switching centers. To
    monitor broadband deployment, we have similarly focused on lines
    actually provided to end users. We also emphasize, in the broadband
    section of the form, the type of technology used to deliver these
    services. We conclude that the answers to these questions are
    necessary to describe and understand the state of competition for
    local telephone services and the deployment of broadband services in
    diverse areas of the nation.

63. While some commenters encourage us to collect data on other
    measures,[^179] we believe that the information we have chosen to
    collect best balances our need to collect targeted data with our
    desire to minimize reporting burdens. For example, we expect that
    trends in the selected data may become apparent when reported over
    time and should shed light on questions (*e.g.,* the speed with
    which competitive LECs can add customers) that might otherwise
    require separate information collection. We also believe that the
    local competition information we will collect is less extensive than
    the information some carriers make publicly available on their own
    initiative[^180] and is not overly burdensome.

64. We emphasize that our focus in this data collection is on "last
    mile" facilities to end-user consumers. Because we do not want this
    data collection to become less comprehensive over time as a
    consequence of technological evolution or of consumer choice among
    service providers using different technologies, we decide to collect
    information about lines (or wireless channels) in service to
    consumers irrespective of technology deployed in the "last mile" and
    irrespective of technology deployed in the network, or networks, to
    which the customer's line is connected. Thus, we will collect
    information, on a consistent basis, that is "transparent" to
    developments in transmission protocols or applications that may
    arise during this information collection.[^181]

65. We describe in more detail, below, the type of data that we believe
    will best further our twin goals of collecting the most useful
    information while subjecting respondents to the minimum burden.

### Data on Broadband Deployment

#### Broadband Lines and Wireless Channels in Service to Consumers

66. Part I.A. of the form collects information about the total number of
    one-way and two-way ("full") broadband lines and wireless
    channels[^182] that deliver in excess of 200 Kbps to a subscriber
    environment over the respondent's own facilities, or over unbundled
    network elements (UNEs), special access lines, and other leased
    lines and wireless channels that the respondent has obtained from a
    communications service provider and equipped to provide broadband
    service.[^183] As stated above,[^184] by "full" broadband we mean
    lines and channels with information carrying capacity[^185] in
    excess of 200 Kbps in both directions simultaneously.[^186] We also
    require data on "one-way" broadband services (*i.e.*, services with
    greater than 200 Kbps information carrying capacity in one
    direction, but not both) because they offer significant benefits to
    consumers as compared to traditional voice grade lines.[^187] We
    decline commenter suggestions that we adopt alternative definitions
    of one-way broadband or full broadband.[^188] We do not seek to
    revisit our definition of advanced telecommunications capability in
    this proceeding, and we decide to focus this information collection
    on the one-way and full-broadband services that support an
    information carrying capacity that is based on our current
    definition.

67. We conclude that, as a central part of our inquiry into the
    deployment of broadband services, we must require respondents to
    report information about the types of facilities used to provide
    these services. Thus, we require reporting entities to break down
    the total number of broadband lines and wireless channels into
    mutually exclusive categories defined by the distribution technology
    to the subscriber environment:[^189] asymmetric xDSL services; other
    traditional wireline services including symmetric xDSL
    services;[^190] coaxial cable carrier systems (including hybrid
    fiber-coaxial systems); optical carrier (SONET) to the customer
    premises; satellite; terrestrial fixed wireless service including
    services provided over unlicensed spectrum; terrestrial mobile
    wireless service; and all other technologies, such as distribution
    over electric power lines. Collecting this information will allow us
    to determine how advanced telecommunications services are being
    delivered.

68. We also conclude that we must require respondents to report certain
    additional information -- specifically, the percentages of reported
    lines that are used in certain ways -- to assist us in monitoring
    the evolving structure of the broadband services market. We do not
    require respondents to calculate these percentages, which are
    discussed further below, based on precise counts performed solely
    for this information collection. Rather, respondents may report good
    faith estimates, within a margin of plus or minus five percentage
    points, based on the best information that is available. However, if
    precise disaggregated counts of broadband lines and wireless
    channels do exist for another purpose, we require the respondent to
    use that information to calculate the percentage breakouts we
    require to be reported.

69. We decide that we should collect, for each of the technology
    categories specified in Part I.A. of the form, information about the
    portion of total broadband lines serving residential and small
    business customers as a group. We understand that many broadband
    providers will not routinely keep records by type of customer
    (*e.g.*, residential customer; small business; larger
    business).[^191] Also, we expect that broadband providers that do
    distinguish among types of customers may not use uniform criteria to
    do so. For example, a broadband services provider operating in towns
    and smaller cities might use a threshold (*e.g.*, a particular
    number of broadband lines or wireless channels; a particular level
    of monthly or annual expenditures on broadband services) to
    distinguish between small and medium-size businesses that is
    different from the threshold that a broadband services provider
    operating in large cities would use. We wish to avoid
    inconsistencies in the reported data that might result from such
    differences among broadband services providers and to obtain,
    nevertheless, an indicator of broadband services deployment to
    residential and small business customers. We believe that broadband
    services providers will develop, in the normal course of business,
    an insight into the characteristics, needs, and service preferences
    of end-user customers and will come to understand, in particular,
    which types of broadband services are purchased *primarily* by
    residential customers.[^192] We therefore require respondents to
    consider, for purposes of this information collection, the percent
    of total broadband lines and wireless channels used by residential
    and small business customers, as a group, to be synonymous with the
    percent of total broadband lines and wireless channels used to
    deliver those broadband service offerings that are, in the judgment
    of the respondent,[^193] used *primarily* by residential consumers.

70. We would like to go further and track more precisely broadband
    deployment to particular types of entities singled out in section
    706 -- in particular, elementary and secondary schools and
    classrooms. We nevertheless conclude that, given our understanding
    that many broadband providers do not routinely keep records by type
    of customer, the burdens on respondents to identify deployment to
    these entities as such may be too high. Thus, to satisfy the section
    706 directive concerning schools and classrooms, we will continue to
    monitor deployment to these groups through other means, for example,
    through our *Second Advanced Telecommunications NOI*.[^194] Should
    we determine in the future that it would not be burdensome for
    providers to report this type of data, we may expand this collection
    to include such information.

71. To further assist us in monitoring the evolving structure of the
    broadband services market, we require respondents to report the
    percent of total broadband lines and wireless channels that the
    respondent provides specifically over its own facilities. We note
    that we require reporting from all facilities-based providers of
    broadband service, which we define, for purposes of this information
    collection, to include providers not only using their own
    facilities, but also providers using UNE loops, special access
    lines, or other lines or wireless channels that the respondent
    obtains from another communications service provider and equips as
    broadband lines. Thus, we are asking providers to report additional
    detail, in one portion of the form, about the portion of total
    broadband lines (or wireless channels) provided over *only* their
    own facilities, as opposed to providing over UNE loops, special
    access lines, or other lines or wireless channels that the
    respondent obtains from a communications carrier and equips as
    broadband lines. For purposes of this information collection, filers
    will classify as "their own facilities" those that they actually own
    and those they obtain the right to use from other entities as dark
    fiber or satellite transponder capacity. This information will
    assist us in monitoring the extent to which respondents are fully
    building out their own broadband facilities, rather than
    substantially relying on "last mile" facilities that they obtain
    from other communications carriers.

72. We also require respondents to report the percent of total broadband
    lines and wireless channels -- which, to reiterate, the respondent
    provides over its own facilities, or over UNE loops, special access
    lines, or other leased lines and wireless channels that the
    respondent has obtained from another communications service provider
    and equipped as broadband -- that the respondent bills directly to
    end users who are the ultimate consumers of the broadband service.
    This information will assist us in monitoring the importance, in the
    retail marketplace, of value-added service providers, such as
    Internet service providers, and others who may choose to include
    telecommunications as part of the information service they provide
    to end users.[^195] Because we collect this information from
    respondents who build or equip leased facilities to provide
    broadband services, we decide, as previously noted, that we do not
    need to require resellers of advanced telecommunications services,
    including Internet service providers that incorporate advanced
    services into information services, to report broadband data.[^196]

73. Finally, we require respondents to report two items of information
    about the portion of total lines and wireless channels they provide
    that are particularly "fast." We decide we need this information to
    assist us in evaluating the evolving market for such services. We
    require respondents to report, specifically, the percent of
    broadband lines and wireless channels they provide with information
    carrying capacity greater than 200 Kbps in both directions, and also
    the percent of broadband lines and wireless channels they provide
    with information carrying capacity greater than 2 Mbps in both
    directions.[^197] We understand that, in future years, the
    appropriate definition of broadband service may change as technology
    improves and consumer demand grows for more features and functions
    from residential broadband service. We believe that services at
    speeds over 200 Kbps and 2 Mbps are currently available through
    traditional wireline offerings -- though most often deployed to
    businesses -- and we conclude that the information we require
    respondents to report will enable us to detect the evolution of
    supply and demand for such future generations of broadband.

#### Zip Codes in Which Broadband Lines and Wireless Channels are in Service

74. For the reasons previously discussed,[^198] we direct respondents to
    provide a list of the five-digit Zip Codes in which customers served
    by the broadband lines and wireless channels reported in Part I.A.
    are located.[^199] This list is to be reported in Part V of the
    form.[^200] We emphasize that we do not require respondents to
    report the number of broadband lines and wireless channels, or any
    other detailed information, for the individual Zip Codes on this
    list.

### Data on Local Competition

#### Voice-Grade Equivalent Lines in Service to End Users by LECs

75. Part II of the form collects information from incumbent LECs and
    competitive LECs about the number of voice-grade equivalent[^201]
    lines and fixed wireless channels[^202] in service to provide local
    exchange or exchange access service. We also require respondents to
    provide information about the extent to which they use their own
    facilities in providing these lines or wireless channels, and the
    extent to which they use the facilities or services of other LECs in
    doing so. We emphasize that providers of mobile telephony services
    (including mobile telephony affiliates of LECs) do not report data
    in Part II, but instead report limited information about subscribers
    to mobile telephone service in Part III of the form.[^203]

76. In Part II.A. of the form, we require reporting LECs to report the
    total number of voice-grade equivalent lines and fixed wireless
    channels they provide[^204] to end-user customers. We also require
    LECs to report certain percentages of that total, which are
    discussed below, to assist us in monitoring the evolving structure
    of the local services market.[^205] We do not require respondents to
    calculate these percentages based on precise counts performed solely
    for this information collection. Rather, respondents may report good
    faith estimates, within a margin of plus or minus five percentage
    points, based on the best information that is available. However, if
    precise disaggregated counts of voice-grade equivalent lines and
    wireless channels do exist for another purpose, we require the
    respondent to use that information to calculate the percentage
    breakouts we require to be reported.

77. We wish to monitor developments affecting certain broad categories
    of customers. Therefore, we require LECs to report the percent of
    total voice-grade equivalent lines they provide to residential and
    small business customers, which we consider, for purposes of Part II
    of the form, to be identified by separate billing addresses to which
    fewer than four lines are in service.[^206] We also wish to monitor
    evolving methods of competition and to avoid the double-counting of
    lines. We therefore require a respondent to report the percent of
    total voice-grade equivalent lines in service to end-user customers
    that it provides over its own facilities[^207] and, separately, the
    percent of total lines that it provides over UNE loops obtained from
    other LECs. We also require a respondent to report the percent of
    total voice-grade equivalent lines it directly provides from
    incumbent LEC switching centers in which competitive LECs are
    collocated.[^208] We conclude that the last estimate is required
    because we believe that local competition will be facilitated,
    particularly competition for residential and small business
    customers, if competing LECs can locate their equipment in the
    switching center that most directly serves the customer the carrier
    seeks to serve, and we therefore decide we should monitor the extent
    of such collocation.

78. In Part II.B. of the form, a reporting LEC will report the total
    number of voice-grade equivalent lines or wireless channels over
    which it provides voice telephone service to other
    telecommunications carriers for resale to end-user customers. We
    require a reporting LEC to break down this total into two
    categories: (1) lines and wireless channels provided under a Total
    Service Resale arrangement;[^209] and (2) lines and wireless
    channels provided under other resale arrangements, such as resold
    "centrex" services. As we required with respect to Part II.A. of the
    form, the reporting LEC will also report certain percentages that
    indicate how the resold lines are used, so as to assist us to
    monitor the evolving structure of the local services market.[^210]

79. The number of voice-grade equivalent lines and wireless channels in
    service to end-user consumers, reported by (incumbent and
    competitive) LECs in Part II.A. or Part II.B. of the form, will not
    include lines that the LEC uses to provide a telecommunications
    service to an Internet service provider and which the Internet
    service provider incorporates into a premium (higher speed) option
    for its Internet service. Rather, the LEC should report these as
    broadband lines in Part I of the form.

80. In Part II.C. of the form, a reporting LEC will report the total
    number of lines and wireless channels that it provides as UNE loops,
    special access lines, and private lines that connect end users to
    other telecommunications carriers.[^211] We require these data to be
    reported in four categories: (1) lines and wireless channels
    provided as UNE loops in circumstances in which the respondent does
    not also provide switching for that line or wireless channel; (2)
    lines and wireless channels provided as UNE loops in circumstances
    in which the respondent also provides switching for the line or
    wireless channel;[^212] (3) special access lines that the respondent
    does not provide as broadband; and (4) private lines that connect an
    end-user premises to a telecommunications carrier and that the
    respondent does not provide as broadband. For each of these four
    categories, we require the reporting LEC to report the structural
    indicators discussed above, *i.e.*, percent of lines serving
    residential and small business customers, *etc*. in those specified
    cases in which the particular item logically applies.[^213]

81. In Part II.D. of the form, a reporting LEC will report limited
    information about the general types of technology it uses to provide
    local service. The LEC will report the percent of its total
    voice-grade equivalent lines and wireless channels in service that
    terminate at the end-user consumer's premises over three types of
    facilities, characterized by technology: (1) technologies typically
    deployed by operators of cable TV systems, such as hybrid
    fiber-coaxial systems; (2) wireless; and (3) all other technologies,
    including (but not limited to) copper twisted pair.[^214]

82. We conclude that requiring LECs to report information about
    voice-grade equivalent lines and wireless channels in the detail set
    out in Part II of the form is necessary to obtain a reasonably
    complete picture of evolving local competition. For example, data
    reported by competitive LECs will enable us, for the first time, to
    analyze the degree to which these carriers serve customers over
    facilities that they own. Data reported by incumbent LECs will
    enable us to analyze the pattern of competitive LEC reliance on
    incumbent LEC resold services and unbundled network elements
    (nationwide and in any particular state) to provide local exchange
    and exchange access service to customers including, in particular,
    residential and small business customers. The accuracy and
    reliability of data will be enhanced, moreover, by the ability to
    compare data reported by incumbent LECs and by competitive LECs, and
    we may thereby avoid double-counting customer lines in assessing
    competitive market presence.

#### Zip Codes in Which Voice Grade Lines Are in Service to End Users by LECs

83. For the reasons previously discussed,[^215] we require respondent
    LECs to provide a list of the five-digit Zip Codes in which
    customers served by the lines and wireless channels reported in Part
    II are located.[^216] This list is to be reported in Part V of the
    form.[^217] We emphasize that we do not require respondents to
    report the number of voice-grade equivalent lines in service, or any
    other detailed information, for the individual Zip Codes on this
    list. We also make clear that providers of mobile telephony services
    are not required to provide the Zip Code information in Part V of
    the form, because it would be particularly difficult for these
    providers to determine the location of their customers.

#### Voice Grade Mobile Telephony Service Subscribers

84. Part III of the form requires facilities-based mobile wireless firms
    to report the total number of voice telephony service subscribers
    served over their own systems, whether served directly or via resale
    by another entity.[^218] For purposes of this information
    collection, respondents should consider the number of subscribers to
    be the number of revenue-generating active wireless telephony
    handsets.[^219] We require respondents to report, as a single
    number, total subscribers to mobile telephony service provided via
    satellite, cellular, PCS, and other terrestrial mobile telephony
    services. We conclude that systematic data on the number of
    subscribers to voice grade mobile telephony services, when combined
    with publicly available information on mobile telephony rates, will
    provide a valuable insight into the extent that those mobile
    services are a competitive constraint on providers of wireline local
    exchange service. We also require respondents to provide a good
    faith estimate of the percent of total subscribers they bill
    directly, so as to obtain an indication of the extent to which
    resold service appears in the reported data.

85. Because we require reporting entities to file by state, we clarify
    that subscriber (*i.e.*, handset) counts should be reported based on
    the billing record address of the customer.[^220] Although we
    recognize that the billing address may differ from the geographic
    area or areas in which the mobile telephony service is principally
    used, we believe that this will be the administratively easiest
    solution for reporting carriers and that it will still provide us
    with a reasonably accurate understanding of the pattern of mobile
    telephony deployment. We note that providers of mobile telephony
    services may not have billing address information for prepaid
    subscribers. We direct mobile telephony service providers to include
    prepaid subscribers in their state totals by making good faith
    estimates. Thus, we do not require providers to track and associate
    prepaid subscribers with individual phone numbers assigned.

## Confidentiality of Data

### Background

86. In the Notice, we proposed to make available for public release all
    information collected pursuant to this information collection
    program.[^221] Our reasoning for seeking release of the information
    was twofold. First, public availability allows consumers and experts
    the opportunity to review the data to ensure the accuracy of the
    information. Second, wide dissemination of the information promotes
    a more informed, more efficient market.[^222] Therefore, it was our
    tentative conclusion that these factors strongly favored
    disclosure.[^223] We reiterated in the Notice, however, that such a
    determination would not preclude reporting parties from seeking
    confidential treatment pursuant to Commission rules.[^224]

### 2. Discussion {#discussion-2 .unnumbered}

87. *Overview*. For all the reasons stated in the Notice, we continue to
    believe that the value of this data collection is significantly
    enhanced by making as much information as possible available to the
    public. At the same time, we conclude that we can achieve this goal
    in a manner that ensures the non-disclosure of confidential
    provider-filed data. We discuss, below, our affirmative policies for
    handling this information and we believe that these policies will
    allay commenter concerns that legitimately protectible information
    would be released to the public. We do not, in this Order, make
    findings about whether the data elements requested in the reporting
    form would satisfy the Commission's articulated standard for
    non-disclosure of competitively sensitive information,[^225] but we
    do make clear that our rules for requesting non-disclosure of
    confidential information will be available to all filers of the FCC
    Form 477. Moreover, for purposes of this information collection, we
    take steps to simplify the procedures for requesting confidential
    treatment of data. Our rules for requesting non-disclosure of
    competitively sensitive information afford sufficient protection to
    providers and appropriately balance the concerns of parties
    submitting information with the interests of the public in obtaining
    access to that information. We also make clear that we will not
    release information that is the subject of non-disclosure requests
    until persons requesting confidential treatment are afforded all of
    the procedural protections provided by our confidentiality rules. We
    expect that these policies will allow us to accomplish our goal of
    making as much information as possible available to the public while
    ensuring that service providers can file data with confidence that
    any information found to be competitively sensitive under our rules
    will not be disclosed.

88. We note that several commenters express concern over the potential
    for competitive harm that release of the gathered data could cause
    and, in particular, about the ability of competitors to take the
    data submitted and tailor market strategies to quash nascent
    competition, protect areas that are being subjected to increased
    competition, or deploy facilities to defend strongholds.[^226]
    Again, we believe that our confidentiality rules afford appropriate
    protection of legitimately protectible information, but we take
    additional steps to clarify our existing rules for treatment of
    competitively-sensitive data because we expect that some of the
    respondents to this form may be less familiar with Commission
    practices. The Commission's policy on confidential treatment of
    information submitted pursuant to a survey or study is to "allow
    survey and study respondents to request confidential treatment
    pursuant to Section 0.459 to the extent they can show by a
    preponderance of the evidence a case for non-disclosure consistent
    with the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA)."[^227] Assessment of the
    confidentiality of the information is made on a case-by-case basis
    and action on confidentiality requests is routinely deferred until a
    request for inspection is made.[^228]

89. We also recognize that there is considerable diversity in the way
    that individual service providers handle the data pertaining to
    their operations. Indeed, it is our understanding that some
    providers release considerable data about the nature of their
    operations, while others more closely safeguard such data, including
    the type of data that we request in the reporting form.[^229] We
    anticipate that providers will request confidential treatment for
    data filed where they deem it appropriate. In these cases, and in
    accordance with the Commission's rules, we will honor all parties'
    requests for confidential treatment of information that they
    identify as competitively sensitive until persons requesting
    confidential treatment are afforded all of the procedural
    protections provided by our confidentiality rules.[^230] Moreover,
    in such cases, we agree with those commenters who suggest that we
    can aggregate much of the data \-- for example, by carrier class and
    to the state level \-- so that it does not identify the individual
    provider in our regularly published reports.[^231]

90. We also take an additional step to reduce provider concerns about
    the release of information identified as competitively sensitive by
    making it easier for providers to request confidential treatment of
    their data. In particular, we place a check-box on the first page of
    the FCC Form 477 that allows providers to request non-disclosure of
    all or portions of their submitted data without filing at this point
    in the process the detailed confidentiality justification required
    by our rules.[^232] Thus, where parties seek confidential treatment,
    they need only check the well-marked box on the first page of the
    form and provide a completed and a redacted version of the form, as
    explained fully in the instructions to the Form 477. If the
    Commission receives a request for, or proposes disclosure of, the
    information contained in the Form 477, the provider will be notified
    and required to make the full showing under our rules.[^233] Given
    the unique nature of this data collection, these streamlined
    procedures for requesting non-disclosure should greatly improve the
    ability of smaller providers and providers that are less familiar
    with the Commission's rules to request confidential treatment of
    their data. We expect that this will lead to a greater level of
    compliance with this information collection and will give providers
    confidence that protectible data will not be published in our
    regular reports.

91. *Part I: Broadband Data*. Without making a prospective decision
    about whether these data elements would satisfy the Commission's
    standard for non-disclosure, we state our intention not to publish
    in our publicly-available reports individual provider-filed data for
    the broadband (Part I) portion of the form, even where providers do
    not seek non-disclosure of this data.[^234] At this time, we do not
    have sufficient evidence in the record to make a universally
    applicable decision about the competitive sensitivity of all of the
    Part I Broadband information for all providers, but we do agree to
    aggregate this information in a way that does not identify the
    individual provider data in our reports because commenters have made
    at least an initial showing that all or most of the data filed in
    these sections is typically held confidential by providers of these
    services. Our decision not to publish individual provider
    submissions from the Part I Broadband section reflects the
    particular and limited purposes of this data collection and our
    desire to maximize the level of voluntary compliance with the
    information collection. While this is a mandatory collection, we
    wish to collect as much, and as accurate, information as possible
    about the status of broadband deployment in a short period of time.
    We also, as part of this information collection, encourage service
    providers that are below the reporting thresholds to report data on
    a voluntary basis. Moreover, particularly with respect to the Part I
    broadband data, we conclude that we can achieve substantially the
    same public benefits by releasing this information in an aggregated
    fashion without any potential risk of competitive harm on the part
    of respondents. Given the unique nature of this information
    collection, we believe that this extra step will improve compliance,
    thus enhancing our understanding of the broadband market, without
    any material diminution in value of the information collection.
    Thus, we agree to publish in our regular reports data from Part I of
    the form only once it has been aggregated, for example by provider
    class, [^235] regardless of whether parties request confidential
    treatment on the broadband portion of the form.[^236]

92. *Parts II and III: Local Competition Data*. With respect to the data
    filed in Parts II and III of the form concerning wireline and
    wireless local telephone service, we will also report data in a
    manner that aggregates and does not identify the identity of
    providers where providers have requested non-disclosure of the data.
    We do not decide in advance to publish all of the data filed in Part
    II of the form in an aggregated fashion, however, because it is our
    experience that portions of this data are already made publicly
    available by the individual companies or from other sources. We
    note, for example, that the local competition market is
    characterized by incumbent firms that routinely make available their
    line count data, similar to that reported in Part II of the form.
    Similarly, competitive LECs in some states are required to submit
    line count data and this information is routinely made publicly
    available.[^237] We expect that such providers reporting data in
    Part II of the form will not request non-disclosure of data that has
    already been made publicly available and that the Commission will be
    able to publish this data in our reports. Concerning the Part III
    mobile telephony data, we recognize that mobile telephony providers
    argue that state-by-state subscriber counts are not routinely made
    publicly available. We do not, however, have sufficient evidence to
    make an across-the-board finding at this time. Accordingly,
    providers submitting data concerning these services may check the
    box on Form 477 to request confidential treatment of their data,
    which will afford them the protection of the Commission's
    confidentiality rules.[^238]

93. We emphasize that apart from publicly available information, which
    we anticipate reporting, we intend to publish the local competition
    data in our local competition reports only to the level of detail
    necessary to provide an understanding of how local competition is
    developing. We therefore agree with those commenters who suggest
    that we can aggregate much of the data \-- for example, by carrier
    class and to the state level \-- so that it does not identify the
    individual provider in our regularly published reports. This
    reporting approach, as well as providers' ability to request
    confidential treatment under our rules, should maximize the level of
    voluntary compliance with the information collection.

94. *Part V: Zip Code Data*. In the particular case of Zip Code data
    *(i.e.*, the lists of Zip Codes where service is offered), the
    Commission intends to report information on Zip Codes served, but it
    will not release the identity of specific providers in a given Zip
    Code. Public release of Zip Code data in this manner is appropriate,
    we believe, because it does not reveal information about the actual
    subscribership levels for any particular provider, but only
    indicates the presence of one or more providers in the given Zip
    Code. Although we think it unlikely that any provider would consider
    this limited release to reveal competitively sensitive information,
    we do not limit parties\' ability to seek non-disclosure of such
    data under the Commission\'s rules.[^239]

95. *Sharing data with State Commissions.* Finally, because we wish to
    maximize the value of this information collection for states, we
    conclude that the Chief of the Common Carrier Bureau may release the
    information collected under this program to the state commissions,
    subject to certain conditions.[^240] A state commission may view all
    data submitted on a carrier specific basis, by entities filing data
    for that commission's state, provided that the state has appropriate
    protections in place (which may include confidentiality agreements
    or designation of information as proprietary under state law) that
    would preclude disclosure of any confidential information. However,
    where state laws afford less protection than federal FOIA laws, the
    higher federal standard will prevail.[^241] We are aware that there
    are two states that have "open records" statutes that may prevent
    the state from providing confidential protection for sensitive
    provider information.[^242] In these situations, we will work with
    these state commissions to enable them to obtain access to such
    information in a manner that addresses the state's need for this
    information and also protects the confidential nature of the
    provider's sensitive information. We anticipate that these actions
    will give state commissions a valuable and unique view into the
    state of local competition and broadband deployment in their states.
    In addition, we hope that this will further our goal of reducing the
    overall reporting burdens placed on entities in these markets by
    minimizing the need for additional information collection programs
    at the state level.

96. We conclude that these policies, taken as a whole, most effectively
    balance provider concerns with our broader goals for this
    proceeding. As stated in the Notice, by making the information
    available, consumers, investors, and policy makers will be better
    able to make informed decisions on the development of these markets.
    Such information has value because a better-informed marketplace
    promotes a more efficient marketplace. Also, by allowing public
    release of as much of the information as possible, associations,
    scholars, and others will be able to use the information in their
    independent analyses of Commission policies, thereby aiding the
    Commission in crafting regulations that address specific market
    problems and eliminating those regulations that have outlived their
    usefulness.

## Electronic Filing

### Background

97. In the Notice, we tentatively concluded that parties should submit
    information in an electronically readable format to aid Commission
    staff in utilizing the information more effectively.[^243] We also
    stated that in order to minimize the burden of the information
    collection, reporting parties should submit their information using
    the Excel format, in lieu of a specially developed software
    program.[^244] Further, we tentatively concluded that the
    spreadsheets that constitute the information collection would be
    posted at a unique location on the Common Carrier Bureau\'s Internet
    site for download.[^245] Finally, we tentatively concluded that
    submissions would be filed over the Internet as an attachment to an
    e-mail message directed to a Commission e-mail account.[^246]

### Discussion

98. We adopt the method proposed in the Notice for collection of the
    information through electronic filing except to modify the allowable
    methods of submission. Specifically, the form will be made available
    to reporting entities on the Common Carrier Bureau's website at
    \<www.fcc.gov/broadband/data\> and will utilize Excel 97 software,
    as well as other comparable spreadsheet software programs.[^247]
    Carriers and other entities that must comply with this requirement
    may submit their completed forms to a specified e‑mail address or
    forward to the Commission diskette copies. Regardless of whether the
    reporting entity e-mails its submission or mails diskette copies, an
    officer of the reporting entity must submit a "Certification
    Statement" to the Commission attesting to the truthfulness of the
    data submitted.[^248] We conclude that this filing system will
    ensure, for both the reporting entities and the Commission, that the
    burdens of the program are minimized and that unnecessary
    expenditures for compliance are not incurred. Also, by allowing
    diskette submissions, reporting parties seeking confidential
    treatment can further ensure that the information submitted is
    protected.

99. By utilizing commercially available software and the Internet, the
    program does not impose excessive filing-specific costs on parties.
    We determine that, in this instance, the costs of utilizing a
    specialized reporting system would outweigh the benefits of such a
    system.[^249] Because certain smaller entities and entities not
    accustomed to reporting to the Commission may be asked to report
    under this program, we decide that the public interest is not best
    served by requiring carriers and other respondents to make
    significant investments to accommodate a specialized reporting
    system. Additionally, we will minimize our costs by eliminating the
    need to contract with data systems contractors to develop
    specialized software.

100. At the same time, we believe that some level of automation will be
     beneficial for both respondents and the Commission. By allowing
     respondents to complete the form electronically, added time
     associated with transferring data to paper is eliminated.
     Additionally, by using an electronic format, we will be better able
     to aggregate and incorporate the data into reports, as well as
     minimize error associated with transferring data manually from the
     filings. We therefore conclude that the e-mail/spreadsheet-based
     electronic filing system satisfies the needs of all parties and
     ensures that the burden of reporting is minimized.

101. As we stated in the Notice, we remain committed to making
     electronic filings and other electronic applications accessible to
     persons with disabilities to the fullest extent possible. We note
     that electronic filing is subject to program accessibility
     requirements of Section 1.1850 of our rules.[^250] In addition,
     Congress has revised the requirements for access by persons with
     disabilities to federal information technology programs in the
     Workforce Investment Act of 1998.[^251] We recognize that, in some
     instances, it may be difficult for persons with disabilities to
     access components of the proposed electronic filing. In particular,
     the accessibility of forms and certain types of electronic files
     raises complex technical issues. However, by utilizing commercially
     available software, instead of specially designed software, users
     will be able to utilize "off the rack" software programs that
     assist persons with disabilities. While we will continue to work to
     make the program even more accessible, use of commercially
     available software ensures a greater level of access at this time
     than a Commission-developed software program.

## Survey Modification and Termination

### Background

102. In the Notice, we tentatively concluded that for the information
     collection program to remain valuable, it might be necessary to
     make changes to the form, content, or reporting obligations.[^252]
     Further, to ensure that the information collection does not become
     a permanent regulatory burden, we tentatively concluded that a plan
     for its termination should be determined at the outset.[^253]

### 2. Discussion {#discussion-4 .unnumbered}

103. We reiterate that the purpose of this undertaking is to assist the
     Commission during a critical transition period in evaluating both
     the development of competition for local telephone services and
     broadband deployment and the impact of our rules on those markets.
     We further conclude that the rapidly changing pace and dynamics of
     local competition and broadband deployment will necessitate changes
     to this information collection program in order to ensure its
     continuing value. We, of course, retain our authority to modify,
     eliminate, or expand this information collection, as necessary. We
     nevertheless take additional steps to make sure that this program
     does not outlive its usefulness or, alternatively, fail to keep
     step with developments in these critical areas.

104. In particular, we adopt a five-year sunset provision, which will
     terminate this program unless the Commission takes affirmative
     steps to preserve it. By establishing a date certain from the
     outset, we satisfy two of our stated goals, namely ensuring that
     the program does not outlive its usefulness and minimizing costs
     associated with the program. An annual or other timed review
     process would necessarily require the Commission to conduct
     rulemaking proceedings, which would impose associated costs on both
     the Commission and interested parties. In contrast, by adopting a
     specific sunset provision, such a proceeding will only be necessary
     if the Commission determines that it is necessary and desirable to
     maintain the information collection program beyond the five years.
     The five-year limitation will also allow the Commission to monitor
     development of local telephone competition and broadband deployment
     during this crucial period of market development. With competition
     for local telephone service in its fourth year since the 1996 Act
     and broadband deployment in an even more nascent state, the
     information that will be provided can offer insight into how these
     markets are developing and how our rules are either aiding or
     hindering that development. While some commenters offer more
     restrictive time periods for termination, such as an annual or
     other timed review process, [^254] other commenters suggest that
     the program should have no predetermined sunset provision.[^255] We
     determine that a program of shorter duration than five years would
     not allow the Commission to accurately assess the development of
     these markets over a long enough period of time to make meaningful
     use of the information. We note that adoption of a five-year sunset
     provision neither forecloses parties nor the Commission from
     seeking an earlier termination of the program. Parties retain their
     right to petition the Commission for review of the program and the
     Commission can raise the matter *sua sponte*.[^256] As noted by
     several commenters, the Commission will, of course, conduct a
     review of all its rules that apply to the operations or activities
     of any provider of telecommunications service pursuant to the
     biennial regulatory review process.[^257]

## Outreach and Enforcement

105. The actions we take here will benefit not only the Commission and
     other policy makers, but also the firms that participate in this
     data gathering program. We believe that timely and reliable
     information about the state of broadband deployment and competition
     for local telephone services will enable us to evaluate the nature
     and impact of our existing regulation and to eliminate or modify
     regulation where warranted. Similarly, we believe that analysis of
     the data collected through this requirement may form the basis for
     the Commission to refrain from regulating nascent markets and to
     rely, instead, on market forces. To this end, we stress it is our
     intention to ensure that all firms subject to this reporting
     requirement participate. We note that the Commission has authority
     to collect this information pursuant to sections 4(i), 201,
     218-220, 251-252, 303(r), 332, 403 of the Act,[^258] as well as
     section 706 of the Telecommunications Act of 1996.[^259] As stated
     in the Notice, although the 1996 Act did not confer on us plenary
     jurisdiction to regulate local exchange service, it did task us
     with important roles in opening up all telecommunications markets
     to competition.[^260] We conclude that this data gathering falls
     squarely within the ambit of this authority. Moreover, we note that
     the Commission has authority pursuant to sections 502 and 503 of
     the Act to enforce compliance with its rules by fine or
     forfeiture.[^261]

106. Beyond those firms that are required to report pursuant to this
     data collection, we also invite providers of local telephone
     service and broadband service to voluntarily complete and file the
     new FCC Form 477 even if they do not meet the thresholds for
     mandatory reporting. Particularly in the case of broadband
     reporting, we believe that the thresholds for mandatory reporting
     are set so that we will be able to detect at an early stage
     deployment by committed market participants. We nevertheless
     believe that there may be other, smaller providers that, were they
     to submit data on a voluntary basis, would significantly enhance
     our understanding of broadband deployment especially to niche
     markets. In our view, the more firms that report data to us, the
     more complete our understanding of broadband deployment and
     competition for local telephone services will be. As noted earlier,
     such an understanding is critical to our ability to assess
     developing markets and avoid unnecessary regulation.

107. We also intend to conduct industry outreach sessions to promote
     awareness of this mandatory reporting requirement, encourage
     participation by exempt firms, and assist companies in completing
     the new FCC Form 477. These fora will be conducted in coordination
     with various industry associations in advance of the first filing
     of the form. We expect that these outreach efforts should increase
     compliance and minimize the burden on the broadband and local
     telephone service providers that will report this form for the
     first time on May 15, 2000.

# PROCEDURAL MATTERS

## Final Paperwork Reduction Act Analysis

108. As required by the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, the *Local
     Competition and Broadband Deployment Notice* invited the general
     public and the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) to comment on
     the proposed information collection requirements contained in the
     Notice. On December 22, 1999, OMB approved the proposed information
     collection, as submitted to OMB.[^262] In this Report and Order, we
     adopt the proposed Local Competition and Broadband Reporting form,
     but modify our proposal to reflect comments received from OMB and
     other commenters. The revised Local Competition and Broadband
     Reporting form is subject to approval by OMB.

109. As described above, the form that we adopt in this Order reflects
     our efforts to collect the information necessary to monitor the
     development of local competition and broadband to fulfill our
     statutory directives, while reducing to the lowest possible level
     the burden on those entities that must file the form. The
     categories of information requested from reporting entities ask for
     information that should be readily available to the reporting
     entities and should not require significant resources to collect.

## Final Regulatory Flexibility Act Analysis

110. As required by the Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA),[^263] the
     Commission has prepared a Final Regulatory Flexibility Analysis
     (FRFA) of the possible significant economic impact on small
     entities of the policies and rules proposed in this Order. The FRFA
     is set forth as Appendix C. The Office of Public Affairs, Reference
     Operations Division, will send a copy of this Order, including the
     FRFA, to the Chief Counsel for Advocacy of the Small Business
     Administration.

# ORDERING CLAUSES

111. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that, pursuant to sections 1-5, 10, 11,
     201-205, 215, 218-220, 251-271, 303(r), 332, 403, 502, and 503 of
     the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. §§ 151-155,
     160, 161, 201-205, 215, 218-220, 251-271, 303(r), 332, 403, 502,
     and 503 and pursuant to section 706 of the Telecommunications Act
     of 1996, 47 U.S.C. § 157 nt, this ORDER, with all attachments, is
     hereby ADOPTED.

112. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the requirements and regulations
     established in this Order shall become effective upon approval by
     OMB of the modified information collection requirements adopted
     herein, but no sooner than thirty days after publication in the
     Federal Register. The Commission shall place a notice in the
     Federal Register announcing the effective date of the requirements
     and regulations adopted herein.

113. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that providers subject to the requirements
     and regulation established in this order shall complete and file
     the Local Competition and Broadband Reporting Form (FCC Form 477)
     no later than May 15, 2000 and semi-annually thereafter.

114. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Commission\'s Consumer Information
     Bureau, Reference Information Center, SHALL SEND a copy of this
     Local Competition and Broadband Reporting Requirement Report and
     Order, including the Final Regulatory Flexibility Analysis, to the
     Chief Counsel for Advocacy of the Small Business Administration.

     FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION

     Magalie Roman Salas

Secretary

# APPENDIX A - RULES AMENDED {#appendix-a---rules-amended .unnumbered}

**AMENDMENTS TO THE CODE OF FEDERAL REGULATIONS**

**PART 1 ‑‑ PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE**

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

AUTHORITY: 15 U.S.C. 79 *et seq.*; 47 U.S.C. 151, 154(i), 154,(j), 155,
157, 225, and 303(r).

2\. Subpart V of Part 1 is created to read as follows:

**Subpart V \-- Implementation of Section 706 of the
Telecommunications**

**Act of 1996; Commission Collection of Advanced Telecommunications**

**Capability Data**

**§ 1.7000 Purpose**

The purpose of this Part is to set out the terms by which certain
commercial and government-controlled entities report data to the
Commission concerning the deployment of advanced telecommunications
capability, defined pursuant to 47 U.S.C. § 157 as \"high-speed,
switched, broadband telecommunications capability that enables users to
originate and receive high-quality voice, data, graphics, and video
telecommunications using any technology," and the deployment of services
that are competitive with advanced telecommunications capability.

**§ 1.7001 Scope and Content of Filed Reports**

(a) Definitions: Terms used in this Subpart have the following meanings:

```{=html}
<!-- -->
```
(1) \"Full broadband lines or wireless channels\" is defined as lines or
    wireless channels with information carrying capability in excess of
    200 Kbps in both directions simultaneously.

(2) "One-way broadband lines or wireless channels" is defined as lines
    or wireless channels with information carrying capability in excess
    of 200 Kbps in at least one direction, but not both.

(3) "Facilities-based providers" is defined as those entities that
    provide broadband services over their own facilities or over
    Unbundled Network Elements (UNEs), special access lines, and other
    leased lines and wireless channels that the entity obtains from a
    communications service provider and equips as broadband.

(4) "Own facilities" is defined as lines and wireless channels the
    entity actually owns and facilities that it obtained the right to
    use from other entities as dark fiber or satellite transponder
    capacity.

```{=html}
<!-- -->
```
(b) All commercial and government-controlled entities, including but not
    limited to common carriers and their affiliates (as defined in 47
    U.S.C. § 153 (1)), cable television companies, Multichannel
    Multipoint Distribution Service (MMDS/MDS) \"wireless cable\"
    carriers, other fixed wireless providers, terrestrial and satellite
    mobile wireless providers, utilities and others, which are
    facilities-based providers and are providing at least 250 full or
    one-way broadband lines or wireless channels in a given state, or
    provide full or one-way broadband service to at least 250 end-user
    consumers in a given state, shall file with the Commission a
    completed FCC Form 477, in accordance with the Commission's rules
    and the instructions to the FCC Form 477, for each state in which
    they exceed this threshold.

(c) Respondents identified in subsection (b) shall file the FCC Form 477
    on diskette or via e-mail, as directed in the instructions to the
    FCC Form 477. Upon submission of each report, an original
    certification letter (as contained in the instructions to FCC
    Form 477) signed by the responsible official shall be mailed to the
    Commission.

(d) Respondents may make requests for Commission non-disclosure of
    provider-specific data contained in FCC Form 477 under § 0.459 of
    this chapter by so indicating on Form 477 at the time that the
    subject data are submitted. The Commission shall make all decisions
    regarding non-disclosure of provider-specific information, except
    that the Chief of the Common Carrier Bureau may release
    provider-specific information to a state commission, provided that
    the state commission has protections in place that would preclude
    disclosure of any confidential information.

(e) Respondents identified in subsection (b) shall file a revised
    version of FCC Form 477 if and when they discover a significant
    error in their filed FCC Form 477. For counts, a difference
    amounting to 5 percent of the filed number is considered
    significant. For percentages, a difference of 5 percentage points is
    considered significant.

(f) Failure to file the FCC Form 477 in accordance with the Commission's
    rules and the instructions to the Form 477 may lead to enforcement
    action pursuant to the Act and any other applicable law.

**§ 1.7002 Frequency of Reports**

Entities subject to the provisions of § 1.7001 shall file reports
semi-annually. Reports shall be filed each year on or before March 1^st^
(reporting data about the status of their broadband deployment as of
December 31 of the prior year) and September 1^st^ (reporting data about
the status of their broadband deployment as of June 31 of the current
year). Entities becoming subject to the provisions of § 1.7001 for the
first time within a calendar year shall file data for the reporting
period in which they become eligible and semi-annually thereafter.
Entities subject to the provisions of § 1.7001 shall make an initial
filing of the FCC Form 477 on May 15, 2000 (reporting data about the
status of their broadband deployment as of December 31, 1999).

\* \* \* \* \*

**PART 20 ‑‑ COMMERCIAL MOBILE RADIO SERVICES**

1\. The authority citation for Part 20 is amended to read as follows:

AUTHORITY: 47 U.S.C. 154, 157, 160, 251-254, 303, and 332 unless
otherwise noted.

2\. Subsection 20.15(b) of the Commission\'s rules is amended to read as
follows:

**§ 20.15 Requirements under Title II of the Communications Act**

\(b\) Commercial mobile radio service providers are not required to:

\(1\) File with the Commission copies of contracts entered into with
other carriers or comply with other reporting requirements, or with §§
1.781 - 1.814 and 43.21 of this chapter; except that commercial radio
service providers that offer broadband service, as described in
§1.7001(a) or mobile telephony are required to file reports pursuant to
Subpart V of Part 1 and 43.11 of this chapter to the extent that they
meet the thresholds as set out in §§ 1.7001(b) and 43.11(a). For
purposes of this Subpart, \"mobile telephony\" is defined as real-time,
two-way switched voice service that is interconnected with the public
switched network utilizing an in-network switching facility that enables
the provider to reuse frequencies and accomplish seamless handoff of
subscriber calls.

\* \* \* \* \*

**PART 43 - REPORTS OF COMMUNICATION COMMON**

**CARRIERS AND CERTAIN AFFILIATES**

Part 43 of Title 47 of the Code of Federal Regulations (C.F.R.) is
amended as follows:

1\. The authority citation for Part 43 continues to read as follows:

AUTHORITY: 47 U.S.C. § 154; Telecommunications Act of 1996, Pub. L.
104-104, secs. 402(b)(2)(B), (c), 110 Stat. 56 (1996) as amended unless
otherwise noted. 47 U.S.C. 211, 219, 220 as amended.

2\. Section 43.01 of the Commission\'s rules is amended to read as
follows:

**§ 43.01 Applicability**

\(a\) \* \* \*

\(b\) Except as provided in paragraphs (c) and (d) of this section,
carriers becoming subject to the provisions of the several sections of
this part for the first time, shall, within thirty (30) days of becoming
subject, file the required data as set forth in the various sections of
this part.

\(c\) \* \* \*

\(d\) Common carriers subject to the provisions of § 43.11 of this
Chapter shall file data semi-annually. Reports shall be filed each year
on or before March 1^st^ (reporting data about their deployment of local
exchange services as of December 31 of the prior year) and September
1^st^ (reporting data about their deployment of local exchange services
as of June 31 of the current year). Common carriers becoming subject to
the provisions of § 43.11 for the first time within a calendar year
shall file data for the reporting period in which they become eligible
and semi-annually thereafter. Common carriers subject to the provisions
of § 43.11 shall make an initial filing of the FCC Form 477 on May 15,
2000 (reporting data about their deployment of local exchange services
as of December 31, 1999).

3\. Section 43.11 of the Commission\'s rules is added to read as
follows:

**§ 43.11 Reports of Local Exchange Competition Data**

\(a\) All common carriers and their affiliates (as defined in 47 U.S.C.
§153 (1)) providing telephone exchange or exchange access service (as
defined in 47 U.S.C. §153 (16) and (47)) or commercial mobile radio
service (CMRS) providers offering mobile telephony (as defined in
section 20.15(b)(1) of this chapter), which provide at least 10,000
voice-grade equivalent lines or wireless channels or have at least
10,000 end-user consumers in a given state, shall file with the
Commission a completed FCC Form 477, in accordance with the Commission's
rules and the instructions to the FCC Form 477, for each state in which
they exceed this threshold.

(b) Respondents identified in subsection (a) shall file the FCC Form 477
    on diskette or via e-mail, as directed in the instructions to the
    FCC Form 477. Upon submission of each report, an original
    certification letter (as contained in the instructions to FCC
    Form 477) signed by the responsible official shall be mailed to the
    Commission.

(c) Respondents may make requests for Commission non-disclosure of
    provider-specific data contained in the Form 477 under § 0.459 of
    this chapter by so indicating on the Form 477 at the time that the
    subject data are submitted. The Commission shall make all decisions
    regarding non-disclosure of provider-specific information, except
    that the Chief of the Common Carrier Bureau may release
    provider-specific information to a state commission, provided that
    the state commission has protections in place that would preclude
    disclosure of any confidential information.

(d) Respondents identified in subsection (b) shall file a revised
    version of FCC Form 477 if and when they discover a significant
    error in their filed FCC Form 477. For counts, a difference
    amounting to 5 percent of the filed number is considered
    significant. For percentages, a difference of 5 percentage points is
    considered significant.

(e) Failure to file FCC Form 477 in accordance with the Commission's
    rules and the instructions to Form 477 may lead to enforcement
    action pursuant to the Act and any other applicable law.

#  {#section .unnumbered}

# APPENDIX B - LOCAL COMPETITION AND BROADBAND REPORTING FORM {#appendix-b---local-competition-and-broadband-reporting-form .unnumbered}

FCC Form 477, March 2000

Approved by OMB 3060-xxxx

Estimated Average Burden Hours Per Response: \_\_ Hours

**Instructions for the Local Competition and Broadband Reporting Form
(FCC Form 477)**

# PURPOSE

The FCC Form 477 collects information on the deployment of broadband,
local telephone and mobile telephony services from providers of these
services. Data obtained from this form will be used to describe
competition for local telecommunications services and deployment of
broadband services. *See Local Competition and Broadband Reporting*,
Order, FCC 00-114 (rel. March 30, 2000) for additional information about
this collection.

# Who must file this form?

Three types of communications service providers must file this form:

-   **Providers of Broadband Services:**

Facilities-based providers of broadband services (including incumbent
and competitive LECs, cable companies, fixed wireless providers,
terrestrial and satellite mobile wireless providers, MMDS providers,
utilities, and others) must complete and file the applicable portions of
this form for **each state** in which they provide **250** **or more**
"full or one-way broadband" lines (or wireless channels) or provide
"full or one-way broadband" service to **250** **or more** end user
consumers. The applicable portions of the form are: 1) the Cover Page;
2) Part I; 3) Part IV (if necessary); and Part V.

> **Note:** an entity is considered a "facilities-based broadband
> provider" if it provides broadband services over facilities that it
> owns or provisions/equips as broadband. More specifically,
> "facilities-based providers" include entities that provide broadband
> services over their own facilities, or over unbundled network elements
> (UNEs), special access lines, and other leased lines and wireless
> channels that they equip as broadband.

-   **Providers of Local Telephone Services:**

Incumbent and competitive local exchange carriers (LECs) must complete
and file the applicable portions of the form for **each state** in which
they provide **10,000 or more** "voice-grade equivalent lines (or
wireless channels)." For purposes of this threshold, filers need only
consider the number of voice-grade equivalent lines (or wireless
channels) that would be reported in Line D.II-8(a) of the form. The
applicable portions of the form are: 1) the Cover Page; 2) Part II; 3)
Part IV (if necessary); and Part V.

-   **Providers of Mobile Telephony Services:**

> Facilities-based providers of mobile telephony services (see 47 C.F.R.
> 20.15(b)(1)) must complete and file the applicable portions of this
> form for **each state** in which they serve **10,000 or more** mobile
> telephony subscribers. Firms providing mobile telephony services using
> spectrum obtained via lease or other agreement with a Band Manager
> must also complete the applicable portions of this form. The
> applicable portions of the form are: 1) the Cover Page; 2) Part III;
> 3) Part IV (if necessary).
>
> **Note:** Mobile telephony is defined as real-time, two-way switched
> voice service that is interconnected with the public switched network
> using an in-network switching facility that enables the provider to
> reuse frequencies and accomplish seamless handoff of subscriber calls.

**Important Note for All Providers about Calculating Reporting
Thresholds:** Reporting thresholds are calculated based collectively on
all commonly-owned and commonly-controlled affiliates operating in a
given state. \[See 47 U.S.C. § 153(1) (establishing a 10% equity
interest as indicia of ownership).\] That is, a provider must report for
each state in which it and all affiliates collectively meet reporting
thresholds. Such affiliates are, nevertheless, permitted to file forms
for such states either combined or separately \-- at their discretion.

# Line-by-line instructions for completing form fcc 477

## Cover Page \-- Name and Contact Information (All Filers)

**Line 1:** Provide the name of the entity whose data is contained in
the form.

**Line 2:** Select the category that best describes the type of
technology that you use to provide services. Choose from Cable Coaxial,
Fiber, Fixed Wireless, Mobile Wireless, Reseller, Satellite, Wireline
Local Exchange Carrier, or Other.

**Line 3:** In general, you can combine operations in a state or report
them separately. However, entities that are, or are affiliated with, an
incumbent LEC must complete and file separate forms for their incumbent
LEC and non-incumbent LEC operations. All filers should indicate whether
this filing is for an incumbent LEC filing or a non-incumbent LEC
filing.

**Line 4:** You must provide a single name, such as a holding company
name, so that all affiliated or commonly operated companies can be
identified. See "Important Note for All Providers about Calculating
Reporting Thresholds" for more information on which companies should be
considered to be affiliated or commonly-controlled. The Excel 97
spreadsheet version of the form (preferred) has a drop down box with
standardized names. The Lotus 123 spreadsheet version of the form has a
list of standardized names. If your company's name is not in the list,
enter a name in the space provided.

**Line 5:** File a separate form for each state in which you meet the
filing threshold. In this line, indicate the state for which you are
filing data. For this purpose, treat the District of Colombia, Puerto
Rico, and the U.S. Virgin Islands as states.

**Line 6:** Provide a contact name for the person who prepared this
filing.

**Line 7:** Provide the telephone number and e-mail address for the
contact person listed in Line 6.

**Line 8:** File a revised form if you discover mistakes. Use Line 8 to
indicate whether this filing is an original or a revised filing.

**Line 9:** Indicate whether you request non-disclosure of some or all
of the information reported in the Form 477. You may request
non-disclosure if you believe that this information is privileged and

> confidential and that public disclosure of such information would
> likely cause substantial harm to the competitive position of the
> filer. Note that if you request non-disclosure of some or all of the
> data, you must also file a public version of the form with such
> information redacted, as explained below in Sections IV-B and IV-C of
> the instructions.

**Line 10:** If you requested non-disclosure in Line 9, indicate whether
the file is your complete or redacted filing. See Sections IV-B and IV-C
of the instructions for information on preparing a redacted file.

## Part I: Broadband (Broadband Providers Only)

**INCLUDE in Part I:** In this section, broadband providers report
information about their **full and one-way broadband lines/wireless
channels** (for purposes of this section "lines") in service to
end-users. **Full broadband lines** are lines with information carrying
capability in excess of 200 Kbps in both directions, simultaneously.
**One-way broadband lines** are lines with information carrying capacity
in excess of 200 Kbps in one direction (typically downstream) and less
than or equal to 200 Kbps in the other direction (typically upstream).
For purposes of this information collection, the information carrying
capacity of a line or wireless circuit is the customer\'s authorized
maximum usage ("speed") on that line or wireless circuit. Filers must
report broadband lines that they provide over their own facilities as
well as those provided over unbundled network elements (UNEs), special
access lines, and other leased lines that the filer equips as broadband.

**EXCLUDE in Part I:** broadcast cable television service and other
multi-channel video programming; video-on-demand type service unless it
is bundled with Internet-type access or uses Internet-type delivery
protocols; and channelized services which restrict the customer to both
transmitting and receiving data at 200 Kbps or less. Exclude lines that
connect two locations of the same customer (not to be reported anywhere
on FCC Form 477) and special access and private line services that you
believe are used for exchange telephone service (to be reported in Part
II-C). Where a provider does not know whether a high capacity line or
wireless channel is being used as a broadband line or as a telephone
service line, it should report that line in Part II-C (either Line
C.II-6 or C.II.-7, as appropriate). If you provide a line to another
filer who is likely to include services provided over that line in its
own report (for example, because the other filer equips the line or UNE
as broadband), then that line should be reported in Part II-C of your
filing.

**Report broadband lines on Lines I-1 through I-8** based on the
technology employed by the part of the line that actually connects to
the customer's premises. If different technologies are used in different
directions, then report the line based on the direction for which you
provide the greatest bandwidth.

**[Lines]{.underline}**

**Important note about categorizing services to provide line counts:**
In general, a single service offering should be reported in only one
part of the form by a single reporter. In categorizing lines, base your
response on the portion of the line or channel that connects to the
customer\'s premise and the type of service that is provided. **Count
only lines that are in service**, including lines that you provide to
end users and lines that you provide to companies that in turn use those
lines to provide broadband or telephone service to end users.

**Line A.I-1:** Report the number of broadband lines/wireless channels
used to provide asymmetric xDSL service.

**Line A.I-2:** Report the number of broadband lines/wireless channels
provided over other traditional wireline facilities including symmetric
xDSL service.

**Line A.I-3:** Report the number of broadband lines/wireless channels
provided over coaxial carrier systems (including hybrid fiber-coaxial
systems).

**Line A.I-4:** Report the number of broadband lines/wireless channels
provided over optical carrier (fiber to the end user).

**Line A.I-5:** Report the number of broadband lines/wireless channels
provided over satellite.

**Line A.I-6:** Report the number of broadband lines/wireless channels
provided over terrestrial fixed wireless.

**Line A.I-7:** Report the number of broadband lines/wireless channels
provided over terrestrial mobile wireless.

**Line A.I-8**: Report the number of broadband lines/wireless channels
provided over all other technologies.

**[Columns]{.underline}**

**Note about Reporting Percentage Breakouts:** Parts I, II, and III of
Form 477 direct filers to provide percentages breakouts for specific
line/wireless channel counts. If disaggregated counts exist for another
purpose, then these must be used to calculate the requested percentage
breakouts. However, filers are not expected to calculate percentages
based on exhaustive counts performed solely for this task. Rather, where
disaggregated counts do not exist, filers may provide good faith
estimates of percentages based on the best information available to the
filer. For example, if there is a pricing distinction between services
provided to residential, small business and large business customers,
then billing information should be used to estimate the percentage of
lines provided to residential and small business customers. In the
absence of such counts, however, filers should rely on studies done for
other purposes, such as marketing and business plan information,
demographic data, etc. A filer should conduct limited special studies
only in the event that it cannot provide estimates that it reasonably
expects to be accurate within plus or minus five percentage points.

**Column (a):** Report the number of total one-way and full-broadband
lines/wireless channels in service that are used to provide service for
each of the lines described above (Lines A.I-1 through A.I-8).

**Column (b):** Report the percentage of total lines from column (a)
that are used by residential and small business customers (as opposed to
large business, institutional, or other customers). In Part I, classify
service provided to customers as residential and small business if they
take broadband services normally associated with residential customers.
Such lines could be classified as residential and small business based
on marketing information, such as demographics associated with the
geographic area where the lines are provided.

**Column (c):** Report the percentage of broadband lines and wireless
channels from column (a) that are provided over your own facilities.
Count as your own facilities, those facilities that you actually owned
as well as facilities that you obtained the right to use from other
entities as dark fiber or satellite transponder capacity (and that you
used as part of your own system).

**Column (d):** Report the percentage of total lines from column (a)
that are provided -- that is, billed -- directly to end users by the
filer. End-users are residential, business, institutional and government
customers who use the services for their own purposes and do not resell
them to other entities. Classify lines/wireless channels as end-user
lines if they are billed or marketed by your agents. For example, do not
classify as end user, broadband lines/channels provided to Internet
Service Providers that are incorporated into their premium Internet
service options for provision to their end-user consumers.

**Column (e):** Report the percentage of total lines from column (a)
that deliver to the end user consumer greater than 200 Kbps in both
directions, simultaneously.

**Column (f):** Report the percentage of total lines from column (a)
that deliver to the end-user consumer greater than 2 Mbps in both,
directions simultaneously. Note that every line reported in this column
would, by definition, also be reported in column (e). Thus, column (f)
should not contain a greater percentage than column (e).

## Part II: Wireline and Fixed Wireless Local Telecommunications (Local Telephone Service Providers Only)

**INCLUDE in Part II**: Report all **voice-grade equivalent local
exchange service lines** and all lines that are used for exchange access
services that you do not report in Part I. Include lines you provide
using wireline as well as fixed wireless technologies. Include lines (or
wireless channels) that you reported as broadband in Part I, but that
your customer can switch between broadband and local exchange or
exchange access service without you changing how the line (or wireless
channel) is provisioned.

**EXCLUDE in Part II**: Do **not** report in Part II lines not yet in
service, lines used for interoffice trunking, lines that connect two
locations of the same customer, company official lines, or lines that
you provide as a broadband service reported in Part I. Do not report in
Part II transport lines between your switching center and Internet
protocol, ATM or circuit switched networks, where you already are
reporting the portion of the line between the end user and your
switching center, even if you multiplexed those lines and provided
higher capacity lines between your switching center and those networks.

**Note for reporting channelized service**: In Part II-A and Part II-B,
providers are to report voice-grade [equivalent]{.underline} lines.
Count as one voice-grade equivalent line: traditional analog POTS lines,
Centrex-CO extensions, and Centrex-CU trunks. Count lines based on how
they are charged to the customer rather than how they are physically
provisioned. For example, count Basic Rate (BRI) Integrated Services
Digital Network (ISDN) lines as two voice-grade equivalent lines. Report
8 voice-grade equivalent lines if a customer buys 8 trunks that happen
to be provisioned over a DS1 circuit. If a customer buys a DS1 circuit
that is provided as channelized service, report 24 voice-grade
equivalent lines, even if there is some indication that the customer is
only using 8 of the derived lines. Lines reported in Part II, section C,
however, should not be reported in voice-grade equivalents, but should
reflect actual circuit counts.

**Note for competitive LECs providing local exchange service over hybrid
fiber-coaxial cable television systems:** If you cannot determine the
number of lines from your records, you are permitted to report the
number of subscribers.

**[Lines]{.underline}**

**Important note about categorizing services to provide line counts:**
see this note, above, at page 3.

In **Lines A.II-1** (service provided to end users) and **Lines B.II-2
through B.II-3** (service provided to other carriers), report
voice-grade equivalent lines (or wireless channels) used to provide
voice telephone service. By "voice telephone service," we mean local
exchange or exchange access services that allow end users to originate
and terminate local telephone calls on the public switched network,
whether used by the end user for voice telephone calls or for other
types of calls carried over the public switched network (for example,
lines used for facsimile equipment). Filers report voice telephone
service in terms of voice-grade equivalent lines or wireless channels.
Thus, a voice-grade equivalent line (or wireless channel) is a line or
channel that directly connects an end user to a carrier and allows the
end user to originate and terminate local telephone calls on the public
switched network. Voice-grade equivalent lines include high capacity
lines that are channelized to provide voice-grade service. See "Note for
reporting channelized service," above, at page 5.

**Line A.II-1:** Report total voice-grade equivalent lines/wireless
channels you provided directly to end-user consumers. Include lines
provided to end users by your agents or under traditional marketing
arrangements. For example, include lines provided to shared tenant
service providers.

**Line B.II-2:** Report total lines/wireless channels you provided to
other communications carriers under a Total Service Resale arrangement
(i.e., provided pursuant to section 251(c)(4) of the Communications Act
of 1934, as amended).

**Line B.II-3:** Report total lines/wireless channels you provided to
other communications carriers under other resale arrangements.

In **Lines C.II-4 through C.II-7**, report the actual number of lines
billed to the customer. Note that in Lines C.II-6 and C.II-7, the
customer may be either an end user or another telecommunications
carrier. Do not convert high capacity lines into voice-grade equivalent
counts. Include high capacity lines that would meet the definition of
broadband, but that are provided to another entity who is likely to
report as broadband any services provided over those lines.

**Line C.II-4**: Report lines/wireless channels that you provided under
a UNE loop arrangement, where you do not provide switching for the line.
Include the high frequency portion of the loop if sold as a UNE.

**Line C.II-5**: Report lines/wireless channels that you provided under
a UNE loop arrangement, where you also provide switching for the line.

**Line C.II-6**: Report special access lines that you do not provide as
broadband.

**Line C.II-7:** Report private lines that connect an end-user premise
to a telecommunications carrier and that you do not provide as
broadband.

**Line D.II-8:** Report the total lines/wireless channels reported in
Lines A.II-1, B.II-2, and B.II-3.

**[Columns]{.underline}**

**Column (a):** For **Lines A.II-1** (service provided to end users),
**Lines B.II-2 through B.II-3** (service provided to other carriers),
and **Line D.II-8** (total voice-grade equivalent lines in service),
report voice- grade equivalent lines used to provide local exchange
services. For **Lines C.II-4 through C.II-7** (UNEs, special access
lines, and private lines), report the number of lines or wireless
channels (*i.e.*, not the voice-grade equivalent of those lines or
wireless channels) that are used for exchange access services that you
do not report in Part I.

**Note:** See note above, page 4, about reporting data on percentages.

**Column (b):** Report percentage of column (a) used for service billed
to residential and small business customers. In Part II, classify lines
provided to other carriers as residential and small business if the
lines are ordered in quantities of fewer than four (4) voice-grade
equivalent lines, if they are ordered as services rated as residential
or small business, or based on marketing information, such as
demographic information associated with the geographic areas where the
lines are provided. Include as residential lines that you provide to a
shared tenant service provider in an apartment building.

**Column (c):** Report percentage of lines and wireless channels in
column (a) provided over your own facilities. Count as your own
facilities, those facilities that you actually owned as well as
facilities that you obtained the right to use from other entities as
dark fiber or satellite transponder capacity (and that you used as part
of your own system).

**Column (d):** Report percentage of column (a) provided over UNE loops.

**Column (e):** Report percentage of column (a) provided through
incumbent LEC switching centers in which there is at least one
collocation arrangement. In this column, incumbent LECs should estimate
the percentage of their voice-grade equivalent lines and channels
offered through such offices. Other reporting carriers should estimate
the percentage of their voice-grade equivalent lines that are provided
through use of a collocation arrangement. Thus, a CLEC providing lines
on a pure resale basis would report 0% of lines offered in ILEC COLO
offices, even if some of the resold lines were in offices in which some
other entity had a collocation arrangement.

**Note:** For the purposes of completing Part II, an "ILEC COLO
switching center" is an ILEC switching center in which one or more
competing local exchange carriers (CLECs) has an operational collocation
arrangement as defined in 47 C.F.R. §51.5. A switching center is a
location containing one or more switches. Do not consider separate
three-digit telephone prefixes as separate switching centers. Consider a
remote as a separate switching center if a competing carrier could
obtain a UNE loop **only** at the remote switch rather than at the host
switch. This definition of a switching center is different from wire
center based definitions of switching centers, which include all remote
switch locations as switching centers. If collocation occurs only at a
remote switch, treat all lines served at the remote as being provided at
a COLO switch and treat lines at the host switch as not being provided
at a COLO switch.

**Column (f):** For Line D.II-8, report percentage of column (a) carried
over cable coaxial facilities used in the part of the line/wireless
channel at the end user location.

**Column (g):** For Line D.II-8, report percentage of column (a) carried
over fixed wireless facilities used in the part of the line/wireless
channel at the end user location.

**Column (h):** For Line D.II-8, report percentage of column (a) carried
over all other facilities, including but not limited to twisted copper
pair, used in the part of the line/wireless channel at the end user
location.

## Part III: Mobile Local Telephone (Mobile Telephony Providers Only)

**Line A. III-1:** Report all mobile telephone subscribers served over
your own facilities that give customers the ability to place or receive
calls from the public switched telephone network. Include: satellite,
cellular, and PCS telephone service & other terrestrial mobile services;
and, units in service that combine voice telephone with other services.
Report only mobile telephony subscribers that you serve using spectrum
licenses you own or manage, and not subscribers that you serve via
resale of another firm's facilities.

**Note:** Exclude mobile services that customers cannot use to directly
place calls to subscribers of ordinary telephone service, such as
dispatch services and one-way or two-way paging services. Also exclude
voice services that permit communications between only a narrow range of
locations such as automobile units that permit drivers to communicate
only with a specific road service.

**Column (a):** Report the total number of subscribers, as described
above, in the state. Count as a subscriber a mobile handset, car-phone
or other activated voice unit that has a unique phone number and that
can place and receive calls from the public switched network. Mobile
telephony subscriber counts by state should be based on billing
addresses, not area codes of telephone numbers provided to subscribers.

**Column (b):** Report the percentage of subscribers in column (a) that
you bill directly to end users (as opposed to those units in service
that were provided through resellers or distributors for pre-paid
service).

## Part IV: Explanations and Comments (All Filers, only if necessary)

Complete Part IV if you wish to furnish any explanatory information with
your data. Filers should identify the Part and Line to which their
comment applies in the columns provided.

## Part V: Zip Code Listings (Broadband Providers and Local Telephone Service Providers)

**Line V-1:** Report the 5 digit Zip Codes \-- for this state \-- in
which you provide service to end-user locations.

**Column (a):** If you file broadband information in Part I, you must
provide a list of Zip Codes in the state in which you provide broadband
service.

**Column (b):** If you file local exchange service information in Part
II, then you must provide a list of Zip Codes in the state in which you
provide local exchange service. Providers of mobile telephony services
need not provide this information.

**Note:** These Zip Code lists should correspond to areas in which
service is actually being used by customers, rather than authorized
territory, planned build-out, location of facilities, etc. The list can
be based on engineering information (such as maps showing actual service
territory) or on billing information, such as the Zip Codes of actual
customers. If the latter approach is selected, please review the
resulting list and delete any Zip Codes which clearly are out of your
service territory and which appear only because the billing address is
likely different from the service address.

# general information

## Where and When to File

## When to File

Service providers that meet the reporting thresholds must file the FCC
Form 477 semi-annually:

-   March 1^st^ of each year: providers must file data as of December 31
    of the preceding year.

-   September 1^st^ of each year: providers must file data as of June 30
    of the same year.

## Where to File

**Mail the Certification Statement and 3.5 inch floppy disk (containing
your completed Form 477) to:** Industry Analysis Division, Room, 6-A220,
445 12^th^ St., S.W., Washington, D.C. 20554.

Also, please also send a copy of the transmittal letter and files via
e-mail to [FCC477@fcc.gov](mailto:Lcomp@fcc.gov). You need not file via
e-mail if you do not believe e-mail adequately protects data you
consider proprietary. In the future, if e-mail submission proves
satisfactory, we may eliminate the requirement to physically mail files.

## How to File

### Preparation of Data Files

You must file your local competition and broadband deployment data using
the electronic version available at
[[http://www.fcc.gov/formpage.html]{.underline}](http://www.fcc.gov/) or
by contacting International Transcription Services (ITS) at (202)
857-3800. Form 477 will change over time, so filers must obtain the
latest version of this spreadsheet each filing period.

The electronic version of Form 477 is provided in two formats: Excel 97
and Lotus 123 Version 5. The Excel 97 version contains drop-down boxes
and some edit checks. The Lotus version should be usable in most
spreadsheet programs. **Once you complete a filing, rename the file in
accordance with instructions provided below.** If you wish to assert
confidentiality for any information provided in the filing, you must
provide a redacted version of the file, renamed in accordance with the
instructions provided below. If you do not provide a redacted version of
the file using the proper file names, you risk having confidential
information released.

You may not move cells, insert or delete rows, or change the validation
or formatting characteristics of any cell. **If the FCC cannot load your
files into its databases as a result of modifications to the file, the
file will be returned to you for correction and resubmission.** When a
filer submits multiple Form 477s, the filer may place multiple
spreadsheet files on a single 3.5 inch IBM format diskette. However,
filers must save each Form 477 as a separate spreadsheet file. Do not
submit multiple Form 477 worksheets within a single Excel 97 workbook or
as multiple levels an a single Lotus file.

**Each file name must adhere to the following convention:**

SSTH#name.XLS or SSTH#name.WK4; where:

[SS]{.underline} is the two letter post office abbreviation for the
state.

[T]{.underline} is a single character representing principal filing
type. Since ILEC data must be filed separately from non-ILEC data, this
convention distinguishes the files. In addition, this character is used
to distinguish refiled and redacted data. Use the following codes:

> A = original filing for non-ILEC operations
>
> B = original filing for ILEC operations
>
> C = original redacted filing for non-ILEC operations
>
> D = original redacted filing for ILEC operations
>
> E = revised filing for non-ILEC operations
>
> F = revised filing for ILEC operations
>
> G = revised redacted filing for non-ILEC operations
>
> H = revised redacted filing for ILEC operations
>
> [H]{.underline} is the half of year, use:

"J" for data as of June 30

"D" for data as of December 31

[\#]{.underline} is a sequence number if a filer chooses to submit more
than one file for a type of operations in a state. Use "1" if only one
filing is made for the state.

> [name]{.underline} is the common name identified on Line 4 of the
> Cover Page. If you use software that limits file names to 8 characters
> plus a three character file extension, then use a three character name
> abbreviation and identify that name in the Certification Statement.

Example: MDAJ1Bell Atlantic.XLS

### Additional Directions for Filing

Filers must send a transmittal letter and the attached certification
statement to the Industry Analysis Division, Common Carrier Bureau[^264]
and to the Commission's contract copier[^265]. **The Certification
statement must be signed in ink by an officer of the filer or one of the
legal entities whose data is included.** An officer is a person who
occupies a position specified in the articles of incorporation (or
partnership agreement), and would typically be president, vice president
for operations, vice-president for finance, comptroller, treasurer or a
comparable position. If the filer is a sole proprietorship, the owner
must sign the certification

## Requesting Confidentiality

Some information from the FCC Form 477 may be made publicly available.
Any respondent to this form may submit a request that information on the
FCC Form 477 not be made routinely available for public inspection by so
indicating on Line 9 of the form and on the Certification Statement. See
also 47 C.F.R. §§0.457, 0.459, 1.7001(d), 43.11(c); *Examination of the
Current Policy Concerning the Treatment of Confidential Information
Submitted to the Commission*, FCC 98-184 (rel. Aug. 4, 1998).
Respondents seeking confidential treatment should provide a separate
diskette containing a redacted version of all files. Note that these
redacted files must be given different names from the complete filings,
as specified above. Redacted data should replaced with "xxxxxx" in the
redacted data file.

## Obligation to File Revisions

Filers must submit a revised form if the filer discovers a significant
error in the data. For counts, a difference amounting to 5 percent of
the filed number must be refiled. For percentages, a difference of 5
percentage points is significant and must be refiled.

Revisions should consist of a certification statement and one or more
electronic files. Carriers should refile all data for a state if one or
more data element must be revised. A refiled Form 477 spreadsheet should
contain all appropriate data for the state, not just the corrected
figures. Note that files containing revisions must be given different
names from the original filings, as specified above, Section IV-B.1.

## Compliance

Service providers that are required to file the Form 477 but fail to do
so may be subject to the enforcement provisions of the Communications
Act and any other applicable law.[^266]

# Certification Statement

+-----------------------------------------------------------------------+
| **FCC Form 477 Local Competition and Broadband Reporting**            |
|                                                                       |
| **Transmittal Letter and Certification Statement**                    |
|                                                                       |
| Mail to Industry Analysis Division                                    |
|                                                                       |
| Rm. 6-A220                                                            |
|                                                                       |
| 445 12^th^ St, SW                                                     |
|                                                                       |
| Washington, D.C. 20554                                                |
|                                                                       |
| This filing is an (check one) \_\_\_original filing \_\_\_revised     |
| filing                                                                |
|                                                                       |
| Organization name as it appears in all file names:                    |
| \_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_    |
|                                                                       |
| Number of files provided for this reporting period:                   |
| \_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_                                            |
|                                                                       |
| Year: \_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_ Data as of: \[Check one: June 30\_\_\_;      |
| December 31 \_\_\_ \]                                                 |
|                                                                       |
| I certify that I am an officer of                                     |
| \_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_;   |
| that I have examined the information contained in the data files      |
| either attached herein or transmitted electronically and that to the  |
| best of my knowledge, information and belief, all statements of fact  |
| contained in such files are true and that said files represent an     |
| accurate statement of the affairs of the above named respondent as of |
| the following date: \_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_                        |
|                                                                       |
| If I have requested non-disclosure of some or all of the information  |
| in FCC Form 477 by so indicating on Line 9 of the form, I certify     |
| that this information is privileged and confidential and that public  |
| disclosure of such information would likely cause substantial harm to |
| the competitive position of the respondent.                           |
|                                                                       |
| PRINTED NAME:                                                         |
| \_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_            |
|                                                                       |
| POSITION:                                                             |
| \                                                                     |
| _\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_ |
|                                                                       |
| SIGN                                                                  |
| ATURE\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_ |
|                                                                       |
| DATE\_\_\_\                                                           |
| _\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_ |
|                                                                       |
| Persons making willful false statements in the report form can be     |
| punished by fine or imprisonment under the Communications Act, 47     |
| U.S.C. 220(e).                                                        |
|                                                                       |
| CONTACT                                                               |
| PERSO                                                                 |
| N\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_ |
|                                                                       |
| TELEPHONE                                                             |
| NUMBER\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_  |
+-----------------------------------------------------------------------+

FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION

# Disclosure, Privacy Act, Paperwork Reduction Act Notice

The Privacy Act of 1974 and the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 require
that when we ask you for information, we must first tell you our legal
right to ask for the information, why we are asking for it, and how it
will be used. We must also tell you what could happen if we do not
receive it and whether your response is voluntary, required to obtain a
benefit, or mandatory under the law. See Privacy Act of 1974, P.L.
93-579, December 31, 1974, 5 U.S.C. § 552a (e)(3), and the Paperwork
Reduction Act of 1995, P.L. No. 104-13, 44 U.S.C. § 3501, *et seq*.

Our legal right to ask for this information is sections 1.7000-1.7002,
20.15, 43.01, 43.11 of the Federal Communications Commission\'s rules
require. 47 C.F.R. §§ 1.7000-1.7002, 20.15, 43.01, 43.11. Your response
is mandatory.

This collection of information stems from the Commission\'s authority
under Sections 4(i), 201, 218-220, 251-252, 303(r), 332, and 403 of the
Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. §§ 154(i), 201,
218-220, 251-252, 303(r), 332, and 403, and section 706 of the
Telecommunications Act of 1996. The data in the worksheet will be used
to monitor the deployment of broadband services and the development of
local telephone service competition. Selected information provided in
the worksheet will be made available to the public in a manner
consistent with the Commission\'s rules and orders.

We have estimated that each response to this collection of information
will take, on average, \_\_ hours. Note that many companies will file
multiple responses and that this estimated average reflects the fact
that many companies will be required to file only a single service count
that should be readily available from internal company records. Our
estimate includes the time to read the instructions, look through
existing records, gather and maintain the required data, enter the data
in a Form 477 spreadsheet, prepare a diskette and certification for each
state, and actually file the report. If you have any comments on this
estimate, or how we can improve the collection and reduce the burden it
causes you, please write the Federal Communications Commission,
AMD-PERM, Washington, D.C. 20554, Paperwork Reduction Project
(3060-0855). We also will accept your comments via the Internet if you
send them to jboley@fcc.gov. Please DO NOT SEND COMPLETED WORKSHEETS TO
THIS ADDRESS.

Remember \-- You are not required to respond to a collection of
information sponsored by the Federal government, and the government may
not conduct or sponsor this collection, unless it displays a currently
valid Office of Management and Budget (OMB) control number. This
collection has been assigned an OMB control number of 3060-0816.

The Commission is authorized under the Communications Act of 1934, as
amended, to collect the personal information we request in this form. If
we believe there may be a violation or potential violation of a statute
or a Commission regulation, rule, or order, your filing may be referred
to the Federal, state, or local agency responsible for investigating,
prosecuting, enforcing, or implementing the statute, rule, regulation,
or order. In certain cases, the information in your worksheet may be
disclosed to the Department of Justice, court, or other adjudicative
body when (a) the Commission; or (b) any employee of the Commission; or
(c) the United States government, is a party to a proceeding before the
body or has an interest in the proceeding.

Reporting entities failing to file the worksheet in a timely fashion may
be subject to penalties under the Communications Act, including Sections
502 and 503 (b).

# Appendix C -- Final regulatory Flexibility Analysis {#appendix-c-final-regulatory-flexibility-analysis .unnumbered}

1.  Number range level0Number range level1Number range level2Number
    range level3Number range level4Number range level5Number range
    level6Number range level7As required by the Regulatory Flexibility
    Act (RFA),[^267] an Initial Regulatory Flexibility Analysis (IRFA)
    was incorporated into the *Local Competition and Broadband Reporting
    Notice*. The Commission sought written public comment on the
    proposal in the Notice, including comment on the IRFA. The comments
    received are discussed below. This present Final Regulatory
    Flexibility Analysis (FRFA) conforms to the RFA.[^268]

**I. Need for, and Objectives of, the Local Competition and Broadband
Reporting Order:**

2.  The Commission initiated this proceeding to determine whether it
    should require certain providers of communications services to
    report a limited amount of information about the development of
    local telephone competition and the deployment of broadband services
    as mandated by the Telecommunications Act of 1996. In this Order, we
    adopt rules to collect basic information about two important aspects
    of communications: the status of local telephone service competition
    and the deployment of \"advanced telecommunications capability.\"
    The 1996 Act \-- in particular, sections 251 and 271 \-- tasked this
    Commission and the states with important roles in opening local
    telephone markets to competition. Moreover, the Commission needs
    timely and reliable information on broadband deployment given that
    section 706 of the 1996 Act requires the Commission to issue
    periodic reports on the state of broadband deployment. The
    information collected pursuant to this program will materially
    improve our ability to develop, evaluate, and revise policy in these
    critical areas and will provide valuable benchmarks not only for
    this Commission but for other policy makers and consumers.[^269]
    Further, the information collection program adopted in this Order is
    the least burdensome means available to fulfill these statutory
    obligations.

#########  {#section-1 .unnumbered}

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

3.  In the IRFA, we stated that we would seek to minimize the burden
    imposed on smaller entities by establishing thresholds for reporting
    that balanced the needs of the Commission to receive data on the
    development of local competition and deployment of broadband against
    the burden such reporting places on smaller entities. In response to
    the Notice, the Commission received comments from 37 parties and
    held a series of *ex parte* meetings with potential respondents to
    the information collection adopted in this Order. Among those
    parties, only the Office of Advocacy, United States Small Business
    Administration (SBA) and the Organization for the Promotion and
    Advancement of Small Telecommunications Companies (OPASTCO),
    commented specifically on the IRFA. We note that many other
    commenters raised issues about the proposed rules and we encourage
    readers of this FRFA to consult the complete text of this Order,
    which describes in detail our analysis of commenter proposals.

4.  In its comments to the IRFA, SBA expresses concern that the proposed
    threshold for reporting broadband data (1,000 broadband lines
    nationwide) may be set too low and, therefore, include a number of
    smaller entities that would be unduly burdened by the reporting
    requirement. As a result, SBA recommends that the Commission raise
    the reporting threshold to at least 5,000 lines nationwide[^270] or
    "significantly reduce the burden on the small businesses that would
    be replying." OPASTCO, in its comments, commends the Commission for
    its efforts to exempt smaller entities and urges the Commission to
    adopt an existing SBA definition of small companies: those with
    fewer than 1,500 employees.[^271] We note that other commenters,
    while not in direct response to the IRFA, disagree with SBA and
    OPASTCO and urge the Commission to adopt its proposed reporting
    threshold.[^272]

5.  In an effort to balance the needs of the Commission with the costs
    our data gathering may place on smaller entities, the Commission has
    modified the thresholds for reporting and the frequency of filing
    reports, and other aspects of the requirements. We believe that
    these modifications satisfy SBA's request that we significantly
    reduce the burdens for those small entities that must comply. [^273]
    For example, by adopting a state level threshold (250 broadband
    lines in a given state), we ensure that reporting entities have a
    significant presence in a given state, before having to complete the
    form for that state. Moreover, we conclude that this threshold is
    set to allow the Commission to comply with Congress' charge in
    section 706 of the 1996 Act to determine whether advanced
    telecommunications capability, commonly known as "broadband," is
    being deployed to *all* Americans. In order to gain the
    comprehensive understanding \-- as called for in section 706 \-- of
    the broadband market, particularly in rural and inner-city areas and
    among demographic groups that are traditionally underserved, it is
    necessary to gather data from entities that are most likely to serve
    these areas and groups, which includes some smaller entities.

6.  Among the other actions taken to reduce the overall burden on small
    entities, we decouple the broadband and local competition reporting
    thresholds.[^274] In the Notice, the Commission tentatively
    concluded that any provider meeting the threshold requirement for
    the broadband part of the form would be required to complete the
    local competition part of the form, whether or not the entity met
    the threshold for that part, if the entity provides services listed
    in that part of the form. We note that the representatives of
    traditionally smaller providers opposed this linkage of reporting
    thresholds.[^275] By eliminating this linkage, we reduce reporting
    burdens on these traditionally smaller providers.

7.  To further reduce the potential burden this data gathering program
    may place on smaller entities the Commission, in this Order, has
    also reduced the frequency of reporting from quarterly to
    semi-annually. In this regard, we accept the suggestions of many
    commenters that reducing the frequency of reporting is a measurable
    way to decrease the burden placed on reporting entities.[^276] We
    necessarily decline SBA's invitation to adopt an annual filing
    basis, because we conclude that the rapidly changing nature of the
    local competition and broadband markets necessitate more regular
    data collections.[^277]

8.  Supporting the proposal in the Notice, SBA further encourages the
    Commission to collect information on a statewide basis. In this
    Order, we adopt our proposal and require providers to report data on
    a state-by-state basis.[^278] To supplement this data, we ask
    providers of broadband and local exchange services to provide a list
    of the Zip Codes in which they serve at least one customer. We
    conclude that reporting scheme best balances our need to achieve
    geographically disaggregated information while minimizing burdens on
    all entities, including small entities.

9.  Finally, we note SBA's suggestion that small carrier be allowed to
    file data on a voluntary basis. While the Commission concludes that
    it is necessary to adopt a mandatory reporting mechanism, we agree
    with SBA that smaller, exempted providers should be invited to file
    data on a voluntary basis. Thus, we encourage small providers to
    file the new FCC Form 477 even if they do not meet the reporting
    thresholds for mandatory reporting.[^279]

10. Overall, we believe that our approach (*e.g.*, changing thresholds
    to the state level, decoupling the thresholds for different parts of
    the form, and reducing the reporting frequency to semi-annually)
    will result in a program that is not overly burdensome on reporting
    entities, and thus balances the concerns raised by SBA and other
    commenters with the Commission's need to gain a better understanding
    of developments in these markets.

**III. Description and Estimate of the Number of Small Entities to Which
Rules Will Apply:**

11. In the IRFA, the Commission included a description and estimate of
    the number of small entities to which its proposed rules would
    apply. No commenters addressed the issue. In this Order, the
    Commission decides that local exchange carriers and providers of
    mobile telephony services that serve 10,000 or more voice-grade
    equivalent lines or wireless channels (or mobile telephony
    subscribers) in a given state and any entity that provides 250 or
    more full or one-way broadband lines or channels in a given state,
    must report data about those services provided in that state. [^280]
    Based on data available to it at present, the Commission estimates
    that approximately 200 of the nation\'s local exchange carriers and
    between 100-200 mobile telephony providers will be required to
    comply with the requirement. We do not have concrete data on which
    to base a precise estimate of the number of broadband providers that
    may be required to report. We set out below, however, a detailed
    description of the types of entities that may be required to comply
    with the reporting requirement and we detail our understanding of
    the number of small entities within each of these categories.

12. To estimate the number of small entities that will be affected by
    the rules, we first consider the statutory definition of \"small
    entity\" under the RFA. The RFA generally defines \"small entity\"
    as having the same meaning as the term \"small business,\" \"small
    organization,\" and \"small governmental jurisdiction.\"[^281] In
    addition, the term \"small business\" has the same meaning as the
    term \"small business concern\" under the Small Business Act, unless
    the Commission has developed one or more definitions that are
    appropriate to its activities.[^282] Under the Small Business Act, a
    \"small business concern\" is one that: (1) is independently owned
    and operated; (2) is not dominant in its field of operation; and (3)
    meets any additional criteria established by the Small Business
    Administration (SBA).[^283] The SBA has defined a small business for
    Standard Industrial Classification (SIC) categories 4812
    (Radiotelephone Communications) and 4813 (Telephone Communications,
    Except Radiotelephone) to be small entities when they have no more
    than 1,500 employees.[^284] We first discuss the number of small
    telephone companies falling within these SIC categories, then
    attempt to refine further those estimates to correspond with the
    categories of telephone companies that are commonly used under our
    rules.

13. The most reliable source of information regarding the total numbers
    of common carrier and related providers nationwide, as well as the
    numbers of commercial wireless entities, appears to be data the
    Commission publishes annually in its *Carrier Locator* report,
    derived from filings made in connection with the Telecommunications
    Relay Service (TRS).[^285] According to data in the most recent
    report, there are 4,144 interstate carriers.[^286] These carriers
    include, *inter alia*, local exchange carriers, wireline carriers
    and service providers, interexchange carriers, competitive access
    providers, operator service providers, pay telephone operators,
    providers of telephone toll service, providers of telephone exchange
    service, and resellers.

14. We have included small incumbent LECs 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.\"[^287]
    The SBA\'s Office of Advocacy contends that, for RFA purposes, small
    incumbent LECs are not dominant in their field of operation because
    any such dominance is not \"national\" in scope.[^288] We have
    therefore included small incumbent LECs in this RFA analysis,
    although we emphasize that this RFA action has no effect on FCC
    analyses and determinations in other, non-RFA contexts.

15. *Total Number of Telephone Companies Affected.* The United States
    Bureau of the Census (\"the Census Bureau\") reports that, at the
    end of 1992, there were 3,497 firms engaged in providing telephone
    services, as defined therein, for at least one year.[^289] This
    number contains a variety of different categories of carriers,
    including local exchange carriers, interexchange carriers,
    competitive access providers, cellular carriers, mobile service
    carriers, operator service providers, pay telephone operators, PCS
    providers, covered SMR providers, and resellers. It seems certain
    that some of those 3,497 telephone service firms may not qualify as
    small entities because they are not \"independently owned and
    operated.\"[^290] For example, a PCS provider that is affiliated
    with an interexchange carrier having more than 1,500 employees would
    not meet the definition of a small business. It seems reasonable to
    conclude, therefore, that fewer than 3,497 telephone service firms
    are small entity telephone service firms that may be affected by the
    decisions and rules in the Order.

16. *Wireline Carriers and Service Providers.* SBA has developed a
    definition of small entities for telephone communications companies
    other than radiotelephone companies. The Census Bureau reports that,
    there were 2,321 such telephone companies in operation for at least
    one year at the end of 1992.[^291] According to SBA\'s definition, a
    small business telephone company other than a radiotelephone company
    is one employing no more than 1,500 persons.[^292] All but 26 of the
    2,321 non-radiotelephone companies listed by the Census Bureau were
    reported to have fewer than 1,000 employees. Thus, even if all 26 of
    those companies had more than 1,500 employees, there would still be
    2,295 non-radiotelephone companies that might qualify as small
    entities. Although it seems certain that some of these carriers are
    not independently owned and operated, we are unable at this time to
    estimate with greater precision the number of wireline carriers and
    service providers that would qualify as small business concerns
    under SBA\'s definition. Consequently, we estimate that there are
    fewer than 2,295 small entity telephone communications companies
    other than radiotelephone companies that may be affected by the
    decisions and rules in the Order.

17. *Local Exchange Carriers*, *Interexchange Carriers, Competitive
    Access Providers, Operator Service Providers, and Resellers*.
    Neither the Commission nor SBA has developed a definition of small
    local exchange carriers (LECs), interexchange carriers (IXCs),
    competitive access providers (CAPs), operator service providers
    (OSPs), or resellers. The closest applicable definition for these
    carrier-types under SBA rules is for telephone communications
    companies other than radiotelephone (wireless) companies.[^293] The
    most reliable source of information regarding the number of these
    carriers nationwide of which we are aware appears to be the data
    that we collect annually in connection with the Telecommunications
    Relay Service (TRS).[^294] According to our most recent data, there
    are 1,560 LECs and CAPs, 171 IXCs, 24 OSPs, and 388 resellers.[^295]
    Although it seems certain that some of these carriers are not
    independently owned and operated, or have more than 1,500 employees,
    we are unable at this time to estimate with greater precision the
    number of these carriers that would qualify as small business
    concerns under SBA\'s definition. Consequently, we estimate that
    there are fewer than 1,410 small entity LECs, 151 IXCs, 129 CAPs, 32
    OSPs, and 351 resellers that may be affected by the decisions and
    rules in the Order.

18. *Wireless (Radiotelephone) Carriers.* SBA has developed a definition
    of small entities for radiotelephone (wireless) companies. The
    Census Bureau reports that there were 1,176 such companies in
    operation for at least one year at the end of 1992.[^296] According
    to SBA\'s definition, a small business radiotelephone company is one
    employing no more than 1,500 persons.[^297] The Census Bureau also
    reported that 1,164 of those radiotelephone companies had fewer than
    1,000 employees. Thus, even if all of the remaining 12 companies had
    more than 1,500 employees, there would still be 1,164 radiotelephone
    companies that might qualify as small entities if they are
    independently owned are operated. Although it seems certain that
    some of these carriers are not independently owned and operated, we
    are unable at this time to estimate with greater precision the
    number of radiotelephone carriers and service providers that would
    qualify as small business concerns under SBA\'s definition.
    Consequently, we estimate that there are fewer than 1,164 small
    entity radiotelephone companies that may be affected by the
    decisions and rules in the Order.

19. *Cellular, PCS, SMR and Other Mobile Service Providers.* In an
    effort to further refine our calculation of the number of
    radiotelephone companies that may be affected by the rules adopted
    herein, we consider the data that we collect annually in connection
    with the TRS for the subcategories Wireless Telephony (which
    includes Cellular, PCS, and SMR) and Other Mobile Service Providers.
    We will utilize the closest applicable definition under SBA rules
    \-- which, for both categories, is for telephone companies other
    than radiotelephone (wireless) companies,[^298] however, to the
    extent that the Commission has adopted definitions for small
    entities providing PCS and SMR services, we discuss those
    definitions below. According to our most recent TRS data, 732
    companies reported that they are engaged in the provision of
    Wireless Telephony services and 23 companies reported that they are
    engaged in the provision of Other Mobile Services.[^299] Although it
    seems certain that some of these carriers are not independently
    owned and operated, or have more than 1,500 employees, we are unable
    at this time to estimate with greater precision the number of
    Wireless Telephony Providers and Other Mobile Service Providers,
    except as described below, that would qualify as small business
    concerns under SBA\'s definition. Consequently, we estimate that
    there are fewer than 732 small entity Wireless Telephony Providers
    and fewer than 23 small entity Other Mobile Service Providers that
    may be affected by the decisions and rules in the Order.

20. *Broadband PCS Licensees.* The broadband 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 less than \$40 million in the three previous calendar
    years.[^300] 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.[^301]
    These regulations defining \"small entity\" in the context of
    broadband PCS auctions have been approved by SBA.[^302] No small
    businesses within the SBA-approved definition 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% of the
    1,479 licenses for Blocks D, E, and F. However, licenses for Blocks
    C through F have not been awarded fully, therefore there are few, if
    any, small businesses currently providing PCS services. Based on
    this information, we estimate that the number of small broadband PCS
    licenses will include the 90 winning C Block bidders and the 93
    qualifying bidders in the D, E, and F blocks, for a total of 183
    small PCS providers as defined by SBA and the Commissioner\'s
    auction rules.

21. *SMR Licensees.* Pursuant to 47 C.F.R. § 90.814(b)(1), the
    Commission has defined \"small entity\" in auctions for geographic
    area 800 MHz and 900 MHz SMR licenses as a firm that had average
    annual gross revenues of less than \$15 million in the three
    previous calendar years. The definition of a \"small entity\" in the
    context of 800 MHz SMR has been approved by the SBA,[^303] and
    approval for the 900 MHz SMR definition has been sought. The rules
    may apply to SMR providers in the 800 MHz and 900 MHz bands that
    either hold geographic area licenses or have obtained extended
    implementation authorizations. We do not know how many firms provide
    800 MHz or 900 MHz geographic area SMR service pursuant to extended
    implementation authorizations, nor how many of these providers have
    annual revenues of less than \$15 million. Consequently, we
    estimate, for purposes of this FRFA, that all of the extended
    implementation authorizations may be held by small entities, some of
    which may be affected by the decisions and rules in the Order.

22. The Commission recently held auctions for geographic area licenses
    in the 900 MHz SMR band. There were 60 winning bidders who qualified
    as small entities in the 900 MHz auction. Based on this information,
    we estimate that the number of geographic area SMR licensees that
    may be affected by the decisions and rules in the Order includes
    these 60 small entities. No auctions have been held for 800 MHz
    geographic area SMR licenses. Therefore, no small entities currently
    hold these licenses. A total of 525 licenses will be awarded for the
    upper 200 channels in the 800 MHz geographic area SMR auction. The
    Commission, however, has not yet determined how many licenses will
    be awarded for the lower 230 channels in the 800 MHz geographic area
    SMR auction. There is no basis, moreover, on which to estimate how
    many small entities will win these licenses. Given that nearly all
    radiotelephone companies have fewer than 1,000 employees and that no
    reliable estimate of the number of prospective 800 MHz licensees can
    be made, we conclude, for purposes of this FRFA, that all of the
    licenses may be awarded to small entities, some of which may be
    affected by the decisions and rules in the Order.

23. *220 MHz Radio Service \-- Phase I Licensees*. The 220 MHz service
    has both Phase I and Phase II licenses. 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 definition of 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
    definition under the SBA rules applicable to Radiotelephone
    Communications companies.[^304] According to the Bureau of the
    Census, only 12 radiotelephone firms out of a total of 1,178 such
    firms which operated during 1992 had 1,000 or more employees.[^305]
    Therefore, if this general ratio continues to 1999 in the context of
    Phase I 220 MHz licensees, we estimate that nearly all such
    licensees are small businesses under the SBA\'s definition, some of
    which may be affected by the decisions and rules in the Order.

24. *220 MHz Radio Service \-- Phase II Licensees*. 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 criteria for
    defining small businesses and very small businesses for purposes of
    determining their eligibility for special provisions such as bidding
    credits and installment payments.[^306] We have defined 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 defined as an entity that, together with its
    affiliates and controlling principals, has average gross revenues
    that are not more than \$3 million for the preceding three
    years.[^307] An auction of Phase II licenses commenced on September
    15, 1998, and closed on October 22, 1998.[^308] 908 licenses were
    auctioned in 3 different‑sized geographic areas: three nationwide
    licenses, 30 Regional Economic Area Group Licenses, and 875 Economic
    Area (EA) Licenses. Of the 908 licenses auctioned, 693 were sold.
    Companies claiming small business status won: one of the Nationwide
    licenses, 67% of the Regional licenses, and 54% of the EA licenses.
    As of October 7, 1999, the Commission had granted 681 of the Phase
    II 220 MHz licenses won at a first auction and an additional 221
    Phase II licenses won at a second auction.[^309]

25. *Narrowband PCS*. The Commission has auctioned nationwide and
    regional licenses for narrowband PCS. There are 11 nationwide and 30
    regional licensees for narrowband PCS. The Commission does not have
    sufficient information to determine whether any of these licensees
    are small businesses within the SBA-approved definition for
    radiotelephone companies. At present, there have been no auctions
    held for the major trading area (MTA) and basic trading area (BTA)
    narrowband PCS licenses. The Commission anticipates a total of 561
    MTA licenses and 2,958 BTA licenses will be awarded by auction. Such
    auctions have not yet been scheduled, however. Given that nearly all
    radiotelephone companies have no more than 1,500 employees and that
    no reliable estimate of the number of prospective MTA and BTA
    narrowband licensees can be made, we assume, for purposes of this
    FRFA, that all of the licenses will be awarded to small entities, as
    that term is defined by the SBA.

26. *Rural Radiotelephone Service*. The Commission has not adopted a
    definition of small entity specific to the Rural Radiotelephone
    Service.[^310] A significant subset of the Rural Radiotelephone
    Service is the Basic Exchange Telephone Radio Systems (BETRS).[^311]
    We will use the SBA\'s definition applicable to radiotelephone
    companies, *i.e.*, an entity employing no more than 1,500
    persons.[^312] There are approximately 1,000 licensees in the Rural
    Radiotelephone Service, and we estimate that almost all of them
    qualify as small entities under the SBA\'s definition.

27. *Air-Ground Radiotelephone Service*. The Commission has not adopted
    a definition of small entity specific to the Air-Ground
    Radiotelephone Service.[^313] Accordingly, we will use the SBA\'s
    definition applicable to radiotelephone companies, *i.e.*, an entity
    employing no more than 1,500 persons.[^314] There are approximately
    100 licensees in the Air-Ground Radiotelephone Service, and we
    estimate that almost all of them qualify as small entities under the
    SBA definition.

28. *Private Land Mobile Radio (PLMR)*. PLMR systems serve an essential
    role in a range of industrial, business, land transportation, and
    public safety activities.[^315] These radios are used by companies
    of all sizes operating in all U.S. business categories. The
    Commission has not developed a definition of small entity
    specifically applicable to PLMR licensees due to the vast array of
    PLMR users. For the purpose of determining whether a licensee is a
    small business as defined by the SBA, each licensee would need to be
    evaluated within its own business area. The Commission is unable at
    this time to estimate the number of, if any, small businesses that
    could be impacted by the proposed rules. However, the Commission\'s
    1994 Annual Report on PLMRs[^316] indicates that at the end of
    fiscal year 1994 there were 1,087,267 licensees operating 12,481,989
    transmitters in the PLMR bands below 512 MHz. Because any entity
    engaged in a commercial activity is eligible to hold a PLMR license,
    the rules in this context could potentially impact every small
    business in the United States. We note, however, that because the
    vast majority of these licensees are end-users, not providers of
    telephony or broadband services, they would not be directly affected
    by the rules adopted in this Order.

29. *Fixed Microwave Services*. Microwave services include common
    carrier,[^317] private‑operational fixed,[^318] and broadcast
    auxiliary radio services.[^319] At present, there are approximately
    22,015 common carrier fixed licensees in the microwave services. The
    Commission has not yet defined a small business with respect to
    microwave services. For purposes of this FRFA, we will utilize the
    SBA\'s definition applicable to radiotelephone companies \-- *i.e.*,
    an entity with no more than 1,500 persons.[^320] We estimate, for
    this purpose, that all of the Fixed Microwave licensees (excluding
    broadcast auxiliary licensees) would qualify as small entities under
    the SBA definition for radiotelephone companies.

30. *Offshore Radiotelephone Service*. This service operates on several
    UHF TV broadcast channels that are not used for TV broadcasting in
    the coastal area of the states bordering the Gulf of Mexico.[^321]
    At present, there are approximately 55 licensees in this service. We
    are unable at this time to estimate the number of licensees that
    would qualify as small entities under the SBA\'s definition for
    radiotelephone communications.

31. *Wireless Communications Services*. This service can be used for
    fixed, mobile, radio location and digital audio broadcasting
    satellite uses. The Commission defined \"small business\" for the
    wireless communications services (WCS) auction as an entity with
    average gross revenues of \$40 million for each of the three
    preceding years, and a \"very small business\" as an entity with
    average gross revenues of \$15 million for each of the three
    preceding years. The 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. We conclude that the number of
    geographic area WCS licensees that may be affected by the decisions
    and rules adopted in the Order includes these eight entities.

32. *Satellite Services.* The Commission has not developed a definition
    of small entities applicable to satellite service licensees.
    Therefore, the applicable definition of small entity is generally
    the definition under the SBA rules applicable to Communications
    Services, Not Elsewhere Classified (NEC). This definition provides
    that a small entity is expressed as one with \$11.0 million or less
    in annual receipts.[^322] According to the Census Bureau, there were
    a total of 848 communications services providers, NEC, in operation
    in 1992, and a total of 775 had annual receipts of less than \$9.999
    million. The Census report does not provide more precise data.[^323]

33. In addition to the estimates provided above, we consider certain
    additional entities that may be affected by the data collection from
    broadband service providers. Because section 706 requires us to
    monitor the deployment of broadband regardless of technology or
    transmission media employed, we anticipate that some broadband
    service providers will not provide telephone service. Accordingly,
    we describe below other types of firms that may provide broadband
    services, including cable companies, MDS providers, and utilities,
    among others.

34. *Cable services or systems:* The SBA has developed a definition of
    small entities for cable and other pay television services, which
    includes all such companies generating \$11 million or less in
    revenue annually.[^324] This definition includes cable systems
    operators, closed circuit television services, direct broadcast
    satellite services, multipoint distribution systems, satellite
    master antenna systems and subscription television services.
    According to the Census Bureau data from 1992, there were 1,788
    total cable and other pay television services and 1,423 had less
    than \$11 million in revenue.[^325]

35. The Commission has developed its own definition of a small cable
    system operator for the purposes of rate regulation. Under the
    Commission\'s rules, a \"small cable company\" is one serving fewer
    than 400,000 subscribers nationwide*.*[^326] Based on our most
    recent information, we estimate that there were 1,439 cable
    operators that qualified as small cable system operators at the end
    of 1995.[^327] Since then, some of those companies may have grown to
    serve over 400,000 subscribers, and others may have been involved in
    transactions that caused them to be combined with other cable
    operators. Consequently, we estimate that there are fewer than 1,439
    small entity cable system operators.

36. The Communications Act also contains a definition of a small cable
    system operator, 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.\"[^328] The Commission has determined that
    there are 66,000,000 subscribers in the United States. Therefore, we
    found that an operator serving fewer than 660,000 subscribers shall
    be deemed a small operator, if its annual revenues, when combined
    with the total annual revenues of all of its affiliates, do not
    exceed \$250 million in the aggregate.[^329] Based on available
    data, we find that the number of cable operators serving 660,000
    subscribers or less totals 1,450.[^330] We do not request nor do we
    collect information concerning whether cable system operators are
    affiliated with entities whose gross annual revenues exceed
    \$250,000,000,[^331] and thus are unable at this time to estimate
    with greater precision the number of cable system operators that
    would qualify as small cable operators under the definition in the
    Communications Act. It should be further noted that recent industry
    estimates project that there will be a total of 66,000,000
    subscribers, and we have based our fee revenue estimates on that
    figure.

37. *Multipoint Distribution Systems (MDS)*: The Commission has defined
    \"small entity\" for the auction of MDS as an entity that, together
    with its affiliates, has average gross annual revenues that are not
    more than \$40 million for the preceding three calendar years.[^332]
    This definition of a small entity in the context of MDS auctions has
    been approved by the SBA.[^333] The Commission completed its MDS
    auction in March 1996 for authorizations in 493 basic trading areas
    (BTAs). Of 67 winning bidders, 61 qualified as small entities.[^334]

38. MDS is also heavily encumbered with licensees of stations authorized
    prior to the auction. The SBA has developed a definition of small
    entities for pay television services, which includes all such
    companies generating \$11 million or less in annual receipts.[^335]
    This definition includes multipoint distribution systems, and thus
    applies to MDS licensees and wireless cable operators which did not
    participate in the MDS auction. Information available to us
    indicates that there are 832 of these licensees and operators that
    do not generate revenue in excess of \$11 million annually.
    Therefore, for purposes of this FRFA, we find there are
    approximately 892 small MDS providers as defined by the SBA and the
    Commission\'s auction rules, some which may be affected by the
    decisions and rules adopted in the Order.

39. *Electric Services (SIC 4911)*: The SBA has developed a definition
    for small electric utility firms.[^336] The Census Bureau reports
    that a total of 1379 electric utilities were in operation for at
    least one year at the end of 1992. According to SBA, a small
    electric utility is an entity whose gross revenues did not exceed
    five million dollars in 1992.[^337] The Census Bureau reports that
    447 of the 1379 firms listed had total revenues below five million
    dollars.[^338]

40. *Electric and Other Services Combined (SIC 4931)*: The SBA has
    classified this entity as a utility whose business is less than 95%
    electric in combination with some other type of service.[^339] The
    Census Bureau reports that a total of 135 such firms were in
    operation for at least one year at the end of 1992. The SBA\'s
    definition of a small electric and other services combined utility
    is a firm whose gross revenues did not exceed five million dollars
    in 1992.[^340] The Census Bureau reported that 45 of the 135 firms
    listed had total revenues below five million dollars.[^341]

41. *Combination Utilities, Not Elsewhere Classified (SIC 4939)*: The
    SBA defines this utility as providing a combination of electric,
    gas, and other services which are not otherwise classified.[^342]
    The Census Bureau reports that a total of 79 such utilities were in
    operation for at least one year at the end of 1992. According to
    SBA\'s definition, a small combination utility is a firm whose gross
    revenues did not exceed five million dollars in 1992.[^343] The
    Census Bureau reported that 63 of the 79 firms listed had total
    revenues below five million dollars.[^344]

**IV. Description of Projected Reporting, Recordkeeping, and Other
Compliance Requirements:**

42. The very focus of this proceeding is whether the Commission should
    require certain providers of communications services to report a
    limited amount of information about the development of local
    telephone competition and the deployment of broadband services. The
    Order concludes that the Commission should undertake such a data
    collection and that local exchange carriers and providers of mobile
    telephony services that serve 10,000 or more voice-grade equivalent
    lines or channels statewide, and any entity that provides 500 or
    more full or one-way broadband lines or channels statewide, should
    report specifically targeted information.[^345] The Order sets out
    in detail the types of providers that should report,[^346] exempting
    smaller providers,[^347] frequency of reports,[^348] data to be
    reported,[^349] and method of reporting.[^350] In particular, the
    Commission concludes in the Order that given the comprehensive data
    to be obtained from large and medium-size providers, it can exempt
    most small providers from completing the survey without materially
    affecting its ability to assess the development of local competition
    and the deployment of broadband services.[^351]

**V. Steps Taken to Minimize Significant Economic Impact on Small
Entities, and Significant Alternatives Considered:**

43. The most significant step taken to minimize the impact of these
    rules on small entities is the adopt of reporting thresholds. For
    example, the Commission makes specific provision to exempt most
    smaller carriers from the requirement to report local telephone
    competition data. The Commission concludes that carriers with fewer
    than 10,000 statewide voice-grade equivalent lines or channels (or
    mobile telephony subscribers, in the case of mobile telephony
    providers) should be exempted from the reporting requirement for
    that state.[^352] Based on this exemption, the Commission estimates
    that only approximately 200 of the nation\'s largest local exchange
    carriers would remain subject to the requirement.[^353] Similarly,
    the Commission exempts the smallest broadband providers by adopting
    a broadband reporting threshold. Thus, firms that provide fewer than
    500 full or one-way broadband lines or wireless channels in a given
    state need not report data for that state.[^354]

44. Among significant alternatives, the Commission considered whether it
    might rely on publicly available data or voluntary surveys, in lieu
    of a mandatory data collection program.[^355] The Commission
    concludes other publicly available information sources present less
    than complete pictures of actual conditions and trends in developing
    local service markets and in the deployment of broadband. Further,
    the Commission considered the need for, and size of, its exemptions
    for small entities.[^356] The Commission concludes that the
    thresholds adopted will allow it to exempt most small carriers from
    completing the form without materially affecting its ability to
    assess the development of local competition and the deployment of
    broadband services. The Commission also accepted other suggestions
    that will reduce burdens on entities, including decoupling reporting
    thresholds, adopting a less frequent reporting schedule, and
    allowing providers to report on a state-by-state basis.[^357]

45. [Report to Congress.]{.underline} The Commission will send a copy of
    the Local Competition and Broadband Reporting Requirement Report and
    Order, including this FRFA, in a report to be sent to Congress
    pursuant to the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act
    of 1996, *see* 5 U.S.C. § 801(a)(1)(A). In addition, the Commission
    will send a copy of the Local Competition and Broadband Reporting
    Requirement Report and Order, including FRFA, to the Chief Counsel
    for Advocacy of the Small Business Administration. A copy of the
    Local Competition and Broadband Reporting Requirement Report and
    Order and FRFA (or summaries thereof) will also be published in the
    Federal Register. *See* 5 U.S.C. § 604(b).

# APPENDIX D - LIST OF COMMENTERS {#appendix-d---list-of-commenters .unnumbered}

**Commenters in CC Docket No. 99-301**

**Comments:**

Allegiance Telecom, Inc. (Allegiance)

American Cable Association (ACA)

Arkansas Public Service Commission (Arkansas Commission)

Association for Local Telecommunications Services (ALTS)

AT&T Corporation (AT&T)

Bell Atlantic Mobile, Inc. (BAM)

Bell Atlantic Telephone Companies (Bell Atlantic)

BellSouth Corporation (BellSouth)

Cellular Telecommunications Industry Association (CTIA)

Competitive Telecommunications Association (CompTel)

Frontier Communications (Frontier)

General Services Administration (GSA)

GTE Service Corporation (GTE)

MediaOne Group, Inc. (MediaOne)

National Cable Television Associates (NCTA)

National Rural Telecom Association (NRTA)

National Telephone Cooperative Association (NTCA)

Nextel Communications, Inc. (Nextel)

NextLink Communications, Inc. (NEXTLINK)

NorthPoint Communications, Inc. (NorthPoint)

Omnipoint Communications, Inc. (Omnipoint)

Organization for the Promotion and Advancement of

Small Telecommunications Companies (OPASTCO)

Personal Communications Industry Association (PCIA)

Prism Communication Services, Inc. (Prism)

SBC Communications, Inc. (SBC)

Sprint Corporation (Sprint)

State of Tennessee Office of the Attorney General (Tennessee OAG)

Telec Consulting Resources, Inc. (Telec)

Telecommunications Resellers Association (TRA)

Teligent, Inc. (Teligent)

United State Telecom Association (USTA)

U S WEST Communications, Inc. (U S WEST)

Winstar Communications, Inc. (Winstar)

**Reply Comments:**

ALLTEL Communications, Inc. (ALLTEL)

American Library Association (ALA)

AT&T Corporation (AT&T)

BellSouth Corporation & BellSouth Telecomm'ns, Inc. (BellSouth)

Competition Policy Institute (CPI)

General Services Administration (GSA)

Office of Advocacy, U.S. Small Business Administration (SBA)

Personal Communications Industry Association (PCIA)

Telecommunications Resellers Association (TRA)

United States Telecom Association (USTA)

Winstar Communications, Inc. (Winstar)

**Commenters in CC Docket No. 91-141, CCB-IAD File No. 98-102**

**Public Notice Comments:**

Allegiance Telecom, Inc.

Association for Local Telecommunications Services (ALTS)

Ameritech

AT&T Corp.

Bell Atlantic

BellSouth

General Services Administration (GSA)

GTE

GVNW Inc./Management (GVNW)

KMC Telecom, Inc.

MCI Telecommunications Corporation (MCI)

MediaOne Group, Inc. (MediaOne)

National Telephone Cooperative Association (NTCA)

Rural ILECs (Lexcom Telephone Company, United Telephone Association,
Clear Lake Independent Telephone Company, Ventura Telephone Company, and
Webster-Calhoun Cooperative Telephone Association)

SBC Communications Inc. (SBC)

Southern New England Telephone Company (SNET)

Telecommunications Resellers Association (TRA)

Teleport Communications Group Inc. (TCG)

United States Telephone Association (USTA)

U S WEST Communications, Inc. (U S WEST)

**Public Notice Reply Comments:**

Allegiance Telecom, Inc.

Association for Local Telecommunications Services (ALTS)

Ameritech

AT&T Corp.

Bell Atlantic

BellSouth

General Services Administration (GSA)

KMC Telecom, Inc.

MCI Telecommunications Corporation (MCI)

National Telephone Cooperative Association (NTCA)

SBC Communications Inc. (SBC)

Telecommunications Resellers Association (TRA)

United States Telephone Association (USTA)

U S WEST Communications, Inc. (U S WEST)

[^1]: Telecommunications Act of 1996, Pub. Law No. 104‑104, 110 Stat.
    56, codified 47 U.S.C. §§ 151 *et. seq.* (the 1996 Act). The 1996
    Act amended the Communications Act of 1934 (the Communications Act
    or the Act).

[^2]: Joint Statement of Managers, S. Conf. Rep. No. 104-230, 104^th^
    Cong., 2d Sess., at 1 (1996) (*Joint Explanatory Statement*).

[^3]: *See*, *e.g.*, 47 U.S.C. §§ 251, 252, 271.

[^4]: Pub. Law No. 104-104, Title VII, § 706, reproduced in the notes
    under 47 U.S.C. § 157. See § 706 of the 1996 Telecommunications Act
    (the 1996 Act) is § 706, Pub. L. 104-104, Title VII, Feb. 8, 1996,
    110 Stat. 153, reproduced in the notes under 47 USC § 157. It
    provides:

    > SEC. 706. ADVANCED TELECOMMUNICATIONS INCENTIVES.
    >
    > \(a\) In General.\--The Commission and each State commission with
    > regulatory jurisdiction over telecommunications services shall
    > encourage the deployment on a reasonable and timely basis of
    > advanced telecommunications capability to all Americans
    > (including, in particular, elementary and secondary schools and
    > classrooms) by utilizing, in a manner consistent with the public
    > interest, convenience, and necessity, price cap regulation,
    > regulatory forbearance, measures that promote competition in the
    > local telecommunications market, or other regulating methods that
    > remove barriers to infrastructure investment.
    >
    > \(b\) Inquiry.\--The Commission shall, within 30 months after the
    > date of enactment of this Act, and regularly thereafter, initiate
    > a notice of inquiry concerning the availability of advanced
    > telecommunications capability to all Americans (including, in
    > particular, elementary and secondary schools and classrooms) and
    > shall complete the inquiry within 180 days after its initiation.
    > In the inquiry, the Commission shall determine whether advanced
    > telecommunications capability is being deployed to all Americans
    > in a reasonable and timely fashion. If the Commission\'s
    > determination is negative, it shall take immediate action to
    > accelerate deployment of such capability by removing barriers to
    > infrastructure investment and by promoting competition in the
    > telecommunications market.
    >
    > \(c\) Definitions.\--For purposes of this subsection:

    Advanced telecommunications capability.\--The term "advanced
    telecommunications capability" is defined, without regard to any
    transmission media or technology, as high-speed, switched, broadband
    telecommunications capability that enables users to originate and
    receive high-quality voice, data, graphics, and video
    telecommunications using any technology.

    Elementary and Secondary Schools.\--The term "elementary and
    secondary schools" means elementary and secondary schools , as
    defined in paragraphs (14) and (25), respectively, of section 14101
    of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1965 (20 U.S.C.
    8801).

[^5]: *See Inquiry Concerning the Deployment of Advanced
    Telecommunications Capability to All Americans in a Reasonable and
    Timely Fashion, and Possible Steps to Accelerate Such Deployment
    Pursuant to Section 706 of the Telecommunications Act of 1996*,
    Report, 14 FCC 2d 2398, CC Docket No. 98-146, FCC 99-5 (rel. Feb. 2,
    1999) (*First* *Advanced Telecommunications Report*). Key issues in
    evaluating deployment of advanced telecommunications capabilities
    include the state of competition in the residential advanced
    telecommunications services market, the existence of barriers to
    speedy deployment (especially of new technologies), the nature of
    demand for advanced telecommunications services among residential
    customers, and possible slow deployment in rural and low-income
    areas, and among persons with disabilities.

[^6]: *First Advanced Telecommunications Report*, ¶ 24.

[^7]: *See Inquiry Concerning the Deployment of Advanced
    Telecommunications Capability to all Americans in a Reasonable and
    Timely Fashion, and Possible Steps to Accelerate Such Deployment
    Pursuant to Section 706 of the Telecommunications Act of 1996*,
    Notice of Inquiry, FCC 00-57, CC Docket No. 98-146 (rel. Feb. 18,
    2000) (*Second Advanced Telecommunications NOI*).

[^8]: We note that, in the *Second Advanced Telecommunications NOI*, we
    distinguished the terms "advanced telecommunications capability" and
    "broadband services." In the *First Advanced Telecommunications
    Report*, we defined "advanced telecommunications capability" as
    upstream and downstream communications paths "having the capability
    of supporting . . . a speed . . . in excess of 200 kilobits per
    second (Kbps) in the last mile." *First Advanced Telecommunications
    Report*, ¶ 20. Thus, in the *Second Advanced Telecommunications
    NOI,* we used the term "advanced telecommunications capability" when
    addressing the specific requirements of section 706. In contrast, we
    used the term "broadband services" to refer to a larger set of
    services that end users can access with asymmetric capabilities and
    speeds that are less than 200 Kbps, but are generally also
    considered high-speed (*i.e.,* greater than 128 Kbps in a wireless
    environment or 144 Kbps in a wireline environment). *Second Advanced
    Telecommunications NOI*, n.2.

[^9]: 47 U.S.C. § 160(b).

[^10]: 47 U.S.C. § 161(a)(2).

[^11]: *Local Competition and Broadband Reporting*, Notice of Proposed
    Rulemaking, FCC 99-283, CC Docket No. 99-301 (rel. Oct. 22, 1999)
    (*Local Competition and Broadband Reporting Notice*).

[^12]: *See FCC Establishes Federal-State Joint Conference to Promote
    Advanced Broadband Services*, News Release (rel. Oct. 8, 1999)
    (*Joint Conference News Release*). In this Order, we refer to this
    Joint Conference as the "Section 706 Joint Conference."

[^13]: The Local Competition and Broadband Reporting form (FCC Form 477)
    is attached as Appendix B. We refer to the FCC Form 477 generically
    throughout the item as either "the form" or "the reporting form."

[^14]: For example, we held an *en banc* hearing and several open fora
    about the status of local telephone competition in early 1998. *See*
    *FCC to Conduct January 29 Presentation on Status of Local Telephone
    Competition*, Public Notice (rel. Jan. 22, 1998). Similarly, we held
    an *en banc* hearing on bandwidth issues in the last mile of our
    nation's telecommunications infrastructure on July 9, 1998. *See*
    *Commission to Hold Bandwidth En Banc Hearing*, Public Notice (rel.
    July 9, 1998).

[^15]: That voluntary survey, which the Bureau issued in February 1998
    and refined over the next year, provided the framework for a
    Bureau-issued Public Notice addressing the need to monitor local
    competition and served as the basis for a series of Bureau staff
    reports. *See* FCC, Common Carrier Bureau, Industry Analysis
    Division, *Local Competition* (rel. Dec. 1998). This report was
    updated in August 1999. FCC, Common Carrier Bureau, Industry
    Analysis Division, *Local Competition: August 1999* (rel. Aug.
    1999).

[^16]: For example, the Common Carrier Bureau revised the voluntary
    local competition survey to include questions about the number of
    broadband lines or channels in service to residential customers, and
    the technologies used to deliver those services. *See*
    \<http://www.fcc.gov/ccb/local_competition/survey5\>.

[^17]: FCC, Cable Services Bureau, *Broadband Today*, Staff Report (Oct.
    1999).

[^18]: *Local Competition and Broadband Reporting Notice*.

[^19]: *Id.*

[^20]: *Id.*

[^21]: A list of commenters is included as Appendix D. Additionally, two
    parties submitted motions requesting that the Commission accept
    their late-filed comments. *Roseville Motion for Leave to File* and
    *Tennessee OAG Motion to Accept Late-Filed Reply Comments*. We grant
    these motions to the extent that we accept their comments as
    informal comments pursuant to section 1.419(b) of our rules. 47
    C.F.R. § 1.419(b).

    In the Notice, we referred to comments filed in response to a Public
    Notice released by the Common Carrier Bureau. *See Local Competition
    and Broadband Reporting Notice*, ¶ 10 n.17, *citing* *Common Carrier
    Bureau Seeks Comment on Local Competition Survey*, Public Notice, 13
    FCC Rcd 9279, DA 98-839, CC Docket No. 91-141 (rel. May 29, 1998).
    Parties that submitted comments in response to the Bureau's Public
    Notice are listed in Appendix D, as well, and their comments are
    referred to a "Public Notice Comments" or "Public Notice Reply
    Comments."

[^22]: For simplicity and only for purposes of this proceeding, we use
    the terms "local telephone service," "local telecommunications
    service," and "local exchange and exchange access services" to refer
    collectively to the services that are subject to the local
    competition reporting requirements identified in this order and in
    our rules. These internal references are developed only for use in
    this proceeding and do not affect or modify any of our existing
    definitions of any similar terms, such as "telephone exchange
    service," "exchange access," and "telecommunications service" as set
    forth in the Act and our prior orders. *See, e.g.,* 47 U.S.C. §§
    153(16), (46), (47); *Federal-State Joint Board on Universal
    Service*, Report to Congress, 13 FCC Rcd 11501, CC Docket No. 96-45
    (1998).

[^23]: *See* Appendix A, Rules Amended.

[^24]: *See* Appendix B, Local Competition and Broadband Reporting.

[^25]: *See, e.g.,* Competition Policy Institute Reply Comments at 4
    ("While it is true that 'reporting is a form of regulation', we also
    think that, if the Commission is ultimately to modify its regulatory
    policies as competition progresses, it must have comprehensive
    information to do so." (Citations omitted)).

[^26]: *See, e.g.,* NTCA Comments at 1 ("The Commission must have a
    sufficiently complete knowledge base from which to draw its
    conclusions as it considers and enforces rules and policies that
    will shape the future of the telecommunications industry.");
    NEXTLINK Comments at 1-2; NorthPoint Comments at 2; Competition
    Policy Institute Reply Comments at 2. *Contra, e.g.,* AT&T Comments
    at 2-7 (stating that the proposed data collection would be
    unnecessarily burdensome and would not help the Commission's
    decision-making process); Frontier Comments 1-3 (arguing that the
    Commission should continue a voluntary program).

[^27]: *See, e.g.,* USTA Comments at 1; U S WEST Comments at 1;
    BellSouth Reply Comments at 2.

[^28]: *See* AT&T Comments at 2, 5.

[^29]: 47 U.S.C. § 271.

[^30]: *See, e.g.,* *In re Applications of Ameritech Corp., Transferor
    and SBC Communications, Inc., Transferee For Consent to Transfer
    Control of Corporations Holding Commission Licenses and Lines
    Pursuant to Sections 214 and 310(d) of the Communications Act and
    Parts 5, 22, 24, 25, 63, 90, 95 and 101 of the Commission\'s Rules,*
    Memorandum Opinion and Order, FCC 99-279, CC Docket No. 98-141 (rel.
    Oct 8, 1999) (*SBC-Ameritech Merger Order*).

[^31]: *Access Charge Reform, Price Cap Performance Review for Local
    Exchange Carriers, Interexchange Carrier Purchases of Switched
    Access Services Offered by Competitive Local Exchange Carriers,
    Petition of U S West Communications, Inc. for Forbearance from
    Regulation as a Dominant Carrier in the Phoenix, Arizona MSA*, Fifth
    Report and Order and Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, 14 FCC
    Rcd. 14,221, CC Docket No. 96-262, FCC 99-206 at ¶¶ 19-26 (rel. Aug.
    27, 1999).

[^32]: *See, e.g.,* American Cable Association Comments at 1; ALTS
    Comments at 1; GTE Comments at 2.

[^33]: *See First Advanced Telecommunications Report*, ¶¶ 7 ("this
    Report uses actual subscribership as a proxy for 'deployment' and
    'availability'"), 30, 54 (discussing the terms "deployment" and
    "availability").

[^34]: *See, e.g.,* Competition Policy Institute Reply Comments at 4
    ("the Commission states a convincing case that a mandatory
    collection will generate more reliable and uniform data than it has
    previously generated through voluntary data collection"). *Contra*
    Winstar Comments at 2 (stating that the Commission should rely on
    voluntary filings and other sources, such as private sector
    reports).

[^35]: *See, e.g.,* Omnipoint Comments at 7-8; Prism Comments at 4; AT&T
    Comments at 4-6.

[^36]: *Id.*

[^37]: *Accord* GSA Reply Comments at 4.

[^38]: *See, e.g.,* P. Bernier, "Getting a Handle on Access Line Growth;
    Numbers Sometimes Lie," *X-CHANGE* (Oct. 1998) at 16.

[^39]: For example, the quarterly reports to shareholders of McLeodUSA
    include information about the portion of business customer lines
    and, separately, residential customer lines that the company
    provides by means of its own facilities. *See* "McLeodUSA Reports
    Record Results For Fourth Quarter And 1999" available at
    \<http://www.mcleodusa.com/aboutmcleodusa/pressreleasesarchive/index.php3\>
    (Jan. 26, 2000). Other competitive LECs, such as Allegiance, ICG,
    and Intermedia, have reported the percentage of total lines that are
    "on switch." *See* "Allegiance Telecom Announces Results For Fourth
    Quarter and Year-End 1999" available at
    \<http://www.allegiancetelecom.com/investor_relations.html\> (Feb.
    8, 2000); "ICG Reports Fourth Quarter & Year-end 1999 Results"
    available at \<http://www.icgcom.com/investor/earnings.htm\> (Feb.
    29, 2000); "Intermedia Communications Announces Fourth Quarter and
    Full Year 1999 Results" available at
    \<http://www.intermedia.com/company/press\> (Feb. 15, 2000). None of
    these companies provides such information on a state-by-state basis.

[^40]: *See, e.g.*, K. Hoexter and S. Cross, *Emerging Broadband
    Competitors* (Merrill Lynch & Co., Feb. 14, 2000) (initiating
    coverage on 15 competitive LECs).

[^41]: *See, e.g.,* Frontier Comments at 2-3; PCIA Comments at 3-4;
    Winstar Reply Comments at 2-3.

[^42]: *See Local Competition and Broadband Reporting Notice*, ¶ 18
    (observing that some of the firms invited to participate were
    unwilling to provide any information at all, while, in other cases,
    participating firms have responded only to some of the surveys).

[^43]: We also note that, at most, just over half of the invited
    competitive LECs participated and, in the last two surveys, less
    than one-third actually filed data.

[^44]: *Local Competition and Broadband Reporting Notice*, ¶ 18 n.27
    (citing correspondence from participants in the voluntary survey).

[^45]: *See* CompTel Comments at 5.

[^46]: The resolution continues as follows:

    > RESOLVED, that future federal collections of data on local
    > competition and broadband deployment should be conducted on a
    > comprehensive basis; and be it further
    >
    > RESOLVED, that federal data collections should use the same
    > definitions of geographic areas to the extent possible as used by
    > a state when that state requires local competition or broadband
    > deployment data to be reported for geographic areas smaller than
    > the entire state; and be it further
    >
    > RESOLVED, that the FCC continue to work with the states and with
    > the industry to determine appropriate and reasonable data
    > collection efforts that are not unduly burdensome or costly.

    *See* *Resolution On The Importance Of Systematically Collecting
    Data On Local Competition And Broadband Deployment*, Resolutions
    Adopted by NARUC Board of Directors, Washington, D.C., Feb. 24,
    1999, available at \<http://www.naruc.org/rescont.htm#Collecting
    Data\>.

[^47]: *Id.* The NARUC Board also observed that \"the Federal
    Communication Commission\'s current, voluntary data collection
    efforts do not elicit complete and fully comparable data on local
    competition and broadband deployment.\" *Id.*

[^48]: *See* *Data Gathering Resolutions*, Resolutions Adopted by NARUC
    Board of Directors, Washington, D.C., Mar. 8, 2000, available at
    \<http://www.naruc.org/meetings/2000WinterMeetings/resolutions/index.htm#Telecom\>
    (stating that the NARUC Board of Directors "commends the Federal
    Communications Commission for its efforts to collect reliable and
    systematic information about the state of competition for local
    telephone services and deployment of broadband services and
    encourages the Commission to adopt a mandatory information
    collection as soon as possible").

[^49]: *See Federal-State Joint Conference on Advanced
    Telecommunications Services*, Order, FCC 99-293, CC Docket No.
    99-294 (rel. Oct. 8, 1999) (*Section 706 Joint Conference*).

[^50]: *See, e.g.,* Prism Comments at 3-4; MediaOne Comments at 4 ("a
    new federal reporting program should not be adopted unless and until
    other reporting mandates are either consolidated or eliminated").

[^51]: *See, e.g.*, Public Utility Commission of Oregon, Order No.
    98-506, available at
    \<http://www.puc.state.or.us/orders/98orders/98-506.htm\>; Florida
    Public Service Commission, Division of Telecommunications,
    *Competition in Telecommunications Markets in Florida* (Dec. 1999;
    Dec. 1998; Dec. 1997) available from Division of Records and
    Reporting.

[^52]: *See infra* Section IV.F. Confidentiality of Data.

[^53]: *See Joint Conference News Release* ("The Joint Conference will
    focus on monitoring advanced services deployment, combining
    federal-state data collection efforts, minimizing potential
    inconsistencies and overlaps between federal and state policy, and
    coordinating federal-state initiatives to promote deployment of
    advanced services."). *See also* Teligent Comments at 2-3
    (encouraging the Commission to work with state commissions to reduce
    duplicative reporting burdens); MediaOne comments at 3.

[^54]: *Local Competition and Broadband Reporting Notice*, ¶¶ 31-33.

[^55]: *Id*. at ¶ 41. *See also First Advanced Telecommunications
    Report*, ¶¶ 20-25.

[^56]: *Local Competition and Broadband Reporting Notice*, ¶ 31.

[^57]: *See infra* Section IV.B. Exempting Smaller Entities (discussing
    reporting thresholds).

[^58]: *Local Competition and Broadband Reporting Notice*, ¶¶ 25-30.

[^59]: *Id.* at ¶ 27.

[^60]: *See Local Competition and Broadband Reporting Notice*, ¶¶ 28-29.
    We noted that providers of mobile telephony services may include
    facilities-based providers of cellular, broadband personal
    communications (PCS) service, specialized mobile radio services
    (SMR), as well as providers using satellite technology. *Id.*

[^61]: *See* Appendix A, Rules Amended.

[^62]: The Commission, in this as well as other proceedings, tries to
    craft its rules in such a manner that the burdens imposed take into
    account any potentially disparate impact such rules may have on
    smaller entities. *See LEC Provision of Interexchange Services
    Originating in the LEC's Local Exchange Area and Policy and Rules
    Concerning Interstate, Interexchange Marketplace; LEACO Rural
    Telephone Cooperative, Inc.*, Second Order on Reconsideration and
    Memorandum Opinion and Order, 14 FCC Rcd. 10,711 (rel. June 30,
    1999). *See infra* Section IV.B. Exempting Smaller Entities (for a
    further discussion of reporting thresholds).

[^63]: *See* 1996 Act, § 706(b), (c)(1).

[^64]: The applicable parts of the survey are those containing questions
    that pertain to the reporting entity\'s operations.

[^65]: *See* 1996 Act, § 706(b), (c)(1). *See First Advanced
    Telecommunications Report*, ¶ 23.

[^66]: *See First Advanced Telecommunications Report*, ¶¶ 45-61.

[^67]: As discussed fully below in Section IV.B., we decide that any
    entity that provides at least 250 full or one-way broadband service
    lines (or wireless channels) in a given state, or has at least 250
    full or one-way broadband subscribers in a given state, must
    complete the broadband portion of the survey for that state. *See
    infra* Section IV.B. Exempting Smaller Entities (discussing
    reporting thresholds).

[^68]: *See First Advanced Telecommunications Report*, ¶¶ 20-25. We use
    the term "full broadband" synonymously with the term "advanced
    telecommunications capability," *i.e.,* as having the capability of
    supporting, in both the downstream and the upstream directions, a
    speed in excess of 200 Kbps in the last mile. We use the term
    "one-way broadband" to refer to services with greater than 200 Kbps
    information carrying capacity in one direction, but not both, in the
    last mile. *See also* *supra* n.8 (concerning the generic term
    "broadband services").

[^69]: *See, e.g.,* Arkansas Commission at 4; NorthPoint Comments at 5;
    Competition Policy Institute Reply Comments at 9-11.

[^70]: *See*, *e.g., First Advanced Telecommunications Report*, ¶¶ 54-61
    (outlining the deployment of broadband facilities by different kinds
    of companies).

[^71]: *See First Advanced Telecommunications Report*, 14 FCC Rcd 2398,
    2402. Although these goals were articulated in terms of
    *residential* consumers in the *First Advanced Telecommunications
    Report*, we believe that they apply with equal force to the delivery
    of services for business customers.

[^72]: *See, e.g.,* ACA Comments at 14; Competition Policy Institute
    Reply Comments at 10-11.

[^73]: In the *Second Advanced Telecommunications NOI*, the Commission
    does seek comment on similar issues, including investment and actual
    and committed deployment of broadband facilities*. Second Advanced
    Telecommunications NOI*, ¶¶ 11-14.

[^74]: For purposes of this information collection, by "facilities-based
    providers," we mean entities that provide broadband services over
    their own facilities, UNEs, special access lines, and other leased
    lines and wireless channels that they equip as broadband. *See also
    infra* Section III.E. Data to Be Reported (discussing the terms
    "facilities based providers" and "own facilities").

[^75]: *First Advanced Telecommunications Report*, ¶ 46.

[^76]: Examples of such arrangements are the agreements under which
    America Online announced its intention to lease, from Bell Atlantic
    and SBC Communications, Digital Subscriber Line (DSL) capacity that
    America Online will incorporate into a premium (higher-speed) option
    for its Internet service. *See* \"America Online and Bell Atlantic
    Form Strategic Partnership to Provide High-Speed Access for the AOL
    Service,\" Press Release, (Jan. 13, 1999); \"America Online and SBC
    Communications to Offer High-Speed Upgrade to AOL Members,\" Press
    Release (Mar. 11, 1999).

[^77]: *See infra* Section IV.E. Data to Be Reported. *See also* AT&T
    Comments at 15-16; BellSouth Reply Comments at 8; Letter from Donna
    N. Lampert to Magalie Roman Salas (Dec. 3, 1999) (on behalf of
    America Online, urging the Commission to collect data only from
    "providers of the transmission services, as opposed to . . .
    Internet Service Providers").

[^78]: *See, e.g.,* Arkansas Comments at 4; Bell Atlantic Comments at
    6-7; USTA Comments at 6; BellSouth Reply Comments at 7.

[^79]: *See, e.g.,* NorthPoint Comments at 5; Bell Atlantic Comments at
    6; Arkansas Commission Comments at 4.

[^80]: *See Second Advanced Telecommunications NOI*, ¶ 9.

[^81]: *Id*. at n.18. *See* Bell Atlantic Comments at 6; Arkansas
    Commission Comments at 4 ("The inclusion of asymmetric services is
    necessary because one-way broadband service could meet some of the
    needs of rural communities and without such reporting there is no
    way to determine whether those needs are being met.").

[^82]: *See, e.g.*, 47 U.S.C. § 153 (43).

[^83]: *Local Competition and Broadband Reporting Notice*, ¶ 34.

[^84]: *See id.*

[^85]: 47 U.S.C. § 153(43).

[^86]: *See First Advanced Telecommunications Report*, ¶ 24. *See also
    Federal-State Joint Board on Universal Service*, Report to Congress,
    13 FCC Rcd 11501, CC Docket No. 96-45, ¶ 99 (1998).

[^87]: *See First Advanced Telecommunications Report*, ¶ 24.

[^88]: *See infra* Section IV.B. Exempting Smaller Entities (for
    discussion of reporting thresholds).

[^89]: More precisely, we exempt LECs with less than 10,000 voice-grade
    equivalent lines or wireless channels (of any capacity) in a given
    state, and mobile telephony providers with less than 10,000 mobile
    telephony subscribers in a given state. *See infra* Section IV.B.
    Exempting Smaller Entities.

[^90]: *See, e.g.,* TRA Comments at 5-6 (noting the importance of
    collecting data from incumbent LECs); U S WEST Comments at 1.

[^91]: *See* FCC, Common Carrier Bureau, Industry Analysis Division,
    *Local Competition: August 1999*, tbl. 2.1 (rel. Aug. 1999) ("Even
    under the most expansive definition of local service competition . .
    . the ILECs retain 96% of local service revenues.").

[^92]: *Implementation of the Local Competition Provisions of the
    Telecommunications Act of 1996*, Third Report and Order and Fourth
    Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, FCC 99-238, CC Docket No.
    96-98, ¶ 13 (rel. Nov. 5, 1999) (*UNE Remand Order*).

[^93]: *See, e.g., SBC-Ameritech Merger Order*, ¶¶ 348 *et seq*
    (imposing conditions designed to foster significant out-of-region
    competition by SBC-Ameritech).

[^94]: *See, e.g.,* Bell Atlantic Comments at 3; SBC Comments at 1; USTA
    Reply Comments at 1-2.

[^95]: *UNE Remand Order*, ¶ 7.

[^96]: *UNE Remand Order*, ¶ 5.

[^97]: 47 U.S.C. § 251(c). Section 251 grants competitors flexibility in
    their competitive arrangements by requiring incumbent LECs to
    provide requesting telecommunications carriers: 1) interconnection
    at any technically feasible point; 2) access to unbundled network
    elements; and 3) retail telecommunications services for resale.

[^98]: *See* TRA Comments at 3 (supporting the inclusion of resellers in
    this information collection). In contrast, however, we only require
    *facilities-based* providers of mobile telephone services to report
    data in Part III of the form. *See infra* ¶ 34. Similarly, we only
    require broadband data from facilities-based providers of broadband
    services. *See supra* ¶ 27.

[^99]: *See, e.g.,* Winstar Comments at 1. *See also* "AT&T Announces
    Plans to Create New Wireless Company," News Release (Dec. 6, 1999)
    (reporting AT&T's "plans to develop a wireless local exchange
    capability nationwide in areas of the U.S. not served by the
    company\'s cable operations") available at
    \<http://www.att.com/press/item/0,1354,2321,00.html\>.

[^100]: *See, e.g.,* Teligent Comments at 4 n.8 (supporting tentative
    conclusion "that the obligation to complete the survey should not
    depend on the technology used to provide service").

[^101]: *See, infra,* Section III.E. Data to Be Reported.

[^102]: *See, infra,* Section III.B. Exempting Smaller Entities.

[^103]: Satellite services, particularly geo-stationary L-band mobile
    satellite services and big low earth orbit systems
    (non-geostationary satellites) may in the future become significant
    providers of mobile telephony services in the United Sates. However,
    at present, only Iridium and Globalstar, among the licensed big LEO
    systems, have commenced offering commercial service and currently
    each has only a small number of subscribers. Banc of America
    Securities, Equity Research, *Payload Monthly* (Feb. 1, 2000) at 12,
    21, 29. Iridium recently announced the termination of commercial
    service after unsuccessful negotiations to find a qualified buyer of
    its system. *Iridium Press Release* (Mar. 17, 2000) at 1.

[^104]: *See Telephone Number Portability*, Second Memorandum Opinion
    and Order and Order on Reconsideration, 13 FCC Rcd 21204, 21228-31,
    CC Docket No. 95-116, ¶¶ 51-59 (1998); *see also Revision of the
    Commission\'s Rules To Ensure Compatibility with Enhanced 911
    Emergency Calling Systems*, Memorandum Opinion and Order, 12 FCC Rcd
    22665, 22702-05, CC Docket No. 94-102, ¶¶ 75-83 (1997).

[^105]: 47 U.S.C. § 153(47)(A). *See Application of BellSouth
    Corporation, et al. Pursuant to Section 271 of the Communications
    Act of 1934, as amended, to Provide In-Region, InterLATA Services in
    Louisiana*, Memorandum Opinion and Order, FCC 98-271, CC Docket No.
    98-121 (rel. Oct. 13, 1998), ¶¶ 28-30 (*BellSouth Louisiana Order*).
    While we reached our conclusion in the context of a section 271
    application, the status of mobile wireless telephony service in the
    local market may enable future decisions to regulate wireline
    telephony services in a flexible manner.

[^106]: For example, the Commission has determined that broadband PCS
    carriers may be considered competitors, within the meaning of
    section 271(c)(1)(A), only to the extent that their service is being
    used to replace wireline service, not as a supplement to wireline
    service. *BellSouth Louisiana Order*, ¶ 31. Moreover, pursuant to
    section 271(c)(1)(A), cellular telephone service may not be treated
    as telephone exchange service when considering the presence of a
    facilities-based competitor under Track A. 47 U.S.C. § 271(c)(1)(A).

[^107]: As the Commission has previously stated, there is evidence to
    suggest that PCS providers \"appear to be positioning their service
    offerings to become competitive with wireline service.\" *BellSouth
    Louisiana Order*, ¶ 33.

[^108]: *See, e.g.,* Bell Atlantic Mobile Comments at 2-3; GTE Comments
    at 5; Omnipoint Comments at 7.

[^109]: *See, e.g.,* Arkansas Commission Comments at 2.

[^110]: *See* *infra* Section IV.E. Data to Be Reported. For example, we
    accept PCIA's suggestion that mobile telephony providers not be
    required to report separately the business and residential
    customers. PCIA Reply Comments at 7.

[^111]: *Local Competition and Broadband Reporting Notice*, ¶¶ 37-45.

[^112]: *Id*. at ¶ 41.

[^113]: *See id*. at ¶ 38 n.52 (discussing the term "access lines").

[^114]: *Id*. at ¶¶ 38-39, 42.

[^115]: *See also supra* n.62 (discussing the Commission's efforts to
    craft its rules in such a manner that the burdens imposed take into
    account any potentially disparate impact such rules may have on
    smaller entities).

[^116]: *See, e.g.*, Rural Task Force, *The Rural Difference: White
    Paper 2* available at \<http://www.wutc.wa.gov/rtf\> (Jan. 2000).
    *See also,* ALA Reply Comments at 5 ("smaller and non-telecom
    entities may be the only provider of broadband in rural and remote
    areas"); Tennessee OAG Comments at 6-7 (stating that all broadband
    providers should be required to report); SBC Comments at 3 (arguing
    that a true picture of the state of deployment of broadband services
    requires that the number of reporting carriers not be limited).

[^117]: *Local Competition and Broadband Reporting Notice*, ¶¶ 38, 43.

[^118]: NTCA Comments at 3-4. *See also* AT&T Comments at n.15;
    NorthPoint Comments at 6; OPASTCO Comments at 3.

[^119]: *See* 47 U.S.C. § 153(1) (clarifying that a 10 percent equity
    interest constitutes ownership). *See also* 47 C.F.R. § 32.9000.

[^120]: We note, of course, that some incumbent LECs, namely those with
    both incumbent LEC and competitive LEC operations, are required to
    file multiple forms for activities that may be conducted through a
    single legal entity. This is because we require incumbent LECs to
    file separate forms for the incumbent and competitive LEC operations
    in any given state. *See supra* ¶ 29.

[^121]: Similarly, this approach will prevent entities from avoiding our
    state-by-state reporting thresholds simply through their choice of
    how to report.

[^122]: *See* 1996 Act, § 706(b).

[^123]: *See supra* ¶ 22 (discussing the terms "full broadband" and
    "one-way broadband").

[^124]: Staff estimate based on the median number of Universal Service
    Fund (USF) loops in a state for incumbent LECs with under 50,000 USF
    loops nationwide.

[^125]: For purposes of this data collection, "voice-grade equivalent
    lines/channels" are defined as analog circuits having 3 to 4 kHz of
    bandwidth, the digital equivalent of which is a 64 Kbps circuit, or
    DS0. *See, e.g.*, U.S. Department of Commerce, National
    Telecommunications and Information Administration,
    "Telecommunications: Glossary of Telecommunications Terms" available
    at \<http://glossary.its.bldrdoc.gov/fs-1037\> (visited 3/15/00)
    (providing definitions of voice grade; voice frequency (VF); voice
    frequency (VF) channel; and digital signal 0 (DS0)).

[^126]: *See, e.g. supra* n.116*, The Rural Difference* (concluding that
    the population density of areas served by rural carriers is
    substantially less than that for non-rural carriers and that rural
    carriers "almost always serve the minority of the access lines in a
    given state").

[^127]: NRTA Comments at 3-4 ("rural ILECs should remain exempt from
    reporting until their states have lawfully terminated their
    exemptions to § 251(c)").

[^128]: Indeed, we estimate that only 162 of the largest 925 incumbent
    LEC holding companies will be required to report based on this
    threshold. On average, each incumbent LEC will file for less than
    two states. We estimate, however, that over 98% of incumbent LEC
    lines will be reported given this threshold.

[^129]: *See, e.g.,* Bell Atlantic Comments at 4 ("\[r\]educing the
    threshold to 10,000 lines would give a truer picture of the extent
    of voice-grade competition"); NCTA Comments at 10-11 ("Until the
    critical mass of 10,000 subscribers within a state is reached, the
    business will be too small relative to ILEC and other CLEC
    competitors to justify state-by-state reporting."); GSA Reply
    Comments at 10. *Contra* NTCA Comments at 3 (supporting a 50,000
    line threshold because it "significantly reduces the burden on small
    and rural LECs"); Roseville Reply Comments at 3-4 (stating that a
    10,000 line threshold would be "detrimental to all carriers other
    than those which are very large"); TRA Reply Comments at 2-3
    (opposing commenter proposals to adopt 10,000 line per state
    threshold).

[^130]: According to data tabulated from the Bureau of Commerce,
    *Current Population Survey*, there were 191,000 households in
    Wyoming as of November 1999.

[^131]: *See* 47 U.S.C. § 153(37)(B).

[^132]: As noted above, we estimate that over 98% of incumbent LEC lines
    will be reported given this threshold.

[^133]: NRTA Comments at 2-4.

[^134]: 47 U.S.C. § 153(37).

[^135]: *Id.*

[^136]: *See* 47 U.S.C. § 153(37)(C) (defining a company as a 'rural
    telephone company" to the extent that it "provides telephone
    exchange service to any local exchange carrier study area with fewer
    than 100,000 access lines").

[^137]: *See* 47 U.S.C. § 153(37)(B).

[^138]: 47 U.S.C. § 251(f)(2).

[^139]: *Id.*

[^140]: *See* FCC, Common Carrier Bureau, Industry Analysis Division,
    *Trends in Telephone Service* (rel. Sept. 1999) at tbl. 20.1 (there
    were about 180 million total U.S. telephone lines at the end of
    1998).

[^141]: *See, e.g.,* 47 U.S.C. § 251(f)(1) (providing an exemption for
    certain rural telephone companies).

[^142]: *See, e.g.,* AT&T Comments at 10.

[^143]: *See* NRTA Comments 4-6.

[^144]: For example, MediaOne Group reports number of residential
    telephone lines (13,000 as of 12/31/98) as well as number of high
    speed data (i.e., Internet access service) subscribers (84,000).
    *See* MediaOne Group, Inc. SEC 1998 Form 10-K Annual Report (filed
    Mar. 30, 1999) at 11. Similarly, Cox Communications reports, for
    residential telephony customers, both number of customers (27,819 as
    of 12/31/98) and number of lines (42,668) and, for business
    telephony customers, number of voice-grade equivalent circuits
    (322,615). *See* *Cox 1998 10-K* at 7.

[^145]: Because cable television companies currently do not provide
    telephony subscriber data to the Commission, we have no estimate of
    the number of cable companies, if any, that have at least 10,000
    telephony subscribers in a given state.

[^146]: *See Local Competition and Broadband Reporting Notice*, ¶ 40.

[^147]: *See, e.g.*, *CTIA\'s Semi-Annual Wireless Industry Survey*
    available at \<http://www.wow-com.com/wirelesssurvey\>.

[^148]: We use the number of handsets as a proxy for subscribers, rather
    than the number of bills, because that number is more analogous to a
    voice grade line on the reporting side. However, for purposes of
    determining whether a provider meets the reporting threshold in a
    given state, providers may rely on the number of billing addresses.

[^149]: Public sources of data on mobile telephony subscribership of
    individual carriers are summarized and analyzed in *Implementation
    of Section 6002(b) of the Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act of 1993;
    Annual Report and Analysis of Competitive Market Conditions with
    Respect to Commercial Mobile Services*, Fourth Report, FCC 99-136
    (rel. June 24, 1999) (*Fourth Annual CMRS Competition Report*).

[^150]: As discussed below, *infra* ¶¶84-85, we ask only for limited
    information about the number of mobile telephony service subscribers
    in each state where these services are offered.

[^151]: *Local Competition and Broadband Reporting Notice*, ¶ 46.

[^152]: *Id*. at ¶¶ 46-49.

[^153]: *Id*. at ¶ 49.

[^154]: *See, e.g*., GTE Comments at 10-11; NorthPoint Comments at 2-3;
    PCIA Comments at 6; Sprint Comments at 2-3; AT&T Reply Comments at
    7. *See also* NCTA Comments at 6-7.

[^155]: *See supra* ¶ 44 (comparing state-by-state reporting thresholds
    with national thresholds).

[^156]: *See* ALTS Comments at 7 ("collecting information on a state by
    state basis is more likely to result in the federal collection of
    information satisfying the needs of the states and will result in
    less duplication of efforts between the states and the Commission");
    PCIA Reply Comments at 4 n.12.

[^157]: *See, e.g.,* American Cable Association Comments at 12;
    NorthPoint Comments at 2-3; AT&T Reply Comments at 6 ("Virtually
    every commenter agrees the required data should be collected on a
    state-by-state basis. \[Citation omitted\]").

[^158]: *See, e.g.,* ALTS Comments at 6; TRA Comments at 6.

[^159]: *See, e.g*., Third Annual CMRS Competition Report at tbl. 1A.

[^160]: Providers of broadband services may include, for example, cable
    television companies, utilities, MMDS/MDS/\"wireless cable\"
    carriers, and satellite-based wireless carriers, with service
    territories that do not correspond with the \"exchanges\" and
    \"study areas\" of the incumbent LEC industry.

[^161]: *See, e.g.,* ALTS Comments at 6-7; GTE Comments at 10-11;
    NorthPoint Comments at 3 ("it would be useful and not unduly
    burdensome to have all entities ... report data on a state-by-state
    basis"). *But see* Nextel Comments at 3 (noting that it is difficult
    for mobile telephony providers to accurately report subscribership
    by state).

[^162]: *See, e.g.,* Tennessee OAG Comments at 4; SBC Comments at 4-5; U
    S WEST Comments at 4; GSA Reply Comments at 13.

[^163]: *Local Competition and Broadband Reporting Notice*, ¶ 71.

[^164]: We note that many providers maintain and utilize maps to guide
    their deployment of facilities and expect that the Zip Code data
    reported in Part V of the form can be used to create similar maps
    showing where broadband and local exchange services are being
    provided. *See, e.g.,* "SBC Becomes America\'s Largest Single
    Broadband Provider With \$6 Billion Initiative" available at
    \<http://www.sbc.com/Technology/data_strategy/project_pronto/Home.html\>;
    "U S WEST Network Disclosure Announcement No. 431" available at
    \<http://www.uswest.com/disclosures/netdisclosure431\>.

[^165]: *See, e.g.,* TRA Comments at 5-6; U S WEST Comments at 3; ALA
    Reply Comments at 6.

[^166]: *See generally* Allegiance Comments at 6 ("the more
    geographically specific the information to be reported, the greater
    the burdens imposed on reporting entities, particularly new
    entrants, who do not maintain subscriber or line data by such narrow
    geographic categories"); ALTS Comments at 7; Sprint Comments at 3.

[^167]: *See*, *e.g.*, *Numbering Resource Optimization*, Notice of
    Proposed Rulemaking, FCC 99-122, CC Docket No. 99-200 (rel. June 2,
    1999), ¶¶ 69-82 (discussing the need to strengthen the system for
    collecting data on current and forecasted utilization of telephone
    numbering resources; tentatively concluding that all users of
    telephone numbering resources should report telephone number status
    data at the rate center level, at a minimum).

[^168]: *Local Competition and Broadband Reporting Notice*, ¶¶ 35-36.

[^169]: *Id*. at ¶ 36.

[^170]: *See Second Advanced Telecommunications NOI*, ¶ 39 ("as of
    December 31, 1999, residential broadband completed its third year as
    a consumer product"); *Implementation of the Local Competition
    Provisions of the Telecommunications Act of 1996*, Third Report and
    Fourth Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, FCC 99-238, CC Docket
    No. 96-98 (rel. Nov. 5, 1999), ¶¶ 2-4.

[^171]: Bell Atlantic Comments at 4; ALTS Comments at 5; ACA Comments at
    11.

[^172]: *See, e.g.,* Northpoint Comments at 7; Teligent Comments at 2;
    Bell Atlantic Comments at 4; American Cable Association Comments at
    11.

[^173]: *See, e.g.,* ALTS Comments at 2.

[^174]: *See, e.g.,* TRA Comments at 7 (proposing quarterly reporting by
    competitive LECs and monthly reporting by incumbent LECs).

[^175]: *Local Competition and Broadband Reporting Notice*, ¶¶ 50-73.

[^176]: *Id*.

[^177]: For example, the analysis presented in FCC, Common Carrier
    Bureau, Industry Analysis Division, *Local Competition: August 1999*
    (rel. Aug. 31, 1999) uses detailed revenue data reported for
    purposes of the universal service support mechanisms along with
    information collected in local competition surveys to develop a
    richer and more complete analysis of the status of local
    competition.

[^178]: In *First Advanced Telecommunications Report*, we drew a
    distinction between deployment of broadband for large and
    medium-sized business customers as a group and deployment of
    broadband to "the consumer market" that we considered to consist of
    small business and residential customers. *See First Advanced
    Telecommunications Report*, ¶¶ 26-28.

[^179]: *See, e.g.,* ALTS Comments at 9 (number of requests pending for
    more than ninety days for which collocation has not been provided);
    ACA Comments at 13 (average number of homes passed; average number
    of customers per cable system node; average capital costs per
    subscriber); MediaOne Comments at 10 (number of switches deployed;
    number of active trunks connecting those switches to other carriers;
    number of working loops deployed; number of end user customers).

[^180]: SBC, for example, has made a number of *ex parte* presentations
    in which it reports data on more aspects of local competition than
    we propose to collect in this Notice. *See, e.g.*, letter with
    attachment titled \"1998 Year-End Competition Report,\" from Todd F.
    Silbergeld, SBC Communications Inc., to Magalie Roman Salas,
    Secretary, Federal Communications Commission, *In the Matter of
    Application by SBC Communications Inc., et al. for Provision of
    In-Region, InterLATA Services in Oklahoma, CC Docket No. 97-121*
    (Feb. 17, 1999).

[^181]: Such developments might include greater substitution of Internet
    Protocol (IP) and other packet-switched services for
    circuit-switched telecommunications, including voice telephone
    calls. For example, telecommunications common carriers and
    non-carriers might decide to deploy packet-switching equipment in
    their networks, over time, to replace circuit-switching equipment.
    Additionally, non-regulated service providers, including Internet
    service providers, may vigorously market services that enable their
    customers to conduct voice conversations with members of the general
    telephone-using public. More generally, consumers may change the way
    they communicate in response to new service offerings made possible
    by new applications of technology, or to changes in relative prices.
    A consumer might, for example, replace some voice calls with e-mail
    messages or "postings" to a personal page on the World Wide Web. All
    these communications will, however, travel over a broadband or voice
    grade line (or wireless channel) that connects the end-user
    consumer's premises to a network or networks. It is these lines and
    wireless channels that are the focus of this information collection,
    rather than the particular protocols or applications they may
    support.

[^182]: The preponderance of commenters agreed that the Commission
    should collect broadband data, and several commenters specifically
    supported the collection of data on one-way, as well as two-way,
    broadband lines and wireless channels. *See, e.g.,* Bell Atlantic
    Comments at 6; CPI Reply Comments at 9-10; NorthPoint Comments at 3.
    *But see* NCTA Comments at 2; Omnipoint Comments at 8.

[^183]: As noted *supra* ¶ 25, we exclude from reporting entities that
    only resell broadband services, *e.g.*, Internet service providers
    that only obtain DSL service from telephone companies or high speed
    data services from cable companies that is incorporated into a
    premium (higher speed) option for their Internet service.

[^184]: *See supra* ¶ 22.

[^185]: For purposes of this information collection, the information
    carrying capacity of a line or wireless circuit is the customer\'s
    authorized maximum usage ("speed") on that line or wireless circuit.

[^186]: While a "full" broadband line or wireless channel must have
    information carrying capacity in excess of 200 Kbps in each
    direction, it need not be equally "fast" in each direction.

[^187]: According to C.E. Unterberg, Towbin, *Hughes Electronics (GMH)*,
    Jan. 27, 2000, DirecPC, a provider of satellite-based transmission
    service that has relied on a telephone return link, "currently has
    100,000 subscribers and is having difficulty growing" and little
    information is now available on the planned two-way service
    (expected to cost \$50/month with rates of 400 Kbps down and 120-200
    Kbps up; planned 4Q2000 product launch). Also, some ADSL service
    offerings that do not provide more than 200 Kbps in both directions
    may be attractive to residential and small business consumers. Our
    particular interest in the consumer and small business segment of
    the market for broadband services, and our view that it has been
    slow to develop in comparison to the large business market segment,
    are discussed in *First Advanced Telecommunications Report*, ¶¶
    28-33, 45-52. *See also Deployment of Wireline Services Offering
    Advanced Telecommunications Capability*, Third Report and Order, FCC
    99-355, CC Docket No. 98-147, ¶ 35 (rel. Dec. 9, 1999).

[^188]: *See, e.g.,* SBC Comments at 2 (include technologies and speeds
    above voice grade (56 Kbps/64 Kbps), while excluding ISDN or
    Digiline-type technologies); MediaOne Comments at 11.

[^189]: By subscriber environment we mean the subscriber or end-user
    premises.

[^190]: Part I of the form collects data on broadband services
    deployment, not on high-capacity facilities (or portions of
    facilities) that are "channelized" to provide voice grade telephony
    service. Therefore, if a high-capacity facility (or portion of a
    high-capacity facility) is being used to provide voice grade
    telephony service to end users, the number of DS0 circuits that can
    be provided over that high-capacity facility (or portion of
    facility) will be reported only in Part II of the form, which
    collects local competition data.

[^191]: *See, e.g.,* NorthPoint Comments at 4; Sprint Comments at 1.
    *But see* CPI Reply Comments at 16.

[^192]: LECs that offer volume discount tariffs for broadband services
    will report the number of lines in service under such tariffs. They
    will know the information carrying capacity and other
    characteristics of those services.

[^193]: As noted *supra* ¶ 68, we do not, as a general matter, expect
    respondents to calculate requested percentage breakouts based on
    exhaustive counts performed solely for this information collection.

[^194]: *See Second Advanced Telecommunications NOI*, ¶ 33. Through the
    *Second Advanced Telecommunications NOI*, we are making similar
    efforts to monitor deployment of broadband services to persons with
    disabilities. *Id*. at ¶¶ 31-32.

[^195]: Certain incumbent LECs are offering ADSL services under volume
    discount tariffs. These service offerings are designed to fit the
    needs of telecommunications carriers and value added service
    providers, such as Internet service providers, who wish to
    incorporate advanced services capability into their service
    offerings to consumers. (We have found that Internet service
    providers are not telecommunications carriers. *See Deployment of
    Wireline Services Offering Advanced Telecommunications Capability*,
    Second Report and Order, FCC 99-330, CC Docket 98-147, ¶ 20 (rel.
    Nov. 9, 1999).) The volume sensitive service tariffs may require the
    bulk purchaser to provide typical retail services to the ultimate
    consumers, including provision of CPE and wiring to the end-user,
    customer service, marketing, ordering, installation, maintenance,
    repair, and billing and collections. *See Id*. at ¶ 15.

[^196]: If an Internet service provider owns its own facilities, then it
    will be subject to the same requirements to report broadband data as
    facilities-based carriers.

[^197]: As noted *supra* n.185, for purposes of this information
    collection the information carrying capacity of a line or wireless
    circuit is the customer\'s authorized maximum usage for that line or
    wireless circuit.

[^198]: *See supra* Section IV.C. Definition of Reporting Area.

[^199]: We require respondents to list Zip Codes that correspond to
    geographic areas in which broadband services are actually being used
    by end users. The list may be based on engineering information (such
    as maps showing active service areas) or on billing information,
    such as the Zip Codes of the service addresses of actual customers.

[^200]: *See supra* Section IV.C. Definition of Reporting Area
    (discussing the usefulness of this Zip Code data).

[^201]: Telephone lines terminating at most homes, and at many offices,
    are "voice grade" circuits. These are analog circuits having 3 to 4
    kHz of bandwidth, the digital equivalent of which is a 64 Kbps
    circuit, or DS0. As noted *supra* n.190, higher capacity facilities
    can be "channelized" into DS0 circuits over which voice grade
    telephony service can be provided to end users. By "voice-grade
    equivalent lines/channels" we mean the number of DS0 lines/channels
    that could be delivered over the facility that terminates at the
    customer premises, *e.g.*, a DS1 circuit can be channelized to
    provide 24 DS0 circuits.

[^202]: That is, fixed wireless channels with a function similar to that
    of lines.

[^203]: Providers of mobile telephone service, as opposed to broadband
    service, also would not report data in Part I of the form.

[^204]: We intend that these reported lines are lines that are billed to
    the end user by the LEC or by the LEC's non-carrier sales or billing
    agent.

[^205]: As noted *supra* ¶ 68, we allow respondents to use best
    available data to estimate percentages, within a margin of error of
    plus or minus five percentage points, if they do not already collect
    the relevant detailed data.

[^206]: That is, for purposes of this information collection, we decide
    to use the definition of residential and small business customers
    that we adopted to distinguish between the mass market and the
    medium and large business market in *UNE Remand Order*. *See UNE
    Remand Order*, ¶¶ 292-294.

[^207]: Again, as stated above, we direct providers to classify as their
    "own facilities" those facilities that they actually own and those
    that they obtain the right to use from other entities as dark fiber
    or satellite transponder capacity.

[^208]: If the respondent is an incumbent LEC, this percentage is the
    portion of its total voice-grade equivalent lines that the incumbent
    serves from its switching centers in which any competitive LEC has
    an operational collocation arrangement. Because at least one
    competitor has invested to locate at least some facilities in such
    incumbent switching centers -- and presumably has some ability to
    expand its service from those switching centers -- this percentage
    provides an indication of the extent to which the incumbent LEC's
    customer base is vulnerable to competitors using UNE loops as part
    of their competitive strategy. By contrast, the percentage reported
    by a competitive LEC refers to the portion of the competitive LEC's
    customer lines that it serves via its own equipment collocated in
    incumbent LEC switching centers. Because a competitive LEC may
    choose to use UNE loops in combination with switching and/or
    transport provided by an incumbent LEC (*i.e.*, without collocating
    its own equipment in the incumbent LEC's switching center), this
    percentage will not necessarily be the same as the reported
    percentage of lines the competitive LEC provides over UNE loops.

[^209]: Total Service Resale refers to services provided pursuant to
    section 251(c)(4) of the 1996 Act. *See Implementation of the Local
    Competition Provisions of the Telecommunications Act of 1996*, First
    Report and Order, FCC 96-325, CC Docket No. 96-98 (rel. Aug. 8,
    1996) (*Local Competition Order*), ¶¶ 12, 863-864.

[^210]: As in Part II.A., respondents may report good faith estimates,
    within a margin of plus or minus five percentage points, based on
    the best information that is available. However, if precise
    disaggregated counts exits for another purpose, we require the
    respondent to use that information to calculate percentages. *See
    supra* ¶ 76.

[^211]: Note, however, that special access and private lines provided
    directly to end-user customers and reported as broadband service in
    Part I of the form are not reported in Part II.C.

[^212]: Combinations of unbundled loops, switches, and transport
    elements are often referred to as "the platform," or UNE-platform.
    *See, e.g., UNE Remand Order*, ¶ 12.

[^213]: Respondents may report good faith estimates, within a margin of
    plus or minus five percentage points, based on the best information
    that is available. However, if precise disaggregated counts exits
    for another purpose, we require the respondent to use that
    information to calculate percentages. *See supra* ¶ 76.

[^214]: Again, respondents may report good faith estimates, within a
    margin of plus or minus five percentage points, based on the best
    information that is available. However, if precise disaggregated
    counts exits for another purpose, we require the respondent to use
    that information to calculate percentages. *See supra* ¶ 76.

[^215]: *See supra* Section IV.C. Definition of Reporting Area.

[^216]: As was the case in Part I of the form, we require respondents to
    list Zip Codes that correspond to geographic areas in which local
    telephone services are actually being used by end users. The list
    may be based on engineering information (such as maps showing active
    service areas) or on billing information, such as the Zip Codes of
    the service addresses of actual customers.

[^217]: *See supra* Section IV.C. Definition of Reporting Area
    (discussing the usefulness of this Zip Code data).

[^218]: That is, we do not require mobile service resellers to report.

[^219]: *See supra* n.148 (concerning using the number of handsets as a
    proxy for the number of subscribers).

[^220]: We reiterate that providers of mobile telephony services need
    not file the Zip Code data requested in Part V of the form.

[^221]: *Local Competition and Broadband Reporting Notice*, ¶75.

[^222]: *Id*. at ¶74.

[^223]: *Id*. at ¶74.

[^224]: *Id*. at ¶76.

[^225]: *See* 47 C.F.R. § 0.459(b).

[^226]: *See* ALTS Comments at 12 ("The information sought by the
    Commission could be quite damaging when a new carrier has just
    entered a market and information about the number of lines or
    customers is released to competitors or the public...Many CLECs only
    offer service in a few geographic areas of a state. Therefore, the
    fact that the Commission may only be gathering information on a
    statewide basis does not necessarily negate the concerns that
    carriers would have with the potential release of the material.);
    Nextel Comments at 4 ("The information...would allow competitors
    to...follow the growth patterns of another CMRS carrier...and adjust
    their own strategies accordingly...\[thus\] expos\[ing\] carriers'
    business strategies to their competitors."); and AT&T Comments at 17
    (stating that the information collection proposed in the Notice
    "would help reveal where a carrier's customers are located, how many
    there are, and even a carrier's capabilities.").

[^227]: *Examination of Current Policy Concerning the Treatment of
    Confidential Information Submitted to the Commission*, Report &
    Order, 13 FCC Rcd. 24816, ¶57 (rel. Aug 4, 1998) (*1998
    Confidentiality Order*). 47 C.F.R. § 0.459.

[^228]: *1998 Confidentiality Order*, ¶¶ 66-67 ("codifying the existing
    Commission practice of sometimes deferring action on requests for
    confidentiality if no request for inspection has been made" and
    noting that the Commission may, on its own motion, rule on requests
    for confidentiality).

[^229]: *See, e.g., supra* n.39. In our voluntary survey program,
    moreover, we observed that incumbent LECs did not often request
    confidentiality over data submitted, but competitive LECs, including
    those incumbent LECs who had entered new markets, did request
    confidentiality over the data submitted.

[^230]: Under the Commission's rules, the Commission "may defer acting
    on requests that materials or information submitted to the
    Commission be withheld from public inspection until a request for
    inspection has been made pursuant to § 0.460 or § 0.461." 47 C.F.R.
    §0.459(d)(1). In deferring action, however, the Commission honors
    the parties request for confidential treatment "until \[it\] acts on
    the confidentiality request and all subsequent appeal and stay
    proceedings have been exhausted." 47 C.F.R. §0.459(d)(1).

[^231]: ALTS Comments at 12 (suggesting provider class aggregation
    because even state level may reveal competitively sensitive
    information); CompTel Comments at 8 (suggesting either provider
    class or state level aggregation); MediaOne Comments at 13
    ("MediaOne would prefer that any information submitted by CLECs and
    providers of high-speed data services be aggregated for public
    disclosure...on a state-by-state basis....").

[^232]: *See* 47 C.F.R. § 0.459(b).

[^233]: 47 C.F.R. § 0.459.

[^234]: Providers reporting information in these portions of the form
    should, as a matter of course, comply with our procedures for
    requesting non-disclosure of any information that they identify as
    confidential to protect against requests for inspection filed by
    members of the public.

[^235]: For example, providers will identify the category that best
    describes their operations from a list that includes: cable coaxial,
    fiber, fixed wireless, mobile wireless, reseller, satellite,
    wireline local exchange carrier, or other. If the filer or any of
    its affiliates are an incumbent local exchange carrier, the provider
    must specify whether the filing covers its incumbent or
    non-incumbent operations.

[^236]: Parties should, however, still request confidential treatment
    for this information in accordance with the Commission's rules to
    protect their rights as to third party requests for the data
    submitted.

[^237]: *See, e.g.,* Analysis of Local Exchange Service Competition in
    New York State, New York State Public Service Commission, available
    at www.dps.state.ny.us/telanalysis.htm (data as of Dec. 31, 1998).

[^238]: If the Commission receives a request for, or proposes disclosure
    of, the information contained in the Form 477, the provider will be
    notified and required to make the full showing under our rules. 47
    C.F.R. § 0.459.

[^239]: 47 C.F.R. § 0.459.

[^240]: 47 C.F.R. § 0.291.

[^241]: *See* 47 U.S.C. § 410(b); *see also Amendment of Parts 0 of the
    Commission's Rules with Respect to the Delegation of Authority to
    the Chief, Common Carrier Bureau,* 104 FCC 2d. 733, n.6 (rel. Apr.
    11, 1986) (In discussing the treatment of information submitted
    pursuant to a joint audit, the Commission stated that it would
    release the information it obtained to state public utilities
    commissions "conditional upon a requirement that state participants
    are willing and able to treat commercial information according to
    our confidentiality rules and guidelines" and that "to the extent
    that the FOIA imposes a higher standard of confidentiality than a
    particular state law, our action...require\[s\] participants to
    adhere to the higher federal standard.").

[^242]: Texas and Georgia.

[^243]: *Local Competition and Broadband Reporting Notice*, ¶¶ 77-81

[^244]: *Id*. at ¶¶ 77-78.

[^245]: *Id*. at ¶ 77.

[^246]: *Id*. at ¶ 78.

[^247]: The reporting form will be made available in Excel 97 format as
    well as a generic Lotus format that is compatible with other
    spreadsheet software such as earlier versions of Excel, Lotus 123,
    and Quattro Pro.

[^248]: Parties must use the "Certification Statement" that is provided
    in the instructions to the form. *See* Appendix B.

[^249]: For example, costs associated with training employees on a
    specialized software system with a single application cannot be
    redeployed by that employer to other tasks, whereas costs associated
    with training an employee on a generally applicable software system
    can be readily deployed to other tasks associated with the employers
    needs. Thus, by avoiding "form-specific" investment requirements,
    the information collection program minimizes the impact of the
    program on respondents.

[^250]: *See* 47 C.F.R. § 1.1850.

[^251]: *Workforce Investment Act of 1998,* P.L. No. 105-220, 112 Stat.
    936 (Aug. 7, 1998). Section 508 of the Act provides that persons
    with disabilities and non-disabled persons must have comparable
    access and ability to use technology and electronic information, and
    federal agencies must take steps to ensure such comparable access
    for persons with disabilities unless an undue burden would be
    imposed. If an undue burden would be imposed, the agency must
    provide an alternative means of access that allows for persons with
    disabilities to access and use the information.

[^252]: *See Local Competition and Broadband Reporting Notice*, ¶ 82.

[^253]: *Id.* at ¶ 83.

[^254]: Bell Atlantic Comments at 11 (suggesting a review in three years
    with a automatic sunset in 5 years); GTE Comments at 3 (suggesting a
    3 year termination); USTA Comments at 7; PCIA Comments at 11 (sunset
    the program after two years), and Sprint Comments at 3 (suggesting a
    2 year sunset).

[^255]: Telecommunications Resellers Association Reply Comments at 7.

[^256]: 47 U.S.C. § 161; 47 C.F.R. § 1.1.

[^257]: 47 U.S.C. § 161.

[^258]: 47 U.S.C. §§ 154 (i), 201, 218-220, 251-252, 303(r), 332, 403.

[^259]: 47 U.S.C. § 157 nt.

[^260]: *AT&T Corp. v. Iowa Utilities Board*, 119 S. Ct. 721 (1999).

[^261]: 47 U.S.C. §§ 502, 503.

[^262]: *See* Letter from Donald R. Arbuckle, Office of Management and
    Budget, to Judy Boley, Federal Communications Commission (Dec. 22,
    1999).

[^263]: *See* 5 U.S.C. § 603. The RFA, *see* 5 U.S.C. § 601 *et. seq.*,
    has been amended by the Contract With America Advancement Act of
    1996, Pub. L. No. 104-121, 110 Stat. 847 (1996) (CWAAA). Title II of
    the CWAAA is the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act
    of 1996 (SBREFA).

[^264]: Industry Analysis Division; Rm. 6-A220; 445 12^th^ St, SW;
    Washington, D.C. 20554.

[^265]: Currently International Transcription Services; 1231 20^th^ St,
    NW; Washington D.C. 20036.

[^266]: 47 U.S.C. §§ 502, 503.

[^267]: *See* 5 U.S.C. § 603. The RFA, *see* 5 U.S.C. § 601 *et. seq.*,
    has been amended by the Contract With America Advancement Act of
    1996, Pub. L. No. 104-121, 110 Stat. 847 (1996) (CWAAA). Title II of
    the CWAAA is the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act
    of 1996 (SBREFA).

[^268]: *See* 5 U.S.C. § 604.

[^269]: For example, we expect that data gathered about the state of
    broadband deployment will assist us in our determination under
    section 706 about whether the deployment of advanced
    telecommunications services is reasonable and timely. Similarly, we
    expect that data about the state of competition for local
    telecommunications services will assist the Commission is evaulating
    whether it can eliminate, modify, or forbear from applying its rules
    designed to promote local competition. *See* Order, Section III.
    Local Competition and Broadband Reporting.

[^270]: SBA Reply Comments at 4. We note that SBA asks us to consider
    the comments of other commenters that oppose the proposed reporting
    threshold and we have done so. *See* ALTS Comments at 5; OPATSCO
    Comments at 3; PCIA Comments at 5. *See also* Order, Section III.B.
    Exempting Smaller Entities.

[^271]: OPASTCO Comments at 4, 8-9.

[^272]: *See, e.g.,* USTA Comments at 4-5; American Library Association
    Reply Comments at 5; Competition Policy Institute at 6-8.

[^273]: We have coordinated our size standards with the Small Business
    Administration.

[^274]: *R&O* at ¶36.

[^275]: *See, e.g.,* OPASTCO Comments at 4.

[^276]: *See* Order, Section III.D. Frequency of Reports.

[^277]: *See* Order, Section III.D. Frequency of Reports.

[^278]: *See* Order, Section III.C. Definition of Reporting Area.

[^279]: *See* Order, Section III.I. Outreach and Enforcement.

[^280]: *R&O* at ¶¶39, 41.

[^281]: 5 U.S.C. § 601(6).

[^282]: 5 U.S.C. § 601(3) (incorporating by reference the definition of
    \"small business concern\" in 5 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 term which are
    appropriate to the activities of the agency and publishes such
    definition in the Federal Register.\"

[^283]: 15 U.S.C. § 632. See, e.g., Brown Transport Truckload, Inc. v.
    Southern Wipers, Inc., 176 B.R. 82 (N.D. Ga. 1994).

[^284]: 13 C.F.R. § 121.201.

[^285]: FCC, Carrier Locator: Interstate Service Providers, Figure 1
    (Jan. 2000) (Carrier Locator). See also 47 C.F.R. § 64.601 et seq.

[^286]: *Carrier Locator* at Fig. 1.

[^287]: 5 U.S.C. § 601(3).

[^288]: 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* 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. 13 C.F.R. §
    121.102(b). Since 1996, out of an abundance of caution, the
    Commission has included small incumbent LECs in its regulatory
    flexibility analyses. *See, e.g., Implementation of the Local
    Competition Provisions of the Telecommunications Act of 1996*, CC
    Docket 96-98, First Report and Order, 11 FCC Rcd 15499, 16144-45
    (1996).

[^289]: United States Department of Commerce, Bureau of the Census,
    *1992 Census of Transportation*, Communications, and Utilities:
    Establishment and Firm Size, at Firm Size 1‑123 (1995) (\"1992
    Census\").

[^290]: 15 U.S.C. § 632(a)(1).

[^291]: 1992 Census, *supra*, at Firm Size 1‑123.

[^292]: 13 C.F.R. § 121.201, SIC Code 4813.

[^293]: 13 C.F.R. § 121.210, SIC Code 4813.

[^294]: *See* 47 C.F.R. § 64.601 *et seq.*; *Carrier Locator* at Fig. 1.

[^295]: *Carrier Locator* at Fig. 1. The total for resellers includes
    both toll resellers and local resellers.

[^296]: United States Department of Commerce, Bureau of the Census,
    *1992 Census of Transportation*, Communications, and Utilities:
    Establishment and Firm Size, at Firm Size 1‑123 (1995) (\"1992
    Census\").

[^297]: 13 C.F.R. § 121.201, SIC Code 4812.

[^298]: *Id.*

[^299]: *Carrier Locator* at Fig. 1.

[^300]: See Amendment of Parts 20 and 24 of the Commission\'s Rules \--
    Broadband PCS Competitive Bidding and the Commercial Mobile Radio
    Service Spectrum Cap, Report and Order, FCC 96-278, WT Docket No.
    96-59, ¶¶ 57-60 (June 24, 1996), 61 FR 33859 (July 1, 1996); see
    also 47 C.F.R. § 24.720(b).

[^301]: *Id*. at ¶ 60.

[^302]: *Implementation of Section 309(j) of the Communications Act \--
    Competitive Bidding*, PP Docket No. 93-253, Fifth Report and Order,
    9 FCC Rcd 5532, 5581-84 (1994).

[^303]: See Amendment of Parts 2 and 90 of the Commission\'s Rules to
    Provide for the Use of 200 Channels Outside the Designated Filing
    Areas in the 896-901 MHz and the 935-940 MHz Bands Allotted to the
    Specialized Mobile Radio Pool, PR Docket No. 89-583, Second Order on
    Reconsideration and Seventh Report and Order, 11 FCC Rcd 2639,
    2693-702 (1995); Amendment of Part 90 of the Commission\'s Rules to
    Facilitate Future Development of SMR Systems in the 800 MHz
    Frequency Band, PR Docket No. 93-144, First Report and Order, Eighth
    Report and Order, and Second Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking,
    11 FCC Rcd 1463 (1995).

[^304]: 13 C.F.R. § 121.201, SIC Code 4812. This definition provides
    that a small entity is a radiotelephone company employing no more
    than 1,500 persons.

[^305]: U.S. Bureau of the Census, U.S. Department of Commerce, 1992
    Census of Transportation, Communications, and Utilities, UC92‑S‑1,
    Subject Series, Establishment and Firm Size, Table 5, Employment
    Size of Firms; 1992, SIC code 4812 (issued May 1995).

[^306]: 220 MHz Third Report and Order, 12 FCC Rcd 10943, 11068‑70, at
    paras. 291‑ 295 (1997). The SBA has approved these definitions.
    *See* Letter from A. Alvarez, Administrator, SBA, to D. Phythyon,
    Chief, Wireless Telecommunications Bureau, FCC (Jan. 6, 1998).

[^307]: 220 MHz Third Report and Order, 12 FCC Rcd at 11068‑69, para.
    291.

[^308]: *See generally* Public Notice, \"220 MHz Service Auction
    Closes,\" Report No. WT 98‑36 (Wireless Telecom. Bur. Oct. 23,
    1998).

[^309]: See Wireless Telecommunications Bureau Grants 654 Phase II 220
    MHz Licenses, Public Notice, DA 99-583 (rel. Mar 24, 1999); Wireless
    Telecommunications Bureau Conditionally Grants 23 Phase II 220 MHz
    Licenses and Announces It is Prepared to Grant Four Additional Phase
    II 220 MHz Licenses After Final Payment is Made, Public Notice, DA
    990746 (rel. April 16, 1999); Wireless Telecommunications Bureau
    Grants One Phase II 220 MHz License and Conditionally Grants Three
    Phase II 220 MHz Licenses, Public Notice, DA 99-1111 (rel. Jun 7,
    1999); Wireless Telecommunications Bureau Grants 221 Phase II 220
    MHz Licenses, Public Notice, DA 99-2104 (rel. Oct. 7, 1999).

[^310]: The service is defined in section 22.99 of the Commission\'s
    rules, 47 C.F.R. § 22.99.

[^311]: BETRS is defined in sections 22.757 and 22.759 of the
    Commission\'s rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 22.757, 22.759.

[^312]: 13 C.F.R. § 121.201, SIC Code 4812.

[^313]: The service is defined in section 22.99 of the Commission\'s
    rules, 47 C.F.R. § 22.99.

[^314]: 13 C.F.R. § 121.201, SIC Code 4812.

[^315]: *See* 47 C.F.R. § 20.9(a)(2) (noting that certain
    Industrial/Business Pool service may be treated as common carriage
    service).

[^316]: Federal Communications Commission, *60th Annual Report, Fiscal
    Year 1994*, at 116.

[^317]: 47 C.F.R. § 101 *et seq.* (formerly, Part 21 of the
    Commission\'s rules).

[^318]: Persons eligible under Parts 80 and 90 of the Commission\'s
    rules can use Private Operational-Fixed Microwave services. *See* 47
    C.F.R. Parts 80 and 90. Stations in this service are called
    operational-fixed to distinguish them from common carrier and public
    fixed stations. Only the licensee may use the operational-fixed
    station, and only for communications related to the licensee\'s
    commercial, industrial, or safety operations.

[^319]: Auxiliary Microwave Service is governed by Part 74 of Title 47
    of the Commission\'s Rules. *See* 47 C.F.R. § 74 *et seq.* Available
    to licensees of broadcast stations and to broadcast and cable
    network entities, broadcast auxiliary microwave stations are used
    for relaying broadcast television signals from the studio to the
    transmitter, or between two points such as a main studio and an
    auxiliary studio. The service also includes mobile TV pickups, which
    relay signals from a remote location back to the studio.

[^320]: 13 C.F.R. § 121.201, SIC Code 4812.

[^321]: This service is governed by Subpart I of Part 22 of the
    Commission\'s Rules. *See* 47 C.F.R. §§ 22.1001 ‑ 22.1037.

[^322]: 13 C.F.R. § 121.201, SIC Code 4899.

[^323]: *1992 Economic Census Industry and Enterprise Receipts Size
    Report*, Table 2D, SIC Code 4899 (U.S. Bureau of the Census data
    under contract to the Office of Advocacy of the U.S. Small Business
    Administration.)

[^324]: 13 C.F.R. § 121.201, SIC 4841.

[^325]: *1992 Economic Census Industry and Enterprise Receipts Size
    Report*, Table 2D, SIC code 4841 (U.S. Bureau of the Census data
    under contract to the Office of Advocacy of the U.S. Small Business
    Administration).

[^326]: 47 C.F.R. § 76.901(e). The Commission developed this definition
    based on its determination that a small cable system operator is one
    with annual revenues of \$100 million or less. *Implementation of
    Sections of the 1992 Cable Act: Rate Regulation, Sixth Report and
    Order and Eleventh Order on Reconsideration*, 10 FCC Rcd 7393
    (1995), 60 FR 10534 (February 27, 1995).

[^327]: Paul Kagan Associates, Inc., *Cable TV Investor*, Feb. 29, 1996
    (based on figures for December 30, 1995).

[^328]: 47 U.S.C. § 543(m)(2).

[^329]: 47 U.S.C. § 76.1403(b).

[^330]: Paul Kagan Associates, Inc., *Cable TV Investor*, Feb. 29, 1996
    (based on figures for Dec. 30, 1995).

[^331]: We do receive such information on a case-by-case basis only if a
    cable operator appeals a local franchise authority\'s finding that
    the operator does not qualify as a small cable operator pursuant to
    section 76.1403(b) of the Commission\'s rules. *See* 47 C.F.R. §
    76.1403(d).

[^332]: 47 C.F.R. § 21.961(b)(1).

[^333]: See Amendment of Parts 21 and 74 of the Commission\'s Rules With
    Regard to Filing Procedures in the Multipoint Distribution Service
    and in the Instructional Television Fixed Service and Implementation
    of Section 309(j) of the Communications Act - Competitive Bidding,
    MM Docket No. 94-31 and PP Docket No. 93-253, Report and Order, 10
    FCC Rcd 9589 (1995).

[^334]: One of these small entities, O\'ahu Wireless Cable, Inc., was
    subsequently acquired by GTE Media Ventures, Inc., which did not
    qualify as a small entity for purposes of the MDS auction.

[^335]: 13 C.F.R. § 121.201.

[^336]: Executive Office of the President, Office of Management and
    Budget, Standard Industrial Classification Manual (1987).

[^337]: 13 C.F.R. § 121.201, SIC 4911.

[^338]: U.S. Department of Commerce, Bureau of the Census, 1992 Economic
    Census Industry and Enterprise Receipts Size Report, Table 2D
    (Bureau of Census data under contract to the Office of Advocacy of
    the SBA).

[^339]: Executive Office of the President, Office of Management and
    Budget, Standard Industrial Classification Manual (1987).

[^340]: 13 C.F.R. § 121.201, SIC 4931.

[^341]: U.S. Department of Commerce, Bureau of the Census, 1992 Economic
    Census Industry and Enterprise Receipts Size Report, Table 2D
    (Bureau of Census data under contract to the Office of Advocacy of
    the SBA).

[^342]: Executive Office of the President, Office of Management and
    Budget, Standard Industrial Classification Manual (1987).

[^343]: 13 C.F.R. § 121.201, SIC 4939.

[^344]: U.S. Department of Commerce, Bureau of the Census, 1992 Economic
    Census Industry and Enterprise Receipts Size Report, Table 2D
    (Bureau of Census data under contract to the Office of Advocacy of
    the SBA).

[^345]: *See R&O* Section III.A., Types of Entities that Must Report.

[^346]: See *id*.

[^347]: *See R&O* Section III.C., Exempting Smaller Entities.

[^348]: *See R&O* Section III.B., Frequency of Reports.

[^349]: *See R&O* Section III.E., Data to be Reported.

[^350]: *See R&O* Section III.G., Electronic Filing.

[^351]: *See R&O* Section III.C. Exempting Smaller Entities.

[^352]: *See id.*

[^353]: *See id.*

[^354]: *See id.*

[^355]: *See R&O* Section III.

[^356]: *See R&O* Section III.C. Exempting Smaller Entities.

[^357]: *See* *R&O*, III.B., C. D.; *see also* FRFA, Section II,
    *supra*.