**Before the**

**Federal Communications Commission**

**Washington, D.C. 20554**

+----------------------------------+----+------------------------------+
| In the Matter of                 | *  | WC Docket No. 07-243         |
|                                  | *) |                              |
| Telephone Number Requirements    | ** | WC Docket No. 07-244         |
| for IP-Enabled Services          |    |                              |
| Providers                        | *  | WC Docket No. 04-36          |
|                                  | *) |                              |
| Local Number Portability Porting | ** | CC Docket No. 95-116         |
| Interval and Validation          |    |                              |
| Requirements                     | *  | CC Docket No. 99-200         |
|                                  | *) |                              |
| IP-Enabled Services              | ** |                              |
|                                  |    |                              |
| Telephone Number Portability     | *  |                              |
|                                  | *) |                              |
| CTIA Petitions for Declaratory   | ** |                              |
| Ruling on Wireline-Wireless      |    |                              |
| Porting Issues                   | *  |                              |
|                                  | *) |                              |
| Final Regulatory Flexibility     | ** |                              |
| Analysis                         |    |                              |
|                                  | *  |                              |
| Numbering Resource Optimization  | *) |                              |
|                                  | ** |                              |
|                                  |    |                              |
|                                  | *  |                              |
|                                  | *) |                              |
|                                  | ** |                              |
|                                  |    |                              |
|                                  | *  |                              |
|                                  | *) |                              |
|                                  | ** |                              |
|                                  |    |                              |
|                                  | *  |                              |
|                                  | *) |                              |
|                                  | ** |                              |
|                                  |    |                              |
|                                  | *  |                              |
|                                  | *) |                              |
|                                  | ** |                              |
|                                  |    |                              |
|                                  | *  |                              |
|                                  | *) |                              |
|                                  | ** |                              |
|                                  |    |                              |
|                                  | *  |                              |
|                                  | *) |                              |
|                                  | ** |                              |
|                                  |    |                              |
|                                  | *  |                              |
|                                  | *) |                              |
|                                  | ** |                              |
|                                  |    |                              |
|                                  | *  |                              |
|                                  | *) |                              |
|                                  | ** |                              |
|                                  |    |                              |
|                                  | *  |                              |
|                                  | *) |                              |
|                                  | ** |                              |
|                                  |    |                              |
|                                  | *  |                              |
|                                  | *) |                              |
|                                  | ** |                              |
|                                  |    |                              |
|                                  | *  |                              |
|                                  | *) |                              |
|                                  | ** |                              |
|                                  |    |                              |
|                                  | *  |                              |
|                                  | *) |                              |
|                                  | ** |                              |
+----------------------------------+----+------------------------------+

**REPORT AND ORDER, DECLARATORY RULING,**

**ORDER ON REMAND, AND NOTICE OF PROPOSED RULEMAKING**

**Adopted: October 31, 2007 Released: November 8, 2007**

**Comment Date: (30 days after Federal Register publication)**

**Reply Comment Date: (60 days after Federal Register publication)**

**By the Commission:** Chairman Martin and Commissioners Copps, Tate and
McDowell issuing separate statements; Commissioner Adelstein approving
in part, concurring in part and issuing a statement.

**TABLE OF CONTENTS**

Para.

I. INTRODUCTION 1

II\. BACKGROUND 5

A. Local Number Portability and Numbering Administration 5

B. Interconnected VoIP Services 12

C. T-Mobile USA, Inc. and Sprint Nextel Administration 15

III\. DISCUSSION 16

A. Interconnected VoIP Services 17

1\. Scope 18

2\. Authority 21

3\. Local Number Portability Obligations 30

4\. Numbering Administration Cost Requirements 39

5\. Implementation 40

B. Intermodal Local Number Portability 41

1\. Validating Local Number Portability Requests 42

2\. Final Regulatory Flexibility Analysis for the *Intermodal Number*

*Portability Order* 50

IV\. NOTICE OF PROPOSED RULEMAKING 52

A. Interconnected VoIP Provider Numbering Obligations 53

B. LNP Process Requirements 54

C. New Dockets 67

V. PROCEDURAL MATTERS 68

A. *Ex Parte* Presentations 68

B. Comment Filing Procedures 69

C. Final Regulatory Flexibility Analysis 72

D. Initial Regulatory Flexibility Analysis 73

E. Paperwork Reduction Act 74

F. Congressional Review Act 77

G. Accessible Formats 78

VI\. ORDERING CLAUSES 79

APPENDIX A -- List of Commenters

APPENDIX B -- Final Rules

APPENDIX C -- Final Regulatory Flexibility Analysis (Interconnected VoIP
Services)

APPENDIX D -- Final Regulatory Flexibility Analysis (Intermodal Local
Number Portability)

APPENDIX E -- Initial Regulatory Flexibility Analysis

# introduction

1.  In this Order, we take a series of steps designed to ensure that
    consumers benefit from local number portability (LNP). First, we
    extend LNP obligations to interconnected voice over Internet
    Protocol (VoIP) providers to ensure that customers of such VoIP
    providers may port their North American Numbering Plan (NANP)
    telephone numbers when changing telephone providers.[^1] Consumers
    will now be able to take advantage of new telephone services without
    losing their telephone numbers, which should in turn facilitate
    greater competition among telephony providers by allowing customers
    to respond to price and service changes. Additionally, we extend to
    interconnected VoIP providers the obligation to contribute to shared
    numbering administration costs. We believe that these steps we take
    to ensure regulatory parity among providers of similar services will
    minimize marketplace distortions arising from regulatory advantage.

2.  Second, we address the petition for declaratory ruling filed jointly
    by T-Mobile USA, Inc. and Sprint Nextel Corporation (collectively,
    Petitioners) seeking clarification regarding certain LNP
    obligations.[^2] Specifically, we clarify that no entities obligated
    to provide LNP may obstruct or delay the porting process by
    demanding from the porting-in entity information in excess of the
    minimum information needed to validate the customer's request. In
    particular, we conclude that LNP validation should be based on no
    more than four fields for simple ports, and that those fields should
    be: (1) 10-digit telephone number; (2) customer account number; (3)
    5-digit zip code; and (4) pass code (if applicable).

3.  Third, we respond to the United States Court of Appeals for the
    District of Columbia Circuit (D.C. Circuit) stay of the Commission's
    2003 *Intermodal Number Portability Order*[^3] as applied to
    carriers that qualify as small entities under the Regulatory
    Flexibility Act (RFA) by preparing a Final Regulatory Flexibility
    Analysis (FRFA) on the impact of the wireline-to-wireless intermodal
    LNP rules on wireline carriers qualifying as small entities under
    the RFA.[^4] After considering information received from commenters
    in response to an Initial Regulatory Flexibility Analysis (IRFA), we
    find, consistent with the Commission's 2003 *Intermodal Number
    Portability Order*, that wireline carriers qualifying as small
    entities under the RFA should be required to port to wireless
    carriers where the requesting wireless carrier's "coverage area"
    overlaps the geographic location in which the customer's wireline
    number is provisioned, provided that the porting-in carrier
    maintains the number's original rate center designation following
    the port. We find that this approach best balances the impact of the
    costs that may be associated with the wireline-to-wireless
    intermodal porting rules for small carriers and the public interest
    benefits of those requirements.

4.  Fourth, we seek comment in a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (Notice)
    on whether the Commission should address other LNP and numbering
    obligations. Specifically, we seek comment on whether the Commission
    should extend other LNP requirements and numbering-related rules,
    including compliance with N11 code assignments, to interconnected
    VoIP providers. We also seek comment on whether the Commission
    should adopt rules specifying the length of the porting intervals or
    other details of the porting process. We also tentatively conclude
    that the Commission should adopt rules reducing the porting interval
    for wireline-to-wireline and intermodal simple port requests,
    specifically, to a 48-hour porting interval.

# bACKGROUND

## Local Number Portability and Numbering Administration

5.  *Statutory Authority*. Section 251(e) of the Communications Act of
    1934, as amended (Act), gives the Commission plenary jurisdiction
    over the NANP and related telephone numbering issues in the United
    States.[^5] Further, section 251(e)(2) states that "\[t\]he cost of
    establishing . . . number portability shall be borne by all
    telecommunications carriers on a competitively neutral basis as
    determined by the Commission."[^6] Section 251(b)(2) of the Act
    requires local exchange carriers (LECs) to "provide, to the extent
    technically feasible, number portability in accordance with
    requirements prescribed by the Commission."[^7] The Act and the
    Commission's rules define number portability as "the ability of
    users of telecommunications services to retain, at the same
    location, existing telecommunications numbers without impairment of
    quality, reliability, or convenience when switching from one
    telecommunications carrier to another."[^8] As discussed below, the
    Commission adopted LNP rules and cost recovery mechanisms to
    implement these congressional mandates.

6.  *LNP Orders*. In 1996, the Commission required all carriers,
    including wireline carriers and covered commercial mobile radio
    service (CMRS) providers, operating in the 100 largest Metropolitan
    Statistical Areas (MSAs) to provide service provider portability
    according to a phased deployment schedule.[^9] The Commission found
    that LNP provided end users options when choosing among
    telecommunications service providers without having to change their
    telephone numbers.[^10] In that order, the Commission established
    obligations for porting between wireline carriers, porting between
    wireless providers, and intermodal porting (*i.e.*, the porting of
    numbers from wireline carriers to wireless providers, and *vice
    versa*), and directed the North American Numbering Council (NANC) to
    make recommendations regarding specific LNP implementation
    issues.[^11]

7.  On August 14, 1997, the Commission adopted the NANC's
    recommendations for the implementation of wireline-to-wireline
    LNP.[^12] Among other things, the NANC guidelines limited
    wireline-to-wireline number porting to carriers with facilities or
    numbering resources in the same rate center.[^13] On October 7,
    2003, the Commission released the *Wireless Number Portability
    Order*, offering further guidance on wireless LNP. In particular,
    the Commission prohibited provisions in consumer contracts that
    purport to limit porting between carriers.[^14] It also found that
    in terms of the validation process for wireless-to-wireless number
    porting, absent an agreement setting additional terms, carriers only
    had to share basic contract and technical information with each
    other sufficient to perform the port.[^15] The Commission also
    declined to limit wireless-to-wireless porting based on wireline
    rate centers because it would limit a consumer's ability to port
    numbers among wireless carriers.[^16]

8.  In its 2003 *Intermodal Number Portability Order*, the Commission
    provided guidance on porting between wireline and wireless
    carriers.[^17] Specifically, the Commission decided that wireline
    carriers must port numbers to wireless carriers where the requesting
    wireless carrier's coverage area overlaps with the geographic
    location of the customer's wireline rate center so long as the
    porting-in wireless carrier maintained the number's original rate
    center designation following the port.[^18] Additionally, the
    Commission reaffirmed that wireless carriers must port numbers to
    wireline carriers within a number's originating rate center.[^19]
    Further, the Commission clarified that wireline carriers may not
    require wireless carriers to enter into interconnection agreements
    as a precondition to porting because the porting process "can be
    discharged with a minimal exchange of information."[^20] On appeal,
    the D.C. Circuit remanded the *Intermodal Number Portability Order*
    and stayed its enforcement against small entities until the
    Commission published a FRFA.[^21]

9.  In a parallel set of orders, the Commission adopted rules governing
    LNP cost recovery under section 251(e)(2). Such costs include the
    industry-wide costs that make it possible to route calls to
    customers who have switched carriers as well as the costs individual
    providers incur to make it possible to transfer a telephone number
    to another carrier. In the *Cost Recovery Order*, the Commission
    determined that all telecommunications carriers should bear certain
    costs of creating and supporting LNP on a competitively neutral
    basis under the mandate of section 251(e)(2).[^22] The Commission
    found that because all carriers -- including interexchange carriers
    and CMRS providers -- incur LNP costs, it was reasonable to
    interpret section 251(e)(2) as requiring that LNP costs should be
    borne on a competitively neutral basis by all carriers, rather than
    just a subset of the industry.[^23]

10. To allocate shared costs, the Commission directed the LNP regional
    database administrator (LNPA) to distribute the shared costs of each
    LNP regional database among all telecommunications carriers in
    proportion to each carrier's intrastate, interstate, and
    international end-user telecommunications revenues attributable to
    that region.[^24] In the *Cost Recovery Reconsideration Order*, the
    Commission recognized that national and multi-regional carriers may
    face some inherent difficulties in determining end-user revenue by
    regional database area and thus adopted a proxy mechanism by which
    such carriers may allocate their revenues among the seven LNPA
    regions.[^25] For carrier-specific costs, the Commission regulated
    the specific manner in which incumbent LECs could recover certain
    LNP costs and permitted other telecommunications carriers to recover
    such costs in any lawful manner.[^26]

11. *Numbering Administration Orders*. Similar to the LNP cost recovery
    mechanisms established under section 251(e)(2), the Commission also
    established a cost recovery mechanism for the NANP
    administration.[^27] The Commission determined that the NANP
    administration costs should be borne by those that benefit from
    numbering resources.[^28] This cost recovery system is also based on
    end-user telecommunications revenues because the Commission
    determined that doing so satisfied section 251's directive that cost
    recovery should be competitively neutral.[^29] For thousands block
    number pooling costs, a subset of numbering administration costs,
    the Commission divided costs into three different types, similar to
    the LNP cost recovery mechanism, finding that shared costs should be
    allocated to all telecommunications carriers in proportion to each
    carrier's interstate, intrastate, and international
    telecommunication end-user revenues, and that related
    carrier-specific costs of carriers not subject to rate regulation
    could be recovered in any lawful manner.[^30]

## Interconnected VoIP Services

12. Interconnected VoIP service enables users, over their broadband
    connections, to receive calls that originate on the public switched
    telephone network (PSTN) and to terminate calls to the PSTN.[^31] In
    order to have this capability, an interconnected VoIP service must
    offer consumers NANP telephone numbers.[^32] Interconnected VoIP
    providers generally obtain NANP telephone numbers for their
    customers by partnering with a local exchange carrier (LEC) through
    a commercial arrangement rather than obtaining them directly from
    the numbering administrator, which provides numbers only to entities
    that are licensed or certificated as carriers under the Act.[^33]
    Consumers and telecommunications carriers have complained to the
    Commission on numerous occasions regarding an inability to port in
    or port out a NANP telephone number to or from an interconnected
    VoIP provider.[^34]

13. On March 10, 2004, the Commission initiated a proceeding to examine
    issues relating to Internet Protocol (IP)-enabled services --
    services and applications making use of IP, including, but not
    limited to, VoIP services.[^35] In the *IP-Enabled Services Notice*,
    the Commission sought comment on, among other things, whether to
    extend the obligation to provide LNP to any class of IP-enabled
    service provider.[^36] The Commission also sought comment on whether
    the Commission should take any action to facilitate the growth of
    IP-enabled services, while at the same time maximizing the use and
    life of the NANP numbering resources.[^37]

14. On four occasions, the Commission has extended certain Title II
    obligations to interconnected VoIP providers.[^38] On May 19, 2005,
    the Commission asserted its ancillary jurisdiction under Title I of
    the Act and its authority under section 251(e) to require
    interconnected VoIP providers to supply 911 emergency calling
    capabilities to their customers.[^39] On June 21, 2006, the
    Commission in the *2006 Interim Contribution Methodology Order*,
    among other things, established universal service contribution
    obligations for interconnected VoIP providers based on its
    permissive authority under section 254(d) and its ancillary
    jurisdiction under Title I of the Act.[^40] On March 13, 2007, the
    Commission extended section 222's customer proprietary network
    information obligations to interconnected VoIP providers using its
    Title I authority.[^41] Most recently, on June 15, 2007, the
    Commission, using its Title I authority, extended the disability
    access requirements under section 255 to providers of interconnected
    VoIP services and to manufacturers of specially designed equipment
    used to provide these services.[^42] The Commission also extended
    the Telecommunications Relay Services (TRS) requirements to
    providers of interconnected VoIP services, pursuant to section
    225(b)(1) of the Act and its Title I jurisdiction, including
    requiring interconnected VoIP providers to contribute to the
    Interstate TRS Fund under the Commission's existing contribution
    rules and offer 711 abbreviated dialing for access to relay
    services.[^43]

## T-Mobile USA, Inc. and Sprint Nextel Petition

15. On December 20, 2006, the Petitioners filed a petition for
    declaratory ruling, pursuant to section 1.2 of the Commission's
    rules, requesting that the Commission make clear that carriers
    obligated to provide LNP may not obstruct or delay the porting
    process by demanding information from requesting carriers beyond
    that required to validate the customer request.[^44] Petitioners
    maintain that some carriers request excessive amounts of information
    as part of the porting process, creating significantly longer times
    for ports and a correspondingly higher number of intermodal port
    request cancellations.[^45] To improve the validation process, the
    Petitioners recommend validating port requests using just four data
    fields: (1) 10-digit telephone number; (2) customer account number;
    (3) 5-digit zip code; and (4) pass code (if applicable).[^46] The
    Commission issued a public notice seeking comment on the
    petition.[^47]

# discussion

16. In this Order, we undertake several steps to help ensure that
    consumers and competition benefit from LNP as intended by the Act
    and Commission precedent. First, we extend LNP obligations and
    numbering administration support obligations to encompass
    interconnected VoIP services. Second, we clarify that no entities
    obligated to provide LNP may obstruct or delay the porting process
    by demanding from the porting-in entity information in excess of the
    minimum information needed to validate the customer's request. In
    particular, we conclude that LNP validation should be based on no
    more than four fields for simple ports, and that those fields should
    be: (1) 10-digit telephone number; (2) customer account number; (3)
    5-digit zip code; and (4) pass code (if applicable). Third, we issue
    a FRFA in response to the D.C. Circuit's stay of the Commission's
    *Intermodal Number Portability Order* and find that wireline
    carriers qualifying as small entities under the RFA should be
    required to port to wireless carriers where the requesting wireless
    carrier's "coverage area" overlaps the geographic location in which
    the customer's wireline number is provisioned, provided that the
    porting-in carrier maintains the number's original rate center
    designation following the port. Fourth, as discussed below, we seek
    comment in the Notice on the need for Commission action regarding
    other LNP and numbering obligations.

## Interconnected VoIP Services

17. We find that the customers of interconnected VoIP services should
    receive the benefits of LNP. Such action is fundamentally important
    for the protection of consumers and is consistent with the authority
    granted to the Commission under section 251(e) and sections 1 and 2
    of the Act. Moreover, as described below, by requiring
    interconnected VoIP providers and their numbering partners to ensure
    that users of interconnected VoIP services have the ability to port
    their telephone numbers when changing service providers to or from
    an interconnected VoIP provider, we benefit not only customers but
    the interconnected VoIP providers themselves.[^48] Specifically, the
    ability of end users to retain their NANP telephone numbers when
    changing service providers gives customers flexibility in the
    quality, price, and variety of services they can choose to purchase.
    Allowing customers to respond to price and service changes without
    changing their telephone numbers will enhance competition, a
    fundamental goal of section 251 of the Act, while helping to fulfill
    the Act's goal of facilitating "a rapid, efficient, Nation-wide, and
    world-wide wire and radio communication service."[^49] Additionally,
    we extend to interconnected VoIP providers the obligation to
    contribute to shared numbering administration costs. We believe that
    the steps we take today to ensure regulatory parity among providers
    of similar services will minimize marketplace distortions arising
    from regulatory advantage.

### Scope

18. Consistent with our previous decisions in the *IP-Enabled Services*
    proceeding, we limit our decision to interconnected VoIP providers,
    in part because, unlike certain other IP-enabled services, we
    continue to believe that interconnected VoIP service "is
    increasingly used to replace analog voice service," including, in
    some cases, local exchange service.[^50] Indeed, as interconnected
    VoIP service improves and proliferates, consumers' expectations for
    these services trend toward their expectations for other telephone
    services. Thus, consumers reasonably expect interconnected VoIP
    services to include regulatory protections such as emergency 911
    service and LNP.[^51]

19. These characteristics of interconnected VoIP service support a
    finding that it is appropriate to extend LNP obligations to include
    such services, in light of the statute and Commission precedent.
    Congress expressly directed the Commission to prescribe requirements
    that all LECs must meet to satisfy their statutory LNP
    obligations.[^52] In doing so, the Commission has required service
    providers that have not been found to be LECs but that are expected
    to compete against LECs to comply with the LNP obligations set forth
    in section 251(b)(2).[^53] In extending LNP rules to such providers,
    the Commission concluded, among other things, that imposing such
    obligations would "promote competition between providers of local
    telephone services and thereby promote competition between providers
    of interstate access services."[^54] Specifically, the Commission
    found that the availability of LNP would "eliminat\[e\] one major
    disincentive to switch carriers," and thus would facilitate "the
    successful entrance of new service providers" covered by the LNP
    rules.[^55] Indeed, the Commission determined that LNP not only
    would facilitate competition between such new service providers and
    wireline telecommunications carriers, but also would facilitate
    competition among the new service providers themselves.[^56] The
    Commission anticipated that the enhanced competition resulting from
    LNP would "stimulate the development of new services and
    technologies, and create incentives for carriers to lower prices and
    costs."[^57] The Commission further concluded that implementation of
    long-term LNP by these providers would help ensure "efficient use
    and uniform administration" of numbering resources.[^58] For these
    same policy reasons, we extend the LNP obligations to interconnected
    VoIP providers.

20. To effectuate this policy, we must address both the obligations of
    interconnected VoIP providers as well as the obligations of
    telecommunications carriers that serve interconnected VoIP providers
    as their numbering partners. Thus, we take this opportunity to
    reaffirm that only carriers, absent a Commission waiver,[^59] may
    access numbering resources directly from the North American
    Numbering Plan Administrator (NANPA) or the Pooling Administrator
    (PA). Section 52.15(g)(2) of the Commission's rules limits access to
    the NANP numbering resources to those applicants that are
    (1) "authorized to provide service in the area for which the
    numbering resources are being requested"; and (2) "\[are\] or will
    be capable of providing service within sixty (60) days of the
    numbering resources activation date."[^60] It is well established
    that our rules allow only carriers direct access to NANP numbering
    resources to ensure that the numbers are used efficiently and to
    avoid number exhaust.[^61] Thus, many interconnected VoIP providers
    may not obtain numbering resources directly from the NANPA because
    they will not have obtained a license or a certificate of public
    convenience and necessity from the relevant states.[^62]
    Interconnected VoIP providers that have not obtained a license or
    certificate of public convenience and necessity from the relevant
    states or otherwise are not eligible to receive numbers directly
    from the administrators may make numbers available to their
    customers through commercial arrangements with carriers (*i.e.*,
    numbering partners).[^63] We emphasize that ensuring compliance with
    the Commission's numbering rules, including LNP requirements, in
    such cases remains the responsibility of the carrier that obtains
    the numbering resource from the numbering administrator as well as
    the responsibility of the interconnected VoIP provider.[^64]

### Authority

21. In this Order, we conclude that the Commission has ample authority
    to extend LNP obligations and numbering administration support
    obligations to interconnected VoIP providers. Specifically, we
    conclude that we have authority to extend LNP obligations and
    numbering administration support obligations to interconnected VoIP
    providers and their numbering partners under the Commission's
    plenary numbering authority pursuant to section 251(e) of the
    Act.[^65] We further find Commission authority in section 251(b)(2)
    of the Act for the obligations we extend to numbering partners that
    serve interconnected VoIP providers. Separately, we analyze the
    extension of our rules to interconnected VoIP providers under our
    Title I ancillary jurisdiction.[^66]

22. *Plenary Numbering Authority*. Consistent with Commission precedent,
    we find that the plenary numbering authority that Congress granted
    this Commission under section 251(e)(1) provides ample authority to
    extend the LNP requirements set out in this Order to interconnected
    VoIP providers and their numbering partners.[^67] Specifically, in
    section 251(e)(1) of the Act, Congress expressly assigned to the
    Commission exclusive jurisdiction over that portion of the NANP that
    pertains to the United States.[^68] The Commission retained its
    "authority to set policy with respect to all facets of numbering
    administration in the United States."[^69] To the extent that an
    interconnected VoIP provider provides services that offer its
    customers NANP telephone numbers, both the interconnected VoIP
    provider and the telecommunications carrier that secures the
    numbering resource from the numbering administrator subject
    themselves to the Commission's plenary authority under section
    251(e)(1) with respect to those numbers.

23. *Section 251(b)(2) Authority over Telecommunications Carriers.* We
    find that section 251(b)(2) provides an additional source of
    authority to impose LNP obligations on the LEC numbering partners of
    interconnected VoIP providers.[^70] Section 251(b)(2) states that
    all LECs have a "duty to provide, to the extent technically
    feasible, number portability in accordance with the requirements
    prescribed by the Commission."[^71] The Commission has long held
    that it has "authority to require that number portability be
    implemented 'to the extent technically feasible' and that our
    authority under section 251(b)(2) encompasses all forms of number
    portability."[^72] Our application of this authority is informed by
    the Act's focus on protecting consumers through number portability.
    Section 3 of the Act defines "number portability" as "the ability of
    *users* of telecommunications services to retain, at the same
    location, existing telecommunications numbers without impairment of
    quality, reliability, or convenience when switching from one
    telecommunications carrier to another."[^73] In this Order, we
    prescribe requirements that expand number portability to include
    ports to and from interconnected VoIP providers, and therefore find
    that section 251(b)(2) grants us authority to impose obligations on
    the interconnected VoIP providers' LEC numbering partners to
    effectuate those requirements. By holding the LEC numbering partner
    responsible for ensuring a porting request is honored to the extent
    technically feasible, we thus abide by this statutory mandate. We
    interpret section 251(b)(2) to include a number porting obligation
    even when the switching of "carriers" occurs at the wholesale rather
    than retail level. Given Congress's imposition of the number
    portability obligations on all such carriers and the broad terms of
    the obligation itself, we believe that ours is a reasonable
    interpretation of the statute. To find otherwise would permit
    carriers to avoid numbering obligations simply by creating an
    interconnected VoIP provider affiliate and assigning the number to
    such affiliate. Further, to ensure that consumers retain this
    benefit as technology evolves, we continue to believe that
    Congress's intent is that number portability be a "dynamic concept"
    that accommodates such changes.[^74] The Commission previously has
    found that it has the authority to alter the scope of porting
    obligations due to technological changes in how numbers are
    ported.[^75] Similarly, the Act provides ample authority for the
    logical extension of porting obligations due to technological
    changes in how telephone service is provided to end-user customers.
    We exercise our authority under the Act to ensure that consumers'
    interests in their existing telephone numbers are adequately
    protected whether the customer is using a telephone number obtained
    from a LEC directly or indirectly via an interconnected VoIP
    provider. In either case, the LEC or LEC numbering partner must
    comply with the Commission's LNP rules.

24. *Ancillary Jurisdiction over Interconnected VoIP Services*. We
    further conclude that we have a separate additional source of
    authority under Title I of the Act to impose LNP obligations and
    numbering administration support obligations on interconnected VoIP
    providers. Ancillary jurisdiction may be employed, in the
    Commission's discretion, when Title I of the Act gives the
    Commission subject matter jurisdiction over the service to be
    regulated[^76] and the assertion of jurisdiction is "reasonably
    ancillary to the effective performance of \[its\] various
    responsibilities."[^77] Both predicates for ancillary jurisdiction
    are satisfied here.

25. First, as we concluded in previous orders, interconnected VoIP
    services fall within the subject matter jurisdiction granted to us
    in the Act.[^78] Section 1 of the Act, moreover, charges the
    Commission with responsibility for making available "a rapid,
    efficient, Nation-wide, and world-wide wire and radio communication
    service."[^79] Thus, section 1, in conjunction with section 251,
    creates a significant federal interest in the efficient use of
    numbering resources.[^80] Second, we find that requiring
    interconnected VoIP providers to comply with LNP rules and cost
    recovery mechanisms is reasonably ancillary to the effective
    performance of the Commission's fundamental responsibilities. As
    noted above, section 251(b)(2) of the Act requires LECs to provide
    number portability in accordance with the requirements prescribed by
    the Commission to the extent technically feasible.[^81] Further,
    section 251(e)(2) requires all carriers to bear the costs of
    numbering administration and number portability on a competitively
    neutral basis as defined by the Commission, and thereby seeks to
    prevent those costs from undermining competition.[^82] The
    Commission has interpreted section 251(e)(2) broadly to extend to
    all carriers that utilize NANP telephone numbers and benefit from
    number portability.[^83] In addition, as discussed above, section 1
    of the Act charges the Commission with responsibility for making
    available "a rapid, efficient, Nation-wide, and world-wide wire and
    radio communication service."[^84] Because interconnected VoIP
    service operates through the use of NANP telephone numbers and
    benefits from NANP administration and because this service is
    "increasingly used to replace analog voice service"[^85] -- a trend
    that we expect to continue -- it is important that we take steps to
    ensure that interconnected VoIP service use of NANP numbers does not
    disrupt national policies adopted pursuant to section 251. As the
    Commission previously has stated, we "believe it is important that
    \[the Commission\] adopt uniform national rules regarding number
    portability implementation and deployment to ensure efficient and
    consistent use of number portability methods and numbering resources
    on a nationwide basis. Implementation of number portability, and its
    effect on numbering resources, will have an impact on interstate, as
    well as local, telecommunications services."[^86] Additionally, the
    Commission has found that those providers that benefit from number
    resources should also bear the costs.[^87]

26. Extending LNP obligations to interconnected VoIP providers is
    "reasonably ancillary" to the performance of the Commission's
    obligations under section 251 and section 1 of the Act. If we failed
    to do so, American consumers might not benefit from new technologies
    because they would be unable to transfer their NANP telephone
    numbers between service providers and thus would be less likely to
    want to use a new provider.[^88] As a result, the purposes and
    effectiveness of section 251, as well as section 1, would be greatly
    undermined. The ability of end users to retain their NANP telephone
    numbers when changing service providers gives customers flexibility
    in the quality, price, and variety of services they can choose to
    purchase.[^89] Allowing customers to respond to price and service
    changes without changing their telephone numbers will enhance
    competition, a fundamental goal of section 251 of the Act, while
    helping to fulfill the Act's goal of facilitating "a rapid,
    efficient, Nation-wide, and world-wide wire and radio communication
    service."[^90]

27. Further, if we failed to exercise our ancillary jurisdiction,
    interconnected VoIP providers would sustain a competitive advantage
    against telecommunications carriers through the use and porting of
    NANP telephone numbers without bearing their share of the costs of
    LNP and NANP administration, thus defeating the critical requirement
    under section 251(e) that carriers bear such costs on a
    competitively neutral basis. Additionally, we extend the LNP
    obligations to interconnected VoIP providers because doing so will
    have a positive impact on the efficient use of our limited numbering
    resources.[^91] The Commission avoids number waste by preventing an
    interconnected VoIP provider from porting-in a number from a carrier
    (often through its numbering partner) and then later refusing to
    port-out at the customer's request by arguing that no such porting
    obligation exists.[^92] Failure to extend LNP obligations to
    interconnected VoIP providers and their numbering partners would
    thwart the effective and efficient administration of our numbering
    administration responsibilities under section 251 of the Act.
    Therefore, extending the LNP and numbering administration support
    obligations to interconnected VoIP providers is "reasonably
    ancillary to the effective performance of \[our\]
    responsibilities"[^93] under sections 251 and 1 of the Act and "will
    'further the achievement of long-established regulatory goals'"[^94]
    to make available an efficient and competitive communication
    service.[^95]

28. We believe that the language in section 251(e)(2), which phrases the
    obligation to contribute to the costs of numbering administration as
    applicable to "all telecommunications carriers," reflects Congress's
    intent to ensure that no telecommunications carriers were omitted
    from the contribution obligation, and does not preclude the
    Commission from exercising its ancillary authority to require other
    providers of comparable services to make such contributions. Thus,
    the language does not circumscribe the class of carriers that may be
    required to support numbering administration. The legislative
    history of the Telecommunications Act of 1996 (1996 Act) supports
    this view and indicates that Congress desired that such costs be
    borne by "all providers."[^96] Because interconnected VoIP services
    are increasingly being used as a substitute for traditional
    telephone service, we find that our exercise of ancillary authority
    to require contributions from interconnected VoIP providers is
    consistent with this statutory language and Congressional intent.
    The statutory construction maxim of *expressio unius est exclusio
    alterius* -- the mention of one thing implies the exclusion of
    another -- does not require a different result. This maxim is
    non-binding and "is often misused."[^97] "The maxim's force in
    particular situations depends entirely on context, whether or not
    the draftsmen's mention of one thing, like a grant of authority,
    does really necessarily, or at least reasonably, imply the
    preclusion of alternatives."[^98] Here, we believe that the relevant
    language in section 251(e)(2) was designed to ensure that no
    telecommunications carriers were omitted from the contribution
    obligation, and not to preclude the Commission from exercising its
    ancillary authority to require others to make such
    contributions.[^99] Absent any affirmative evidence that Congress
    intended to limit the Commission's judicially recognized ancillary
    jurisdiction in this area, we find that the *expressio unius* maxim
    "is simply too thin a reed to support the conclusion that Congress
    has clearly resolved \[the\] issue."[^100]

29. We also note that our actions here are consistent with other
    provisions of the Act. For example, we are guided by section 706 of
    the 1996 Act, which, among other things, directs the Commission to
    encourage the deployment of advanced telecommunications capability
    to all Americans by using measures that "promote competition in the
    local telecommunications market."[^101] The extension of the LNP
    obligations to interconnected VoIP providers may spur consumer
    demand for their service, in turn driving demand for broadband
    connections, and consequently encouraging more broadband investment
    and deployment consistent with the goals of section 706.[^102]

### Local Number Portability Obligations

30. As we discuss in detail above, imposing LNP and numbering
    administration support requirements on interconnected VoIP providers
    and their numbering partners is consistent with both the language of
    the Act and the Commission's policies implementing the LNP
    obligations. To ensure that consumers enjoy the full benefits of LNP
    and to maintain competitively neutral funding of numbering
    administration, we impose specific requirements to effectuate this
    policy.

31. *Porting Obligations of an Interconnected VoIP Provider and its
    Numbering Partner.* As discussed above, section 3 of the Act defines
    local "number portability" as "the ability of *users* of
    telecommunications services to retain, at the same location,
    existing telecommunications numbers without impairment of quality,
    reliability, or convenience when switching from one
    telecommunications carrier to another."[^103] We find that the
    "user" in this context is the end-user customer that subscribes to
    the interconnected VoIP service and not the interconnected VoIP
    provider.[^104] To find otherwise would contravene the LNP goals of
    "allowing customers to respond to price and service changes without
    changing their telephone numbers."[^105] Thus, it is the end-user
    customer that retains the right to port-in the number to an
    interconnected VoIP service or to port-out the number from an
    interconnected VoIP service.[^106]

32. As discussed above, both an interconnected VoIP provider and its
    numbering partner must facilitate a customer's porting request to or
    from an interconnected VoIP provider. By "facilitate," we mean that
    the interconnected VoIP provider has an affirmative legal obligation
    to take all steps necessary to initiate or allow a port-in or
    port-out itself or through its numbering partner on behalf of the
    interconnected VoIP customer (*i.e.*, the "user"), subject to a
    valid port request, without unreasonable delay or unreasonable
    procedures that have the effect of delaying or denying porting of
    the number. We recognize that when an interconnected VoIP provider
    obtains NANP telephone numbers and LNP capability through a
    numbering partner, the interconnected VoIP provider does not itself
    execute the port of the number from a technical perspective. In such
    situations, the interconnected VoIP provider must take any steps
    necessary to facilitate its numbering partner's technical execution
    of the port. [^107]

33. We also find that interconnected VoIP providers and their numbering
    partners may not enter into agreements that would prohibit or
    unreasonably delay an interconnected VoIP service end user from
    porting between interconnected VoIP providers, or to or from a
    wireline carrier or a covered CMRS provider.[^108] Because LNP
    promotes competition and consumer choice, we find that any agreement
    by interconnected VoIP providers or their numbering partners that
    prohibits or unreasonably delays porting could undermine the
    benefits of LNP to consumers. Additionally, because we determine
    that the carrier that obtains the number from the NANPA is also
    responsible for ensuring compliance with these obligations, such
    porting-related restrictions would contravene that carrier's section
    251(b)(2) obligation.[^109] If an interconnected VoIP provider or
    its numbering partner attempts to thwart an end user's valid porting
    request, that provider or carrier will be subject to Commission
    enforcement action for a violation of the Act and the Commission's
    LNP rules.[^110] Further, no interconnected VoIP provider may
    contract with its customer to prevent or hinder the rights of that
    customer to port its number because doing so would violate the LNP
    obligations placed on interconnected VoIP providers in this
    Order.[^111] To the extent that interconnected VoIP providers have
    existing contractual provisions that have the effect of unreasonably
    delaying or denying porting, such provisions do not supersede or
    otherwise affect the porting obligations established in this
    Order.[^112]

34. *Scope of Porting Obligations*. The Commission's porting obligations
    vary depending on whether a service is provided by a wireline
    carrier or a covered CMRS provider.[^113] As described above,
    interconnected VoIP providers generally obtain NANP telephone
    numbers through commercial arrangements with one or more traditional
    telecommunications carriers. As a result, the porting obligations to
    or from an interconnected VoIP service stem from the status of the
    interconnected VoIP provider's numbering partner and the status of
    the provider to or from which the NANP telephone number is
    ported.[^114] For example, subject to a valid port request on behalf
    of the user, an interconnected VoIP provider that partners with a
    wireline carrier for numbering resources must, in conjunction with
    its numbering partner, port-out a NANP telephone number to: (1) a
    wireless carrier whose coverage area overlaps with the geographic
    location of the porting-out numbering partner's rate center; (2) a
    wireline carrier with facilities or numbering resources in the same
    rate center; or (3) another interconnected VoIP provider whose
    numbering partner meets the requirements of (1) or (2).[^115]
    Similarly, subject to a valid port request on behalf of the user, an
    interconnected VoIP provider that partners with a covered CMRS
    provider for numbering resources must, in conjunction with its
    numbering partner, port-out a NANP telephone number to: (1) another
    wireless carrier; (2) a wireline carrier within the telephone
    number's originating rate center; or (3) another interconnected VoIP
    provider whose numbering partner meets the requirements of (1) or
    (2).[^116]

35. We also clarify that carriers have an obligation under our rules to
    port-out NANP telephone numbers, upon valid request, for a user that
    is porting that number for use with an interconnected VoIP
    service.[^117] For example, subject to a valid port request on
    behalf of the user, a wireline carrier must port-out a NANP
    telephone number to: (1) an interconnected VoIP provider that
    partners with a wireless carrier for numbering resources, where the
    partnering wireless carrier's coverage area overlaps with the
    geographic location of the porting-out wireline carrier's rate
    center; or (2) an interconnected VoIP provider that partners with a
    wireline carrier for numbering resources, where the partnering
    wireline carrier has facilities or numbering resources in the same
    rate center as the porting-out wireline carrier.[^118] Similarly,
    subject to a valid port request on behalf of the user, a wireless
    carrier must port-out a NANP telephone number to: (1) an
    interconnected VoIP provider that partners with a wireless carrier;
    or (2) an interconnected VoIP provider that partners with a wireline
    carrier for numbering resources, where the partnering wireline
    carrier is within the number's originating rate center.[^119]

36. We decline to adopt new porting intervals that apply specifically to
    ports between interconnected VoIP providers and other providers
    through a numbering partner.[^120] The intervals that would be
    applicable to ports between the numbering partner and the other
    provider, if the port were not related to an interconnected VoIP
    service, will apply to the port of the NANP telephone number between
    the numbering partner and the other provider (or the other
    provider's numbering partner) when the end user with porting rights
    is a customer of the interconnected VoIP provider.[^121]

37. We take seriously our responsibilities to safeguard our scarce
    numbering resources and to implement LNP obligations for the benefit
    of consumers. Consumers, carriers, or interconnected VoIP providers
    may file complaints with the Commission if they experience
    unreasonable delay or denial of number porting to or from an
    interconnected VoIP provider in violation of our LNP rules.[^122] We
    will not hesitate to enforce our LNP rules to ensure that consumers
    are free to choose among service providers, subject to our LNP
    rules, without fear of losing their telephone numbers.

38. *Allocation of LNP Costs.* Section 251(e)(2) provides that "\[t\]he
    cost of establishing telecommunications numbering administration
    arrangements and number portability shall be borne by all
    telecommunications carriers on a competitively neutral basis as
    determined by the Commission."[^123] Because interconnected VoIP
    providers benefit from LNP, we find that they should contribute to
    meet the shared LNP costs.[^124] Further, similar to the
    Commission's finding in its *Cost Recovery Reconsideration Order*,
    we also believe that interconnected VoIP providers may find it
    costly and administratively burdensome to develop region-specific
    attribution systems for all of their end-user services, and thus we
    allow these providers to use a proxy based on the percentage of
    subscribers a provider serves in a particular region for reaching an
    estimate for allocating their end-user revenues to the appropriate
    regional LNPA.[^125]

### Numbering Administration Cost Requirements

39. Although interconnected VoIP providers do not have any specific
    numbering administration requirements (*e.g.*, pooling
    requirements),[^126] they do require the use of NANP numbering
    resources to provide an interconnected VoIP service, and thereby
    benefit from and impose costs related to numbering administration.
    Thus, we require interconnected VoIP providers to contribute to meet
    the shared numbering administration costs on a competitively neutral
    basis.[^127]

### Implementation

40. The LNP obligations adopted in this Order for interconnected VoIP
    providers and their numbering partners become effective 30 days
    after Federal Register publication. The reporting requirements for
    determining interconnected VoIP providers' contribution to the
    shared costs of numbering administration and LNP require
    interconnected VoIP providers to file an annual FCC Form
    499-A.[^128] To ensure that interconnected VoIP providers'
    contributions for numbering administration and LNP are allocated
    properly, interconnected VoIP providers should include in their
    annual FCC Form 499‑A filing historical revenue information for the
    relevant year, including all information necessary to allocate
    revenues across the seven LNPA regions (*e.g.*, January 2007 through
    December 2007 revenue information for the April 2008 filing). The
    Commission will revise FCC Form 499-A at a later date, consistent
    with the rules and policies outlined in this Order.[^129]
    Interconnected VoIP providers, however, should familiarize
    themselves with the FCC Form 499-A and the accompanying instructions
    in preparation for this filing.[^130] Based on these filings, the
    appropriate administrators will calculate the funding base and
    individual contributions for each support mechanism, and provide an
    invoice to each interconnected VoIP provider for its contribution to
    the shared costs of the respective support mechanism. We find that
    USAC should be prepared to collect this information with the next
    annual filing, and that the LNPA and the NANP billing and collection
    agent should be prepared to include interconnected VoIP provider
    revenues in their calculations for the 2008 funding year based on
    the next annual FCC Form 499-A filings.

## Intermodal Local Number Portability

41. We next adopt measures to facilitate intermodal number
    portability.[^131] As discussed above, the Commission adopted
    requirements for porting numbers from wireline carriers to wireless
    carriers and *vice versa*. However, we find that additional steps
    are appropriate to ensure that consumers more fully benefit from
    these requirements as intended by the Commission. First, we seek to
    clarify existing intermodal LNP requirements in response to concerns
    that certain carriers are unduly hindering the number porting
    validation process. Second, we respond to the D.C. Circuit's stay of
    the Commission's *Intermodal Number Portability Order* to ensure
    that customers of carriers qualifying as small entities under the
    RFA likewise receive the benefits of LNP.

### Validating Local Number Portability Requests

42. We grant the request of T-Mobile and Sprint Nextel (Petitioners) to
    clarify that the porting-out provider may not require more
    information than is a minimal but reasonable amount from the
    porting-in provider to validate the port request and accomplish the
    port. As noted above,[^132] the Petitioners filed a petition for
    declaratory ruling requesting that the Commission make clear that
    carriers obligated to provide LNP may not obstruct or delay the
    porting process by demanding information from requesting carriers
    beyond that required to validate the customer request.[^133]
    Generally speaking, the porting interval comprises two elements: the
    Confirmation Interval and the Activation Interval.[^134] In order to
    begin the porting interval and trigger the Confirmation Interval
    during which a port request is validated, a new service provider
    first must provide certain information to the old service
    provider.[^135] The record in this proceeding indicates that many
    requesting porting-in providers experience difficulties with this
    process, which in turn ultimately delays the port itself.[^136]
    While the record reveals a variety of potential contributing
    causes,[^137] we are persuaded by the record that burdensome
    porting-related procedures play a role in the difficulties providers
    experience when seeking to fulfill customers' desire to port their
    numbers, particularly given the incentives that providers have to
    obstruct the porting process.[^138] Moreover, as discussed below,
    onerous port validation procedures are inconsistent with the Act and
    Commission precedent. To address these concerns regarding
    obstruction and delay in the porting process, we clarify that
    entities subject to our LNP obligations may not demand information
    beyond what is required to validate the port request and accomplish
    the port.[^139]

43. We disagree with commenters who suggest, based on the Petitioners'
    reliance on the *Wireless Local Number Portability Order*, that
    boundaries on the range of acceptable port validation processes are
    limited to the context of wireless-to-wireless ports.[^140] For one,
    we observe that the relevant analysis in the *Wireless Local Number
    Portability Order* does not depend on any unique factual or legal
    factors arising in the wireless context. For example, in holding in
    that order that carriers may not impose non-porting related
    restrictions on the porting-out process, the Commission based its
    decision on the definition of number portability under the Act and
    Commission rules "to mean that consumers must be able to change
    carriers while keeping their telephone number as easily as they may
    change carriers without taking their number with them."[^141]
    Indeed, both the Act and Commission rules define number portability
    as "the ability of users of telecommunications services to retain,
    at the same location, existing telecommunications numbers without
    impairment of quality, reliability, or convenience when switching
    from one telecommunications carrier to another."[^142] We find that
    limiting carriers to requiring a minimum but reasonable amount of
    information to validate a customer request and perform a port will
    ensure that customers can port their numbers without impairment of
    the convenience of switching providers due to delays in the process
    that can result when additional information is required. We also
    find support for our clarification in other Commission precedent.
    For example, in the *Intermodal Local Number Portability Order*, the
    Commission held that "carriers need only share basic contact and
    technical information sufficient to allow porting functionality and
    customer verification to be established."[^143] Thus, we clarify
    that for all ports -- whether intermodal, wireline-to-wireline, or
    wireless-to-wireless ports -- the porting-out provider may not
    require more information from the porting-in provider than is
    actually reasonable to validate the port request and accomplish the
    port. However, we note that when we clarify that carriers may
    require information necessary to accomplish a port, that does not
    encompass information necessary to settle the customer's account or
    otherwise enforce any other provisions of the customer's
    contract.[^144] Of course, as in the wireless-to-wireless LNP
    context, carriers are free to notify customers of the consequences
    of terminating service, but may not hold a customer's number while
    attempting to do so.[^145]

44. We find that the Commission should adopt rules governing the LNP
    validation process. As stated above, to begin a port, a porting-in
    provider must first provide certain requested information to the
    porting-out provider as part of the port validation process.[^146]
    Thus, even where the Commission has adopted specific porting
    intervals for ports, problems associated with LNP validation have
    the potential to lengthen significantly the overall porting process
    beyond the time period specified in those intervals. Commenters
    contend that this is responsible for the high cancellation rate for
    intermodal ports, at least in part.[^147]

45. The record reveals that some difficulties in the validation process
    can arise due to the volume of information requested by providers.
    For example, incumbent LECs typically require port requests to be
    submitted using Local Service Request (LSR) forms.[^148] However,
    the number of fields and specific information required can vary
    greatly from carrier to carrier.[^149] In particular, commenters
    contend that delays are caused by the efforts they must undertake to
    complete the numerous fields in the LSRs, and that errors are more
    likely the greater the number of fields that are required.[^150]
    While some of these variations may arise due to differences in the
    legacy systems of different incumbent LECs,[^151] commenters also
    indicate that some of the information requested appears designed to
    address issues unrelated to validation and completion of the port,
    such as information designed to facilitate the porting-out carrier's
    own process of disconnecting the customer's service.[^152]

46. In response to these concerns, we find that it is appropriate for
    the Commission to adopt specific criteria governing the information
    required for port validation for simple ports.[^153] As stated
    above, we clarify that, carriers may not require the submission of
    information for purposes of the LNP process other than a reasonable
    amount to validate and complete the port.[^154] Nonetheless, we
    believe that the adoption of specific requirements will facilitate
    the enforcement of that general obligation and minimize disputes
    among carriers. Furthermore, while certain carriers' legacy systems
    might be designed to validate port requests on a range of different
    information, we agree with commenters who suggest that customers'
    porting experience would be improved with the standardization of the
    LNP validation criteria for simple ports.[^155] Commenters point out
    that it is not uncommon today for incumbent LECs to make ongoing
    changes to their port validation process,[^156] and that wireless
    carriers were able to readily implement a reduction in the number of
    data fields required to validate wireless-to-wireless port
    requests.[^157] Moreover, many competitors point out that they have
    invested money to implement their own systems and processes in an
    effort to reduce the difficulties customers experience with
    intermodal porting.[^158]

47. Based on the record before us, we conclude that the Commission
    should require LNP validation based on no more than four fields for
    simple ports, and should specify by rule those specific fields. The
    wireless industry has reached an agreement to require only three
    fields of information to validate a port request.[^159] However,
    with respect to other categories of simple ports, we note that
    industry deliberations have not led to consensus on this issue,
    suggesting that Commission action could be appropriate.[^160] For
    example, T-Mobile and Sprint suggest that the Commission should
    adopt four data fields: (1) 10-digit telephone number; (2) customer
    account number; (3) 5-digit zip code; and (4) pass code (if
    applicable).[^161] We find Petitioners' proposal to be reasonable
    given that the wireless industry has reached agreement to require
    only three fields to validate port requests, and note that their
    proposal falls within the range of the required number of fields
    proposed by commenters.[^162]

48. Thus, we conclude that LNP validation should be based on no more
    than four fields for simple ports (*i.e.*, wireline-to-wireline,
    wireless-to-wireless, and intermodal ports), and that those fields
    should be: (1) 10-digit telephone number; (2) customer account
    number; (3) 5-digit zip code; and (4) pass code (if applicable). We
    find that, despite disagreement within the industry on which
    specific data are necessary to effectuate a port,[^163] there is
    sufficient basis in the record to support our conclusion that LNP
    validation for simple ports should be based on no more than four
    fields. We further conclude that 90 days is sufficient time for
    affected entities to comply with these LNP validation requirements.
    We find this implementation period is reasonable, particularly in
    light of the evidence discussed above that it is common for
    incumbent LECs to make ongoing changes to their port validation
    process and that wireless carriers were readily able to implement a
    reduction in the number of data fields required to validate
    wireless-to-wireless port requests. Therefore, affected entities
    must be in compliance with these validation requirements within 90
    days of the date of release of this Declaratory Ruling.

49. Some commenters caution the Commission to ensure that the data
    fields used for validation adequately protect customers from
    slamming.[^164] We conclude that the fields proposed by the
    Petitioners will sufficiently protect consumers from slamming, and
    note that data in the record suggest that complaints about
    unauthorized ports occur much less frequently for
    wireless-to-wireless ports, where only three validation fields are
    used, than for intermodal ports.[^165] The record reveals other
    considerations when defining those specific validation fields. In
    particular, competitors note that many LNP requests are rejected due
    to typographical errors or even different conventions in how words
    are entered in an LSR -- such as abbreviating Avenue as "Av." rather
    than "Ave."[^166] Based on the record before us, we conclude that
    there are efficiencies in using numeric or alphanumeric information
    rather than alphabetic information alone in the validation process
    to decrease the validation error rate.[^167] Thus, we find that the
    specific validation fields we adopt herein, which rely not on words,
    but rather rely only on numbers or alphanumeric codes, are
    appropriate. We are persuaded that the approach we adopt here
    reasonably balances consumer concerns about slamming with
    competitors' interest in ensuring that LNP may not be used in an
    anticompetitive manner to inhibit consumer choice.

### Final Regulatory Flexibility Analysis for the *Intermodal Number Portability Order*

50. As discussed above,[^168] in its 2003 *Intermodal Number Portability
    Order*, the Commission clarified that porting from a wireline
    carrier to a wireless carrier is required where the requesting
    wireless carrier's coverage area overlaps the geographic location in
    which the wireline number is provisioned, provided that the
    porting-in carrier maintains the number's original rate center
    designation following the port.[^169] On March 11, 2005, the United
    States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit
    remanded the *Intermodal Number Portability Order* to the
    Commission.[^170] The court determined that the *Intermodal Number
    Portability Order* resulted in a legislative rule, and that the
    Commission had failed to prepare a FRFA regarding the impact of that
    rule on small entities, as required by the RFA.[^171] The court
    accordingly directed the Commission to prepare the required FRFA,
    and stayed future enforcement of the *Intermodal Number Portability
    Order* "as applied to carriers that qualify as small entities under
    the RFA" until the agency prepared and published that
    analysis.[^172] On April 22, 2005, the Commission issued a Public
    Notice seeking comment on an IRFA of the *Intermodal Number
    Portability Order*.[^173]

51. In accordance with the requirements of the RFA, we have considered
    the potential economic impact of the intermodal porting rules on
    small entities and conclude that wireline carriers qualifying as
    small entities under the RFA will be required to provide
    wireline-to-wireless intermodal porting where the requesting
    wireless carrier's "coverage area" overlaps the geographic location
    in which the customer's wireline number is provisioned, provided
    that the porting-in carrier maintains the number's original rate
    center designation following the port.[^174] The Commission has
    prepared a FRFA as directed by the court, which we attach as
    Appendix D.[^175]

# notice of proposed rulemaking

52. Through this Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (Notice), we consider
    whether there are additional numbering requirements that we should
    adopt to benefit customers of telecommunications and interconnected
    VoIP services. First, we seek comment on whether the Commission
    should act to extend other numbering-related obligations to
    interconnected VoIP providers. Second, we seek comment on whether we
    should adopt specific rules regarding the LNP validation process and
    porting interval lengths.

## Interconnected VoIP Provider Numbering Obligations

53. As discussed above, we take steps in this Order to ensure that
    customers of interconnected VoIP services receive the benefits of
    LNP, and to minimize marketplace distortions arising from regulatory
    advantage. We seek comment on any other issues associated with the
    implementation of LNP for users of interconnected VoIP services. We
    also seek comment on whether any of our numbering requirements, in
    addition to LNP, should be extended to interconnected VoIP
    providers. For example, we seek comment on whether the Commission
    should require interconnected VoIP providers to comply with N11 code
    assignments.[^176] As described in the Order above, the Commission
    already requires interconnected VoIP providers to supply 911
    emergency calling capabilities to their customers whose service
    connects with the PSTN and to offer 711 abbreviated dialing for
    access to telephone relay services.[^177] Commenters should provide
    information on the technical feasibility of a requirement to comply
    with the other N11 code assignments. We also seek comment on the
    benefits and burdens, including the burdens on small entities, of
    requiring interconnected VoIP providers to comply with N11 code
    assignments or other numbering requirements.

## LNP Process Requirements

54. As the Commission has found, it is critical that customers be able
    to port their telephone numbers in an efficient manner in order for
    LNP to fulfill its promise of giving "customers flexibility in the
    quality, price, and variety of telecommunications services."[^178]
    Although customers have had the option to port numbers between their
    telephone service providers for a number of years, the length of
    time for ports to occur and other difficulties with the porting
    process may hinder such options. Therefore, we seek comment on
    whether the Commission should take steps to mandate or modify
    certain elements of the porting process to ensure the efficiency and
    effectiveness of LNP for U.S. telephone consumers.

55. We find this to be a significant concern both due to the
    Commission's efforts as a general matter to ensure "the ability of
    users of telecommunications services to retain, at the same
    location, existing telecommunications numbers without impairment of
    quality, reliability, or convenience when switching from one
    telecommunications carrier to another,"[^179] as well as due to the
    important role intermodal providers play in telecommunications
    competition. Indeed, incumbent LECs have sought to rely on the
    presence of telephone competition from wireless providers and cable
    operators when seeking relief from regulatory obligations.[^180] To
    help enable such intermodal competition, and the deregulation that
    can result from such competition, it thus is important for the
    Commission to ensure the efficiency and effectiveness of LNP, which
    "eliminates one major disincentive to switch carriers" and thus
    facilitates "the successful entrance of new service
    providers."[^181] However, we do not limit our inquiry below
    specifically to intermodal LNP but seek comment on the need for
    Commission requirements on LNP processes in other contexts as well.

56. Our conclusion, above, that carriers can require no more than four
    fields for validation of a simple port, and what information those
    fields should contain, addresses the consideration of the
    appropriate amount and type of information necessary to effectuate a
    port. We are also interested in comments about how the information
    required for the validation fields we adopt herein affects the
    validation process, including any other ways that those validation
    fields could minimize the error rates or further reduce the amount
    of information that a porting-in entity must request from the
    porting-out entity prior to submitting the simple port
    request.[^182] Further, we seek comment on any other considerations
    that the Commission should evaluate in the simple port validation
    process.

57. The evidence in the record also shows that delays in the porting
    process can arise when the porting-out carrier fails to identify all
    errors in an LSR at once.[^183] If a provider identifies errors one
    at a time, this necessitates multiple resubmissions of the LSR, and
    delays the porting process. We agree with commenters such as AT&T
    that it may not be possible for providers to identify all errors at
    once, although the porting process will proceed most efficiently if
    providers identify as many errors as possible at a given time.[^184]
    We seek comment on whether the Commission should adopt a requirement
    that carriers identify all errors possible in a given LSR and
    describe the basis for rejection when rejecting a port request. Is
    such a Commission requirement still necessary since the Commission
    has mandated four specific data fields to be used for simple port
    validation?

58. Finally, we seek comment on the benefits and burdens, including the
    burdens on small entities, of the specific requirements on the
    validation process proposed above, and any other such requirements.

59. *Porting Intervals.* We tentatively conclude that the Commission
    should adopt rules reducing the porting interval for simple port
    requests.[^185] We seek comment on that tentative conclusion, and on
    whether the Commission should establish time limits on the porting
    process for all types of simple port requests (*i.e.*,
    wireline-to-wireline ports, wireless-to-wireless ports, and
    intermodal ports) or just certain types of ports. As noted above,
    for example, the wireless industry has established a voluntary
    standard of two and one-half hours for wireless-to-wireless
    ports.[^186] We seek comment on whether the Commission should adopt
    a rule codifying this standard.

60. We also tentatively conclude that the Commission should adopt rules
    reducing the porting interval for wireline-to-wireline and
    intermodal simple port requests, specifically, to a 48-hour porting
    interval. As we note below, the wireless industry has been
    successful in streamlining the validation process for
    wireless-to-wireless porting, and we encourage the industry to
    evaluate whether similar streamlining measures would work for
    intermodal or wireline-to-wireline porting.[^187] We note, moreover,
    that pending resolution of this rulemaking proceeding, providers
    remain free to seek enforcement action against a porting-out carrier
    that requests validation information that appears to obstruct or
    delay the porting process.[^188]

61. For wireline-to-wireline simple ports, the Commission adopted the
    NANC's 1997 recommendation of a four business day porting
    interval.[^189] This four day interval also applies to
    wireline-to-wireless intermodal simple ports.[^190] It has been over
    ten years since the Commission reassessed the porting interval for
    wireline-to-wireline ports, and commenters suggest that advances in
    technology allow for the four day porting interval to be
    reduced.[^191] For intermodal porting intervals, the Commission has
    twice sought comment on whether the porting interval could be
    reduced.[^192] Most recently, the Commission specifically sought
    comment on detailed NANC proposals for shortening the intermodal
    porting interval, which included specific timelines for the porting
    process.[^193]

62. While some commenters advocate retaining the current porting
    intervals, other providers assert that shorter intervals are
    possible. For example, Comcast asserts that a "next day" standard
    for wireline ports that, in most cases, would not exceed 36 hours is
    more appropriate in light of technological advancements and recent
    competitive developments.[^194] Other commenters recommend
    refreshing the record in the *Intermodal Number Portability FNPRM*
    and considering the NANC's proposal that would effectively reduce
    the porting interval to 53 hours.[^195] Commenters seeking shorter
    intervals point out the benefits to consumers and competition
    arising when ports can occur more quickly.[^196]

63. Given that the industry has been unable to reach consensus on an
    updated industry standard for wireline-to-wireline and intermodal
    simple ports,[^197] we tentatively conclude that the Commission
    should adopt rules regarding a reduced porting interval and allow
    the industry to work through the actual implications of such a
    timeline. In particular, we tentatively conclude that we should
    adopt a 48-hour porting interval, as it falls between the range of
    proposed shorter intervals. In setting this interval, we hope to
    encourage industry discussion and consensus. We seek comment on our
    tentative conclusions, and whether there are any technical
    impediments or advances that affect the overall length of the
    porting interval such that we should adopt different porting
    intervals for particular types of simple ports (*e.g.*,
    wireline-to-wireline, wireline-to-wireless, wireless-to-wireline).
    Further, we seek comment on how the Commission should define the
    various porting interval timelines in terms of operating
    hours.[^198]

64. Finally, we seek comment on the benefits and burdens, including the
    burdens on small entities, of adopting rules regarding porting
    intervals for all types of simple port requests.

65. We would encourage interested parties to take into account the fact
    that as technologies and business practices evolve we would expect
    that the porting interval would decrease in order to provide
    consumers as quick and efficient a porting process as possible. We
    look forward to a complete record on the appropriate porting
    interval consistent with the shortest reasonable time period.

66. *Other LNP Process Issues.* We note that commenters identify a
    number of other concerns regarding the LNP process that they assert
    are hindering the ability of consumers to take advantage of LNP. For
    example, Charter comments that certain carriers' processes result in
    cancellation of a subscriber dial tone for port requests that are
    delayed for operational reasons.[^199] Charter also argues that
    carriers should be (1) required to provide the basis for rejecting a
    port request at the time of that rejection; (2) required to provide
    affirmative notice of all changes to their porting requirements and
    process; and (3) prohibited from making *ad hoc* changes to their
    procedures.[^200] Charter also argues that the Commission should
    declare that interconnection agreements are not a necessary
    precondition to effectuating wireline-to-wireline ports.[^201] We
    seek comment on these and any other concerns regarding the LNP
    process more generally, including the port validation process and
    porting intervals for non-simple ports.

## New Dockets

67. In this Notice, we open two new dockets -- WC Docket No. 07-243 and
    WC Docket No. 07-244. All filings made in response to the Notice
    section on interconnected VoIP provider numbering obligations should
    be filed in WC Docket No. 07-243. All filings made in response to
    the Notice sections on port request validation and porting intervals
    should be filed in WC Docket No. 07-244.

# PROCEDURAL MATTERS 

## *Ex Parte* Presentations

68. The rulemaking this Notice initiates shall be treated as a
    "permit-but-disclose" proceeding in accordance with the Commission's
    *ex parte* rules.[^202] Persons making oral *ex parte* presentations
    are reminded that memoranda summarizing the presentations must
    contain summaries of the substance of the presentations and not
    merely a listing of the subjects discussed. More than a one or two
    sentence description of the views and arguments presented generally
    is required.[^203] Other requirements pertaining to oral and written
    presentations are set forth in section 1.1206(b) of the Commission's
    rules.[^204]

## Comment Filing Procedures

69. Pursuant to sections 1.415 and 1.419 of the Commission's
    rules,[^205] interested parties may file comments and reply comments
    regarding the Notice on or before the dates indicated on the first
    page of this document. **All filings related to this Notice of
    Proposed Rulemaking should refer to WC Docket No. 07-243 or WC
    Docket No. 07-244**. **All filings made in response to the Notice
    section on interconnected VoIP provider numbering obligations should
    be filed in WC Docket No. 07-243**. **All filings made in response
    to the Notice sections on port request validation and porting
    intervals should be filed in WC Docket No. 07-244**. Comments may be
    filed using: (1) the Commission's Electronic Comment Filing System
    (ECFS), (2) the Federal Government's eRulemaking Portal, or (3) by
    filing paper copies. *See* *Electronic Filing of Documents in
    Rulemaking Proceedings*, 63 Fed. Reg. 24121 (1998).

-   Electronic Filers: Comments may be filed electronically using the
    Internet by accessing the ECFS: http://www.fcc.gov/cgb/ecfs/ or the
    Federal eRulemaking Portal: http://www.regulations.gov. Filers
    should follow the instructions provided on the website for
    submitting comments.

```{=html}
<!-- -->
```
-   ECFS filers must transmit one electronic copy of the comments for CC
    Docket No. 95-116. In completing the transmittal screen, filers
    should include their full name, U.S. Postal Service mailing address,
    and the applicable docket number. Parties may also submit an
    electronic comment by Internet e-mail. To get filing instructions,
    filers should send an e-mail to ecfs@fcc.gov, and include the
    following words in the body of the message, "get form." A sample
    form and directions will be sent in response.

```{=html}
<!-- -->
```
-   Paper Filers: Parties who choose to file by paper must file an
    original and four copies of each filing. Filings can be sent by hand
    or messenger delivery, by commercial overnight courier, or by
    first-class or overnight U.S. Postal Service mail (although we
    continue to experience delays in receiving U.S. Postal Service
    mail). All filings must be addressed to the Commission's Secretary,
    Marlene H. Dortch, Office of the Secretary, Federal Communications
    Commission, 445 12th Street, S.W., Washington, D.C. 20554.

```{=html}
<!-- -->
```
-   The Commission's contractor will receive hand-delivered or
    messenger-delivered paper filings for the Commission's Secretary at
    236 Massachusetts Avenue, N.E., Suite 110, Washington, D.C. 20002.
    The filing hours at this location are 8:00 a.m. to 7:00 p.m. All
    hand deliveries must be held together with rubber bands or
    fasteners. Any envelopes must be disposed of [before]{.underline}
    entering the building.

-   Commercial overnight mail (other than U.S. Postal Service Express
    Mail and Priority Mail) must be sent to 9300 East Hampton Drive,
    Capitol Heights, MD 20743.

-   U.S. Postal Service first-class, Express, and Priority mail should
    be addressed to 445 12th Street, S.W., Washington, D.C. 20554.

70. Parties should send a copy of their filings to the Competition
    Policy Division, Wireline Competition Bureau, Federal Communications
    Commission, Room 5-C140, 445 12th Street, S.W., Washington, D.C.
    20554, or by e-mail to cpdcopies@fcc.gov. Parties shall also serve
    one copy with the Commission's copy contractor, Best Copy and
    Printing, Inc. (BCPI), Portals II, 445 12th Street, S.W., Room
    CY-B402, Washington, D.C. 20554, (202) 488-5300, or via e-mail to
    fcc@bcpiweb.com.

71. Documents in WC Docket Nos. 07-243, 07-244, and 04-36, and CC Docket
    Nos. 95-116 and 99-200 will be available for public inspection and
    copying during business hours at the FCC Reference Information
    Center, Portals II, 445 12th Street S.W., Room CY-A257, Washington,
    D.C. 20554. The documents may also be purchased from BCPI,
    telephone (202) 488-5300, facsimile (202) 488-5563, TTY (202)
    488-5562, e-mail fcc@bcpiweb.com.

## **Final Regulatory Flexibility Analysis**

72. As required by the Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980, *see* 5
    U.S.C. § 604, the Commission has prepared Final Regulatory
    Flexibility Analyses (FRFA) of the possible significant economic
    impact on small entities of the policies and rules, as proposed,
    addressed in this document. The FRFA related to Part A is set forth
    in Appendix C, and the FRFA related to Part III.B.2 is set forth in
    Appendix D.

## Initial Regulatory Flexibility Analysis

73. As required by the Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980, *see* 5
    U.S.C. § 603, the Commission has prepared an Initial Regulatory
    Flexibility Analysis (IRFA) of the possible significant economic
    impact on small entities of the policies and rules addressed in this
    document. The IRFA is set forth in Appendix E. Written public
    comments are requested on this IRFA. Comments must be identified as
    responses to the IRFA and must be filed by the deadlines for
    comments on the Notice provided below in Appendix E.

## Paperwork Reduction Act

74. This Order contains new or modified information collection
    requirements subject the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (PRA),
    Public Law 104-13. It will be submitted to the Office of Management
    and Budget (OMB) for review under section 3507(d) of the PRA. OMB,
    the general public, and other Federal agencies are invited to
    comment on the new or modified information collection requirements
    contained in this proceeding.

75. In this Order, the Commission has assessed the effects of imposing
    LNP and numbering administration contribution requirements on
    interconnected VoIP providers, and finds that to the extent that
    interconnected VoIP providers are not already filing FCC Form 499-A
    annually for other purposes, the information collection burden of
    doing so in regards to small business concerns will be minimal.
    Thus, we do not adopt a varied implementation schedule for these
    requirements.

76. This Notice does not contain proposed information collection(s)
    subject to the PRA. In addition, therefore, it does not contain any
    new or modified "information collection burden for small business
    concerns with fewer than 25 employees," pursuant to the Small
    Business Paperwork Relief Act of 2002, Public Law 107-198. *See* 44
    U.S.C. § 3506(c)(4).

## Congressional **Review Act**

77. The Commission will send a copy of this Report and Order, Order on
    Remand, and Notice of Proposed Rulemaking in a report to be sent to
    Congress and the Government Accountability Office pursuant to the
    Congressional Review Act (CRA). *See* 5 U.S.C. § 801(a)(1)(A).

## Accessible Formats

78. To request materials in accessible formats for people with
    disabilities (Braille, large print, electronic files, audio format),
    send an e-mail to fcc504@fcc.gov or call the Consumer & Governmental
    Affairs Bureau at 202-418-0530 (voice) or 202-418-0432 (TTY).
    Contact the FCC to request reasonable accommodations for filing
    comments (accessible format documents, sign language interpreters,
    CART, etc.) by e-mail: FCC504@fcc.gov; phone: 202-418-0530 or TTY:
    202-418-0432.

# ORDERING CLAUSES

79. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that pursuant to sections 1, 4(i), 4(j),
    251, and 303(r) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47
    U.S.C. §§ 151, 154(i)-(j), 251, 303(r), the Report and Order in WC
    Docket No. 04-36 and CC Docket Nos. 95-116 and 99-200 IS ADOPTED,
    and that Part 52 of the Commission's Rules, 47 C.F.R. Parts 52, is
    amended as set forth in Appendix B. The Report and Order shall
    become effective 30 days after publication in the Federal Register.
    The information collection requirements contained in the Report and
    Order will become effective following OMB approval.

80. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that pursuant to section 1, 4(i), 4(j), 251,
    and 303(r) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C.
    §§ 151, 154(i)-(j), 251, 303(r), the Order on Remand in CC Docket
    No. 95-116 IS ADOPTED. The Order on Remand shall become effective 30
    days after publication in the Federal Register.

81. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that pursuant to the authority contained in
    sections 1, 4(i), 4(j), 251, and 303(r) of the Communications Act of
    1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. §§ 151, 154(i)-(j), 251, 303(r), the
    Notice of Proposed Rulemaking in WC Docket Nos. 07-243 and 07-244 IS
    ADOPTED.

82. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that pursuant to sections 1, 4(i), 4(j), 251,
    and 303(r) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C.
    §§ 151, 154(i)-(j), 251, 303(r), and section 1.2 of the Commission's
    rules, 47 C.F.R. § 1.2, the Petition for Declaratory Rulemaking
    filed by T-Mobile USA, Inc. and Sprint Nextel Corporation on
    December 20, 2006 IS GRANTED to the extent described herein and
    otherwise IS DENIED.

83. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Commission's Consumer and
    Governmental Affairs Bureau, Reference Information Center, SHALL
    SEND a copy of this Report and Order, Declaratory Ruling, Order on
    Remand, and Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, including the two Final
    Regulatory Flexibility Analyses and the Initial Regulatory
    Flexibility Analysis, to the Chief Counsel for Advocacy of the Small
    Business Administration.

FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION

> Marlene H. Dortch
>
> Secretary

APPENDIX A

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

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

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

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

Comments in Response to the T-Mobile/Sprint Nextel Petition

CC Docket No. 95-116

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

  AT&T Inc.                               AT&T

  California Public Utilities Commission  California Commission
  and the People of the State of          
  California                              

  Charter Communications, Inc.            Charter

  Comcast Corporation and its affiliates  Comcast

  CTIA -- The Wireless Association®       CTIA

  The Embarq Local Operation Companies    Embarq

  Iowa Utilities Board                    Iowa Utilities Board

  Leap Wireless International, Inc. and   Leap Wireless
  its Cricket subsidiaries                

  MetroPCS Communications, Inc.           MetroPCS

  National Association of State Utility   NASUCA
  Consumer Advocates                      

  Nebraska Public Service Commission      Nebraska Commission

  PCIA -- The Wireless Infrastructure     PCIA
  Association                             

  Qwest Corporation and Qwest             Qwest
  Communications Corporation              

  Time Warner Telecom Inc., Cbeyond, Inc. TWTC *et al.*
  and One Communications Corp.            

  United States Cellular Corporation      USCC

  The regulated, wholly owned             Verizon
  subsidiaries of Verizon Communications, 
  Inc.                                    
  --------------------------------------- --------------------------------

**Reply Comments in Response to the T-Mobile/Sprint Nextel Petition**

**CC Docket No. 95-116**

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

  Integra Telecom, Inc.                   Integra

  Level 3 Communications, LLC             Level 3

  National Association of Regulatory      NARUC
  Utility Commissioners                   

  National Association of State Utility   NASUCA
  Consumer Advocates                      

  T-Mobile USA, Inc. and Sprint Nextel    T-Mobile/Sprint Nextel
  Corporation                             

  United States Telecom Association       USTA
  --------------------------------------- --------------------------------

Comments in Response to *Intermodal Number Portability Order* IRFA

CC Docket No. 95-116

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

  Alexicon Telecommunications Consulting  Alexicon

  Central Texas Telephone Cooperative,    Central Texas Telephone
  Inc., Chariton Valley Telephone         Cooperative *et al.*
  Corporation, Comanche County Telephone  
  Company, Inc., Kaplan Telephone         
  Company, Inc., Leaco Rural Telephone    
  Cooperative, Inc., Valley Telephone     
  Cooperative, Inc.                       

  CTIA -- The Wireless Association^®^     CTIA

  Iowa Utilities Board                    Iowa Utilities Board

  John Staurulakis, Inc.                  John Staurulakis

  Missouri Small Telephone Company Group  Missouri Small Telephone Company
                                          Group

  Montana Small Rural Independents        Montana Small Rural Independents

  Montana Independent Telecommunications  Montana Independent
  Systems                                 Telecommunications Systems

  National Telecommunications Cooperative NTCA/OPASTCO
  Association & Organization for the      
  Promotion and Advancement of Small      
  Telecommunications Companies            

  The Nebraska Rural Independent          Nebraska Rural Independent
  Companies                               Companies

  NTC Communications, L.L.C.              NTC Communications

  Rural Iowa Independent Telephone        Rural Iowa Independent Telephone
  Association                             Association

  Office of Advocacy, U.S. Small Business Office of Advocacy, U.S. Small
  Administration                          Business Administration

  South Dakota Telecommunications         South Dakota Telecommunications
  Association                             Association

  Sprint Nextel Corporation               Sprint Nextel

  United States Telecom Association       USTA

  Verizon Wireless                        Verizon Wireless
  --------------------------------------- --------------------------------

Reply Comments in Response to *Intermodal Number Portability Order* IRFA

CC Docket No. 95-116

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

  Central Texas Telephone Cooperative,    Central Texas Telephone
  Inc., Chariton Valley Telephone         Cooperative *et al.*
  Corporation, Comanche County Telephone  
  Company, Inc., Kaplan Telephone         
  Company, Inc., Leaco Rural Telephone    
  Cooperative, Inc., Valley Telephone     
  Cooperative, Inc.                       

  CTIA -- The Wireless Association^®^     CTIA

  Dobson Cellular Systems, Inc.           Dobson Cellular

  Missouri Small Telephone Company Group  Missouri Small Telephone
                                          Company Group

  Montana Independent Telecommunications  Montana Independent
  Systems                                 Telecommunications System

  National Telecommunications Cooperative NTCA/OPASTCO
  Association & Organization for the      
  Promotion and Advancement of Small      
  Telecommunications Companies            

  The Nebraska Rural Independent          Nebraska Rural Independent
  Companies                               Companies

  South Dakota Telecommunications         South Dakota Telecommunications
  Association                             Association

  Sprint Nextel Corporation               Sprint Nextel

  TCA, Inc.                               TCA

  T-Mobile USA, Inc.                      T-Mobile

  United States Telecom Association       USTA

  Verizon Wireless                        Verizon Wireless
  --------------------------------------- -------------------------------

APPENDIX B

Final Rules

Part 52 of Title 47 of the Code of Federal Regulations is amended to
read as follows:

PART 52 -- NUMBERING

1\. The authority citation for part 52 is amended as follows:

> Authority: Secs. 1, 2, 4, 5, 48 Stat. 1066, as amended; 47 U.S.C. 151,
> 152, 154 and 155 unless otherwise noted. Interpret or apply secs. 3,
> 4, 201-05, 207-09, 218, 225-27, 251-52, 271 and 332, 48 Stat. 1070, as
> amended, 1077; 47 U.S.C. 153, 154, 201-05, 207-09, 218, 225-27,
> 251-52, 271 and 332 unless otherwise noted.

2\. Section 52.12(a)(1)(i) is amended to read as follows:

> \* \* \* \* \*
>
> (a)(1) \* \* \*
>
> \(i\) The NANPA and B&C Agent may not be an affiliate of any
> telecommunications service provider(s) as defined in the
> Telecommunications Act of 1996, or an affiliate of any interconnected
> VoIP provider as that term is defined in § 52.21(h). "Affiliate" is a
> person who controls, is controlled by, or is under the direct or
> indirect common control with another person. A person shall be deemed
> to control another if such person possesses, directly or indirectly--
>
> \* \* \* \* \*

3\. Section 52.16 is amended by adding the following paragraph:

> \* \* \* \* \*
>
> \(g\) For the purposes of this rule, the term "carrier(s)" shall
> include interconnected VoIP providers as that term is defined in
> § 52.21(h).

4\. Section 52.17 is amended by adding the following paragraph:

> \* \* \* \* \*
>
> \(c\) For the purposes of this rule, the term "telecommunications
> carrier" or "carrier" shall include interconnected VoIP providers as
> that term is defined in § 52.21(h).

5\. Section 52.21 is amended by redesignating paragraphs (h) through (r)
as paragraphs (i) through (s), and by adding new paragraph (h) to read
as follows:

> \* \* \* \* \*
>
> \(h\) The term "interconnected VoIP provider" is an entity that
> provides interconnected VoIP service as that term is defined in
> section 9.3 of these rules.
>
> \* \* \* \* \*

6\. Section 52.23 is amended by adding the following paragraph:

> \* \* \* \* \*
>
> (h)(1) Porting from a wireline carrier to a wireless carrier is
> required where the requesting wireless carrier's "coverage area," as
> defined in paragraph (h)(2), overlaps the geographic location in which
> the customer's wireline number is provisioned, provided that the
> porting-in carrier maintains the number's original rate center
> designation following the port.
>
> \(2\) The wireless "coverage area" is defined as the area in which
> wireless service can be received from the wireless carrier.

7\. Section 52.32 is amended by adding the following paragraph:

> \* \* \* \* \*
>
> \(e\) For the purposes of this rule, the term "telecommunications
> carrier" shall include interconnected VoIP providers as that term is
> defined in § 52.21(h); and "telecommunications service" shall include
> "interconnected VoIP service" as that term is defined in section 9.3
> of these rules.

8\. Section 52.33(b) is amended to read as follows:

> \* \* \* \* \*
>
> \(b\) All interconnected VoIP providers and telecommunications
> carriers other than incumbent local exchange carriers may recover
> their number portability costs in any manner consistent with
> applicable state and federal laws and regulations.

9\. Section 52.34 is added to read as follows:

> [§ 52.34 Obligations regarding local number porting to and from
> interconnected VoIP providers.]{.underline}
>
> \(a\) An interconnected VoIP provider must facilitate an end-user
> customer's valid number portability request, as it is defined in this
> subpart, either to or from a telecommunications carrier or another
> interconnected VoIP provider. "Facilitate" is defined as the
> interconnected VoIP providers' affirmative legal obligation to take
> all steps necessary to initiate or allow a port-in or port-out itself
> or through the telecommunications carriers, if any, that it relies on
> to obtain numbering resources, subject to a valid port request,
> without unreasonable delay or unreasonable procedures that have the
> effect of delaying or denying porting of the NANP-based telephone
> number.
>
> \(b\) An interconnected VoIP provider may not enter into any agreement
> that would prohibit an end-user customer from porting between
> interconnected VoIP providers, or to or from a telecommunications
> carrier.

APPENDIX C

Final Regulatory Flexibility Analysis

(Interconnected VoIP Services)

WC Docket No. 04-36

1.  As required by the Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980, as amended
    (RFA),[^206] an Initial Regulatory Flexibility Analysis (IRFA) was
    incorporated in the *IP-Enabled Services Notice* in WC Docket
    04-36.[^207] The Commission sought written public comment on the
    proposals in the notice, including comment on the IRFA.[^208] We
    received comments specifically directed toward the IRFA from three
    commenters in WC Docket No. 04-36. These comments are discussed
    below. This Final Regulatory Flexibility Analysis (FRFA) conforms to
    the RFA.[^209]

```{=html}
<!-- -->
```
A.  **Need for, and Objectives of, the Rules**

```{=html}
<!-- -->
```
2.  This Report and Order extends LNP obligations to interconnected
    voice over Internet Protocol (VoIP) providers to ensure that
    customers of such VoIP providers may port their North American
    Numbering Plan (NANP) telephone numbers when changing providers.
    Consumers will now be able to take advantage of new telephone
    services without losing their telephone numbers, which should in
    turn facilitate greater competition among telephony providers by
    allowing customers to respond to price and service changes.
    Additionally, this Report and Order extends to interconnected VoIP
    providers the obligation to contribute to shared numbering
    administration and number portability costs. We believe these steps
    we take to ensure regulatory parity among providers of similar
    services will minimize marketplace distortions arising from
    regulatory advantage.

```{=html}
<!-- -->
```
B.  **Summary of Significant Issues Raised by Public Comments in
    Response to the IRFA**

```{=html}
<!-- -->
```
3.  In this section, we respond to comments filed in response to the
    IRFA.[^210] To the extent we received comments raising general small
    business concerns during this proceeding, those comments are
    discussed throughout the Report and Order.

4.  The Small Business Administration (SBA) comments that the
    Commission's Notice does not contain concrete proposals and is more
    akin to an advance notice of proposed rulemaking or a notice of
    inquiry.[^211] We disagree with the SBA and Menard that the
    Commission should postpone acting in this proceeding -- thereby
    postponing extending the application of the LNP and numbering
    administration support obligations to interconnected VoIP services
    -- and instead should reevaluate the economic impact and the
    compliance burdens on small entities and issue a further notice of
    proposed rulemaking in conjunction with a supplemental IRFA
    identifying and analyzing the economic impacts on small entities and
    less burdensome alternatives.[^212] We believe these additional
    steps suggested by SBA and Menard are unnecessary because small
    entities already have received sufficient notice of the issues
    addressed in today's Report and Order,[^213] and because the
    Commission has considered the economic impact on small entities and
    what ways are feasible to minimize the burdens imposed on those
    entities, and, to the extent feasible, has implemented those less
    burdensome alternatives.

```{=html}
<!-- -->
```
C.  **Description and Estimate of the Number of Small Entities to Which
    Rules Will Apply**

```{=html}
<!-- -->
```
5.  The RFA directs agencies to provide a description of and, where
    feasible, an estimate of the number of small entities that may be
    affected by the rules adopted herein.[^214] The RFA generally
    defines the term "small entity" as having the same meaning as the
    terms "small business," "small organization," and "small
    governmental jurisdiction."[^215] In addition, the term "small
    business" has the same meaning as the term "small business concern"
    under the Small Business Act.[^216] A small business concern is one
    which: (1) is independently owned and operated; (2) is not dominant
    in its field of operation; and (3) satisfies any additional criteria
    established by the SBA.[^217]

6.  *Small Businesses*. Nationwide, there are a total of approximately
    22.4 million small businesses according to SBA data.[^218]

7.  *Small Organizations*. Nationwide, there are approximately 1.6
    million small organizations.[^219]

8.  *Small Governmental Jurisdictions*. The term "small governmental
    jurisdiction" is defined generally as "governments of cities, towns,
    townships, villages, school districts, or special districts, with a
    population of less than fifty thousand."[^220] Census Bureau data
    for 2002 indicate that there were 87,525 local governmental
    jurisdictions in the United States.[^221] We estimate that, of this
    total, 84,377 entities were "small governmental
    jurisdictions."[^222] Thus, we estimate that most governmental
    jurisdictions are small.

### Telecommunications Service Entities

#### Wireline Carriers and Service Providers

9.  We have included small incumbent local exchange carriers (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."[^223] 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.[^224] We have therefore included small incumbent LECs in this
    RFA analysis, although we emphasize that this RFA action has no
    effect on Commission analyses and determinations in other, non-RFA
    contexts.

10. *Incumbent LECs.* Neither the Commission nor the SBA has developed a
    small business size standard specifically for incumbent LECs. The
    appropriate size standard under SBA rules is for the category Wired
    Telecommunications Carriers. Under that size standard, such a
    business is small if it has 1,500 or fewer employees.[^225]
    According to Commission data,[^226] 1,303 carriers have reported
    that they are engaged in the provision of incumbent local exchange
    services. Of these 1,303 carriers, an estimated 1,020 have 1,500 or
    fewer employees and 283 have more than 1,500 employees.
    Consequently, the Commission estimates that most providers of
    incumbent local exchange service are small businesses that may be
    affected by our action.

11. *Competitive LECs, Competitive Access Providers (CAPs),
    "Shared-Tenant Service Providers," and "Other Local Service
    Providers."* Neither the Commission nor the SBA has developed a
    small business size standard specifically for these service
    providers. The appropriate size standard under SBA rules is for the
    category Wired Telecommunications Carriers. Under that size
    standard, such a business is small if it has 1,500 or fewer
    employees.[^227] According to Commission data,[^228] 859 carriers
    have reported that they are engaged in the provision of either
    competitive access provider services or competitive LEC services. Of
    these 859 carriers, an estimated 741 have 1,500 or fewer employees
    and 118 have more than 1,500 employees. In addition, 16 carriers
    have reported that they are "Shared-Tenant Service Providers," and
    all 16 are estimated to have 1,500 or fewer employees. In addition,
    44 carriers have reported that they are "Other Local Service
    Providers." Of the 44, an estimated 43 have 1,500 or fewer employees
    and one has more than 1,500 employees. Consequently, the Commission
    estimates that most providers of competitive local exchange service,
    competitive access providers, "Shared-Tenant Service Providers," and
    "Other Local Service Providers" are small entities.

12. *Local Resellers.* The SBA has developed a small business size
    standard for the category of Telecommunications Resellers. Under
    that size standard, such a business is small if it has 1,500 or
    fewer employees.[^229] According to Commission data,[^230] 184
    carriers have reported that they are engaged in the provision of
    local resale services. Of these, an estimated 181 have 1,500 or
    fewer employees and three have more than 1,500 employees.
    Consequently, the Commission estimates that the majority of local
    resellers are small entities that may be affected by our action.

13. *Toll Resellers.* The SBA has developed a small business size
    standard for the category of Telecommunications Resellers. Under
    that size standard, such a business is small if it has 1,500 or
    fewer employees.[^231] According to Commission data,[^232] 881
    carriers have reported that they are engaged in the provision of
    toll resale services. Of these, an estimated 853 have 1,500 or fewer
    employees and 28 have more than 1,500 employees. Consequently, the
    Commission estimates that the majority of toll resellers are small
    entities that may be affected by our action.

14. *Payphone Service Providers (PSPs)*. Neither the Commission nor the
    SBA has developed a small business size standard specifically for
    payphone services providers. The appropriate size standard under SBA
    rules is for the category Wired Telecommunications Carriers. Under
    that size standard, such a business is small if it has 1,500 or
    fewer employees.[^233] According to Commission data,[^234] 657
    carriers have reported that they are engaged in the provision of
    payphone services. Of these, an estimated 653 have 1,500 or fewer
    employees and four have more than 1,500 employees. Consequently, the
    Commission estimates that the majority of payphone service providers
    are small entities that may be affected by our action.

15. *Interexchange Carriers (IXCs).* Neither the Commission nor the SBA
    has developed a small business size standard specifically for
    providers of interexchange services. The appropriate size standard
    under SBA rules is for the category Wired Telecommunications
    Carriers. Under that size standard, such a business is small if it
    has 1,500 or fewer employees.[^235] According to Commission
    data,[^236] 330 carriers have reported that they are engaged in the
    provision of interexchange service. Of these, an estimated 309 have
    1,500 or fewer employees and 21 have more than 1,500 employees.
    Consequently, the Commission estimates that the majority of IXCs are
    small entities that may be affected by our action.

16. *Operator Service Providers (OSPs).* Neither the Commission nor the
    SBA has developed a small business size standard specifically for
    operator service providers. The appropriate size standard under SBA
    rules is for the category Wired Telecommunications Carriers. Under
    that size standard, such a business is small if it has 1,500 or
    fewer employees.[^237] According to Commission data,[^238] 23
    carriers have reported that they are engaged in the provision of
    operator services. Of these, an estimated 22 have 1,500 or fewer
    employees and one has more than 1,500 employees. Consequently, the
    Commission estimates that the majority of OSPs are small entities
    that may be affected by our action.

17. *Prepaid Calling Card Providers.* Neither the Commission nor the SBA
    has developed a small business size standard specifically for
    prepaid calling card providers. The appropriate size standard under
    SBA rules is for the category Telecommunications Resellers. Under
    that size standard, such a business is small if it has 1,500 or
    fewer employees.[^239] According to Commission data,[^240] 104
    carriers have reported that they are engaged in the provision of
    prepaid calling cards. Of these, 102 are estimated to have 1,500 or
    fewer employees and two have more than 1,500 employees.
    Consequently, the Commission estimates that all or the majority of
    prepaid calling card providers are small entities that may be
    affected by our action.

18. *800 and 800-Like Service Subscribers.*[^241] These toll-free
    services fall within the broad economic census category of
    Telecommunications Resellers. This category "comprises
    establishments engaged in purchasing access and network capacity
    from owners and operators of telecommunications networks and
    reselling wired and wireless telecommunications services (except
    satellite) to businesses and households. Establishments in this
    industry resell telecommunications; they do not operate transmission
    facilities and infrastructure."[^242] The SBA has developed a small
    business size standard for this category, which is: all such firms
    having 1,500 or fewer employees.[^243] Census Bureau data for 2002
    show that there were 1,646 firms in this category that operated for
    the entire year.[^244] Of this total, 1,642 firms had employment of
    999 or fewer employees, and four firms had employment of 1,000
    employees or more.[^245] Thus, the majority of these firms can be
    considered small. Additionally, it may be helpful to know the total
    numbers of telephone numbers assigned in these services. Commission
    data show that, as of June 2006, the total number of 800 numbers
    assigned was 7,647,941, the total number of 888 numbers assigned was
    5,318,667, the total number of 877 numbers assigned was 4,431,162,
    and the total number of 866 numbers assigned was 6,008,976.[^246]

#### International Service Providers

19. The Commission has not developed a small business size standard
    specifically for providers of international service. The appropriate
    size standards under SBA rules are for the two broad census
    categories of "Satellite Telecommunications" and "Other
    Telecommunications." Under both categories, such a business is small
    if it has \$13.5 million or less in average annual receipts.[^247]

20. The first category of Satellite Telecommunications "comprises
    establishments primarily engaged in providing point-to-point
    telecommunications services to other establishments in the
    telecommunications and broadcasting industries by forwarding and
    receiving communications signals via a system of satellites or
    reselling satellite telecommunications."[^248] For this category,
    Census Bureau data for 2002 show that there were a total of 371
    firms that operated for the entire year.[^249] Of this total, 307
    firms had annual receipts of under \$10 million, and 26 firms had
    receipts of \$10 million to \$24,999,999.[^250] Consequently, we
    estimate that the majority of Satellite Telecommunications firms are
    small entities that might be affected by our action.

21. The second category of Other Telecommunications "comprises
    establishments primarily engaged in (1) providing specialized
    telecommunications applications, such as satellite tracking,
    communications telemetry, and radar station operations; or
    (2) providing satellite terminal stations and associated facilities
    operationally connected with one or more terrestrial communications
    systems and capable of transmitting telecommunications to or
    receiving telecommunications from satellite systems."[^251] For this
    category, Census Bureau data for 2002 show that there were a total
    of 332 firms that operated for the entire year.[^252] Of this total,
    259 firms had annual receipts of under \$10 million and 15 firms had
    annual receipts of \$10 million to \$24,999,999.[^253] Consequently,
    we estimate that the majority of Other Telecommunications firms are
    small entities that might be affected by our action.

#### Wireless Telecommunications Service Providers

22. Below, for those services subject to auctions, we note that, as a
    general matter, the number of winning bidders that qualify as small
    businesses at the close of an auction does not necessarily represent
    the number of small businesses currently in service. Also, the
    Commission does not generally track subsequent business size unless,
    in the context of assignments or transfers, unjust enrichment issues
    are implicated.

23. *Wireless Service Providers.* The SBA has developed a small business
    size standard for wireless firms within the two broad economic
    census categories of "Paging"[^254] and "Cellular and Other Wireless
    Telecommunications."[^255] Under both SBA categories, a wireless
    business is small if it has 1,500 or fewer employees. For the census
    category of Paging, Census Bureau data for 2002 show that there were
    807 firms in this category that operated for the entire year.[^256]
    Of this total, 804 firms had employment of 999 or fewer employees,
    and three firms had employment of 1,000 employees or more.[^257]
    Thus, under this category and associated small business size
    standard, the majority of firms can be considered small. For the
    census category of Cellular and Other Wireless Telecommunications,
    Census Bureau data for 2002 show that there were 1,397 firms in this
    category that operated for the entire year.[^258] Of this total,
    1,378 firms had employment of 999 or fewer employees, and 19 firms
    had employment of 1,000 employees or more.[^259] Thus, under this
    second category and size standard, the majority of firms can, again,
    be considered small.

24. *Cellular Licensees.* The SBA has developed a small business size
    standard for wireless firms within the broad economic census
    category "Cellular and Other Wireless Telecommunications."[^260]
    Under this SBA category, a wireless business is small if it has
    1,500 or fewer employees. For the census category of Cellular and
    Other Wireless Telecommunications, Census Bureau data for 2002 show
    that there were 1,397 firms in this category that operated for the
    entire year.[^261] Of this total, 1,378 firms had employment of 999
    or fewer employees, and 19 firms had employment of 1,000 employees
    or more.[^262] Thus, under this category and size standard, the
    majority of firms can be considered small. Also, according to
    Commission data, 437 carriers reported that they were engaged in the
    provision of cellular service, Personal Communications Service
    (PCS), or Specialized Mobile Radio (SMR) Telephony services, which
    are placed together in the data.[^263] We have estimated that 260 of
    these are small under the SBA small business size standard.[^264]

25. *Paging.* The SBA has developed a small business size standard for
    the broad economic census category of "Paging."[^265] Under this
    category, the SBA deems a wireless business to be small if it has
    1,500 or fewer employees. Census Bureau data for 2002 show that
    there were 807 firms in this category that operated for the entire
    year.[^266] Of this total, 804 firms had employment of 999 or fewer
    employees, and three firms had employment of 1,000 employees or
    more.[^267] In addition, according to Commission data,[^268] 365
    carriers have reported that they are engaged in the provision of
    "Paging and Messaging Service." Of this total, we estimate that 360
    have 1,500 or fewer employees, and five have more than 1,500
    employees. Thus, in this category the majority of firms can be
    considered small.

26. We also note that, in the *Paging Second Report and Order*, the
    Commission adopted a size standard for "small businesses" for
    purposes of determining their eligibility for special provisions
    such as bidding credits and installment payments.[^269] In this
    context, a small business is an entity that, together with its
    affiliates and controlling principals, has average gross revenues
    not exceeding \$15 million for the preceding three years.[^270] The
    SBA has approved this definition.[^271] An auction of Metropolitan
    Economic Area (MEA) licenses commenced on February 24, 2000, and
    closed on March 2, 2000. Of the 2,499 licenses auctioned, 985 were
    sold.[^272] Fifty-seven companies claiming small business status won
    440 licenses.[^273] An auction of MEA and Economic Area (EA)
    licenses commenced on October 30, 2001, and closed on December
    5, 2001. Of the 15,514 licenses auctioned, 5,323 were sold.[^274]
    One hundred thirty-two companies claiming small business status
    purchased 3,724 licenses. A third auction, consisting of 8,874
    licenses in each of 175 EAs and 1,328 licenses in all but three of
    the 51 MEAs commenced on May 13, 2003, and closed on May 28, 2003.
    Seventy-seven bidders claiming small or very small business status
    won 2,093 licenses. [^275] We also note that, currently, there are
    approximately 74,000 Common Carrier Paging licenses.

27. *Wireless Communications Services*. This service can be used for
    fixed, mobile, radiolocation, and digital audio broadcasting
    satellite uses. The Commission established small business size
    standards for the wireless communications services (WCS) auction. A
    "small business" is an entity with average gross revenues of \$40
    million or less for each of the three preceding years, and a "very
    small business" is an entity with average gross revenues of \$15
    million or less for each of the three preceding years. The SBA has
    approved these small business size standards.[^276] 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.

28. *Wireless Telephony*. Wireless telephony includes cellular, personal
    communications services (PCS), and specialized mobile radio (SMR)
    telephony carriers. As noted earlier, the SBA has developed a small
    business size standard for "Cellular and Other Wireless
    Telecommunications" services.[^277] Under that SBA small business
    size standard, a business is small if it has 1,500 or fewer
    employees.[^278] According to Commission data, 432 carriers reported
    that they were engaged in the provision of wireless telephony.[^279]
    We have estimated that 221 of these are small under the SBA small
    business size standard.

29. *Broadband Personal Communications Service*. The broadband Personal
    Communications Service (PCS) spectrum is divided into six frequency
    blocks designated A through F, and the Commission has held auctions
    for each block. The Commission defined "small entity" for Blocks C
    and F as an entity that has average gross revenues of \$40 million
    or less in the three previous calendar years.[^280] 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.[^281] These standards defining "small entity" in the
    context of broadband PCS auctions have been approved by the
    SBA.[^282] No small businesses, within the SBA-approved small
    business size standards bid successfully for licenses in Blocks A
    and B. There were 90 winning bidders that qualified as small
    entities in the Block C auctions. A total of 93 small and very small
    business bidders won approximately 40 percent of the 1,479 licenses
    for Blocks D, E, and F.[^283] On March 23, 1999, the Commission
    re-auctioned 347 C, D, E, and F Block licenses. There were 48 small
    business winning bidders. On January 26, 2001, the Commission
    completed the auction of 422 C and F Broadband PCS licenses in
    Auction No. 35. Of the 35 winning bidders in this auction, 29
    qualified as "small" or "very small" businesses. Subsequent events,
    concerning Auction 35, including judicial and agency determinations,
    resulted in a total of 163 C and F Block licenses being available
    for grant.

30. *Narrowband Personal Communications Services.* The Commission held
    an auction for Narrowband PCS licenses that commenced on July 25,
    1994, and closed on July 29, 1994. A second auction commenced on
    October 26, 1994 and closed on November 8, 1994. For purposes of the
    first two Narrowband PCS auctions, "small businesses" were entities
    with average gross revenues for the prior three calendar years of
    \$40 million or less.[^284] Through these auctions, the Commission
    awarded a total of 41 licenses, 11 of which were obtained by four
    small businesses.[^285] To ensure meaningful participation by small
    business entities in future auctions, the Commission adopted a
    two-tiered small business size standard in the Narrowband PCS Second
    Report and Order.[^286] A "small business" is an entity that,
    together with affiliates and controlling interests, has average
    gross revenues for the three preceding years of not more than \$40
    million.[^287] A "very small business" is an entity that, together
    with affiliates and controlling interests, has average gross
    revenues for the three preceding years of not more than \$15
    million.[^288] The SBA has approved these small business size
    standards.[^289] A third auction commenced on October 3, 2001 and
    closed on October 16, 2001. Here, five bidders won 317 (Metropolitan
    Trading Areas and nationwide) licenses.[^290] Three of these claimed
    status as a small or very small entity and won 311 licenses.

31. *220 MHz Radio Service -- Phase I Licensees.* The 220 MHz service
    has both Phase I and Phase II licenses. Phase I licensing was
    conducted by lotteries in 1992 and 1993. There are approximately
    1,515 such non-nationwide licensees and four nationwide licensees
    currently authorized to operate in the 220 MHz band. The Commission
    has not developed a small business size standard for small entities
    specifically applicable to such incumbent 220 MHz Phase I licensees.
    To estimate the number of such licensees that are small businesses,
    we apply the small business size standard under the SBA rules
    applicable to "Cellular and Other Wireless Telecommunications"
    companies. This category provides that a small business is a
    wireless company employing no more than 1,500 persons.[^291] For the
    census category Cellular and Other Wireless Telecommunications,
    Census Bureau data for 1997 show that there were 977 firms in this
    category, total, that operated for the entire year.[^292] Of this
    total, 965 firms had employment of 999 or fewer employees, and an
    additional 12 firms had employment of 1,000 employees or more.[^293]
    Thus, under this second category and size standard, the majority of
    firms can, again, be considered small. Assuming this general ratio
    continues in the context of Phase I 220 MHz licensees, the
    Commission estimates that nearly all such licensees are small
    businesses under the SBA's small business size standard. In
    addition, limited preliminary census data for 2002 indicate that the
    total number of cellular and other wireless telecommunications
    carriers increased approximately 321 percent from 1997 to
    2002.[^294]

32. *220 MHz Radio Service -- Phase II Licensees.* The 220 MHz service
    has both Phase I and Phase II licenses. The Phase II 220 MHz service
    is a new service and is subject to spectrum auctions. In the *220
    MHz Third Report and Order*, we adopted a small business size
    standard for "small" and "very small" businesses for purposes of
    determining their eligibility for special provisions such as bidding
    credits and installment payments.[^295] This small business size
    standard indicates that a "small business" is an entity that,
    together with its affiliates and controlling principals, has average
    gross revenues not exceeding \$15 million for the preceding three
    years.[^296] A "very small business" is an entity that, together
    with its affiliates and controlling principals, has average gross
    revenues that do not exceed \$3 million for the preceding three
    years. The SBA has approved these small business size
    standards.[^297] Auctions of Phase II licenses commenced on
    September 15, 1998, and closed on October 22, 1998.[^298] In the
    first auction, 908 licenses were auctioned in three different-sized
    geographic areas: three nationwide licenses, 30 Regional Economic
    Area Group (EAG) Licenses, and 875 Economic Area (EA) Licenses. Of
    the 908 licenses auctioned, 693 were sold.[^299] Thirty-nine small
    businesses won licenses in the first 220 MHz auction. The second
    auction included 225 licenses: 216 EA licenses and 9 EAG licenses.
    Fourteen companies claiming small business status won 158
    licenses.[^300]

33. *800 MHz and 900 MHz Specialized Mobile Radio Licenses*. The
    Commission awards "small entity" and "very small entity" bidding
    credits in auctions for Specialized Mobile Radio (SMR) geographic
    area licenses in the 800 MHz and 900 MHz bands to firms that had
    revenues of no more than \$15 million in each of the three previous
    calendar years, or that had revenues of no more than \$3 million in
    each of the previous calendar years, respectively.[^301] These
    bidding credits apply to SMR providers in the 800 MHz and 900 MHz
    bands that either hold geographic area licenses or have obtained
    extended implementation authorizations. The Commission does not know
    how many firms provide 800 MHz or 900 MHz geographic area SMR
    service pursuant to extended implementation authorizations, nor how
    many of these providers have annual revenues of no more than \$15
    million. One firm has over \$15 million in revenues. The Commission
    assumes, for purposes here, that all of the remaining existing
    extended implementation authorizations are held by small entities,
    as that term is defined by the SBA. The Commission has held auctions
    for geographic area licenses in the 800 MHz and 900 MHz SMR bands.
    There were 60 winning bidders that qualified as small or very small
    entities in the 900 MHz SMR auctions. Of the 1,020 licenses won in
    the 900 MHz auction, bidders qualifying as small or very small
    entities won 263 licenses. In the 800 MHz auction, 38 of the 524
    licenses won were won by small and very small entities.

34. *700 MHz Guard Band Licensees.* In the *700 MHz Guard Band Order*,
    we adopted a small business size standard for "small businesses" and
    "very small businesses" for purposes of determining their
    eligibility for special provisions such as bidding credits and
    installment payments.[^302] A "small business" as an entity that,
    together with its affiliates and controlling principals, has average
    gross revenues not exceeding \$15 million for the preceding three
    years. Additionally, a "very small business" is an entity that,
    together with its affiliates and controlling principals, has average
    gross revenues that are not more than \$3 million for the preceding
    three years. An auction of 52 Major Economic Area (MEA) licenses
    commenced on September 6, 2000, and closed on September 21,
    2000.[^303] Of the 104 licenses auctioned, 96 licenses were sold to
    nine bidders. Five of these bidders were small businesses that won a
    total of 26 licenses. A second auction of 700 MHz Guard Band
    licenses commenced on February 13, 2001 and closed on February
    21, 2001. All eight of the licenses auctioned were sold to three
    bidders. One of these bidders was a small business that won a total
    of two licenses.[^304]

35. *Rural Radiotelephone Service.* The Commission has not adopted a
    size standard for small businesses specific to the Rural
    Radiotelephone Service.[^305] A significant subset of the Rural
    Radiotelephone Service is the Basic Exchange Telephone Radio System
    (BETRS).[^306] The Commission uses the SBA's small business size
    standard applicable to "Cellular and Other Wireless
    Telecommunications," *i.e.*, an entity employing no more than 1,500
    persons.[^307] There are approximately 1,000 licensees in the Rural
    Radiotelephone Service, and the Commission estimates that there are
    1,000 or fewer small entity licensees in the Rural Radiotelephone
    Service that may be affected by the rules and policies adopted
    herein.

36. *Air-Ground Radiotelephone Service.* The Commission has not adopted
    a small business size standard specific to the Air-Ground
    Radiotelephone Service.[^308] We will use SBA's small business size
    standard applicable to "Cellular and Other Wireless
    Telecommunications," *i.e.*, an entity employing no more than 1,500
    persons.[^309] There are approximately 100 licensees in the
    Air-Ground Radiotelephone Service, and we estimate that almost all
    of them qualify as small under the SBA small business size standard.

37. *Aviation and Marine Radio Services.* Small businesses in the
    aviation and marine radio services use a very high frequency (VHF)
    marine or aircraft radio and, as appropriate, an emergency
    position-indicating radio beacon (and/or radar) or an emergency
    locator transmitter. The Commission has not developed a small
    business size standard specifically applicable to these small
    businesses. For purposes of this analysis, the Commission uses the
    SBA small business size standard for the category "Cellular and
    Other Telecommunications," which is 1,500 or fewer employees.[^310]
    Most applicants for recreational licenses are individuals.
    Approximately 581,000 ship station licensees and 131,000 aircraft
    station licensees operate domestically and are not subject to the
    radio carriage requirements of any statute or treaty. For purposes
    of our evaluations in this analysis, we estimate that there are up
    to approximately 712,000 licensees that are small businesses (or
    individuals) under the SBA standard. In addition, between December
    3, 1998 and December 14, 1998, the Commission held an auction of 42
    VHF Public Coast licenses in the 157.1875-157.4500 MHz (ship
    transmit) and 161.775-162.0125 MHz (coast transmit) bands. For
    purposes of the auction, the Commission defined a "small" business
    as an entity that, together with controlling interests and
    affiliates, had average gross revenues for the preceding three years
    not to exceed \$15 million dollars. In addition, a "very small"
    business is one that, together with controlling interests and
    affiliates, had average gross revenues for the preceding three years
    not to exceed \$3 million dollars.[^311] There are approximately
    10,672 licensees in the Marine Coast Service, and the Commission
    estimates that almost all of them qualify as "small" businesses
    under the above special small business size standards.

38. *Offshore Radiotelephone Service.* This service operates on several
    UHF television broadcast channels that are not used for television
    broadcasting in the coastal areas of states bordering the Gulf of
    Mexico.[^312] There are presently approximately 55 licensees in this
    service. We are unable to estimate at this time the number of
    licensees that would qualify as small under the SBA's small business
    size standard for "Cellular and Other Wireless Telecommunications"
    services.[^313] Under that SBA small business size standard, a
    business is small if it has 1,500 or fewer employees.[^314]

39. *39 GHz Service.* The Commission created a special small business
    size standard for 39 GHz licenses -- an entity that has average
    gross revenues of \$40 million or less in the three previous
    calendar years.[^315] An additional size standard for "very small
    business" is: an entity that, together with affiliates, has average
    gross revenues of not more than \$15 million for the preceding three
    calendar years.[^316] The SBA has approved these small business size
    standards.[^317] The auction of the 2,173 39 GHz licenses began on
    April 12, 2000 and closed on May 8, 2000. The 18 bidders who claimed
    small business status won 849 licenses. Consequently, the Commission
    estimates that 18 or fewer 39 GHz licensees are small entities that
    may be affected by the rules and polices adopted herein.

40. *Wireless Cable Systems.* Wireless cable systems use 2 GHz band
    frequencies of the Broadband Radio Service ("BRS"), formerly
    Multipoint Distribution Service ("MDS"),[^318] and the Educational
    Broadband Service ("EBS"), formerly Instructional Television Fixed
    Service ("ITFS"),[^319] to transmit video programming and provide
    broadband services to residential subscribers.[^320] These services
    were originally designed for the delivery of multichannel video
    programming, similar to that of traditional cable systems, but over
    the past several years licensees have focused their operations
    instead on providing two-way high-speed Internet access
    services.[^321] We estimate that the number of wireless cable
    subscribers is approximately 100,000, as of March 2005. Local
    Multipoint Distribution Service ("LMDS") is a fixed broadband
    point-to-multipoint microwave service that provides for two-way
    video telecommunications.[^322] As described below, the SBA small
    business size standard for the broad census category of Cable and
    Other Program Distribution, which consists of such entities
    generating \$13.5 million or less in annual receipts, appears
    applicable to MDS, ITFS and LMDS.[^323] Other standards also apply,
    as described.

41. The Commission has defined small MDS (now BRS) and LMDS entities in
    the context of Commission license auctions. In the 1996 MDS
    auction,[^324] the Commission defined a small business as an entity
    that had annual average gross revenues of less than \$40 million in
    the previous three calendar years.[^325] This definition of a small
    entity in the context of MDS auctions has been approved by the
    SBA.[^326] In the MDS auction, 67 bidders won 493 licenses. Of the
    67 auction winners, 61 claimed status as a small business. At this
    time, the Commission estimates that of the 61 small business MDS
    auction winners, 48 remain small business licensees. In addition to
    the 48 small businesses that hold BTA authorizations, there are
    approximately 392 incumbent MDS licensees that have gross revenues
    that are not more than \$40 million and are thus considered small
    entities.[^327] MDS licensees and wireless cable operators that did
    not receive their licenses as a result of the MDS auction fall under
    the SBA small business size standard for Cable and Other Program
    Distribution. Information available to us indicates that there are
    approximately 850 of these licensees and operators that do not
    generate revenue in excess of \$13.5 million annually. Therefore, we
    estimate that there are approximately 850 small entity MDS (or BRS)
    providers, as defined by the SBA and the Commission's auction rules.

42. Educational institutions are included in this analysis as small
    entities; however, the Commission has not created a specific small
    business size standard for ITFS (now EBS).[^328] We estimate that
    there are currently 2,032 ITFS (or EBS) licensees, and all but 100
    of the licenses are held by educational institutions. Thus, we
    estimate that at least 1,932 ITFS licensees are small entities.

43. In the 1998 and 1999 LMDS auctions,[^329] the Commission defined a
    small business as an entity that has annual average gross revenues
    of less than \$40 million in the previous three calendar
    years.[^330] Moreover, the Commission added an additional
    classification for a "very small business," which was defined as an
    entity that had annual average gross revenues of less than \$15
    million in the previous three calendar years.[^331] These
    definitions of "small business" and "very small business" in the
    context of the LMDS auctions have been approved by the SBA.[^332] In
    the first LMDS auction, 104 bidders won 864 licenses. Of the 104
    auction winners, 93 claimed status as small or very small
    businesses. In the LMDS re-auction, 40 bidders won 161 licenses.
    Based on this information, we believe that the number of small LMDS
    licenses will include the 93 winning bidders in the first auction
    and the 40 winning bidders in the re-auction, for a total of 133
    small entity LMDS providers as defined by the SBA and the
    Commission's auction rules.

44. *Local Multipoint Distribution Service.* Local Multipoint
    Distribution Service (LMDS) is a fixed broadband point-to-multipoint
    microwave service that provides for two-way video
    telecommunications.[^333] The auction of the 1,030 LMDS licenses
    began on February 18, 1998 and closed on March 25, 1998. The
    Commission established a small business size standard for LMDS
    licensees as an entity that has average gross revenues of less than
    \$40 million in the three previous calendar years.[^334] An
    additional small business size standard for "very small business"
    was added as an entity that, together with its affiliates, has
    average gross revenues of not more than \$15 million for the
    preceding three calendar years.[^335] The SBA has approved these
    small business size standards in the context of LMDS auctions.[^336]
    There were 93 winning bidders that qualified as small entities in
    the LMDS auctions. A total of 93 small and very small business
    bidders won approximately 277 A Block licenses and 387 B Block
    licenses. On March 27, 1999, the Commission re-auctioned 161
    licenses; there were 40 winning bidders. Based on this information,
    we conclude that the number of small LMDS licenses consists of the
    93 winning bidders in the first auction and the 40 winning bidders
    in the re-auction, for a total of 133 small entity LMDS providers.

45. *218-219 MHz Service.* The first auction of 218-219 MHz spectrum
    resulted in 170 entities winning licenses for 594 Metropolitan
    Statistical Area (MSA) licenses. Of the 594 licenses, 557 were won
    by entities qualifying as a small business. For that auction, the
    small business size standard was an entity that, together with its
    affiliates, has no more than a \$6 million net worth and, after
    federal income taxes (excluding any carry over losses), has no more
    than \$2 million in annual profits each year for the previous two
    years.[^337] In the *218-219 MHz Report and Order and Memorandum
    Opinion and Order*, we established a small business size standard
    for a "small business" as an entity that, together with its
    affiliates and persons or entities that hold interests in such an
    entity and their affiliates, has average annual gross revenues not
    to exceed \$15 million for the preceding three years.[^338] A "very
    small business" is defined as an entity that, together with its
    affiliates and persons or entities that hold interests in such an
    entity and its affiliates, has average annual gross revenues not to
    exceed \$3 million for the preceding three years.[^339] We cannot
    estimate, however, the number of licenses that will be won by
    entities qualifying as small or very small businesses under our
    rules in future auctions of 218-219 MHz spectrum.

46. *24 GHz -- Incumbent Licensees.* This analysis may affect incumbent
    licensees who were relocated to the 24 GHz band from the 18 GHz band
    and applicants who wish to provide services in the 24 GHz band. The
    applicable SBA small business size standard is that of "Cellular and
    Other Wireless Telecommunications" companies. This category provides
    that such a company is small if it employs no more than 1,500
    persons.[^340] According to Census Bureau data for 1997, there were
    977 firms in this category, total, that operated for the entire
    year.[^341] Of this total, 965 firms had employment of 999 or fewer
    employees, and an additional 12 firms had employment of 1,000
    employees or more.[^342] Thus, under this size standard, the great
    majority of firms can be considered small. These broader census data
    notwithstanding, we believe that there are only two licensees in the
    24 GHz band that were relocated from the 18 GHz band, Teligent[^343]
    and TRW, Inc. It is our understanding that Teligent and its related
    companies have less than 1,500 employees, though this may change in
    the future. TRW is not a small entity. Thus, only one incumbent
    licensee in the 24 GHz band is a small business entity.

47. *24 GHz -- Future Licensees.* With respect to new applicants in the
    24 GHz band, the small business size standard for "small business"
    is an entity that, together with controlling interests and
    affiliates, has average annual gross revenues for the three
    preceding years not in excess of \$15 million.[^344] "Very small
    business" in the 24 GHz band is an entity that, together with
    controlling interests and affiliates, has average gross revenues not
    exceeding \$3 million for the preceding three years.[^345] The SBA
    has approved these small business size standards.[^346] These size
    standards will apply to the future auction, if held.

### Cable and OVS Operators

48. *Cable Television Distribution Services.* Since 2007, these services
    have been defined within the broad economic census category of Wired
    Telecommunications Carriers; that category is defined as follows:
    "This industry comprises establishments primarily engaged in
    operating and/or providing access to transmission facilities and
    infrastructure that they own and/or lease for the transmission of
    voice, data, text, sound, and video using wired telecommunications
    networks. Transmission facilities may be based on a single
    technology or a combination of technologies."[^347] The SBA has
    developed a small business size standard for this category, which
    is: all such firms having 1,500 or fewer employees. To gauge small
    business prevalence for these cable services we must, however, use
    current census data that are based on the previous category of Cable
    and Other Program Distribution and its associated size standard;
    that size standard was: all such firms having \$13.5 million or less
    in annual receipts.[^348] According to Census Bureau data for 2002,
    there were a total of 1,191 firms in this previous category that
    operated for the entire year.[^349] Of this total, 1,087 firms had
    annual receipts of under \$10 million, and 43 firms had receipts of
    \$10 million or more but less than \$25 million.[^350] Thus, the
    majority of these firms can be considered small.

49. *Cable Companies and Systems.* The Commission has also developed its
    own small business size standards, for the purpose of cable rate
    regulation. Under the Commission's rules, a "small cable company" is
    one serving 400,000 or fewer subscribers, nationwide.[^351] Industry
    data indicate that, of 1,076 cable operators nationwide, all but
    eleven are small under this size standard.[^352] In addition, under
    the Commission's rules, a "small system" is a cable system serving
    15,000 or fewer subscribers.[^353] Industry data indicate that, of
    7,208 systems nationwide, 6,139 systems have under 10,000
    subscribers, and an additional 379 systems have 10,000-19,999
    subscribers.[^354] Thus, under this second size standard, most cable
    systems are small

50. *Cable System Operators*. The Communications Act of 1934, as
    amended, also contains a size standard for small cable system
    operators, which is "a cable operator that, directly or through an
    affiliate, serves in the aggregate fewer than 1 percent of all
    subscribers in the United States and is not affiliated with any
    entity or entities whose gross annual revenues in the aggregate
    exceed \$250,000,000."[^355] The Commission has determined that an
    operator serving fewer than 677,000 subscribers shall be deemed a
    small operator, if its annual revenues, when combined with the total
    annual revenues of all its affiliates, do not exceed \$250 million
    in the aggregate.[^356] Industry data indicate that, of 1,076 cable
    operators nationwide, all but ten are small under this size
    standard.[^357] We note that the Commission neither requests nor
    collects information on whether cable system operators are
    affiliated with entities whose gross annual revenues exceed \$250
    million,[^358] and therefore we are unable to estimate more
    accurately the number of cable system operators that would qualify
    as small under this size standard.

51. *Open Video Systems (OVS).* In 1996, Congress established the open
    video system (OVS) framework, one of four statutorily recognized
    options for the provision of video programming services by local
    exchange carriers (LECs).[^359] The OVS framework provides
    opportunities for the distribution of video programming other than
    through cable systems. Because OVS operators provide subscription
    services,[^360] OVS falls within the SBA small business size
    standard of Cable and Other Program Distribution Services, which
    consists of such entities having \$13.5 million or less in annual
    receipts.[^361] The Commission has certified 25 OVS operators, with
    some now providing service. Broadband service providers (BSPs) are
    currently the only significant holders of OVS certifications or
    local OVS franchises.[^362] As of June, 2005, BSPs served
    approximately 1.4 million subscribers, representing 1.5 percent of
    all MVPD households.[^363] Affiliates of Residential Communications
    Network, Inc. (RCN), which serves about 371,000 subscribers as of
    June, 2005, is currently the largest BSP and 14th largest
    MVPD.[^364] RCN received approval to operate OVS systems in New York
    City, Boston, Washington, D.C. and other areas. The Commission does
    not have financial information regarding the entities authorized to
    provide OVS, some of which may not yet be operational. We thus
    believe that at least some of the OVS operators may qualify as small
    entities.

### Internet Service Providers

52. *Internet Service Providers.* The SBA has developed a small business
    size standard for Internet Service Providers (ISPs). ISPs "provide
    clients access to the Internet and generally provide related
    services such as web hosting, web page designing, and hardware or
    software consulting related to Internet connectivity."[^365] Under
    the SBA size standard, such a business is small if it has average
    annual receipts of \$23 million or less.[^366] According to Census
    Bureau data for 2002, there were 2,529 firms in this category that
    operated for the entire year. [^367] Of these, 2,437 firms had
    annual receipts of under \$10 million, and an additional 47 firms
    had receipts of between \$10 million and \$24, 999,999.
    Consequently, we estimate that the majority of these firms are small
    entities that may be affected by our action.

**4. Other Internet-Related Entities**

53. *Web Search Portals.* Our action pertains to VoIP services, which
    could be provided by entities that provide other services such as
    email, online gaming, web browsing, video conferencing, instant
    messaging, and other, similar IP-enabled services. The Commission
    has not adopted a size standard for entities that create or provide
    these types of services or applications. However, the Census Bureau
    has identified firms that "operate web sites that use a search
    engine to generate and maintain extensive databases of Internet
    addresses and content in an easily searchable format. Web search
    portals often provide additional Internet services, such as e-mail,
    connections to other web sites, auctions, news, and other limited
    content, and serve as a home base for Internet users."[^368] The SBA
    has developed a small business size standard for this category; that
    size standard is \$6.5 million or less in average annual
    receipts.[^369] According to Census Bureau data for 2002, there were
    342 firms in this category that operated for the entire year.[^370]
    Of these, 303 had annual receipts of under \$5 million, and an
    additional 15 firms had receipts of between \$5 million and
    \$9,999,999. Consequently, we estimate that the majority of these
    firms are small entities that may be affected by our action.

54. *Data Processing, Hosting, and Related Services*. Entities in this
    category "primarily . . . provid\[e\] infrastructure for hosting or
    data processing services."[^371] The SBA has developed a small
    business size standard for this category; that size standard is \$23
    million or less in average annual receipts.[^372] According to
    Census Bureau data for 2002, there were 6,877 firms in this category
    that operated for the entire year.[^373] Of these, 6,418 had annual
    receipts of under \$10 million, and an additional 251 firms had
    receipts of between \$10 million and \$24,999,999. Consequently, we
    estimate that the majority of these firms are small entities that
    may be affected by our action.

55. *All Other Information Services*. "This industry comprises
    establishments primarily engaged in providing other information
    services (except new syndicates and libraries and archives)."[^374]
    Our action pertains to VoIP services, which could be provided by
    entities that provide other services such as email, online gaming,
    web browsing, video conferencing, instant messaging, and other,
    similar IP-enabled services. The SBA has developed a small business
    size standard for this category; that size standard is \$6.5 million
    or less in average annual receipts.[^375] According to Census Bureau
    data for 2002, there were 155 firms in this category that operated
    for the entire year.[^376] Of these, 138 had annual receipts of
    under \$5 million, and an additional four firms had receipts of
    between \$5 million and \$9,999,999. Consequently, we estimate that
    the majority of these firms are small entities that may be affected
    by our action.

56. *Internet Publishing and Broadcasting.* "This industry comprises
    establishments engaged in publishing and/or broadcasting content on
    the Internet exclusively. These establishments do not provide
    traditional (non-Internet) versions of the content that they publish
    or broadcast."[^377] The SBA has developed a small business size
    standard for this census category; that size standard is 500 or
    fewer employees.[^378] According to Census Bureau data for 2002,
    there were 1,362 firms in this category that operated for the entire
    year.[^379] Of these, 1,351 had employment of 499 or fewer
    employees, and six firms had employment of between 500 and 999.
    Consequently, we estimate that the majority of these firms small
    entities that may be affected by our action.

57. *Software Publishers.* These companies may design, develop or
    publish software and may provide other support services to software
    purchasers, such as providing documentation or assisting in
    installation. The companies may also design software to meet the
    needs of specific users.[^380] The SBA has developed a small
    business size standard of \$23 million or less in average annual
    receipts for all of the following pertinent categories: Software
    Publishers, Custom Computer Programming Services, and Other Computer
    Related Services.[^381] For Software Publishers, Census Bureau data
    for 2002 indicate that there were 6,155 firms in the category that
    operated for the entire year.[^382] Of these, 7,633 had annual
    receipts of under \$10 million, and an additional 403 firms had
    receipts of between \$10 million and \$24, 999,999. For providers of
    Custom Computer Programming Services, the Census Bureau data
    indicate that there were 32,269 firms that operated for the entire
    year.[^383] Of these, 31,416 had annual receipts of under \$10
    million, and an additional 565 firms had receipts of between \$10
    million and \$24,999,999. For providers of Other Computer Related
    Services, the Census Bureau data indicate that there were 6,357
    firms that operated for the entire year.[^384] Of these, 6,187 had
    annual receipts of under \$10 million, and an additional 101 firms
    had receipts of between \$10 million and \$24,999,999. Consequently,
    we estimate that the majority of the firms in each of these three
    categories are small entities that may be affected by our action.

**5. Equipment Manufacturers**

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

59. *Electronic Computer Manufacturing*. This category "comprises
    establishments primarily engaged in manufacturing and/or assembling
    electronic computers, such as mainframes, personal computers,
    workstations, laptops, and computer servers."[^385] The SBA has
    developed a small business size standard for this category of
    manufacturing; that size standard is 1,000 or fewer employees.[^386]
    According to Census Bureau data, there were 485 establishments in
    this category that operated with payroll during 2002.[^387] Of
    these, 476 had employment of under 1,000, and an additional four
    establishments had employment of 1,000 to 2,499. Consequently, we
    estimate that the majority of these establishments are small
    entities.

60. *Computer Storage Device Manufacturing.* These establishments
    manufacture "computer storage devices that allow the storage and
    retrieval of data from a phase change, magnetic, optical, or
    magnetic/optical media."[^388] The SBA has developed a small
    business size standard for this category of manufacturing; that size
    standard is 1,000 or fewer employees.[^389] According to Census
    Bureau data, there were 170 establishments in this category that
    operated with payroll during 2002.[^390] Of these, 164 had
    employment of under 500, and five establishments had employment of
    500 to 999. Consequently, we estimate that the majority of these
    establishments are small entities

61. *Computer Terminal Manufacturing*. "Computer terminals are
    input/output devices that connect with a central computer for
    processing."[^391] The SBA has developed a small business size
    standard for this category of manufacturing; that size standard is
    1,000 or fewer employees.[^392] According to Census Bureau data,
    there were 71 establishments in this category that operated with
    payroll during 2002, and all of the establishments had employment of
    under 1,000.[^393] Consequently, we estimate that all of these
    establishments are small entities.

62. *Other Computer Peripheral Equipment Manufacturing.* Examples of
    peripheral equipment in this category include keyboards, mouse
    devices, monitors, and scanners.[^394] The SBA has developed a small
    business size standard for this category of manufacturing; that size
    standard is 1,000 or fewer employees.[^395] According to Census
    Bureau data, there were 860 establishments in this category that
    operated with payroll during 2002.[^396] Of these, 851 had
    employment of under 1,000, and an additional five establishments had
    employment of 1,000 to 2,499. Consequently, we estimate that the
    majority of these establishments are small entities.

63. *Audio and Video Equipment Manufacturing.* These establishments
    manufacture "electronic audio and video equipment for home
    entertainment, motor vehicle, public address and musical instrument
    amplifications."[^397] The SBA has developed a small business size
    standard for this category of manufacturing; that size standard is
    750 or fewer employees.[^398] According to Census Bureau data, there
    were 571 establishments in this category that operated with payroll
    during 2002.[^399] Of these, 560 had employment of under 500, and
    ten establishments had employment of 500 to 999. Consequently, we
    estimate that the majority of these establishments are small
    entities.

64. *Electron Tube Manufacturing.* These establishments are "primarily
    engaged in manufacturing electron tubes and parts (except glass
    blanks)."[^400] The SBA has developed a small business size standard
    for this category of manufacturing; that size standard is 750 or
    fewer employees.[^401] According to Census Bureau data, there were
    102 establishments in this category that operated with payroll
    during 2002.[^402] Of these, 97 had employment of under 500, and one
    establishment had employment of 500 to 999. Consequently, we
    estimate that the majority of these establishments are small
    entities.

65. *Bare Printed Circuit Board Manufacturing.* These establishments are
    "primarily engaged in manufacturing bare (i.e., rigid or flexible)
    printed circuit boards without mounted electronic components."[^403]
    The SBA has developed a small business size standard for this
    category of manufacturing; that size standard is 500 or fewer
    employees.[^404] According to Census Bureau data, there were 936
    establishments in this category that operated with payroll during
    2002.[^405] Of these, 922 had employment of under 500, and 12
    establishments had employment of 500 to 999. Consequently, we
    estimate that the majority of these establishments are small
    entities.

66. *Semiconductor and Related Device Manufacturing.* Examples of
    manufactured devices in this category include "integrated circuits,
    memory chips, microprocessors, diodes, transistors, solar cells and
    other optoelectronic devices."[^406] The SBA has developed a small
    business size standard for this category of manufacturing; that size
    standard is 500 or fewer employees.[^407] According to Census Bureau
    data, there were 1,032 establishments in this category that operated
    with payroll during 2002.[^408] Of these, 950 had employment of
    under 500, and 42 establishments had employment of 500 to 999.
    Consequently, we estimate that the majority of these establishments
    are small entities.

67. *Electronic Capacitor Manufacturing.* These establishments
    manufacture "electronic fixed and variable capacitors and
    condensers."[^409] The SBA has developed a small business size
    standard for this category of manufacturing; that size standard is
    500 or fewer employees.[^410] According to Census Bureau data, there
    were 104 establishments in this category that operated with payroll
    during 2002.[^411] Of these, 101 had employment of under 500, and
    two establishments had employment of 500 to 999. Consequently, we
    estimate that the majority of these establishments are small
    entities.

68. *Electronic Resistor Manufacturing.* These establishments
    manufacture "electronic resistors, such as fixed and variable
    resistors, resistor networks, thermistors, and varistors."[^412] The
    SBA has developed a small business size standard for this category
    of manufacturing; that size standard is 500 or fewer
    employees.[^413] According to Census Bureau data, there were 79
    establishments in this category that operated with payroll during
    2002.[^414] All of these establishments had employment of under 500.
    Consequently, we estimate that all of these establishments are small
    entities.

69. *Electronic Coil, Transformer, and Other Inductor Manufacturing.*
    These establishments manufacture "electronic inductors, such as
    coils and transformers."[^415] The SBA has developed a small
    business size standard for this category of manufacturing; that size
    standard is 500 or fewer employees.[^416] According to Census Bureau
    data, there were 365 establishments in this category that operated
    with payroll during 2002.[^417] All of these establishments had
    employment of under 500. Consequently, we estimate that all of these
    establishments are small entities.

70. *Electronic Connector Manufacturing.* These establishments
    manufacture "electronic connectors, such as coaxial, cylindrical,
    rack and panel, pin and sleeve, printed circuit and fiber
    optic."[^418] The SBA has developed a small business size standard
    for this category of manufacturing; that size standard is 500 or
    fewer employees.[^419] According to Census Bureau data, there were
    321 establishments in this category that operated with payroll
    during 2002.[^420] Of these, 315 had employment of under 500, and
    three establishments had employment of 500 to 999. Consequently, we
    estimate that the majority of these establishments are small
    entities.

71. *Printed Circuit Assembly (Electronic Assembly) Manufacturing.*
    These are establishments "primarily engaged in loading components
    onto printed circuit boards or who manufacture and ship loaded
    printed circuit boards."[^421] The SBA has developed a small
    business size standard for this category of manufacturing; that size
    standard is 500 or fewer employees.[^422] According to Census Bureau
    data, there were 868 establishments in this category that operated
    with payroll during 2002.[^423] Of these, 839 had employment of
    under 500, and 18 establishments had employment of 500 to 999.
    Consequently, we estimate that the majority of these establishments
    are small entities.

72. *Other Electronic Component Manufacturing.*[^424] The SBA has
    developed a small business size standard for this category of
    manufacturing; that size standard is 500 or fewer employees.[^425]
    According to Census Bureau data, there were 1,627 establishments in
    this category that operated with pay roll during 2002.[^426] Of
    these, 1,616 had employment of under 500, and eight establishments
    had employment of 500 to 999. Consequently, we estimate that the
    majority of these establishments are small entities.

73. *Fiber Optic Cable Manufacturing.* These establishments manufacture
    "insulated fiber-optic cable from purchased fiber-optic
    strand."[^427] The SBA has developed a small business size standard
    for this category of manufacturing; that size standard is 1,000 or
    fewer employees.[^428] According to Census Bureau data, there were
    96 establishments in this category that operated with payroll during
    2002.[^429] Of these, 95 had employment of under 1,000, and one
    establishment had employment of 1,000 to 2,499. Consequently, we
    estimate that the majority or all of these establishments are small
    entities.

74. *Other Communication and Energy Wire Manufacturing.* These
    establishments manufacture "insulated wire and cable of nonferrous
    metals from purchased wire."[^430] The SBA has developed a small
    business size standard for this category of manufacturing; that size
    standard is 1,000 or fewer employees.[^431] According to Census
    Bureau data, there were 356 establishments in this category that
    operated with payroll during 2002.[^432] Of these, 353 had
    employment of under 1,000, and three establishments had employment
    of 1,000 to 2,499. Consequently, we estimate that the majority or
    all of these establishments are small entities.

```{=html}
<!-- -->
```
D.  **Description of Projected Reporting, Recordkeeping and Other
    Compliance Requirements**

```{=html}
<!-- -->
```
75. In this Report and Order, we are requiring telecommunications
    carriers and providers of interconnected VoIP service to collect
    certain information and take other actions to comply with LNP and
    other numbering administration obligations. For example, we are
    requiring both interconnected VoIP providers and their numbering
    partners to facilitate a customer's porting request to or from an
    interconnected VoIP provider, which means that the interconnected
    VoIP provider has an affirmative legal obligation to take all steps
    necessary to initiate or allow a port-in or port-out itself or
    through its numbering partner on behalf of the interconnected VoIP
    customer, subject to a valid port request, without unreasonable
    delay or unreasonable procedures that have the effect of delaying or
    denying porting of the number.[^433] We also prohibit interconnected
    VoIP providers and their numbering partners from entering into
    agreements that would prohibit or unreasonably delay an
    interconnected VoIP service end user from porting between
    interconnected VoIP providers, or to or from a wireline carrier or a
    covered CMRS provider.[^434] Further, we expect interconnected VoIP
    providers to fully inform their customers about limitations on
    porting between providers, particularly limitations that result from
    the portable nature of, and use of non-geographic numbers by,
    certain interconnected VoIP services.[^435]

76. We are also requiring interconnected VoIP providers to contribute to
    meet shared numbering administration and LNP costs. The reporting
    requirements for determining interconnected VoIP providers'
    contribution to the shared cost of numbering administration and LNP
    require interconnected VoIP providers to file an annual FCC Form
    499-A.[^436] We require interconnected VoIP providers to include in
    their annual FCC Form 499-A filing historical revenue information
    for the relevant year, including all information necessary to
    allocate revenues across the seven LNPA regions.[^437] To alleviate
    the burdens of attributing costs among the seven LNPA regions, we
    allow these providers to use a proxy based on the percentage of
    subscribers a provider serves in a particular region for reaching an
    estimate for allocating their end-user revenues to the appropriate
    regional LNPA.[^438]

```{=html}
<!-- -->
```
E.  **Steps Taken to Minimize Significant Economic Impact on Small
    Entities, and Significant Alternatives Considered**

```{=html}
<!-- -->
```
77. The RFA requires an agency to describe any significant alternatives
    that it has considered in reaching its proposed approach, which may
    include (among others) the following four alternatives: (1) the
    establishment of differing compliance or reporting requirements or
    timetables that take into account the resources available to small
    entities; (2) the clarification, consolidation, or simplification of
    compliance or reporting requirements under the rule for small
    entities; (3) the use of performance, rather than design, standards;
    and (4) an exemption from coverage of the rule, or any part thereof,
    for small entities.[^439]

78. The *IP-Enabled Services Notice* sought comment on whether numbering
    obligations should be extended to IP-enabled services, and invited
    comment on the effect various proposals would have on small
    entities, as well as the effect alternative rules would have on
    these entities.[^440] However, we must assess the interests of small
    businesses in light of the overriding public interest in ensuring
    that all consumers benefit from local number portability. In the
    Report and Order, the Commission found that allowing customers of
    interconnected VoIP services to receive the benefits of LNP is
    fundamentally important for the protection of consumers and benefits
    not only customers, but the interconnected VoIP providers
    themselves.[^441] Specifically, the Commission found that the
    ability of end users to retain their NANP telephone numbers when
    changing service providers gives customers flexibility in the
    quality, price, and variety of services they can choose to purchase.
    Allowing customers to respond to price and service changes without
    changing their telephone numbers will enhance competition, a
    fundamental goal of section 251 of the Act.[^442] In addition, the
    Commission found that failure to extend LNP obligations to
    interconnected VoIP providers and their numbering partners would
    thwart the effective and efficient administration of the
    Commission's number administration responsibilities under section
    251 of the Act.[^443]

79. The Commission concluded that because interconnected VoIP providers,
    including small businesses, benefit from LNP, all interconnected
    VoIP providers, including small businesses, should contribute to
    meet shared LNP costs.[^444] However, to alleviate costs involved in
    the attribution systems for all of their end-user services, when
    filing FCC Form 499-A, the Commission allowed interconnected VoIP
    providers, including small businesses, to use a proxy based on the
    percentage of subscribers a provider serves in a particular region
    for allocating their end-user revenues to the appropriate regional
    LNPA.[^445]

80. **Report to Congress:** The Commission will send a copy of the
    Order, including this FRFA, in a report to be sent to Congress and
    the Government Accountability Office pursuant to the Congressional
    Review Act.[^446] A copy of the Order and FRFA (or summaries
    thereof) will also be published in the Federal Register.[^447]

APPENDIX D

Final Regulatory Flexibility Analysis

(Intermodal Local Number Portability)

**CC Docket No. 95-116**

1.  As required by the Regulatory Flexibility Act, as amended
    (RFA),[^448] an Initial Regulatory Flexibility Analysis (IRFA) was
    published for the *Intermodal Number Portability Order*.[^449] The
    Commission sought written public comment on the IRFA. We received
    comments specifically directed toward the IRFA, which are discussed
    below. This Final Regulatory Flexibility Analysis (FRFA) conforms to
    the RFA.[^450]

```{=html}
<!-- -->
```
A.  **Need for, and Objectives of, the Rules**

```{=html}
<!-- -->
```
2.  Section 251(b) of the Communications Act requires local exchange
    carriers to provide number portability, to the extent technically
    feasible, in accordance with the requirements prescribed by the
    Commission.[^451] In the *Intermodal Number Portability Order*, the
    Commission found that porting from a wireline carrier to a wireless
    carrier is required where the requesting wireless carrier's coverage
    area overlaps the geographic location in which the customer's
    wireline number is provisioned, provided that the porting-in carrier
    maintains the number's original rate center designation following
    the port.[^452] The United States Court of Appeals for the District
    of Columbia remanded the *Intermodal Number Portability Order* to
    the Commission to prepare the required FRFA on the impact of the
    order on carriers that qualify as small entities under the
    RFA.[^453] After considering information received from commenters in
    response to the IRFA, we conclude that wireline carriers qualifying
    as small entities under the RFA will be required to provide
    wireline-to-wireless intermodal porting where the requesting
    wireless carrier's coverage area overlaps the geographic location in
    which the customer's wireline number is provisioned, provided that
    the porting-in carrier maintains the number's original rate center
    designation following the port.

```{=html}
<!-- -->
```
B.  **Summary of Significant Issues Raised by Public Comments in
    Response to the IRFA**

```{=html}
<!-- -->
```
3.  In this section, we respond to comments filed in response to the
    IRFA.[^454] To the extent the Commission received comments raising
    general small business concerns during this proceeding, those
    comments are discussed throughout the *Intermodal Number Portability
    Order*.

4.  As an initial matter, we reject arguments that carriers that qualify
    as "small entities" should not have to comply with the intermodal
    porting requirements until the Commission addresses issues
    pertaining to rating and routing that are pending in the
    intercarrier compensation proceeding.[^455] The issues that have
    been raised in this proceeding with respect to transporting calls to
    ported numbers are also before the Commission in the context of all
    numbers (without distinguishing between ported or non-ported
    numbers) in the intercarrier compensation proceeding.[^456] Further,
    as the Commission found in the *Intermodal Number Portability
    Order*, the issue of transport costs associated with calls to ported
    numbers is outside the scope of this proceeding and not relevant to
    the application of the LNP obligations under the Act.[^457]

5.  We also reject recommendations that the Commission create a partial
    or blanket exemption for small carriers from the
    wireline-to-wireless intermodal porting requirements based on the
    high costs of implementation.[^458] We find that small carriers have
    not demonstrated such significant costs associated with
    implementation of LNP to warrant an exemption. Several small
    carriers claim that they may face a variety of costs associated with
    wireline-to-wireless intermodal porting, which would be excessive in
    light of their small customer bases.[^459] However, other commenters
    point out that the cost information these carriers present shows a
    large range of cost estimates, and in fact, even when the estimates
    are taken at face value, they indicate that the cost of
    wireline-to-wireless intermodal LNP does not impose a significant
    economic burden on small entities.[^460] In addition, we are not
    persuaded based on this record that the costs of implementing LNP
    are as large as the commenters suggest, given the scant support they
    provide for their estimates and their failure to demonstrate that
    all the estimated costs are of the sort that the Commission would
    allow to be attributed to the LNP end-user charge. For example, some
    commenters cite their estimated costs associated with transporting
    calls to ported numbers.[^461] However, as discussed above, the
    Commission previously declined to consider these as LNP-related
    costs, rather than costs of interconnection more generally, and the
    commenters here do not demonstrate that the Commission should
    reverse that conclusion.[^462]

6.  Further, in response to small carrier concerns about LNP
    implementation costs, we note that wireline carriers generally only
    are required to provide LNP upon receipt of a specific request for
    the provision of LNP by another carrier.[^463] Thus, many of the
    small carriers may not be required to implement LNP immediately
    because there is no request to do so. Indeed, as the Commission
    found in the *First Number Portability Order on Reconsideration*,
    these rights effectively constitute steps that minimize the economic
    impact of LNP on small entities.[^464] Further, carriers have the
    ability to petition the Commission for a waiver of their obligation
    to port numbers to wireless carriers if they can provide
    substantial, credible evidence that there are special circumstances
    that warrant a departure from existing rules.[^465] In addition,
    under section 251(f)(2), a LEC with fewer than two percent of the
    nation's subscriber lines installed in the aggregate nationwide may
    petition the appropriate state commission for suspension or
    modification of the requirements of section 251(b).[^466] We find
    these existing safeguards further address commenters' concerns
    regarding the costs on small entities to implement LNP.

```{=html}
<!-- -->
```
C.  **Description and Estimate of the Number of Small Entities to Which
    the Rules Will Apply**

```{=html}
<!-- -->
```
7.  The RFA directs agencies to provide a description of and, where
    feasible, an estimate of the number of small entities that may be
    affected by the rules adopted.[^467] The RFA generally defines the
    term "small entity" as having the same meaning as the terms "small
    business," "small organization," and "small governmental
    jurisdiction."[^468] In addition, the term "small business" has the
    same meaning as the term "small business concern" under Section 3 of
    the Small Business Act.[^469] 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) satisfies any additional criteria established by the Small
    Business Administration (SBA).[^470]

8.  *Wired Telecommunications Carriers.* The SBA has developed a small
    business size standard for wireline firms within the broad economic
    census category, "Wired Telecommunications Carriers."[^471] Under
    this category, the SBA deems a wireline business to be small if it
    has 1,500 or fewer employees. Census Bureau data for 2002 show that
    there were 2,432 firms in this category that operated for the entire
    year.[^472] Of this total, 2,395 firms had employment of 999 or
    fewer employees, and 37 firms had employment of 1,000 employees or
    more.[^473] Thus, under this category and associated small business
    size standard, the majority of firms can be considered small.

9.  *Incumbent Local Exchange Carriers.* We have included small
    incumbent local exchange carriers (LECs) in this RFA analysis.
    Neither the Commission nor the SBA has developed a small business
    size standard specifically for incumbent local exchange services.
    The appropriate size standard under SBA rules is for the category of
    Wired Telecommunications Carriers. 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."[^474] 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.[^475] We have therefore included small
    incumbent LECs in this RFA analysis, although we emphasize that this
    RFA action has no effect on the Commission's analyses and
    determinations in other, non-RFA contexts. According to Commission
    data,[^476] 1,307 carriers have reported that they are engaged in
    the provision of incumbent local exchange services. Of these 1,307
    carriers, an estimated 1,019 have 1,500 or fewer employees and 288
    have more than 1,500 employees. Consequently, the Commission
    estimates that most providers of incumbent local exchange service
    are small entities.

10. *Competitive Local Exchange Carriers, Competitive Access Providers
    (CAPs), "Shared-Tenant Service Providers," and "Other Local Service
    Providers."* Neither the Commission nor the SBA has developed a
    small business size standard specifically for these service
    providers. The appropriate size standard under SBA rules is for the
    category Wired Telecommunications Carriers. Under that size
    standard, such a business is small if it has 1,500 or fewer
    employees.[^477] According to Commission data,[^478] 859 carriers
    have reported that they are engaged in the provision of either
    competitive access provider services or competitive LEC services. Of
    these 859 carriers, an estimated 741 have 1,500 or fewer employees
    and 118 have more than 1,500 employees. In addition, 16 carriers
    have reported that they are "Shared-Tenant Service Providers," and
    all 16 are estimated to have 1,500 or fewer employees. In addition,
    44 carriers have reported that they are "Other Local Service
    Providers." Of the 44, an estimated 43 have 1,500 or fewer employees
    and one has more than 1,500 employees. Consequently, the Commission
    estimates that most providers of competitive local exchange service,
    competitive access providers, "Shared-Tenant Service Providers," and
    "Other Local Service Providers" are small entities.

```{=html}
<!-- -->
```
D.  **Description of Projected Reporting, Recordkeeping, and Other
    Compliance Requirements for Small Entities.**

```{=html}
<!-- -->
```
11. There are no significant reporting, recordkeeping or other
    compliance requirements imposed on small entities by the *Intermodal
    Number Portability Order*.

```{=html}
<!-- -->
```
E.  **Steps Taken to Minimize Significant Economic Impact on Small
    Entities, and Significant Alternatives Considered**

```{=html}
<!-- -->
```
12. The RFA requires an agency to describe any significant alternatives
    that it has considered in reaching its approach, which may include
    the following four alternatives (among others): (1) the
    establishment of differing compliance or reporting requirements or
    timetables that take into account the resources available to small
    entities; (2) the clarification, consolidation, or simplification of
    compliance or reporting requirements under the rule for small
    entities; (3) the use of performance, rather than design, standards;
    and (4) an exemption from coverage of the rule, or any part thereof,
    for small entities.[^479]

13. The Commission invited comment on the intermodal porting rules with
    respect to their application to small entities in light of the RFA
    requirements. In accordance with the requirements of the RFA, we
    have considered the potential economic impact of the intermodal
    porting rules on small entities and conclude that wireline carriers
    qualifying as small entities under the RFA will be required to
    provide wireline-to-wireless intermodal porting where the requesting
    wireless carrier's coverage area overlaps the geographic location in
    which the customer's wireline number is provisioned, provided that
    the porting-in carrier maintains the number's original rate center
    designation following the port.[^480] We find that this approach
    best balances the impact of the costs that may be associated with
    the wireline-to-wireless intermodal porting rules for small carriers
    and the public interest benefits of those requirements.

14. Specifically, in the *Intermodal Number Portability Order*, the
    Commission considered limiting the scope of intermodal porting based
    on the small carrier concern that requiring porting to a wireless
    carrier that does not have a physical point of interconnection or
    numbering resources in the rate center associated with the ported
    number would give wireless carriers an unfair competitive
    advantage.[^481] The Commission found, however, that these
    considerations did not justify denying wireline consumers the
    benefit of being able to port their numbers to wireless
    carriers.[^482] In addition, the order noted that each type of
    service offers its own advantages and disadvantage and that
    consumers would consider these attributes in determining whether or
    not to port their numbers.[^483] The order also considered the
    concern expressed by small carriers that requiring porting beyond
    wireline rate center boundaries would lead to increased transport
    costs.[^484] The Commission concluded that such concerns were
    outside the scope of the number portability proceeding and noted
    that the rating and routing issues raised by the rural wireline
    carriers were also implicated in the context of non-ported numbers
    and were before the Commission in other proceedings.[^485]

15. Further, if there is a particular case where a carrier faces
    extraordinary costs, other regulatory avenues for relief are
    available.[^486] Specifically, a carrier may petition the Commission
    for additional time or waiver of the intermodal porting requirements
    if it can provide substantial, credible evidence that there are
    special circumstances that warrant departure from existing
    rules.[^487] In addition, under section 251(f)(2), a LEC with fewer
    than two percent of the nation's subscriber lines installed in the
    aggregate nationwide may petition the appropriate state commission
    for suspension or modification of the requirements of section
    251(b).[^488] Although some commenters have complained about the
    time and expense associated with the section 251(f)(2)
    mechanism,[^489] several others have indicated that the 251(f)(2)
    mechanism has been an effective method of addressing the potential
    burdens on small carriers.[^490] Further, in response to small
    carriers' concerns about LNP implementation costs, we note that
    wireline carriers generally only are required to provide LNP upon
    receipt of a specific request for the provision of LNP by another
    carrier.[^491] Thus, many of the small carriers may not be required
    to implement LNP immediately because there is no request to do so.
    Indeed, as the Commission found in the *First Number Portability
    Order on Reconsideration*, these rights effectively constitute steps
    that minimize the economic impact of LNP on small entities.[^492] We
    find these existing safeguards further address commenters' concerns
    regarding the costs on small entities to implement LNP.

16. While we recognize that wireline carriers will still incur
    implementation and recurrent costs, we conclude that the benefits to
    the public of requiring wireline-to-wireless intermodal LNP outweigh
    the economic burden imposed on these carriers.[^493] Creating a
    partial or blanket exemption from the wireline-to-wireless
    intermodal porting requirements for small entities would harm
    consumers in small and rural areas across the country by preventing
    them from being able to port on a permanent basis. It might also
    discourage further growth of competition between wireless and
    wireline carriers in smaller markets across the country. We continue
    to believe that the intermodal LNP requirements are important for
    promoting competition between the wireless and wireline industries
    and generating innovative service offerings and lower prices for
    consumers. Wireless number porting activity since the advent of
    porting has been significant and evidence shows that the
    implementation of LNP has, in fact, yielded important benefits for
    consumers, such as improved customer retention efforts by
    carriers.[^494] By reinstating, immediately, the
    wireline-to-wireless intermodal porting requirement, this approach
    ensures that more consumers in small and rural communities will be
    able to port and experience the competitive benefits of LNP.

```{=html}
<!-- -->
```
F.  **Report to Congress**

```{=html}
<!-- -->
```
17. The Commission will send a copy of this FRFA in a report to be sent
    to Congress and the Government Accountability Office pursuant to the
    Congressional Review Act.[^495] A copy of the FRFA (or a summary
    thereof) will also be published in the Federal Register.[^496]

**APPENDIX E**

Initial Regulatory Flexibility Analysis

**WC Docket Nos. 07-243 and 07-244**

1.  As required by the Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980, as amended
    (RFA),[^497] the Commission has prepared the present Initial
    Regulatory Flexibility Analysis (IRFA) of the possible significant
    economic impact on small entities that might result from this Notice
    of Proposed Rulemaking (Notice). Written public comments are
    requested on this IRFA. Comments must be identified as responses to
    the IRFA and must be filed by the deadlines for comments on the
    Notice provided above. The Commission will send a copy of the
    Notice, including this IRFA, to the Chief Counsel for Advocacy of
    the Small Business Administration.[^498] In addition, the Notice and
    the IRFA (or summaries thereof) will be published in the Federal
    Register.[^499]

```{=html}
<!-- -->
```
A.  **Need for, and Objectives of, the Proposed Rules**

```{=html}
<!-- -->
```
2.  In this Notice, we consider whether there are additional numbering
    requirements the Commission should adopt to benefit customers of
    telecommunications and interconnected VoIP services. Specifically,
    we seek comment on whether the Commission should extend other LNP
    requirements and numbering-related rules, including compliance with
    N11 code assignments, to interconnected VoIP providers.[^500] We
    also seek comment on whether the Commission should adopt rules
    specifying the length of the porting intervals or other changes to
    the LNP validation process, or other details of the porting
    process.[^501] Among other things, we tentatively conclude that the
    Commission should adopt rules reducing the porting interval for
    wireline-to-wireline and intermodal simple port requests,
    specifically, to a 48-hour porting interval.[^502] We seek comment
    on our tentative conclusions and issues related to our tentative
    conclusions. For each of these issues, we also seek comment on the
    burdens, including those placed on small carriers, associated with
    corresponding Commission rules related to each issue.[^503]

```{=html}
<!-- -->
```
B.  **Legal Basis**

```{=html}
<!-- -->
```
3.  The legal basis for any action that may be taken pursuant to this
    Notice is contained in sections 1, 4(i), 4(j), 251 and 303(r) of the
    Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. §§ 151,
    154(i)-(j), 251, 303(r).

```{=html}
<!-- -->
```
C.  **Description and Estimate of the Number of Small Entities to Which
    the Proposed Rules May Apply**

```{=html}
<!-- -->
```
4.  The RFA directs agencies to provide a description of and, where
    feasible, an estimate of the number of small entities that may be
    affected by the proposed rules.[^504] The RFA generally defines the
    term "small entity" as having the same meaning as the terms "small
    business," "small organization," and "small governmental
    jurisdiction."[^505] In addition, the term "small business" has the
    same meaning as the term "small business concern" under the Small
    Business Act.[^506] A small business concern is one which: (1) is
    independently owned and operated; (2) is not dominant in its field
    of operation; and (3) satisfies any additional criteria established
    by the Small Business Administration (SBA).[^507]

5.  *Small Businesses*. Nationwide, there are a total of approximately
    22.4 million small businesses, according to SBA data.[^508]

6.  *Small Organizations*. Nationwide, there are approximately 1.6
    million small organizations.[^509]

7.  *Small Governmental Jurisdictions*. The term "small governmental
    jurisdiction" is defined generally as "governments of cities, towns,
    townships, villages, school districts, or special districts, with a
    population of less than fifty thousand."[^510] Census Bureau data
    for 2002 indicate that there were 87,525 local governmental
    jurisdictions in the United States.[^511] We estimate that, of this
    total, 84,377 entities were "small governmental
    jurisdictions."[^512] Thus, we estimate that most governmental
    jurisdictions are small.

### Telecommunications Service Entities

#### Wireline Carriers and Service Providers

8.  We have included small incumbent local exchange carriers (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."[^513] 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.[^514] We have therefore included small incumbent LECs in this
    RFA analysis, although we emphasize that this RFA action has no
    effect on Commission analyses and determinations in other, non-RFA
    contexts.

9.  *Incumbent LECs.* Neither the Commission nor the SBA has developed a
    small business size standard specifically for incumbent local
    exchange services. The appropriate size standard under SBA rules is
    for the category Wired Telecommunications Carriers. Under that size
    standard, such a business is small if it has 1,500 or fewer
    employees.[^515] According to Commission data,[^516] 1,303 carriers
    have reported that they are engaged in the provision of incumbent
    local exchange services. Of these 1,303 carriers, an estimated 1,020
    have 1,500 or fewer employees and 283 have more than 1,500
    employees. Consequently, the Commission estimates that most
    providers of incumbent local exchange service are small businesses
    that may be affected by our action.

10. *Competitive LECs, Competitive Access Providers (CAPs),
    "Shared-Tenant Service Providers," and "Other Local Service
    Providers."* Neither the Commission nor the SBA has developed a
    small business size standard specifically for these service
    providers. The appropriate size standard under SBA rules is for the
    category Wired Telecommunications Carriers. Under that size
    standard, such a business is small if it has 1,500 or fewer
    employees.[^517] According to Commission data,[^518] 859 carriers
    have reported that they are engaged in the provision of either
    competitive access provider services or competitive LEC services. Of
    these 859 carriers, an estimated 741 have 1,500 or fewer employees
    and 118 have more than 1,500 employees. In addition, 16 carriers
    have reported that they are "Shared-Tenant Service Providers," and
    all 16 are estimated to have 1,500 or fewer employees. In addition,
    44 carriers have reported that they are "Other Local Service
    Providers." Of the 44, an estimated 43 have 1,500 or fewer employees
    and one has more than 1,500 employees. Consequently, the Commission
    estimates that most providers of competitive local exchange service,
    competitive access providers, "Shared-Tenant Service Providers," and
    "Other Local Service Providers" are small entities.

11. *Local Resellers.* The SBA has developed a small business size
    standard for the category of Telecommunications Resellers. Under
    that size standard, such a business is small if it has 1,500 or
    fewer employees.[^519] According to Commission data,[^520] 184
    carriers have reported that they are engaged in the provision of
    local resale services. Of these, an estimated 181 have 1,500 or
    fewer employees and three have more than 1,500 employees.
    Consequently, the Commission estimates that the majority of local
    resellers are small entities that may be affected by our action.

12. *Toll Resellers.* The SBA has developed a small business size
    standard for the category of Telecommunications Resellers. Under
    that size standard, such a business is small if it has 1,500 or
    fewer employees.[^521] According to Commission data,[^522] 881
    carriers have reported that they are engaged in the provision of
    toll resale services. Of these, an estimated 853 have 1,500 or fewer
    employees and 28 have more than 1,500 employees. Consequently, the
    Commission estimates that the majority of toll resellers are small
    entities that may be affected by our action.

13. *Payphone Service Providers (PSPs)*. Neither the Commission nor the
    SBA has developed a small business size standard specifically for
    payphone services providers. The appropriate size standard under SBA
    rules is for the category Wired Telecommunications Carriers. Under
    that size standard, such a business is small if it has 1,500 or
    fewer employees.[^523] According to Commission data,[^524] 657
    carriers have reported that they are engaged in the provision of
    payphone services. Of these, an estimated 653 have 1,500 or fewer
    employees and four have more than 1,500 employees. Consequently, the
    Commission estimates that the majority of payphone service providers
    are small entities that may be affected by our action.

14. *Interexchange Carriers (IXCs).* Neither the Commission nor the SBA
    has developed a small business size standard specifically for
    providers of interexchange services. The appropriate size standard
    under SBA rules is for the category Wired Telecommunications
    Carriers. Under that size standard, such a business is small if it
    has 1,500 or fewer employees.[^525] According to Commission
    data,[^526] 330 carriers have reported that they are engaged in the
    provision of interexchange service. Of these, an estimated 309 have
    1,500 or fewer employees and 21 have more than 1,500 employees.
    Consequently, the Commission estimates that the majority of IXCs are
    small entities that may be affected by our action.

15. *Operator Service Providers (OSPs).* Neither the Commission nor the
    SBA has developed a small business size standard specifically for
    operator service providers. The appropriate size standard under SBA
    rules is for the category Wired Telecommunications Carriers. Under
    that size standard, such a business is small if it has 1,500 or
    fewer employees.[^527] According to Commission data,[^528] 23
    carriers have reported that they are engaged in the provision of
    operator services. Of these, an estimated 22 have 1,500 or fewer
    employees and one has more than 1,500 employees. Consequently, the
    Commission estimates that the majority of OSPs are small entities
    that may be affected by our action.

16. *Prepaid Calling Card Providers.* Neither the Commission nor the SBA
    has developed a small business size standard specifically for
    prepaid calling card providers. The appropriate size standard under
    SBA rules is for the category Telecommunications Resellers. Under
    that size standard, such a business is small if it has 1,500 or
    fewer employees.[^529] According to Commission data,[^530] 104
    carriers have reported that they are engaged in the provision of
    prepaid calling cards. Of these, 102 are estimated to have 1,500 or
    fewer employees and two have more than 1,500 employees.
    Consequently, the Commission estimates that all or the majority of
    prepaid calling card providers are small entities that may be
    affected by our action.

17. *800 and 800-Like Service Subscribers.*[^531] These toll-free
    services fall within the broad economic census category of
    Telecommunications Resellers. This category "comprises
    establishments engaged in purchasing access and network capacity
    from owners and operators of telecommunications networks and
    reselling wired and wireless telecommunications services (except
    satellite) to businesses and households. Establishments in this
    industry resell telecommunications; they do not operate transmission
    facilities and infrastructure."[^532] The SBA has developed a small
    business size standard for this category, which is: all such firms
    having 1,500 or fewer employees.[^533] Census Bureau data for 2002
    show that there were 1,646 firms in this category that operated for
    the entire year.[^534] Of this total, 1,642 firms had employment of
    999 or fewer employees, and four firms had employment of 1,000
    employees or more.[^535] Thus, the majority of these firms can be
    considered small. Additionally, it may be helpful to know the total
    numbers of telephone numbers assigned in these services. Commission
    data show that, as of June 2006, the total number of 800 numbers
    assigned was 7,647,941, the total number of 888 numbers assigned was
    5,318,667, the total number of 877 numbers assigned was 4,431,162,
    and the total number of 866 numbers assigned was 6,008,976.[^536]

#### International Service Providers

18. The Commission has not developed a small business size standard
    specifically for providers of international service. The appropriate
    size standards under SBA rules are for the two broad census
    categories of "Satellite Telecommunications" and "Other
    Telecommunications." Under both categories, such a business is small
    if it has \$13.5 million or less in average annual receipts.[^537]

19. The first category of Satellite Telecommunications "comprises
    establishments primarily engaged in providing point-to-point
    telecommunications services to other establishments in the
    telecommunications and broadcasting industries by forwarding and
    receiving communications signals via a system of satellites or
    reselling satellite telecommunications."[^538] For this category,
    Census Bureau data for 2002 show that there were a total of 371
    firms that operated for the entire year.[^539] Of this total, 307
    firms had annual receipts of under \$10 million, and 26 firms had
    receipts of \$10 million to \$24,999,999.[^540] Consequently, we
    estimate that the majority of Satellite Telecommunications firms are
    small entities that might be affected by our action.

20. The second category of Other Telecommunications "comprises
    establishments primarily engaged in (1) providing specialized
    telecommunications applications, such as satellite tracking,
    communications telemetry, and radar station operations; or
    (2) providing satellite terminal stations and associated facilities
    operationally connected with one or more terrestrial communications
    systems and capable of transmitting telecommunications to or
    receiving telecommunications from satellite systems."[^541] For this
    category, Census Bureau data for 2002 show that there were a total
    of 332 firms that operated for the entire year.[^542] Of this total,
    259 firms had annual receipts of under \$10 million and 15 firms had
    annual receipts of \$10 million to \$24,999,999.[^543] Consequently,
    we estimate that the majority of Other Telecommunications firms are
    small entities that might be affected by our action.

#### Wireless Telecommunications Service Providers

21. Below, for those services subject to auctions, we note that, as a
    general matter, the number of winning bidders that qualify as small
    businesses at the close of an auction does not necessarily represent
    the number of small businesses currently in service. Also, the
    Commission does not generally track subsequent business size unless,
    in the context of assignments or transfers, unjust enrichment issues
    are implicated.

22. *Wireless Service Providers.* The SBA has developed a small business
    size standard for wireless firms within the two broad economic
    census categories of "Paging"[^544] and "Cellular and Other Wireless
    Telecommunications."[^545] Under both SBA categories, a wireless
    business is small if it has 1,500 or fewer employees. For the census
    category of Paging, Census Bureau data for 2002 show that there were
    807 firms in this category that operated for the entire year.[^546]
    Of this total, 804 firms had employment of 999 or fewer employees,
    and three firms had employment of 1,000 employees or more.[^547]
    Thus, under this category and associated small business size
    standard, the majority of firms can be considered small. For the
    census category of Cellular and Other Wireless Telecommunications,
    Census Bureau data for 2002 show that there were 1,397 firms in this
    category that operated for the entire year.[^548] Of this total,
    1,378 firms had employment of 999 or fewer employees, and 19 firms
    had employment of 1,000 employees or more.[^549] Thus, under this
    second category and size standard, the majority of firms can, again,
    be considered small.

23. *Cellular Licensees.* The SBA has developed a small business size
    standard for wireless firms within the broad economic census
    category "Cellular and Other Wireless Telecommunications."[^550]
    Under this SBA category, a wireless business is small if it has
    1,500 or fewer employees. For the census category of Cellular and
    Other Wireless Telecommunications, Census Bureau data for 2002 show
    that there were 1,397 firms in this category that operated for the
    entire year.[^551] Of this total, 1,378 firms had employment of 999
    or fewer employees, and 19 firms had employment of 1,000 employees
    or more.[^552] Thus, under this category and size standard, the
    majority of firms can be considered small. Also, according to
    Commission data, 437 carriers reported that they were engaged in the
    provision of cellular service, Personal Communications Service
    (PCS), or Specialized Mobile Radio (SMR) Telephony services, which
    are placed together in the data.[^553] We have estimated that 260 of
    these are small under the SBA small business size standard.[^554]

24. *Paging.* The SBA has developed a small business size standard for
    the broad economic census category of "Paging."[^555] Under this
    category, the SBA deems a wireless business to be small if it has
    1,500 or fewer employees. Census Bureau data for 2002 show that
    there were 807 firms in this category that operated for the entire
    year.[^556] Of this total, 804 firms had employment of 999 or fewer
    employees, and three firms had employment of 1,000 employees or
    more.[^557] In addition, according to Commission data,[^558] 365
    carriers have reported that they are engaged in the provision of
    "Paging and Messaging Service." Of this total, we estimate that 360
    have 1,500 or fewer employees, and five have more than 1,500
    employees. Thus, in this category the majority of firms can be
    considered small.

25. We also note that, in the *Paging Second Report and Order*, the
    Commission adopted a size standard for "small businesses" for
    purposes of determining their eligibility for special provisions
    such as bidding credits and installment payments.[^559] In this
    context, a small business is an entity that, together with its
    affiliates and controlling principals, has average gross revenues
    not exceeding \$15 million for the preceding three years.[^560] The
    SBA has approved this definition.[^561] An auction of Metropolitan
    Economic Area (MEA) licenses commenced on February 24, 2000, and
    closed on March 2, 2000. Of the 2,499 licenses auctioned, 985 were
    sold.[^562] Fifty-seven companies claiming small business status won
    440 licenses.[^563] An auction of MEA and Economic Area (EA)
    licenses commenced on October 30, 2001, and closed on December
    5, 2001. Of the 15,514 licenses auctioned, 5,323 were sold.[^564]
    One hundred thirty-two companies claiming small business status
    purchased 3,724 licenses. A third auction, consisting of 8,874
    licenses in each of 175 EAs and 1,328 licenses in all but three of
    the 51 MEAs commenced on May 13, 2003, and closed on May 28, 2003.
    Seventy-seven bidders claiming small or very small business status
    won 2,093 licenses. [^565] We also note that, currently, there are
    approximately 74,000 Common Carrier Paging licenses.

26. *Wireless Telephony*. Wireless telephony includes cellular, personal
    communications services (PCS), and specialized mobile radio (SMR)
    telephony carriers. As noted earlier, the SBA has developed a small
    business size standard for "Cellular and Other Wireless
    Telecommunications" services.[^566] Under that SBA small business
    size standard, a business is small if it has 1,500 or fewer
    employees.[^567] According to Commission data, 432 carriers reported
    that they were engaged in the provision of wireless telephony.[^568]
    We have estimated that 221 of these are small under the SBA small
    business size standard.

27. *Broadband Personal Communications Service*. The broadband Personal
    Communications Service (PCS) spectrum is divided into six frequency
    blocks designated A through F, and the Commission has held auctions
    for each block. The Commission defined "small entity" for Blocks C
    and F as an entity that has average gross revenues of \$40 million
    or less in the three previous calendar years.[^569] 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."[^570] These standards defining "small entity" in
    the context of broadband PCS auctions have been approved by the
    SBA.[^571] No small businesses, within the SBA-approved small
    business size standards bid successfully for licenses in Blocks A
    and B. There were 90 winning bidders that qualified as small
    entities in the Block C auctions. A total of 93 small and very small
    business bidders won approximately 40 percent of the 1,479 licenses
    for Blocks D, E, and F.[^572] On March 23, 1999, the Commission
    re-auctioned 347 C, D, E, and F Block licenses. There were 48 small
    business winning bidders. On January 26, 2001, the Commission
    completed the auction of 422 C and F Broadband PCS licenses in
    Auction No. 35. Of the 35 winning bidders in this auction, 29
    qualified as "small" or "very small" businesses. Subsequent events,
    concerning Auction 35, including judicial and agency determinations,
    resulted in a total of 163 C and F Block licenses being available
    for grant.

28. *Narrowband Personal Communications Services.* The Commission held
    an auction for Narrowband PCS licenses that commenced on July 25,
    1994, and closed on July 29, 1994. A second auction commenced on
    October 26, 1994 and closed on November 8, 1994. For purposes of the
    first two Narrowband PCS auctions, "small businesses" were entities
    with average gross revenues for the prior three calendar years of
    \$40 million or less.[^573] Through these auctions, the Commission
    awarded a total of 41 licenses, 11 of which were obtained by four
    small businesses.[^574] To ensure meaningful participation by small
    business entities in future auctions, the Commission adopted a
    two-tiered small business size standard in the Narrowband PCS Second
    Report and Order.[^575] A "small business" is an entity that,
    together with affiliates and controlling interests, has average
    gross revenues for the three preceding years of not more than \$40
    million.[^576] A "very small business" is an entity that, together
    with affiliates and controlling interests, has average gross
    revenues for the three preceding years of not more than \$15
    million.[^577] The SBA has approved these small business size
    standards.[^578] A third auction commenced on October 3, 2001 and
    closed on October 16, 2001. Here, five bidders won 317 (Metropolitan
    Trading Areas and nationwide) licenses.[^579] Three of these claimed
    status as a small or very small entity and won 311 licenses.

29. *Rural Radiotelephone Service.* The Commission has not adopted a
    size standard for small businesses specific to the Rural
    Radiotelephone Service.[^580] A significant subset of the Rural
    Radiotelephone Service is the Basic Exchange Telephone Radio System
    (BETRS).[^581] The Commission uses the SBA's small business size
    standard applicable to "Cellular and Other Wireless
    Telecommunications," *i.e.*, an entity employing no more than 1,500
    persons.[^582] There are approximately 1,000 licensees in the Rural
    Radiotelephone Service, and the Commission estimates that there are
    1,000 or fewer small entity licensees in the Rural Radiotelephone
    Service that may be affected by the rules and policies adopted
    herein.

30. *Air-Ground Radiotelephone Service.* The Commission has not adopted
    a small business size standard specific to the Air-Ground
    Radiotelephone Service.[^583] We will use SBA's small business size
    standard applicable to "Cellular and Other Wireless
    Telecommunications," *i.e.*, an entity employing no more than 1,500
    persons.[^584] There are approximately 100 licensees in the
    Air-Ground Radiotelephone Service, and we estimate that almost all
    of them qualify as small under the SBA small business size standard.

31. *Offshore Radiotelephone Service.* This service operates on several
    UHF television broadcast channels that are not used for television
    broadcasting in the coastal areas of states bordering the Gulf of
    Mexico.[^585] There are presently approximately 55 licensees in this
    service. We are unable to estimate at this time the number of
    licensees that would qualify as small under the SBA's small business
    size standard for "Cellular and Other Wireless Telecommunications"
    services.[^586] Under that SBA small business size standard, a
    business is small if it has 1,500 or fewer employees.[^587]

### Cable and OVS Operators

32. *Cable Television Distribution Services.* Since 2007, these services
    have been defined within the broad economic census category of Wired
    Telecommunications Carriers; that category is defined as follows:
    "This industry comprises establishments primarily engaged in
    operating and/or providing access to transmission facilities and
    infrastructure that they own and/or lease for the transmission of
    voice, data, text, sound, and video using wired telecommunications
    networks. Transmission facilities may be based on a single
    technology or a combination of technologies."[^588] The SBA has
    developed a small business size standard for this category, which
    is: all such firms having 1,500 or fewer employees. To gauge small
    business prevalence for these cable services we must, however, use
    current census data that are based on the previous category of Cable
    and Other Program Distribution and its associated size standard;
    that size standard was: all such firms having \$13.5 million or less
    in annual receipts.[^589] According to Census Bureau data for 2002,
    there were a total of 1,191 firms in this previous category that
    operated for the entire year.[^590] Of this total, 1,087 firms had
    annual receipts of under \$10 million, and 43 firms had receipts of
    \$10 million or more but less than \$25 million.[^591] Thus, the
    majority of these firms can be considered small.

33. *Cable Companies and Systems.* The Commission has also developed its
    own small business size standards, for the purpose of cable rate
    regulation. Under the Commission's rules, a "small cable company" is
    one serving 400,000 or fewer subscribers, nationwide.[^592] Industry
    data indicate that, of 1,076 cable operators nationwide, all but
    eleven are small under this size standard.[^593] In addition, under
    the Commission's rules, a "small system" is a cable system serving
    15,000 or fewer subscribers.[^594] Industry data indicate that, of
    7,208 systems nationwide, 6,139 systems have under 10,000
    subscribers, and an additional 379 systems have 10,000-19,999
    subscribers.[^595] Thus, under this second size standard, most cable
    systems are small

34. *Cable System Operators*. The Communications Act of 1934, as
    amended, also contains a size standard for small cable system
    operators, which is "a cable operator that, directly or through an
    affiliate, serves in the aggregate fewer than 1 percent of all
    subscribers in the United States and is not affiliated with any
    entity or entities whose gross annual revenues in the aggregate
    exceed \$250,000,000."[^596] The Commission has determined that an
    operator serving fewer than 677,000 subscribers shall be deemed a
    small operator, if its annual revenues, when combined with the total
    annual revenues of all its affiliates, do not exceed \$250 million
    in the aggregate.[^597] Industry data indicate that, of 1,076 cable
    operators nationwide, all but ten are small under this size
    standard.[^598] We note that the Commission neither requests nor
    collects information on whether cable system operators are
    affiliated with entities whose gross annual revenues exceed \$250
    million,[^599] and therefore we are unable to estimate more
    accurately the number of cable system operators that would qualify
    as small under this size standard.

35. *Open Video Systems (OVS).* In 1996, Congress established the open
    video system (OVS) framework, one of four statutorily recognized
    options for the provision of video programming services by local
    exchange carriers (LECs).[^600] The OVS framework provides
    opportunities for the distribution of video programming other than
    through cable systems. Because OVS operators provide subscription
    services,[^601] OVS falls within the SBA small business size
    standard of Cable and Other Program Distribution Services, which
    consists of such entities having \$13.5 million or less in annual
    receipts.[^602] The Commission has certified 25 OVS operators, with
    some now providing service. Broadband service providers (BSPs) are
    currently the only significant holders of OVS certifications or
    local OVS franchises.[^603] As of June, 2005, BSPs served
    approximately 1.4 million subscribers, representing 1.5 percent of
    all MVPD households.[^604] Affiliates of Residential Communications
    Network, Inc. (RCN), which serves about 371,000 subscribers as of
    June, 2005, is currently the largest BSP and 14th largest
    MVPD.[^605] RCN received approval to operate OVS systems in New York
    City, Boston, Washington, D.C. and other areas. The Commission does
    not have financial information regarding the entities authorized to
    provide OVS, some of which may not yet be operational. We thus
    believe that at least some of the OVS operators may qualify as small
    entities.

### Internet Service Providers

36. *Internet Service Providers.* The SBA has developed a small business
    size standard for Internet Service Providers (ISPs). ISPs "provide
    clients access to the Internet and generally provide related
    services such as web hosting, web page designing, and hardware or
    software consulting related to Internet connectivity."[^606] Under
    the SBA size standard, such a business is small if it has average
    annual receipts of \$23 million or less.[^607] According to Census
    Bureau data for 2002, there were 2,529 firms in this category that
    operated for the entire year. [^608] Of these, 2,437 firms had
    annual receipts of under \$10 million, and an additional 47 firms
    had receipts of between \$10 million and \$24,999,999. Consequently,
    we estimate that the majority of these firms are small entities that
    may be affected by our action.

37. *All Other Information Services*. "This industry comprises
    establishments primarily engaged in providing other information
    services (except new syndicates and libraries and archives)."[^609]
    The SBA has developed a small business size standard for this
    category; that size standard is \$6.5 million or less in average
    annual receipts.[^610] According to Census Bureau data for 2002,
    there were 155 firms in this category that operated for the entire
    year.[^611] Of these, 138 had annual receipts of under \$5 million,
    and an additional four firms had receipts of between \$5 million and
    \$9,999,999. Consequently, we estimate that the majority of these
    firms are small entities that may be affected by our action.

### Equipment Manufacturers

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

39. *Radio and Television Broadcasting and Wireless Communications
    Equipment Manufacturing.* The Census Bureau defines this category as
    follows: "This industry comprises establishments primarily engaged
    in manufacturing radio and television broadcast and wireless
    communications equipment. Examples of products made by these
    establishments are: transmitting and receiving antennas, cable
    television equipment, GPS equipment, pagers, cellular phones, mobile
    communications equipment, and radio and television studio and
    broadcasting equipment."[^612] The SBA has developed a small
    business size standard for Radio and Television Broadcasting and
    Wireless Communications Equipment Manufacturing, which is: all such
    firms having 750 or fewer employees.[^613] According to Census
    Bureau data for 2002, there were a total of 1,041 establishments in
    this category that operated for the entire year.[^614] Of this
    total, 1,010 had employment of under 500, and an additional 13 had
    employment of 500 to 999.[^615] Thus, under this size standard, the
    majority of firms can be considered small.

40. *Telephone Apparatus Manufacturing.* The Census Bureau defines this
    category as follows: "This industry comprises establishments
    primarily engaged in manufacturing wire telephone and data
    communications equipment. These products may be standalone or
    board-level components of a larger system. Examples of products made
    by these establishments are central office switching equipment,
    cordless telephones (except cellular), PBX equipment, telephones,
    telephone answering machines, LAN modems, multi-user modems, and
    other data communications equipment, such as bridges, routers, and
    gateways."[^616] The SBA has developed a small business size
    standard for Telephone Apparatus Manufacturing, which is: all such
    firms having 1,000 or fewer employees.[^617] According to Census
    Bureau data for 2002, there were a total of 518 establishments in
    this category that operated for the entire year.[^618] Of this
    total, 511 had employment of under 1,000, and an additional 7 had
    employment of 1,000 to 2,499.[^619] Thus, under this size standard,
    the majority of firms can be considered small.

41. *Semiconductor and Related Device Manufacturing.* Examples of
    manufactured devices in this category include "integrated circuits,
    memory chips, microprocessors, diodes, transistors, solar cells and
    other optoelectronic devices."[^620] The SBA has developed a small
    business size standard for this category of manufacturing; that size
    standard is 500 or fewer employees.[^621] According to Census Bureau
    data, there were 1,032 establishments in this category that operated
    with payroll during 2002.[^622] Of these, 950 had employment of
    under 500, and 42 establishments had employment of 500 to 999.
    Consequently, we estimate that the majority of these establishments
    are small entities.

42. *Computer Storage Device Manufacturing.* These establishments
    manufacture "computer storage devices that allow the storage and
    retrieval of data from a phase change, magnetic, optical, or
    magnetic/optical media."[^623] The SBA has developed a small
    business size standard for this category of manufacturing; that size
    standard is 1,000 or fewer employees.[^624] According to Census
    Bureau data, there were 170 establishments in this category that
    operated with payroll during 2002.[^625] Of these, 164 had
    employment of under 500, and five establishments had employment of
    500 to 999. Consequently, we estimate that the majority of these
    establishments are small entities.

```{=html}
<!-- -->
```
D.  **Description of Projected Reporting, Recordkeeping and Other
    Compliance Requirements**

```{=html}
<!-- -->
```
43. Should the Commission decide to adopt any further numbering
    requirements to benefit customers of telecommunications and
    interconnected VoIP service, the associated rules potentially could
    modify the reporting and recordkeeping requirements of certain
    telecommunications providers and interconnected VoIP service
    providers. For example, the Commission seeks comment on whether it
    should require interconnected VoIP providers to comply with N11 code
    assignments.[^626] Additionally, the Commission seeks comment on
    whether the Commission should adopt a requirement that carriers
    identify all errors possible in a given LSR and describe the basis
    for rejection when rejecting a port request.[^627] The Commission
    also tentatively concludes that it should adopt rules reducing the
    porting interval for wireline-to-wireline and intermodal simple port
    requests, specifically to a 48-hour porting interval, and seeks
    comment on whether the Commission should establish time limits on
    the porting process for all types of simple port requests or just
    certain types of ports.[^628] Further, the Commission seeks comment
    on whether there are any technical impediments or advances that
    affect the overall length of the porting interval such that it
    should adopt different porting intervals for particular types of
    simple ports.[^629] These proposals may impose additional reporting
    and recordkeeping requirements on entities. Also, we seek comment on
    whether any of these proposals place burdens on small entities, and
    whether alternatives might lessen such burdens while still achieving
    the goals of this proceeding.[^630] Entities, especially small
    businesses, are encouraged to quantify the costs and benefits or any
    reporting requirement that may be established in this proceeding.

```{=html}
<!-- -->
```
E.  **Steps Taken to Minimize Significant Economic Impact on Small
    Entities, and Significant Alternatives Considered**

```{=html}
<!-- -->
```
44. The RFA requires an agency to describe any significant alternatives
    that it has considered in reaching its proposed approach, which may
    include (among others) the following four alternatives: (1) the
    establishment of differing compliance or reporting requirements or
    timetables that take into account the resources available to small
    entities; (2) the clarification, consolidation, or simplification of
    compliance or reporting requirements under the rule for small
    entities; (3) the use of performance, rather than design, standards;
    and (4) an exemption from coverage of the rule, or any part thereof,
    for small entities.[^631]

45. The Commission's primary objective is to ensure that that consumers
    benefit from LNP. We seek comment on the burdens, including those
    placed on small carriers, associated with related Commission rules
    and whether the Commission should adopt different requirements for
    small businesses. Specifically, we seek comment on the benefits and
    burdens, including the burdens on small entities, of requiring
    interconnected VoIP providers to comply with N11 code assignments
    and other numbering requirements.[^632] We also seek comment on the
    benefits and burdens, including the burdens on small entities, of
    the specific requirements on the validation process proposed in the
    Notice and any other such requirements.[^633] Further, the
    Commission seeks comment on the benefits and burdens, including the
    burdens on small entities, of adopting rules regarding porting
    intervals for all types of simple port requests.[^634]

```{=html}
<!-- -->
```
F.  **Federal Rules that May Duplicate, Overlap, or Conflict with the
    Proposed Rules**

```{=html}
<!-- -->
```
46. None.

**STATEMENT OF**

**CHAIRMAN KEVIN J. MARTIN**

*Re: Telephone Number Requirements for IP-Enabled Services Providers;
Local Number Portability Porting Interval and Validation Requirements;
IP-Enabled Services; Telephone Number Portability; CTIA Petitions for
Declaratory Ruling on Wireline-Wireless Porting Issues; Numbering
Resource Optimization, WC Docket Nos. 07-243, 07-244, 04-36, CC Docket
Nos. 95-116, 99-200*

I am pleased the Commission today adopts this item addressing local
number portability because it provides important consumer benefits by
promoting competition for consumer telephone services. I have
consistently supported local number portability because it allows
consumers to choose a cheaper or more innovative service. I have also
consistently maintained that establishing a level playing field promotes
competition. As interconnected VoIP providers have increasingly entered
the market, it is important that consumers be able to transfer their
number to and from these providers just like transfers between carriers.
I also support the actions to streamline the process and time required
to switch from wireline to wireless service in order to provide
consumers the ability to change providers without undue burden or delay.

**STATEMENT OF**

**COMMISSIONER MICHAEL J. COPPS**

 

Re:       *IP-Enabled Services*, WC Docket No. 04-36; *Telephone Number
Portability, CC Docket No. 95-116*; *CTIA Petitions for Declaratory
Ruling on Wireline-Wireless Porting Issues, Final Regulatory Flexibility
Analysis, Numbering Resource Optimization*, CC Docket No. 99-200;
*Telephone Number Requirements for IP-Enabled Services Providers*, WC
Docket No. 07-243; *Local Number Portability Porting Interval and
Validation Requirements*, WC Docket No. 07-244, Report and Order,
Declaratory Ruling, Order on Remand, and Notice of Proposed Rulemaking

 

In the 1996 Telecommunications Act, Congress imposed a number
portability obligation on providers so consumers could retain their
phone numbers when switching carriers.  This was both consumer-friendly
and competition-friendly.  Local number portability is a real success
story.  Today's item works to ensure that consumers continue to benefit
from local number portability when it comes to interconnected VoIP
services.  I am pleased to support it.

 

Today's Order also streamlines the port validation process by requiring
providers to validate a consumer's porting request based upon no more
than four specified criteria.  By providing clarity to carriers in this
regard, consumers will benefit from more timely and efficient processing
of their requests.  I want to thank Chairman Martin and my colleagues
for supporting my proposal to address this issue here rather than making
consumers wait any longer for its resolution.  I also support the few
remaining questions the Commission poses regarding the obligations of
interconnected VoIP providers and the timing interval expected for
intermodal porting requests.  I am pleased that the Order includes my
suggestion that when determining the appropriate porting interval we
should take into account the evolving nature of technologies and
business practices with the goal of reducing porting times to the
shortest reasonable time-period.  I am optimistic that we will be able
to complete this proceeding rapidly if all interested parties work
together. 

 

A lesson to be learned from the success of local number portability is
that the Commission should be seeking out additional ways to break down
barriers that impede consumers from taking advantage of competition,
such as wireless and broadband early termination fees and the locking of
phone features. The more we do on such initiatives, the better it will
be for consumers and competition. That's a win-win in my book.

 

**STATEMENT OF**

# COMMISSIONER JONATHAN S. ADELSTEIN {#commissioner-jonathan-s.-adelstein .unnumbered}

**Approving in part, concurring in part**

Re: IP-Enabled Services; Telephone Number Portability; CTIA Petitions
for Declaratory Ruling on Wireline-Wireless Porting Issues; Final
Regulatory Flexibility Analysis; Numbering Resources Optimization;
Telephone Number Requirements for IP-Enabled Service Providers; Local
Number Portability Porting Interval and Validation Requirements; WC
Docket No. 04-36, CC Docket Nos. 95-116 and 99-200, WC Docket Nos.
07-243 and 07-244; Report and Order, Declaratory Ruling, Order on
Remand, and Notice of Proposed Rulemaking.

Through this Order we expand the availability of local number
portability, which has provided important benefits to consumers through
the ability to take their number with them when they change providers.
Congress viewed the ability of consumers to keep their phone numbers to
be an important component of the effort to develop local phone
competition and consumer choice, and our experiences of the past four
years have borne out this prediction.

I'm pleased that this Order extends number portability to interconnected
voice over Internet Protocol (VoIP) providers. To their credit, many
interconnected VoIP providers have acknowledged the need to offer number
portability to their customers. I fully agree with the Order's
conclusion that consumers reasonably expect that they will have the
ability to take their number with them when they switch to another
provider, whether they subscribe to an interconnected VoIP provider or
another provider of telecommunications services. So, I support the
decision to apply these requirements evenly.

I also appreciate the Order's efforts to address the process for
completing requested ports. Given the Order's findings that many ports
are delayed due to difficulties with "burdensome porting-related
procedures," the Commission should take steps to improve this process,
not only for providers but also for consumers. In this respect, I am
particularly hopefully that we can work to reduce the porting interval
for simple porting requests, so that consumers are left on hold no
longer than necessary.

This Order also responds to a 2005 remand from the U.S. Court of Appeals
for the District of Columbia Circuit by re-imposing number portability
requirements on small carriers. The Commission's prior decision to
extend these requirements to small carriers was stayed because the
Commission failed to comply with the Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA).
While this Order checks a box by completing the final analysis required
by the RFA, we miss an opportunity here to address the some of the
critical and expensive underlying issues -- such as the transport costs
associated with calls to ported numbers -- that are exacerbated by our
porting requirements.

Four years ago, when these portability requirements were first imposed,
I called on the Commission to resolve this critical intercarrier
compensation issue as quickly and comprehensively as possible, so I'm
disappointed that we've made no more progress since then, and fail to do
so here. Although this Commission could do more to recognize and address
the unique needs of small providers, I am pleased that small providers
will have the ability to raise these issues before state commissions
through the process set out by Congress in Section 251(f)(2) and I will
concur to this portion of the Order.

**STATEMENT OF**

**COMMISSIONER DEBORAH TAYLOR TATE**

*Re: IP-Enabled Services; Telephone Number Portability; CTIA Petitions
for Declaratory Ruling on Wireline-Wireless Porting Issues; Final
Regulatory Flexibility Analysis; Numbering Resource Optimization;
Telephone Number Requirements for IP-Enabled Services Providers;*

*Local Number Portability Porting Interval and Validation Requirements,
WC Docket No. 04-36, CC Docket No. 95-116; CC Docket No. 99-200; WC
Docket No. 07-243; WC Docket No. 07-244, Report And Order, Declaratory
Ruling, Order On Remand, And Notice Of Proposed Rulemaking.*

As both Congress and this Commission have recognized, the ability of a
customer to retain his or her local telephone number when switching
providers is a critical component for competition in the local exchange
market. Local number portability promotes competition between providers
of local telephone services by eliminating a major disincentive to
switch carriers. Specifically, the ability of end users to retain their
telephone numbers when changing service providers gives customers
flexibility in the quality, price, and variety of services they can
choose to purchase. Local number portability also helps ensure efficient
use and uniform administration of numbering resources. In this order we
take several steps to ensure that consumers continue to enjoy the
benefits of local competition. We extend the benefits of number
portability to VoIP customers by requiring VoIP providers to ensure that
customers have the ability to port their telephone numbers when changing
service providers to or from a VoIP provider. Additionally, we extend to
interconnected VoIP providers the obligation to contribute to shared
numbering administration costs, ensuring regulatory parity among
providers of similar services.

We also take important steps to facilitate existing number portability
so customers more fully benefit from these requirements. We clarify that
no carriers may obstruct or delay the porting process by demanding more
information than is necessary to validate a customer's request to keep
their telephone number when changing carriers and streamline the porting
process and time interval.

**STATEMENT OF**

**COMMISSIONER ROBERT M. McDOWELL**

*Re*: Telephone Number Requirements for IP-Enabled Services Providers,
Local Number Portability Porting Interval and Validation Requirements,
IP-Enabled Services, Telephone Number Portability, CTIA Petitions for
Declaratory Ruling on Wireline-Wireless Porting Issues, Final Regulatory
Flexibility Analysis, Numbering Resource Optimization, *Report and
Order, Declaratory Ruling, Order on Remand, and Notice of Proposed
Rulemaking*, WC Docket No. 07-243, WC Docket No. 07-244 WC Docket No.
04-36, CC Docket No. 95-116, CC Docket No. 99-200

The steps we are taking today promote consumer freedom in the voice and
information service markets by allowing customers to port their
telephone number to and from Voice over Internet Protocol (VoIP)
services across all platforms. In this world of converging
telecommunications technologies, it is vital that the Commission ensure
that our regulations do not favor one type of service provider over
another and that consumers are empowered to choose among all the
services these new technologies offer. By extending local numbering
portability requirements to VoIP providers, we now give consumers the
ability to keep their telephone numbers when they decide to switch to or
from wireline, wireless or VoIP services. Furthermore, the obligation to
port numbers quickly and efficiently will further benefit consumers when
they switch providers and give regulatory certainty to market players.

Our action today also fosters regulatory parity. Because VoIP services
are increasingly becoming a substitute for traditional telephone service
in the marketplace, it is critical that we extend local number
portability obligations to those service providers. Just as we have
previously required interconnected VoIP providers to comply with
obligations for E911, universal service, customer proprietary network
information protections and disability access, extending our local
number portability requirements levels out the regulatory landscape even
further.

However, in an effort to refine our overall numbering obligations, we
seek comment on a number of specific issues affecting the extent of
obligations and elements of the porting process. I will be particularly
interested to review the comments regarding the validation of port
requests and porting intervals.

[^1]: 47 U.S.C. § 251(b)(2); 47 C.F.R. §§ 52.20 *et seq.* The NANP is
    the basic numbering scheme that permits interoperable
    telecommunications service within the United States, Canada,
    Bermuda, and most of the Caribbean. *See Administration of the North
    American Numbering Plan*, CC Docket No. 92-237, Report and Order, 11
    FCC Rcd 2588, 2590, para. 3 (1995) (*NANP Order*).

[^2]: Petition for Declaratory Rulemaking filed by T-Mobile USA, Inc.
    and Sprint Nextel Corporation, CC Docket No. 95-116 (filed Dec. 20,
    2006) (T-Mobile/Sprint Nextel Petition).

[^3]: *See Telephone Number Portability; CTIA Petitions for Declaratory
    Ruling on Wireline-Wireless Porting Issues*, CC Docket No. 96-116,
    Memorandum Opinion and Order and Further Notice of Proposed
    Rulemaking, 18 FCC Rcd 23697 (2003) (*Intermodal Number Portability
    Order* or *Intermodal Number Portability FNPRM*).

[^4]: *United States Telecom Ass'n v. FCC*, 400 F.3d 29, 43 (D.C. Cir.
    2005); *see* 5 U.S.C. §§ 601 *et seq.* (Regulatory Flexibility Act).

[^5]: 47 U.S.C. § 251(e).

[^6]: 47 U.S.C. § 251(e)(2).

[^7]: 47 U.S.C. § 251(b)(2).

[^8]: 47 U.S.C. § 153(30); 47 C.F.R. § 52.21(l). The Commission has
    interpreted this language to mean that consumers must be able to
    change carriers while keeping their telephone number as easily as
    they may change carriers without taking their telephone number with
    them. *See Telephone Number Portability; Carrier Requests for
    Clarification of Wireless-Wireless Porting Issues*, CC Docket No.
    95-116, Memorandum Opinion and Order, 18 FCC Rcd 20971, 20975, para.
    11 (2003) (*Wireless Number Portability Order*), *aff'd*, *Cent.
    Tex. Tel. Coop. v. FCC*, 402 F.3d 205 (D.C. Cir. 2005).

[^9]: *See Telephone Number Portability*, CC Docket No. 95-116, First
    Report and Order and Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, 11 FCC
    Rcd 8352, 8393, para. 77 (1996) (*First Number Portability Order*);
    *see also Telephone Number Portability*, CC Docket No. 95-116, First
    Memorandum Opinion and Order on Reconsideration, 12 FCC Rcd 7236,
    7272, para. 59 (1997) (*First Number Portability Order on
    Reconsideration*) (concluding that LECs and covered CMRS providers
    were required only to deploy LNP to switches for which another
    carrier has made a specific request for the provision of LNP).
    "Service provider portability" is synonymous with the definition in
    section 3(30) of the Act for number portability, that is "the
    ability of users of telecommunications services to retain, at the
    same location, existing telecommunications numbers without
    impairment of quality, reliability, or convenience when switching
    from one telecommunications carrier to another." *First Number
    Portability Order*, 11 FCC Rcd at 8366-67, para. 27 (citing 47
    U.S.C. § 153(30)). The Commission also defined two other forms of
    portability in the *First Number Portability Order*: (1) service
    portability; and (2) location portability. *See id.* at 8443-44,
    paras. 173-74. "Service portability" is the switching of telephone
    numbers because a particular service may be only available through a
    particular switch. *See id.* at 8443, para. 173. "Location
    portability" is "the ability of users of telecommunications services
    to retain existing telecommunications numbers . . . when moving from
    one physical location to another." *Id.* at 8443, para. 174. The
    Commission determined that it was not in the public interest at that
    time to require LECs to offer service or location portability. *See
    id.* at 8447-49, paras. 181-87.

[^10]: *See First Number Portability Order*, 11 FCC Rcd at 8368, para.
    30.

[^11]: *See id.* at 8401, 8431, 8433, 8440, paras. 93, 152, 155, 166.
    Although the Act excludes CMRS providers from the statutory
    definition of "local exchange carrier," the Commission extended the
    LNP obligations to CMRS providers under its independent authority in
    sections 1, 2, 4(i) and 332 of the Act. *See id.* at 8431, para.
    153. The Commission found that sections 2 and 332(c)(1) of the Act
    allow the Commission to regulate CMRS providers as common carriers.
    Further, section 1 of the Act requires the Commission to "make
    available . . . to all people of the United States . . . a rapid,
    efficient, Nation-wide, and world-wide wire and radio communication
    service," and thus the Commission has an interest in a uniform
    number portability framework. *See id.* Additionally, section 4(i)
    of the Act grants the Commission authority to "perform any and all
    acts, make such rules and regulations, and issue such orders, not
    inconsistent with \[the Act\] as may be necessary in the execution
    of its functions." *Id.* Thus, the Commission concluded that
    requiring covered CMRS providers to adhere to LNP obligations was in
    the public interest because it promoted competition between
    providers of local telephone services, and thereby promoted
    competition between providers of interstate access services. *See
    id.* at 8432, 8434-37, paras. 153, 157-60.

[^12]: *See Telephone Number Portability*, CC Docket No. 95-116,
    RM-8535, Second Report and Order, 12 FCC Rcd 12281 (1997) (*Second
    Number Portability Order*).

[^13]: *See Second Number Portability Order*, 12 FCC Rcd at 12283, para.
    3; North American Numbering Council Local Number Portability
    Selection Working Group Final Report and Recommendation to the FCC,
    App. D at 6 (rel. Apr. 25, 1997). A "rate center" is a geographic
    area that is used to determine whether a call is local or toll. *See
    FCC Clears Way for Local Number Portability Between Wireline and
    Wireless Carriers*, CC Docket No. 95-116, News Release (rel. Nov.
    10, 2003).

[^14]: *See Wireless Number Portability Order*, 18 FCC Rcd at 20976,
    para. 15.

[^15]: *See id*. at 20978, para. 24.

[^16]: *See id.* at 20978, para. 22. The Commission declined to address
    rating and routing issues raised by rural wireless carriers, finding
    that they were outside the scope of the order because the
    requirements of the Commission's wireless LNP rules on wireless
    carriers do not vary depending on how calls to the number will be
    rated and routed after the port occurs. *See id.* at 20978, para.
    23.

[^17]: *See Intermodal Number Portability Order*, 18 FCC Rcd at 23706,
    para. 22, *remanded*, *U.S. Telecom Ass'n v. FCC*, 400 F.3d 29 (D.C.
    Cir. 2005) (finding that the *Intermodal Number Portability Order*
    was a legislative rule, remanding the order to prepare a FRFA, and
    staying future enforcement of the order against small entities until
    the Commission published a FRFA). On April 22, 2005, the Commission
    issued a Public Notice seeking comment on an IRFA of the *Intermodal
    Number Portability Order*. *See* *Federal Communications Commission
    Seeks Comment on Initial Regulatory Flexibility Analysis in
    Telephone Number Portability Proceeding*, CC Docket No. 95-116,
    Public Notice, 20 FCC Rcd 8616 (2005) (*IRFA Public Notice*); 70
    Fed. Reg. 41655 (July 20, 2005). In the *IRFA Public Notice*, the
    Commission described and sought comment on the potential compliance
    burdens associated with the wireline-to-wireless intermodal LNP
    rules and discussed the significant alternatives it had considered
    before adopting the *Intermodal Number Portability Order*. *See IRFA
    Public Notice*, 20 FCC Rcd 8616.

[^18]: *See Intermodal Number Portability Order*, 18 FCC Rcd at 23706,
    para. 22. A wireless carrier's coverage area is the "area in which
    wireless service can be received from the wireless carrier." *Id.*
    at 23698, para. 1. The Commission rejected the argument that it
    imposed a location portability duty on carriers because the number
    must retain its original rate center designation, *i.e.*, the number
    remains at the same location despite the fact that a wireless
    subscriber may travel outside a rate center and make calls without
    incurring toll charges. *See id.* at 23708-09, para. 28; *Cent. Tex.
    Tel. Coop. v. FCC*, 402 F.3d at 207. The Commission also found that
    nothing in its rules requires a wireless carrier to have a physical
    point of interconnection or numbering resources in the rate center
    where the number is assigned. *See Intermodal Number Portability
    Order*, 18 FCC Rcd at 23698, para. 1.

[^19]: *See Intermodal Number Portability Order*, 18 FCC Rcd at 23706,
    para. 22.

[^20]: *Id.* at 23711-12, paras. 34-37. The Commission also sought
    comment on how to facilitate wireless-to-wireline porting where
    there is a mismatch between the rate center associated with the
    wireless number and the rate center in which the wireline carrier
    seeks to serve the customer. *Id.* at 23714, para. 42.

[^21]: *See U.S. Telecom Ass'n v. FCC*, 400 F.3d at 43.

[^22]: *See Telephone Number Portability Order*, CC Docket No. 95-116,
    Third Report and Order, 13 FCC Rcd 11701, 11706, para. 8 (1998)
    (*Cost Recovery Order*), *aff'd*, *Telephone Number Portability*, CC
    Docket No. 95-116, Memorandum Opinion and Order on Reconsideration
    and Order on Application for Review, 17 FCC Rcd 2578 (2002) (*Cost
    Recovery Reconsideration Order*). The Commission divided the costs
    produced by number portability into three categories: (1) shared
    costs; (2) carrier-specific costs directly related to providing
    number portability; and (3) carrier-specific costs not directly
    related to providing number portability. *See Cost Recovery Order*,
    13 FCC Rcd at 11738-41, paras. 68-77. Carriers are permitted to
    recover costs for shared costs and carrier-specific costs directly
    related to providing number portability through federal LNP charges,
    but are not so permitted to recover carrier-specific costs not
    directly related to providing number portability. *See Cost Recovery
    Order*, 13 FCC Rcd at 11740, para. 74; *see also Telephone Number
    Portability Cost Classification Proceeding*, CC Docket No. 95-116,
    RM 8535, 13 FCC Rcd 24495, 24499, para. 6 (WCB 1998) (stating that
    the *Cost Recovery Order* expressly specified that some of the costs
    LECs incur as a consequence of number portability are not "eligible"
    for recovery through the federal LNP charges established in that
    order, as the ordinary cost recovery mechanisms already generally
    provide LECs with the opportunity to recover costs incurred in
    modernizing their networks to keep pace with technological and
    market developments).

[^23]: *See Cost Recovery Order*, 13 FCC Rcd at 11723-24, para. 36.

[^24]: 47 C.F.R § 52.32. The Commission applied its two-part competitive
    neutrality test to determine that shared costs should be spread
    among the carriers based on each carrier's intrastate, interstate,
    and international end-user telecommunications revenues for the
    different regional database regions. *See Cost Recovery Order*, 13
    FCC Rcd at 11745-46, 11754-57, 11759, 11761, 11763, paras. 87-92,
    105-10, 113-14, 116-17, 119. The Commission adopted its competitive
    neutrality test in the *First Number Portability Order*, determining
    that the way the carriers bear the costs of number portability:
    (1) must not give one service provider an appreciable, incremental
    cost advantage over another service provider when competing for a
    specific subscriber; and (2) must not disparately affect the ability
    of competing service providers to earn a normal return. *See First
    Number Portability Order*, 11 FCC Rcd at 8419-21, paras. 131-35.

[^25]: *See Cost Recovery Reconsideration Order*, 17 FCC Rcd at 2597-98,
    paras. 37-38.

[^26]: *See Cost Recovery Order*, 13 FCC Rcd at 11725-26, 11773-80,
    paras. 39, 135-49; 47 C.F.R. § 52.33.

[^27]: *See Administration of the North American Numbering Plan*, CC
    Docket No. 92-237, Report and Order, 11 FCC Rcd 2588, 2627-28, para.
    94 (1995) (*NANP Order*); *see also Numbering Resource
    Optimization*, CC Docket No. 99‑200, Report and Order and Further
    Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, 15 FCC Rcd 7574, 7662, para. 192
    (2000) (finding that thousands-block number pooling is a numbering
    administration function that is subject to the Commission's
    authority under section 251(e)(2)) (*First Numbering Order*).

[^28]: *See NANP Order*, 11 FCC Rcd at 2628, para. 95.

[^29]: *See 1998 Biennial Regulatory Review -- Streamlined Contributor
    Reporting Requirements Associated with Administration of
    Telecommunications Relay Services, North American Numbering Plan,
    Local Number Portability, and Universal Service Support Mechanisms*,
    CC Docket No. 98-171, Report and Order, 14 FCC Rcd 16602, 16630‑31,
    paras. 59, 61 (1999).

[^30]: *See First Numbering Order*, 15 FCC Rcd at 7665-70, paras.
    201-11; *Numbering Resource Optimization; Implementation of the
    Local Competition Provisions of the Telecommunications Act of 1996;
    Telephone Number Portability*, CC Docket Nos. 99-200, 96-98, 95-116,
    Third Report and Order and Second Order on Reconsideration, CC
    Docket Nos. 96-98 and 99-200, 17 FCC Rcd 252, 264-65, 268, paras.
    24-25, 32 (2001) (*Third Numbering Order*). The Commission found
    that carrier-specific costs not directly related to thousands-block
    pooling implementation, the third category of costs, are not subject
    to the competitive neutrality requirements in section 251(e)(2). As
    such, carriers are not allowed to recover carrier-specific costs not
    directly related to thousands-block number pooling implementation
    and administration through the cost recovery mechanism established
    by the Commission. *See First Numbering Order*, 15 FCC Rcd at 7670,
    para. 211.

[^31]: *See* 47 C.F.R. § 9.3 (defining "interconnected VoIP service" as
    "a service that: (1) enables real-time, two-way voice
    communications; (2) requires a broadband connection from the user's
    location; (3) requires Internet protocol-compatible customer
    premises equipment (CPE); and (4) permits users generally to receive
    calls that originate on the public switched telephone network and to
    terminate calls to the public switched telephone network"); *see
    also* *IP-Enabled Services; E911 Requirements for IP-Enabled Service
    Providers*, WC Docket Nos. 04-36, 05-196, First Report and Order and
    Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, 20 FCC Rcd 10245, 10257-58, para. 24
    (2005) (*VoIP 911 Order*), *aff'd*, *Nuvio Corp. v. FCC*, 473 F.3d
    302 (D.C. Cir. 2006); 47 C.F.R. § 54.5 (defining "interconnected
    VoIP provider").

[^32]: *See,* *e.g.*, Comcast Comments, WC Docket No. 04-36, at 7; SBC
    Comments, WC Docket No. 04-36, at 84.

[^33]: *See* 47 C.F.R. § 52.15(g)(2)(i); *see also* *Numbering Resource
    Optimization*, CC Docket No. 99-200, Report and Order and Further
    Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, 15 FCC Rcd 7574, 7615, para. 97
    (2000) (*NRO First Report and Order*) (requiring carriers seeking
    direct access to numbering resources to provide evidence that they
    are authorized to provide service, such as by submitting a state
    certification as a carrier).

[^34]: *See, e.g.*, Marvin Nicholson Comments, WC Docket No. 04-36, at
    1; Minnesota Commission Comments, WC Docket No. 04-36, at 3; Brief
    Comment of Syed Faisal Afzaal, WC Docket No. 04-36 (filed Mar. 27,
    2006); Brief Comment of Rich Robins, WC Docket No. 04-36 (filed Mar.
    14, 2006); Brief Comment of Bryan Miller, WC Docket No. 04-36 (filed
    Nov. 11, 2005); Letter from John T. Nakahata, Counsel for Level 3
    Communications, LLC, to Marlene H. Dortch, Secretary, FCC, CC Docket
    Nos. 95-116, 96-98, WC Docket No. 04-36, at 1 (filed Feb. 23, 2007)
    (Level 3 Feb. 23, 2007 *Ex Parte* Letter); *Time Warner Cable
    Request for Declaratory Ruling that Competitive Local Exchange
    Carriers May Obtain Interconnection under Section 251 of the
    Communications Act of 1934, as amended, to Provide Wholesale
    Telecommunications Services to VoIP Providers*, WC Docket No. 06-55,
    Memorandum Opinion and Order, 22 FCC Rcd 3513, 3521-22, para. 16
    (WCB 2007) (*Time Warner Cable Order*) (finding that it is
    consistent with Commission policy that when a LEC wins back a
    customer from a VoIP provider, the number should be ported to the
    LEC that wins the customer). *But see* Vonage Reply, WC Docket No.
    04-36, at 24 (disputing the Minnesota Commission's contention that
    Vonage will not port numbers out).

[^35]: *See IP-Enabled Services*, WC Docket No. 04-36, Notice of
    Proposed Rulemaking, 19 FCC Rcd 4863 (2004) (*IP‑Enabled Services
    Notice*). Comments were filed by May 28, 2004 and reply comments
    were filed by July 14, 2004. *See Pleading Cycle Established for
    Comments in IP-Enabled Services Rulemaking Proceeding*, WC Docket
    No. 04-36, Public Notice, 19 FCC Rcd 5589 (2004); *Wireline
    Competition Bureau Extends Reply Comment Deadlines for IP-Enabled
    Services Rulemaking and SBC's "IP Platform Services" Forbearance
    Petition*, WC Docket Nos. 04-29, 04-36, Public Notice, 19 FCC Rcd
    10474 (2004); *see also* Appendix A (List of Commenters).

[^36]: *IP-Enabled Services* *Notice*, 19 FCC Rcd at 4911-12, para. 73.

[^37]: *See id.* at 4914, para. 76. As the Commission observed in
    seeking comment on the numbering implications of IP‑enabled
    services, those issues had been raised and discussed before the NANC
    through industry meetings and white papers. *See id.* at 4914, para.
    76 n.226 (citing, among other things, BellSouth *et al.*, *VoIP
    Numbering Issues*,
    http://www.nanc-chair.org/docs/Nov/Nov02_VoIP_White_Paper.doc
    (visited Feb. 7, 2004) (discussing numbering issues related to VoIP,
    including LNP)).

[^38]: Additionally, on August 5, 2005, the Commission determined that
    providers of interconnected VoIP services are subject to the
    Communications Assistance for Law Enforcement Act (CALEA). *See
    Communications Assistance for Law Enforcement Act and Broadband
    Access and Services*, ET Docket No. 04-295, RM-10865, First Report
    and Order and Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, 20 FCC Rcd
    14989, 14991-92, para. 8 (2005) (*CALEA First Report and Order*),
    *aff'd*, *Am. Council on Educ. v. FCC*, 451 F.3d 226 (D.C. Cir.
    2006). Under its Title I ancillary jurisdiction, the Commission has
    also required interconnected VoIP providers to pay Fiscal Year 2007
    regulatory fees based on revenues reported on the FCC Form 499-A at
    the same rate as interstate telecommunications service providers.
    *See Assessment and Collection of Regulatory Fees for Fiscal Year
    2007*, MD Docket No. 07-81, Report and Order and Further Notice of
    Proposed Rulemaking, FCC 07-140, paras. 11-13 (rel. Aug. 6, 2007).

[^39]: *See VoIP 911 Order*, 20 FCC Rcd at 10246, para. 1.

[^40]: *See Universal Service Contribution Methodology*, WC Docket No.
    06-122; CC Docket Nos. 96-45, 98-171, 90‑571, 92-237; NSD File No.
    L-00-72; CC Docket Nos. 99-200, 95-116, 98-170; WC Docket No. 04-36,
    Report and Order and Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, 21 FCC Rcd 7518,
    7538-43, paras. 38-49 (2006) (*2006 Interim Contribution Methodology
    Order*), *aff'd in part, vacated in part*, *Vonage Holdings Corp. v.
    FCC*, 489 F.3d 1232, 1244 (D.C. Cir. 2007).

[^41]: *See Implementation of the Telecommunications Act of 1996:
    Telecommunications Carriers' Use of Customer Proprietary Network
    Information and Other Customer Information; IP-Enabled Services*, CC
    Docket No. 96-115, WC Docket No. 04-36, Report and Order and Further
    Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, 22 FCC Rcd 6927, 6954-57, paras.
    54-59 (2007) (*CPNI Order*).

[^42]: *See IP-Enabled Services*, WC Docket No. 04-36, WT Docket No.
    96-198, CG Docket No. 03-123, CC Docket No. 92-105, Report and
    Order, 22 FCC Rcd 11275, 11283-291, paras. 17-31 (2007) (*TRS
    Order*).

[^43]: *See* *id.* at paras. 32-43. TRS, created by Title IV of the
    Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990 (ADA), enables a person with
    a hearing or speech disability to access the nation's telephone
    system to communicate with voice telephone users through a relay
    provider and a Communications Assistant. *See* 47 U.S.C.
    § 225(a)(3); *see also* 47 C.F.R. § 64.601(14) (defining TRS).

[^44]: *See* T-Mobile/Sprint Nextel Petition at 1.

[^45]: *See id*. at 3-6; *see also, e.g.*, CTIA Comments, CC Docket No.
    95-116, at 2 (filed Feb. 8, 2007) (stating that customers frequently
    cancel port requests after needless delays); Iowa Utilities Board
    Comments, CC Docket No. 95-116, at 2-3 (filed Feb. 8, 2007) (arguing
    that LEC validation procedures may be contributing to number exhaust
    because customers are forced to request new telephone numbers rather
    than be able to port); MetroPCS Comments, CC Docket No. 95-116, at 5
    (filed Feb. 8, 2007) (stating that many customers are abandoning
    their landline numbers rather than porting to avoid porting process
    delays); PCIA Comments, CC Docket No. 95-116, at 1 (filed Feb. 7,
    2007) (stating that the efficiency of the process is critical to its
    success).

[^46]: *See* T-Mobile/Sprint Nextel Petition at 7.

[^47]: *See Pleading Cycle Established for Comments on T-Mobile USA,
    Inc. and Sprint Nextel Corporation's Petition for Declaratory Ruling
    Regarding Number Portability*, WC \[sic\] Docket No. 95-116, Public
    Notice, 22 FCC Rcd 190 (2007). A list of the commenters to the
    Public Notice is attached as Appendix A to this Order.

[^48]: By "numbering partner," we mean the carrier from which an
    interconnected VoIP provider obtains numbering resources. *See
    generally infra* at para. 20.

[^49]: 47 U.S.C. § 151.

[^50]: *See CPNI Order*, 22 FCC Rcd at 6956, para. 56; *2006 Interim
    Contribution Methodology Order*, 21 FCC Rcd at 7541, para. 44; *see
    also VoIP 911 Order*, 20 FCC Rcd at 10256, para. 23. As noted above,
    in the *IP-Enabled Services Notice*, the Commission sought comment
    on whether to extend the LNP obligations to any class of IP‑enabled
    service providers. *See IP-Enabled Services Notice*, 19 FCC Rcd at
    4911-12, para. 73. We continue to consider whether interconnected
    VoIP services are telecommunications services or information
    services as those terms are defined in the Act, and we do not make
    that determination today. *See* 47 U.S.C. § 153(20), (46) (defining
    "information service" and "telecommunications service").

[^51]: *See, e.g.*, *VoIP 911 Order*, 20 FCC Rcd at 10246, para. 1
    (extending 911 obligations to interconnected VoIP providers); *CPNI
    Order*, 22 FCC Rcd at 6956, para. 56 (finding it is "reasonable for
    American consumers to expect that their telephone calls are private
    irrespective of whether the call is made using the services of a
    wireline carrier, a wireless carrier, or an interconnected VoIP
    provider"). A service offering is an "interconnected VoIP service"
    if, among other things, it offers the *capability* for users to
    receive calls from and terminate calls to the PSTN, regardless of
    whether access to the PSTN is directly by the interconnected VoIP
    provider itself or through arrangements with a third party. *See*
    *2006 Interim Contribution Methodology Order*, 21 FCC Rcd at 7537,
    para. 36.

[^52]: 47 U.S.C. § 251(b)(2).

[^53]: *See First Number Portability Order*, 11 FCC Rcd at 8431-32,
    para. 153 (extending LNP obligations to CMRS providers under
    sections 1, 2, 4(i), and 332 of the Act); *First Number Portability
    Order on Reconsideration*, 12 FCC Rcd at 7315-17, paras. 140-42
    (affirming the Commission's decision to impose number portability
    obligations on CMRS providers).

[^54]: *First Number Portability Order*, 11 FCC Rcd at 8431-32, para.
    153.

[^55]: *Id.* at 8434, para. 157.

[^56]: *Id.*

[^57]: *Id.* at 8435, para. 158.

[^58]: *Id.* at 8431-32, para. 153.

[^59]: *See Administration of the North American Numbering Plan*, CC
    Docket No. 99-200, Order, 20 FCC Rcd 2957, 2959, 2961-62, paras. 4,
    9 (2005) (*SBCIS Waiver Order*). In this Order, we reiterate the
    Commission's existing rule of general applicability regarding
    eligibility for direct access to numbering resources. We note that
    petitions seeking waivers similar to the relief granted in the
    *SBCIS Waiver Order* are pending. *See, e.g.*, *Wireline Competition
    Bureau Seeks Comment on Qwest Communications Corporation Petition
    for Limited Waiver of Section 52.15(g)(2)(i) of the Commission's
    Rules Regarding Access to Numbering Resources*, CC Docket No.
    99-200, Public Notice, 20 FCC Rcd 8765 (2005). This Order does not
    in any way prejudge the outcome of the Commission's consideration of
    those petitions.

[^60]: 47 C.F.R. § 52.15(g)(2).

[^61]: *See NRO First Report and Order*, 15 FCC Rcd at 7615, para. 97
    (stating that carriers must provide evidence demonstrating that they
    are licensed and/or certified to provide service prior to accessing
    numbering resources); *see also, e.g.*, BellSouth Comments, WC
    Docket No. 04-36, at 53 (stating that an increase in the use of
    telephone numbers could accelerate number exhaust); Citizens Utility
    Board Comments, WC Docket No. 04-36, at 29-30 (arguing that IP-POTS
    service provider access to numbering resources will increase the
    demand on a strained numbering system); New Jersey Commission
    Comments, WC Docket No. 04-36, at 11-12 (arguing that the Commission
    should consider sufficient limits against self-selection of area
    codes, and should monitor efficient use of numbering resources);
    Ohio Commission Comments, WC Docket No. 04-36, at 41-42 (believing
    that if IP‑enabled companies gained access to numbering resources it
    might frustrate the ability of the commission to enforce numbering
    conservation requirements); Letter from Carole J. Washburn,
    Secretary, Washington Utilities and Transportation Commission, to
    Marlene H. Dortch, Secretary, FCC, WC Docket No. 04-36 (filed Oct.
    2, 2006) (raising concern about the conservation of numbering
    resources).

[^62]: As noted *supra* note Error: Reference source not found, we
    continue to consider the appropriate regulatory classification of
    interconnected VoIP services in the *IP-Enabled Services*
    proceeding. Pending a classification decision by the Commission,
    many interconnected VoIP providers maintain that they are
    information service providers and not telecommunications carriers
    under the Act. *See, e.g.*, Vonage Reply Comments, WC Docket No.
    04-36, at 19-20. To the extent that an interconnected VoIP provider
    is licensed or certificated as a carrier, that carrier is eligible
    to obtain numbering resources directly from NANPA, subject to all
    relevant rules and procedures applicable to carriers, including LNP
    requirements. Under these circumstances, the interconnected VoIP
    provider would not have a numbering partner, and would thus be
    solely responsible for compliance with the Commission's rules at
    issue here.

[^63]: *See, e.g.*, AT&T Comments, WC Docket No. 04-36, at 25 (arguing
    that interconnected VoIP providers are not having any trouble
    obtaining numbers through partnerships with LECs). We note that
    these commercial arrangements may not include selling numbers. *See,
    e.g.*, *Toll Free Service Access Codes*, CC Docket No. 95-155,
    Order, 22 FCC Rcd 651, 653, para. 7 (2007) ("Telephone numbers are a
    public resource and neither carriers nor subscribers 'own' their
    telephone numbers."); *StarNet, Inc.*, 355 F.3d 634, 637 (7th Cir.
    2004).

[^64]: Additionally, with this Order, we clarify that LECs and CMRS
    providers have an obligation to port numbers to interconnected VoIP
    providers and their numbering partners subject to a valid port
    request.

[^65]: 47 U.S.C. § 251(e).

[^66]: *See, e.g.*, *VoIP 911 Order*, 20 FCC Rcd at 10261-65, paras.
    26-32.

[^67]: *See VoIP 911 Order*, 20 FCC Rcd at 10265, para. 33 (relying on
    the Commission's plenary authority over U.S. NANP numbers,
    particularly Congress's direction to use that authority regarding
    911, to impose 911 obligations on interconnected VoIP providers,
    given interconnected VoIP providers' use of NANP numbers to provide
    service).

[^68]: *See* 47 U.S.C. § 251(e)(1) (providing that "\[t\]he Commission
    shall have exclusive jurisdiction over those portions of the North
    American Numbering Plan that pertain to the United States").

[^69]: *Implementation of the Local Competition Provisions of the
    Telecommunications Act of 1996, Interconnection Between Local
    Exchange Carriers and Commercial Mobile Radio Service Providers,
    Area Code Relief Plan for Dallas and Houston, Ordered by the Public
    Utility Commission of Texas, Administration of the North American
    Numbering Plan, Proposed 708 Relief Plan and 630 Numbering Plan Area
    Code by Ameritech-Illinois*, CC Docket No. 96-98, CC Docket No.
    95-185, NSD File No. 96-8, CC Docket No. 92-237, IAD File No.
    94-102, Second Report and Order and Memorandum Opinion and Order, 11
    FCC Rcd 19392, 19512, para. 271 (1996) (explaining that by retaining
    exclusive jurisdiction over numbering policy the Commission
    preserves its ability to act flexibly and expeditiously).

[^70]: *See* 47 U.S.C. § 251(b)(2).

[^71]: *Id.*

[^72]: *Telephone Number Portability*, CC Docket No. 95-116, Fourth
    Memorandum Opinion and Order on Reconsideration, 14 FCC Rcd 16459,
    16466-67, para. 12 (1999).

[^73]: 47 U.S.C. § 153(30) (emphasis added).

[^74]: *See, e.g.*, *Intermodal Number Portability Order*, 18 FCC Rcd at
    23708, para. 27 (discussing the reasonableness of differences in
    porting obligations due to differences in the technological
    feasibility of different types of porting).

[^75]: *See id.*

[^76]: *See United States v. Southwestern Cable Co.*, 392 U.S. 157,
    177-78 (1968) (*Southwestern Cable*). *Southwestern Cable*, the lead
    case on the ancillary jurisdiction doctrine, upheld certain
    regulations applied to cable television systems at a time before the
    Commission had an express congressional grant of regulatory
    authority over that medium. *See id*. at 170-71. In *Midwest Video
    I*, the Supreme Court expanded upon its holding in *Southwestern
    Cable*. The plurality stated that "the critical question in this
    case is whether the Commission has reasonably determined that its
    origination rule will 'further the achievement of long-established
    regulatory goals in the field of television broadcasting by
    increasing the number of outlets for community self-expression and
    augmenting the public's choice of programs and types of services.'"
    *United States v. Midwest Video Corp.*, 406 U.S. 649, 667-68 (1972)
    (*Midwest Video I*) (quoting *Amendment of Part 74, Subpart K, of
    the Commission's Rules and Regulations Relative to Community Antenna
    Television Systems; and Inquiry into the Development of
    Communications Technology and Services to Formulate Regulatory
    Policy and Rulemaking and/or Legislative Proposals*, Docket No.
    18397, First Report and Order, 20 FCC 2d 201, 202 (1969) (*CATV
    First Report and Order*)). The Court later restricted the scope of
    *Midwest Video I* by finding that if the basis for jurisdiction over
    cable is that the authority is ancillary to the regulation of
    broadcasting, the cable regulation cannot be antithetical to a basic
    regulatory parameter established for broadcast. *See FCC v. Midwest
    Video Corp.*, 440 U.S. 689, 700 (1979) (*Midwest Video II*).

[^77]: *Southwestern Cable*, 392 U.S. at 178.

[^78]: *See, e.g.*, *CPNI Order*, 22 FCC Rcd at 6955-56, para. 55; *2006
    Interim Contribution Methodology Order*, 21 FCC Rcd at 7542, para.
    47; *VoIP 911 Order*, 20 FCC Rcd at 10261-62, para. 28
    ("\[I\]nterconnected VoIP services are covered by the statutory
    definitions of 'wire communication' and/or 'radio communication'
    because they involve 'transmission of \[voice\] by aid of wire,
    cable, or other like connection . . .' and/or 'transmission by
    radio . . .' of voice. Therefore, these services come within the
    scope of the Commission's subject matter jurisdiction granted in
    section 2(a) of the Act.").

[^79]: 47 U.S.C. § 151.

[^80]: *See, e.g.*, *First Number Portability Order on Reconsideration*,
    12 FCC Rcd at 7315-16, para. 141.

[^81]: 47 U.S.C. § 251(b)(2).

[^82]: *See* 47 U.S.C. § 251(e)(2); *see also Telephone Number
    Portability*, CC Docket No. 96-116, RM-8535, Third Report and Order,
    13 FCC Rcd 11701, 11723, para. 35 (1998) (*Third Portability
    Order*).

[^83]: *See NANP Order*, 11 FCC Rcd at 2628, para. 95 (finding that the
    costs of NANP administration should be borne by those that benefit
    from number resources); *Cost Recovery Order*, 13 FCC Rcd at
    11723-24, paras. 35-36 (concluding that the costs of establishing
    number portability include the LECs' costs, as well as the costs of
    other telecommunications carriers, such as interexchange carriers
    and CMRS providers).

[^84]: 47 U.S.C. § 151.

[^85]: *See 2006 Interim Contribution Methodology Order*, 21 FCC Rcd at
    7542-43, para. 48 (citing *CALEA First Report and Order*, 20 FCC Rcd
    at 15009-10, para. 42).

[^86]: *First Number Portability Order*, 11 FCC Rcd at 8371, para. 37.

[^87]: *See NANP Order*, 11 FCC Rcd at 2628, para. 95.

[^88]: *See, e.g.*, AARP Comments, WC Docket No. 04-36, at 2 (stating
    that consumers have come to expect LNP and that LNP promotes local
    competition); NASUCA Comments, WC Docket No. 04-36, at 33-34
    (arguing that if consumers are unable to port their telephone
    numbers between providers then consumers are much less likely to
    change providers); SBC Comments, WC Docket No. 04-36, at 83
    (asserting that it can warp competition if interconnected VoIP
    providers are not subject to LNP obligations); Letter from William
    B. Wilhelm, Jr. and Ronald W. Del Sesto, Jr., Counsel for Vonage
    Holdings Corp., to Marlene H. Dortch, Secretary, FCC, CC Docket Nos.
    95-116, 99-200, WC Docket Nos. 04-36, 03-251 (filed Mar. 28, 2005)
    (stating that porting benefits consumers); Comment from Gerrit
    Weining, WC Docket No. 04-36 (filed Apr. 3, 2006) (arguing that
    competition is restricted without porting); Letter from Adam
    Kupetsky, Regulatory Counsel, Level 3 Communications, LLC, to
    Marlene H. Dortch, Secretary, FCC, CC Docket Nos. 95-116, 96-98, WC
    Docket No. 04-36 (filed May 1, 2006) (stating that LNP is a
    fundamental tenet of the Act's goal of promoting competition);
    Letter from Amy Wolverton, Senior Corporate Counsel, T-Mobile USA,
    Inc., to Marlene H. Dortch, Secretary, FCC, CC Docket Nos. 95-116,
    96-45, WC Docket No. 04-36, at 1 (filed Oct. 5, 2006) (discussing
    how porting fosters industry competition).

[^89]: *First Number Portability Order*, 11 FCC Rcd at 8368, para. 30.
    We note that some interconnected VoIP providers currently offer
    number porting but we find it appropriate to ensure this capability
    for all customers using NANP-based telephone numbers by explicitly
    extending our LNP obligations to interconnected VoIP providers.
    *See, e.g.*, Vonage Reply, WC Docket No. 04-36, at 24.

[^90]: 47 U.S.C. § 151.

[^91]: *See, e.g.*, Level 3 Feb. 23, 2007 *Ex Parte* Letter at 1
    (arguing that porting fosters a competitive marketplace while
    encouraging conservation of a scarce resource).

[^92]: *See Time Warner Cable Order*, 22 FCC Rcd at 3521-22, para. 16
    (finding that it is consistent with Commission policy that when a
    LEC wins back a customer from a VoIP provider that the number should
    be ported to the LEC that wins the customer, and thus such a
    requirement is an explicit condition to the section 251 rights
    provided for in that order).

[^93]: *Southwestern Cable*, 392 U.S. at 178.

[^94]: *Midwest Video I*, 406 U.S. at 667-68 (quoting *CATV First Report
    and Order*, 20 FCC 2d at 202).

[^95]: 47 U.S.C. § 151; *see also, e.g.*, Ohio Commission Comments, WC
    Docket No. 04-36, at 39 (stating that LNP is important for customer
    choice in a competitive market). Further, the Commission relied on
    its ancillary jurisdiction when it first sought comment on LNP prior
    to the enactment of section 251. *See Telephone Number Portability*,
    CC Docket No. 95-116, RM-8535, Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, 10 FCC
    Rcd 12350, 12361, para. 29 (1995).

[^96]: S. Conf. Rep. No. 104-230 at 122 (1996) ("The costs for numbering
    administration and number portability shall be borne by all
    providers on a competitively neutral basis.").

[^97]: *Shook v. District of Columbia Fin. Responsibility & Mgmt.
    Assistance Auth*., 132 F.3d 775, 782 (D.C. Cir. 1998) (*Shook*).

[^98]: *Id*.

[^99]: *See, e.g.*, *Shook*, 132 F.3d at 782 (noting that Congress
    sometimes "drafts statutory provisions that appear preclusive of
    other unmentioned possibilities--just as it sometimes drafts
    provisions that appear duplicative of others--simply, in Macbeth's
    words, 'to make assurance double sure'").

[^100]: *Mobile Communications Corp. v. FCC*, 77 F.3d 1399, 1405 (D.C.
    Cir. 1996); *see also Martini v. Federal Nat'l Mortgage Ass'n*, 178
    F.3d 1336, 1342-43 (D.C. Cir. 1999) (noting that the *expressio
    unius* principle is particularly unhelpful in addressing issues of
    administrative law).

[^101]: 47 U.S.C. § 157 nt. The Act necessarily has many goals. One is
    the development of the Internet, set forth in section 230 of the
    Act, which provides that "\[i\]t is the policy of the United States
    -- to preserve the vibrant and competitive free market that
    presently exists for the Internet and other interactive computer
    services, unfettered by Federal or State regulation." 47 U.S.C.
    § 230(b)(2). But the Act specifies other important goals, discussed
    *supra*, including the preservation of an efficient numbering
    administration system that fosters competition among all
    communications services in a competitively neutral and fair manner.
    Especially here, where extending LNP obligations is likely to
    encourage consumers to use interconnected VoIP services as a result
    of our facilitation of porting, we find no conflict between our
    actions and the underlying goals expressed in the Act.

[^102]: *See Availability of Advanced Telecommunications Capability in
    the United States*, Fourth Report to Congress, GN Docket No. 04-54,
    19 FCC Rcd 20540, 20578 (2004) ("\[S\]ubscribership to broadband
    services will increase in the future as new applications that
    require broadband access, *such as VoIP*, are introduced into the
    marketplace, and consumers become more aware of such applications.")
    (emphasis added).

[^103]: 47 U.S.C. § 153(30) (emphasis added).

[^104]: *See, e.g.*, ALTS Reply, WC Docket No. 04-36, at 10 (claiming
    that an interconnected VoIP provider may attempt to prevent porting
    by claiming that it is the end user associated with the number);
    *see also Time Warner Cable Order*, 22 FCC Rcd at 3517-20, paras.
    9-14 (affirming that wholesale providers of telecommunications
    services are telecommunications carriers for purposes of sections
    251(a) and (b) of the Act); *id.* at para. 16 (agreeing that a
    number should be ported to the LEC that wins the customer at the
    customer's request).

[^105]: *First Number Portability Order*, 11 FCC Rcd at 8368, para. 30.

[^106]: *See, e.g.*, *NANP Order*, 11 FCC Rcd at 2591, para. 4 (finding
    that numbers are a public resource and not the property of
    carriers).

[^107]: *See, e.g.*, Letter from Ann D. Berkowitz, Associate Director --
    Federal Regulatory Advocacy, Verizon, to Marlene Dortch, Secretary,
    FCC, CC Docket No. 95-116, WC Docket No. 04-36, at 2 (filed Oct. 23,
    2007) (Verizon Oct. 23, 2007 *Ex Parte* Letter) (stating that a VoIP
    provider's refusal to unlock a ported number from the 911 database
    until 90 days after the customer cancelled the VoIP service
    effectively obstructed the number port because the winning carrier
    could not provide service to its customer using the former VoIP
    provider's number unless the 911 database was updated to reflect the
    service provider change).

[^108]: *Cf.* *Intermodal Number Portability Order*, 18 FCC Rcd at
    23711-12, para. 36 (finding that requiring interconnection
    agreements between wireless and wireline carriers solely for the
    purposes of porting numbers could undermine the benefits of LNP).

[^109]: To the extent that carriers with direct access to numbers do not
    have an LNP obligation, that exemption from LNP only extends to the
    exempt service and not to that carrier's activities as a numbering
    partner for an interconnected VoIP provider.

[^110]: *See, e.g.*, *Wireless Number Portability Order*, 18 FCC Rcd at
    20975, para. 11 (interpreting the Act's number portability
    definition to mean that "customers must be able to change carriers
    while keeping their telephone number as easily as they may change
    carriers without taking their telephone number with them").

[^111]: *See, e.g.*, *id.* at 20975-76, paras. 13-17 (finding that any
    contract provisions that consumers may not port their numbers are to
    be without effect on the carrier's porting obligation).

[^112]: *See, e.g.*, *id.*; *see also* Letter from Lawrence E.
    Strickling, Level 3 Communications, LLC, to Marlene H. Dortch,
    Secretary, FCC, CC Docket No. 95-116, at 2 (filed Mar. 13, 2006)
    (observing that the Commission has expressly stated that contract
    disputes are not a basis for refusing to port a number).

[^113]: *See supra* Part A (discussing the LNP obligations for wireline
    carriers and covered CMRS providers).

[^114]: We note that because interconnected VoIP providers offer
    telephone numbers not necessarily based on the geographic location
    of their customers -- many times at their customers' requests --
    there may be limits to number porting between providers. The Act
    only provides for service provider portability and does not address
    service or location portability. *See First Number Portability
    Order*, 11 FCC Rcd at 8447, para. 181. Thus, for example, if an
    interconnected VoIP service customer selects a number outside his
    current rate center, or if the interconnected VoIP service customer
    selects a number within his geographic rate center and moves out of
    that rate center, and then requests porting to a wireline carrier in
    his new rate center, the customer would not be able to port the
    number. *See* 47 C.F.R. § 52.26(a). We expect interconnected VoIP
    providers to fully inform their customers about these limitations,
    particularly limitations that result from the portable nature of,
    and use of non-geographic numbers by, certain interconnected VoIP
    services.

[^115]: *See supra* Part A (providing a summary of the various porting
    obligations).

[^116]: *See id.*

[^117]: To the extent that an interconnected VoIP provider is
    certificated or licensed as a carrier, then the Title II LNP
    obligations to port-in or port-out to the carrier are already
    determined by existing law. *See,* *e.g.*, 47 C.F.R. § 52.26(a).

[^118]: *See id*.

[^119]: *See id.* We clarify that carriers must port-out NANP telephone
    numbers upon valid requests from an interconnected VoIP provider (or
    from its associated numbering partner).

[^120]: We seek comment, however, on whether the Commission should adopt
    rules regarding porting intervals in the Notice adopted with this
    Order. *See infra* para. 59.

[^121]: For example, if the interconnected VoIP provider's numbering
    partner is a wireline carrier and the porting-in provider is a
    wireline carrier, the wireline-to-wireline porting interval would
    apply to the port between the two carriers.

[^122]: *See* 47 U.S.C. § 208; *see also* 47 U.S.C. § 503(b)(5)
    (granting the Commission authority to assess a forfeiture penalty
    against any person who is not a common carrier).

[^123]: 47 U.S.C. § 251(e)(2).

[^124]: In the Commission's *Cost Recovery Order*, the Commission
    determined that carriers not subject to rate regulation (*e.g.*,
    competitive LECs and CMRS providers) may recover their
    carrier-specific costs directly related to providing number
    portability in any lawful manner consistent with obligations under
    the Act. *See Cost Recovery Order*, 13 FCC Rcd at 11774, para. 36;
    *Cost Recovery Reconsideration Order*, 17 FCC Rcd at 2609-10, para.
    64. We find that this same recovery method is appropriate for
    interconnected VoIP providers. Further, the numbering partner may
    exclude revenues derived from providing numbering resources to
    interconnected VoIP providers (regardless of whether they hold
    themselves out as telecommunications carriers) in the numbering
    partner's revenue calculation on FCC Form 499-A pursuant to the
    carrier's carrier rule. *Cf. 2006 Interim Contribution Methodology
    Order*, 21 FCC Rcd at 7547-48, paras. 58-59. In any case, we do not
    expect both the interconnected VoIP provider and its numbering
    partner to contribute on the same revenues.

[^125]: *See Cost Recovery Reconsideration Order*, 17 FCC Rcd at 2598,
    para. 37. Providers that submit an attestation certifying that they
    are unable to divide their traffic and resulting end-user revenue
    among the seven LNPA regions precisely will be allowed to divide
    their end-user revenue among these regions based on the percentage
    of subscribers served in each region. Providers may use their
    billing databases to identify subscriber location.

[^126]: *See supra* Part A.

[^127]: Further, as the Commission determined for carrier-specific costs
    directly related to thousands block number pooling of carriers not
    subject to rate regulation, interconnected VoIP providers may, to
    the extent that any costs exist, recover them in any lawful manner.
    *See Third Numbering Order*, 17 FCC Rcd at 264, para. 25.
    Additionally, as explained above in note Error: Reference source not
    found, numbering partners may exclude revenues derived from
    providing wholesale inputs to interconnected VoIP providers that do
    not hold themselves out as telecommunications carriers on FCC Form
    499‑A pursuant to the carrier's carrier rule. *Cf. 2006 Interim
    Contribution Methodology* Order, 21 FCC Rcd at 7547-48, paras.
    58-59.

[^128]: Interconnected VoIP providers not meeting the *de minimis*
    standard for contributing to the federal Universal Service Fund
    (USF) already are required to file FCC Form 499-A on an annual
    basis. *See 2006 Interim Contribution Methodology Order*, 21 FCC Rcd
    at 7548, para. 60.

[^129]: *See Federal-State Joint Board on Universal Service; 1998
    Biennial Regulatory Review -- Streamlined Contributor Reporting
    Requirements Associated with Administration of Telephone Relay
    Service, North American Numbering Plan, Local Number Portability,
    and Universal Service Support Mechanisms; Telecommunications
    Services for Individuals with Hearing and Speech Disabilities, and
    the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990; Administration of the
    North American Numbering Plan and North American Numbering Plan Cost
    Recovery Contribution Factor and Fund Size; Number Resource
    Optimization; Telephone Number Portability; Truth-in-Billing and
    Billing Format*, CC Docket Nos. 96-45, 98-171, 90-571, 92-237,
    99-200, 95-116, 98-170, NSD File No. L-00-72, Report and Order and
    Second Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, 17 FCC Rcd 24952,
    24972 n.103 (2002).

[^130]: Form 499-A and its instructions are located on the Commission's
    form page at http://www.fcc.gov/formpage.html and on the Universal
    Service Administrative Company's (USAC) form page at
    http://www.usac.org/fund-administration/forms/default.aspx.

[^131]: In addition, as discussed below, we find it more appropriate to
    seek comment on other issues in the accompanying Notice.

[^132]: *See supra* para. 15.

[^133]: *See* T-Mobile/Sprint Nextel Petition at 1.

[^134]: *See Telephone Number Portability*, CC Docket No. 95-116, Second
    Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, 19 FCC Rcd 18515, 18516-17,
    para. 4 (2004) (*Intermodal Number Porting Interval Second Further
    Notice*).

[^135]: *See id.* This Order does not address the intermodal porting
    intervals themselves, but rather clarifies the information necessary
    for the validation process as a prelude to the Confirmation
    Interval. *See, e.g.*, T‑Mobile/Sprint Nextel Reply, CC Docket No.
    95-116, at 8 (filed Feb. 23, 2007) (stating that their petition is
    not about the porting intervals). In the accompanying Notice, we
    seek comment on the porting intervals. *See infra* paras. 59-65
    (seeking comment on the porting intervals themselves).

[^136]: *See, e.g.*, Charter Comments, CC Docket No. 95-116, at 5, 9
    (filed Feb. 8, 2007); Comcast Comments, CC Docket No. 95-116, at 4,
    7 (filed Feb. 8, 2007); CTIA Comments, CC Docket No. 95-116, at 2
    (filed Feb. 8, 2007); Leap Wireless Comments, CC Docket No. 95-116,
    at 6-7 (filed Feb. 8, 2007); Integra Reply, CC Docket No. 95-116, at
    2-5 (filed Feb. 23, 2007). In particular, the Petitioners and other
    commenters point out that in many instances there is a much higher
    cancellation rate for customers undergoing intermodal ports than for
    wireless-to-wireless ports. *See, e.g.*, T-Mobile/Sprint Nextel
    Petition at 5; CTIA Comments, CC Docket No. 95-116, at 2 (filed Feb.
    8, 2007). *But see* Embarq Comments, CC Docket No. 95-116, at 5
    (filed Feb. 8, 2007) (stating that the cancellation rate for
    wireless carrier porting requests in 2006 was only 5.5%); Qwest
    Comments, CC Docket No. 95‑116, at 4 n.12 (filed Feb. 8, 2007)
    (stating that porting cancellations might be influenced by such
    factors as a realization by a customer that some incidental service
    associated with the wireline loop might be "lost" if the number is
    ported, or a customer intent on porting might change position after
    reviewing the contractual restrictions of the wireless carrier);
    Verizon Comments, CC Docket No. 95-116, at 5-6 (filed Feb. 8, 2007)
    (arguing that the fact that Petitioners are experiencing higher
    cancellation rates than other carriers indicates that Petitioners
    are responsible for their higher cancellation rates).

[^137]: *See, e.g.*, AT&T Comments, CC Docket No. 95-116, at 4 (filed
    Feb. 8, 2007) (stating that AT&T wireline requires 27 or fewer data
    fields); Embarq Comments, CC Docket No. 95-116, at 3-4 (filed Feb.
    8, 2007) (stating that Embarq requires 20 fields); Verizon Comments,
    CC Docket No. 95-115, at 7 (stating that 26 fields on the LSR need
    to be completed for an intermodal number portability request under
    the industry guidelines for number portability).

[^138]: *See, e.g.*, Charter Comments, CC Docket No. 95-116, at 2, 7,
    9-10 (filed Feb. 8, 2007); Comcast Comments, CC Docket No. 95-116,
    at 2 (filed Feb. 8, 2007); CTIA Comments, CC Docket No. 95-116, at 3
    (filed Feb. 8, 2007); MetroPCS Comments, CC Docket No. 95-116, at
    5-6 (filed Feb. 8, 2007).

[^139]: *See, e.g.*, Charter Comments, CC Docket No. 95-116, at 2 (filed
    Feb. 8, 2007); Comcast Comments, CC Docket No. 95-116, at 2 (filed
    Feb. 8, 2007); CTIA Comments, CC Docket No. 95-116, at 3 (filed Feb.
    8, 2007); Iowa Utilities Board Comments, CC Docket No. 95-116, at 2
    (filed Feb. 7, 2007). We disagree with commenters that suggest that
    the Commission may not act on this petition because no controversy
    or uncertainty exists. *See, e.g.*, AT&T Comments, CC Docket No.
    95-116, at 1 (filed Feb. 8, 2007); Qwest Comments, CC Docket No.
    95-116, at 2 (filed Feb. 8, 2007); TWTC *et al.* Comments, CC Docket
    No. 95-116, at 1-2 (filed Feb. 8, 2007). Section 1.2 of the
    Commission's rules states that "\[t\]he Commission may . . . on its
    own motion issue a declaratory ruling terminating a controversy or
    removing uncertainty." 47 C.F.R. § 1.2; *see also* 5 U.S.C. § 554(e)
    (stating that an agency, "in its sound discretion, may issue a
    declaratory order to . . . remove uncertainty"); USCC Comments, CC
    Docket No. 95-116, at 2 (filed Feb. 8, 2007) (stating that a
    controversy exists as to whether the wireline practices are
    consistent with the FCC's number portability mandate). We find that
    there is uncertainty regarding the validation process under an
    entity's LNP obligations, and thus we adopt this Order to clarify
    those obligations.

[^140]: *See, e.g.*, TWTC *et al.* Comments, CC Docket No. 95-116, at
    2-3 (filed Feb. 8, 2007).

[^141]: *Wireless Local Number Portability Order*, 18 FCC Rcd at 20975,
    para. 11.

[^142]: 47 U.S.C. § 153(30); 47 C.F.R. § 52.21(l).

[^143]: *Intermodal Local Number Portability Order*, 18 FCC Rcd at
    23711, para. 34.

[^144]: While the Commission's determination to "prevent carriers from
    imposing restrictions on porting beyond necessary customer
    validation procedures" was based in part on the analysis of specific
    language from the Commission rule mandating LNP for CMRS providers,
    we observe that substantially the same language appears in the
    Commission's rules regarding wireline LNP. *Compare Wireless Local
    Number Portability Order*, 18 FCC Rcd at 20975-76, paras. 14-15
    (quoting section 52.31 of the Commission's rules that "'CMRS
    providers must provide a long term database method for number
    portability, including the ability to support roaming . . . in
    switches for which another carrier has made a specific request for
    the provision of number portability . . . .'"), *with* 47 C.F.R.
    § 52.23(b)(1) ("LECs must provide a long-term database method for
    number portability . . . in switches for which another carrier has
    made a specific request for the provision of number
    portability . . . .").

[^145]: *Wireless Local Number Portability Order*, 18 FCC Rcd at
    20975-76, paras. 14-16.

[^146]: *See, e.g.*, T-Mobile/Sprint Reply at 8-9 ("The clock does not
    even start ticking on the porting interval until the porting-in
    carrier submits an error-free port request."); CTIA Comments, CC
    Docket No. 95-116, at 2 (filed Feb. 8, 2007) (stating that carriers
    often prevent the clock from even starting on the intercarrier
    porting process by requiring unnecessary information such as
    "account category" and "line activity," and by rejecting Local
    Service Requests with incorrect or incomplete information).

[^147]: *See, e.g.*, T-Mobile/Sprint Nextel Petition at 5; Charter
    Comments, CC Docket No. 95-116, at 5, 9 (filed Feb. 8, 2007);
    Comcast Comments, CC Docket No. 95-116, at 4, 7 (filed Feb. 8,
    2007); CTIA Comments, CC Docket No. 95-116, at 2 (filed Feb. 8,
    2007); Leap Wireless Comments, CC Docket No. 95-116, at 6-7 (filed
    Feb. 8, 2007); Integra Reply, CC Docket No. 95-116, at 2-5 (filed
    Feb. 23, 2007).

[^148]: *See, e.g.*, Verizon Comments, CC Docket No. 95-116, at 6-7
    (filed Feb. 8, 2007); Leap Wireless Comments, CC Docket No. 95-116,
    at 2 (filed Feb. 8, 2007).

[^149]: *See, e.g.*, AT&T Comments, CC Docket No. 95-116, at 4 (filed
    Feb. 8, 2007) (stating that AT&T wireline requires 27 or fewer data
    fields); Embarq Comments, CC Docket No. 95-116, at 3-4 (filed Feb.
    8, 2007) (stating that Embarq requires 20 fields); Verizon Comments,
    CC Docket No. 95-115, at 7 (stating that only 26 fields on the LSR
    need to be completed for an intermodal number portability request
    under the industry guidelines for number portability).

[^150]: *See, e.g.*, Charter Comments, CC Docket No. 95-116, at 5-6
    (filed Feb. 8, 2007); MetroPCS Comments, CC Docket No. 95-116, at 6
    (filed Feb. 8, 2007); USCC Comments, CC Docket No. 95-116, at 2-3
    (filed Feb. 8, 2007).

[^151]: *See, e.g.*, Level 3 Reply, CC Docket No. 95-116, at 3-4 (filed
    Feb. 23, 2007); TWTC *et al.* Comments, CC Docket No. 95-116, at 2,
    5 (filed Feb. 8, 2007).

[^152]: *See, e.g.*, Integra Reply, CC Docket No. 95-116, at 3-4 (filed
    Feb. 23, 2007); Embarq Comments, CC Docket No. 95-116, at 3 n.6
    (filed Feb. 8, 2007).

[^153]: As the Commission previously has explained, simple ports are
    those ports that: (1) do not involve unbundled network elements;
    (2) involve an account only for a single line; (3) do not include
    complex switch translations (*e.g.*, Centrex, ISDN, AIN services,
    remote call forwarding, or multiple services on the loop); and
    (4) do not include a reseller. *See, e.g.*, *Intermodal Number
    Portability FNPRM,* 18 FCC Rcd at 23715, para. 45 n.112 (citing
    North American Numbering Council Local Number Portability
    Administration Working Group Third Report on Wireless Wireline
    Integration, Sept. 30, 2000, CC Docket No. 95-116 (filed Nov. 29,
    2000)).

[^154]: *See supra* paras. 42-43.

[^155]: *See, e.g.*, NARUC Reply, CC Docket No. 95-116, at 5 (filed Feb.
    23, 2007); Charter Comments, CC Docket No. 95-116, at 4-6 (filed
    Feb. 8, 2007); Comcast Comments, CC Docket No. 95-116, at 2 (filed
    Feb. 8, 2007); CTIA Comments, CC Docket No. 95-116, at 1 (filed Feb.
    8, 2007); MetroPCS Comments, CC Docket No. 95-116, at 8-9 (filed
    Feb. 8, 2007); Integra Reply, CC Docket No. 95-116, at 2 (filed Feb.
    23, 2007).

[^156]: *See, e.g.*, Verizon Comments, CC Docket No. 95-116, at 9 (filed
    Feb. 8, 2007).

[^157]: *See, e.g.*, Leap Wireless Comments, CC Docket No. 95-116, at 3
    (filed Feb. 8, 2007); T-Mobile/Sprint Nextel Petition at 4;
    California Commission Comments, CC Docket No. 95-116, at 4 (filed
    Feb. 8, 2007); CTIA Comments, CC Docket No. 95-116, at 2-3 (filed
    Feb. 8, 2007); MetroPCS Comments, CC Docket No. 95-116, at 5 (filed
    Feb. 8, 2007).

[^158]: *See, e.g.*, Letter from Mary McManus, Comcast Corporation, to
    Marlene H. Dortch, Secretary, FCC, CC Docket No. 95-116, Attach. at
    3 (filed Apr. 16, 2007).

[^159]: *See* T-Mobile/Sprint Nextel Petition at 4 (wireless providers
    validating port requests require only the use of customer telephone
    number, account number, and password (if applicable)).

[^160]: *See, e.g.*, T-Mobile/Sprint Nextel Reply, CC Docket No. 95-116,
    at 10 (filed Feb. 23, 2007) (noting that the validation issue has
    been before the NANC for almost three years and the industry remains
    deadlocked); Nebraska Commission Comments, CC Docket No. 95-116, at
    3 (filed Feb. 8, 2007) (stating that a failure by the Ordering and
    Billing Forum (OBF) to arrive at a consensus should be the trigger
    for the Commission to step in and set a standard).

[^161]: *See* T-Mobile/Sprint Nextel Petition at 7; *see also*
    T-Mobile/Sprint Nextel Reply at 15 (clarifying that their validation
    field recommendation solely applies to simple port requests).

[^162]: For example, Charter argues that the provision of name, address,
    and phone number are sufficient data fields to validate ports
    between carriers. *See* Charter Comments, CC Docket No. 95-116, at 6
    (filed Feb. 8, 2007); *see also* Verizon July 27, 2007 *Ex Parte*
    Letter at 2 (stating that Verizon is currently validating the
    customer on only five fields of information on the number
    portability request: account number, ported telephone number, state,
    type of service, and, in some jurisdictions, customer name).

[^163]: *See, e.g.*, T-Mobile/Sprint Nextel Petition at 7; Comcast
    Comments, CC Docket No. 95-116, at 6 (filed Feb. 8, 2007); Embarq
    Comments, CC Docket No. 95-116, at 2-4, 6 (filed Feb. 8, 2007);
    MetroPCS Comments, CC Docket No. 95-116, at 8 (filed Feb. 8, 2007);
    TWTC *et al.* Comments, CC Docket No. 95-116, at 5-7 (filed Feb. 8,
    2007); Verizon Comments, CC Docket No. 95-116, at 7-8 (filed Feb. 8,
    2007); T-Mobile/Sprint Nextel Reply, CC Docket No. 95-116, at 6
    (filed Feb. 23, 2007); Letter from Ann D. Berkowitz, Associate
    Director, Verizon, to Marlene Dortch, Secretary, FCC, CC Docket No.
    95-116, at 2 (dated July 27, 2007) (Verizon July 27, 2007 *Ex Parte*
    Letter).

[^164]: *See, e.g.*, NASUCA Comments, CC Docket No. 95-116, at 2 (filed
    Feb. 8, 2007); Embarq Comments, CC Docket No. 95-116, at 6 (filed
    Feb. 8, 2007). *But see* Verizon Oct. 23, 2007 *Ex Parte* Letter at
    3 (arguing that concerns about slamming do not apply equally in the
    context of service provider changes to and from VoIP service
    providers).** ** We note that because wireline telephone numbers are
    generally more centralized, telephone numbers with only slight
    variations may exist in the same zip code, particularly in rural
    areas, and thus an inadvertent error in exchanging the customer's
    telephone number may result in a non-properly validated port. *See*
    Embarq Comments at 6 (fearing that a porting-in carrier could
    transpose the digits of a telephone number and that the incorrect
    telephone number will also be within the zip code area, resulting in
    an incorrect port).

[^165]: *See, e.g.*, T-Mobile/Sprint Nextel Reply, CC Docket No. 95-116,
    at 13-15 (filed Feb. 23, 2007); Comcast Comments, CC Docket No.
    95-116, at 6 (filed Feb. 8, 2007).

[^166]: *See, e.g.*, Leap Wireless Comments, CC Docket No. 95-116, at 2
    (filed Feb. 8, 2007) (stating that LECs will reject any abbreviation
    that does not precisely match the data in the customer's account,
    causing delay); MetroPCS Comments, CC Docket No. 95-116, at 6 (filed
    Feb. 8, 2007) (stating that some incumbent LECs reject porting
    requests for placing a comma in an incorrect place on the LSR);
    Integra Reply, CC Docket No. 95-116, at 4 (filed Feb. 23, 2007).

[^167]: We note that the Petitioners propose relying on a customer's
    password as a possible validation field. Theoretically, customers
    could choose a word for use as their password. We do not believe
    that this would present the same problem as street names, for
    example, because it would not raise abbreviation concerns.

[^168]: *See supra* para. 8.

[^169]: *See Intermodal Number Portability Order*, 18 FCC Rcd at 23706,
    para. 22.

[^170]: *See* *United States Telecom. Ass'n v. FCC*, 400 F.3d 29 (D.C.
    Cir. 2005).

[^171]: *See id.* at 42-43; *see also* 5 U.S.C. § 604 (Regulatory
    Flexibility Act).

[^172]: *United States Telecom. Ass'n v. FCC*, 400 F.3d at 43.

[^173]: *See Federal Communications Commission Seeks Comment on Initial
    Regulatory Flexibility Analysis in Telephone Number Portability
    Proceeding*, CC Docket No. 95-116, Public Notice, 20 FCC Rcd 8616
    (2005). A full list of comments to the Public Notice is included as
    Appendix A.

[^174]: *See Intermodal Number Portability Order*, 18 FCC Rcd at 23698,
    para. 1. We note that a carrier may petition the Commission for
    additional time or waiver of the intermodal porting requirements if
    it can provide substantial, credible evidence that there are special
    circumstances that warrant departure from existing rules. *See* 47
    C.F.R. §§ 1.3, 52.25(e). In addition, under section 251(f)(2) of the
    Act, a LEC with fewer than two percent of the nation's subscriber
    lines installed in the aggregate nationwide may petition the
    appropriate state commission for suspension or modification of the
    requirements of section 251(b). *See* 47 U.S.C. § 251(f)(2).

[^175]: Further, in light of the court's determination that the
    *Intermodal Number Portability Order* resulted in a legislative
    rule, we elect to amend our rules to expressly incorporate the
    Commission's holding. To this end, a new subsection (h) is added to
    section 52.23 of the Commission's rules. The text of the new
    subsection is provided in Appendix B of this Order. We note that
    this addition to our rules is non-substantive, in that it merely
    incorporates in the Code of Federal Regulations the requirements
    previously adopted in the *Intermodal Number Portability Order*.

[^176]: *See, e.g.*, Arizona Commission Comments, WC Docket No. 04-36,
    at 17. N11 codes are abbreviated dialing arrangements that enable
    callers to access special services by dialing only three digits. The
    network must be pre-programmed to translate the three-digit code
    into the appropriate seven- or ten-digit sequence and route the call
    accordingly. Because there are only eight available N11 codes, N11
    codes are among the scarcest of numbering resources under the
    Commission's jurisdiction. N11 codes 211, 311, 411, 511, 611, 711,
    811, and 911 are available for assignment by the Commission. N11
    codes "011" and "111" are unavailable because "0" and "1" are used
    for switching and routing purposes. To date, the Commission has
    assigned six N11 codes -- 211, 311, 511, 711, 811, and 911. *See The
    Use of N11 Codes and Other Abbreviated Dialing Arrangements*, CC
    Docket No. 92-105, First Report and Order and Further Notice of
    Proposed Rulemaking, 12 FCC Rcd 5572 (1997) (assigning 311 for
    non-emergency police and other governmental services); *The Use of
    N11 Codes and Other Abbreviated Dialing Arrangements*, CC Docket No.
    92-105, Second Report and Order, 15 FCC Rcd 15188 (2000) (assigning
    711 for telephone relay services for the hearing impaired); *The Use
    of N11 Codes and Other Abbreviated Dialing Arrangements*, CC Docket
    No. 92-105, Third Report and Order and Order on Reconsideration, 15
    FCC Rcd 16753 (2000) (assigning 211 for information and referral
    services and 511 for travel and information services); *The Use of
    N11 Codes and Other Abbreviated Dialing Arrangements*, CC Docket No.
    92-105, Fourth Report and Order and Third Notice of Proposed
    Rulemaking, 15 FCC Rcd 17079 (2000) (assigning 911 as the national
    emergency number); *The Use of N11 Codes and Other Abbreviated
    Dialing Arrangements*, CC Docket No. 92-105, Sixth Report and Order,
    20 FCC Rcd 5539 (2005) (designating 811 for state "One Call"
    notification systems for providing advanced notice of excavation
    activities to underground facility operators in compliance with the
    Pipeline Safety Improvement Act of 2002). The remaining N11 codes --
    411 and 611 -- are widely used by carriers, but have not been
    assigned by the Commission for nationwide use. N11 codes that have
    not been assigned nationally can continue to be assigned for local
    uses, provided that such use can be discontinued on short notice.
    *See* North American Numbering Plan Administrator website,
    *available at* http://www.nanpa.com.

[^177]: *See VoIP 911 Order*, 20 FCC Rcd at 10246, para. 1; *TRS Order*,
    22 FCC Rcd at 11296-97, paras. 42-43 (2007).

[^178]: *First Local Number Portability Order*, 11 FCC Rcd at 8368,
    para. 30.

[^179]: 47 U.S.C. § 153(30); 47 C.F.R. § 52.21(l).

[^180]: *See, e.g.*, *Petition of Qwest Communications International
    Inc. for Forbearance from Enforcement of the Commission's Dominant
    Carrier Rules As They Apply After Section 272 Sunsets*, WC Docket
    No. 05-333, Memorandum Opinion and Order, 22 FCC Rcd 5207, 5231,
    para. 47 (2007).

[^181]: *First Local Number Portability Order*, 11 FCC Rcd at 8434,
    para. 157.

[^182]: *See, e.g*., T-Mobile/Sprint Nextel Petition at 4 (raising
    concerns about carriers rejecting port requests based on incorrect
    abbreviations); Leap Wireless Comments, CC Docket No. 95-116, at 2
    (filed Feb. 8, 2007) (same); MetroPCS Comments, CC Docket No.
    95-116, at 6 (filed Feb. 8, 2007) (arguing that some incumbent LECs
    reject porting requests based on misplaced commas); T-Mobile/Sprint
    Nextel Reply, CC Docket No. 95-116, at 5-7 (filed Feb. 23, 2007)
    (stating that some porting-out carriers require the porting-in
    carrier to request a customer service record (CSR) prior to
    submitting an LSR or even require an additional "address validation
    step" before a porting-in carrier can order the CSR).

[^183]: *See, e.g.*, Charter Comments, CC Docket No. 95-116, at 5-6
    (filed Feb. 8, 2007).

[^184]: *See, e.g.*, Verizon July 27, 2007 *Ex Parte* Letter at 2
    (arguing that it is not reasonable to expect carriers to port a
    telephone number where there are errors in the fields on the number
    portability request form).

[^185]: *See supra* note Error: Reference source not found (defining
    simple ports).

[^186]: *See Intermodal Number Porting Interval Second Further Notice*,
    19 FCC Rcd at 18515-16, para. 2.

[^187]: *See* T-Mobile/Sprint Nextel Petition at 4 (wireless providers
    validating port requests require only the use of customer telephone
    number, account number, and password (if applicable)); *see also
    Intermodal Number Porting Interval Second Further Notice*, 19 FCC
    Rcd at 18515-16, para. 2 (noting that the wireless industry has
    established a voluntary standard of two and one half hours for
    wireless-to-wireless ports).

[^188]: *See, e.g.*, Qwest Comments, CC Docket No. 95-116, at 2 (filed
    Feb. 8, 2007). S*ee generally* 47 U.S.C. § 208; 47 U.S.C.
    § 503(b)(5) (granting the Commission authority to assess a
    forfeiture penalty against any person who is not a common carrier).

[^189]: *See Intermodal Number Porting Interval Second Further Notice*,
    19 FCC Rcd at 18515, para. 2.

[^190]: *See Intermodal Number Portability Order*, 18 FCC Rcd at
    23712-13, para. 38; *see also Intermodal Number Porting Interval
    Second Further Notice*, 19 FCC Rcd at 18519, para. 10.

[^191]: *See, e.g.*, Comcast Comments, CC Docket No. 95-116, at 3 (filed
    Feb. 8, 2007).

[^192]: *See Intermodal Number Portability FNPRM*, 18 FCC Rcd at
    23715-17, paras. 45-51; *Intermodal Number Porting Interval Second
    Further Notice*, 19 FCC Rcd at 18519-21, paras. 10-14.

[^193]: *See Intermodal Number Porting Interval Second Further Notice*,
    19 FCC Rcd at 18518, para. 7 (identifying the NANC proposals).

[^194]: In particular, Comcast proposes the following: (i) A port
    request received between 7 a.m. and 2 p.m. on Day 1 would be
    activated on Day 2 at 12:01 a.m.; and (ii) A port request received
    after 2 p.m. on Day 1 could be activated on Day 3 no later than
    12:01 a.m. Comcast Comments, CC Docket No. 95-116, at 9 (filed Feb.
    8, 2007). Comcast notes that this interval is similar to one
    proposed by Sprint in 2004 in response to the *Intermodal Number
    Portability FNPRM*. *See id*.

[^195]: *See, e.g.*, Qwest Comments, CC Docket No. 95-116, at 5 (filed
    Feb. 8, 2007); Verizon Comments, CC Docket No. 95-116, at 2 (filed
    Feb. 8, 2007); Comcast Comments, CC Docket No. 95-116, at 3, 8-9
    (filed Feb. 8, 2007).

[^196]: *See, e.g.*, Comcast Comments, CC Docket No. 95-116, at 2-3
    (filed Feb. 8, 2007).

[^197]: *See, e.g.*, T-Mobile/Sprint Nextel Reply, CC Docket No. 95-116,
    at 2 (filed Feb. 23, 2007).

[^198]: *See, e.g.*, Letter from John R. Hoffman, Chairman, NANC, to
    Lawrence C. Strickling, Chief, Common Carrier Bureau, FCC, CC Docket
    No. 95-116, Attach. at 20-21 (filed Nov. 4, 1999) (detailing agreed
    upon operating hours and holiday schedule for time-dependent
    operations for the Numbering Portability Administration Center).

[^199]: Charter Comments, CC Docket No. 95-116, at 7-8 (filed Feb. 8,
    2007); *see also* Integra Reply, CC Docket No. 95-116, at 5 (filed
    Feb. 23, 2007).

[^200]: Charter Comments, CC Docket No. 95-116, at 9-10 (filed Feb. 8,
    2007).

[^201]: *Id.* at 14-15; *see also Intermodal Number Portability Order*,
    18 FCC Rcd at 23711, para. 34 (finding that interconnection
    agreements are not necessary for the intermodal porting process).

[^202]: 47 C.F.R. §§ 1.200 *et seq*.

[^203]: *See* 47 C.F.R. § 1.1206(b)(2).

[^204]: 47 C.F.R. § 1.1206(b).

[^205]: 47 C.F.R. §§ 1.415, 1.419.

[^206]: *See* 5 U.S.C. § 603. The RFA, *see* 5 U.S.C. §§ 601-12, has
    been amended by the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness
    Act of 1996 (SBREFA), Pub. L. No. 104-121, Title II, 110 Stat. 857
    (1996).

[^207]: *See* *IP-Enabled Services*, WC Docket No. 04-36, Notice of
    Proposed Rulemaking, 19 FCC Rcd 4863, 4917, para. 91 & Appendix A
    (2004) (*IP-Enabled Services Notice*).

[^208]: *See* *IP-Enabled Services Notice*, 19 FCC Rcd at 4917, para. 91
    & Appendix A.

[^209]: *See* 5 U.S.C. § 604.

[^210]: *See* SBA Comments, WC Docket No. 04-36 (filed May 28, 2004);
    Menard Comments, WC Docket No. 04-36 (filed May 28, 2004); Menard
    Reply, WC Docket No. 04-36 (filed July 15, 2004).

[^211]: *See* SBA Comments, WC Docket No. 04-36, at 1.

[^212]: *See* SBA Comments, WC Docket No. 04-36, at 2, 4, 6; Menard
    Comments, WC Docket No. 04-36; Menard Reply, WC Docket No. 04-36, at
    4.

[^213]: The *IP-Enabled Services Notice* specifically sought comment on
    whether numbering obligations are appropriate in the context of
    IP-enabled services and whether action relating to numbering
    resources is desirable to facilitate the growth of IP-enabled
    services, while at the same time continuing to maximize the use and
    life of numbering resources in the North American Numbering Plan.
    The Commission published a summary of that notice in the Federal
    Register. *See* *IP-Enabled Services Notice*, 19 FCC Rcd at 4911-14,
    paras. 73-76; *Regulatory Requirements for IP-Enabled Services*, WC
    Docket No. 04-36, Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, 69 FR 16193 (Mar.
    29, 2004). We note that a number of small entities submitted
    comments in this proceeding. *See supra* Appendix A.

[^214]: 5 U.S.C. §§ 603(b)(3), 604(a)(3).

[^215]: 5 U.S.C. § 601(6).

[^216]: 5 U.S.C. § 601(3) (incorporating by reference the definition of
    "small business concern" in the Small Business Act, 15 U.S.C.
    § 632). Pursuant to 5 U.S.C. § 601(3), the statutory definition of a
    small business applies "unless an agency, after consultation with
    the Office of Advocacy of the Small Business Administration and
    after opportunity for public comment, establishes one or more
    definitions of such terms which are appropriate to the activities of
    the agency and publishes such definitions(s) in the Federal
    Register."

[^217]: 15 U.S.C. § 632.

[^218]: *See* SBA, Programs and Services, SBA Pamphlet No. CO-0028, at
    page 40 (July 2002).

[^219]: Independent Sector, The New Nonprofit Almanac & Desk Reference
    (2002).

[^220]: 5 U.S.C. § 601(5).

[^221]: U.S. Census Bureau, Statistical Abstract of the United States:
    2006, Section 8, page 272, Table 415.

[^222]: We assume that the villages, school districts, and special
    districts are small, and total 48,558. *See* U.S. Census Bureau,
    Statistical Abstract of the United States: 2006, section 8, page
    273, Table 417. For 2002, Census Bureau data indicate that the total
    number of county, municipal, and township governments nationwide was
    38,967, of which 35,819 were small. *Id.*

[^223]: 15 U.S.C. § 632.

[^224]: Letter from Jere W. Glover, Chief Counsel for Advocacy, SBA, to
    William E. Kennard, Chairman, FCC (May 27, 1999). The Small Business
    Act contains a definition of "small-business concern," which the RFA
    incorporates into its own definition of "small business." *See* 15
    U.S.C. § 632(a) (Small Business Act); 5 U.S.C. § 601(3) (RFA). SBA
    regulations interpret "small business concern" to include the
    concept of dominance on a national basis. *See* 13 C.F.R. §
    121.102(b).

[^225]: 13 C.F.R. § 121.201, NAICS code 517110.

[^226]: FCC, Wireline Competition Bureau, Industry Analysis and
    Technology Division, *Trends in Telephone Service* at Table 5.3,
    page 5-5 (Feb. 2007) (*Trends in Telephone Service*). This source
    uses data that are current as of October 20, 2005.

[^227]: 13 C.F.R. § 121.201, NAICS code 517110.

[^228]: *Trends in Telephone Service* at Table 5.3.

[^229]: 13 C.F.R. § 121.201, NAICS code 517310.

[^230]: *Trends in Telephone Service* at Table 5.3.

[^231]: 13 C.F.R. § 121.201, NAICS code 517310.

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

[^233]: 13 C.F.R. § 121.201, NAICS code 517110.

[^234]: *Trends in Telephone Service* at Table 5.3.

[^235]: 13 C.F.R. § 121.201, NAICS code 517110.

[^236]: *Trends in Telephone Service* at Table 5.3.

[^237]: 13 C.F.R. § 121.201, NAICS code 517110.

[^238]: *Trends in Telephone Service* at Table 5.3.

[^239]: 13 C.F.R. § 121.201, NAICS code 517310.

[^240]: *Trends in Telephone Service* at Table 5.3.

[^241]: We include all toll-free number subscribers in this category,
    including those for 888 numbers.

[^242]:  U.S. Census Bureau, 2007 NAICS Definitions, "517911
    Telecommunications Resellers" (partial definition);
    http://www.census.gov/naics/2007/def/ND517911.HTM#N517911.

[^243]: 13 C.F.R. § 121.201, NAICS code 517911.

[^244]: U.S. Census Bureau, 2002 Economic Census, Subject Series:
    Information, "Establishment and Firm Size (Including Legal Form of
    Organization," Table 5, NAICS code 517310 (issued Nov. 2005). Prior
    to 2007, the subject category was numbered 517310.

[^245]: *Id.* The census data do not provide a more precise estimate of
    the number of firms that have employment of 1,500 or fewer
    employees; the largest category provided is for firms with "1000
    employees or more."

[^246]: *Trends in Telephone Service* at Tables 18.4-18.8.

[^247]: 13 C.F.R. § 121.201, NAICS codes 517410 and 517910.

[^248]:  U.S. Census Bureau, "2002 NAICS Definitions: 517410 Satellite
    Telecommunications," *available at*
    http://www.census.gov/epcd/naics02/def/ND517410.HTM (visited Oct.
    16, 2007).

[^249]:  U.S. Census Bureau, 2002 Economic Census, Subject Series:
    Information, "Establishment and Firm Size (Including Legal Form of
    Organization)," Table 4, NAICS code 517410 (issued Nov. 2005).

[^250]: *Id*. An additional 38 firms had annual receipts of \$25 million
    or more.

[^251]: U.S. Census Bureau, "2002 NAICS Definitions: 517910 Other
    Telecommunications," *available at*
    http://www.census.gov/epcd/naics02/def/ND517910.HTM (visited Oct.
    16, 2007).

[^252]:  U.S. Census Bureau, 2002 Economic Census, Subject Series:
    Information, "Establishment and Firm Size (Including Legal Form of
    Organization)," Table 4, NAICS code 517910 (issued Nov. 2005).

[^253]: *Id*. An additional 14 firms had annual receipts of \$25 million
    or more.

[^254]: 13 C.F.R. § 121.201, NAICS code 517211 (changed from 513321 in
    Oct. 2002).

[^255]: 13 C.F.R. § 121.201, NAICS code 517212 (changed from 513322 in
    Oct. 2002).

[^256]: U.S. Census Bureau, 2002 Economic Census, Subject Series:
    Information, "Establishment and Firm Size (Including Legal Form of
    Organization)," Table 5, NAICS code 517211 (issued Nov. 2005).

[^257]: *Id.* The census data do not provide a more precise estimate of
    the number of firms that have employment of 1,500 or fewer
    employees; the largest category provided is firms with "1000
    employees or more."

[^258]: U.S. Census Bureau, 2002 Economic Census, Subject Series:
    Information, "Establishment and Firm Size (Including Legal Form of
    Organization)," Table 5, NAICS code 517212 (issued Nov. 2005).

[^259]: *Id.* The census data do not provide a more precise estimate of
    the number of firms that have employment of 1,500 or fewer
    employees; the largest category provided is firms with "1000
    employees or more."

[^260]: 13 C.F.R. § 121.201, NAICS code 517212.

[^261]: U.S. Census Bureau, 2002 Economic Census, Subject Series:
    Information, "Establishment and Firm Size (Including Legal Form of
    Organization)," Table 5, NAICS code 517212 (issued Nov. 2005).

[^262]: *Id.* The census data do not provide a more precise estimate of
    the number of firms that have employment of 1,500 or fewer
    employees; the largest category provided is firms with "1000
    employees or more."

[^263]: *Trends in Telephone Service* at Table 5.3.

[^264]: *Id.*

[^265]: 13 C.F.R. § 121.201, NAICS code 517211.

[^266]: U.S. Census Bureau, 2002 Economic Census, Subject Series:
    Information, "Establishment and Firm Size (Including Legal Form of
    Organization)," Table 5, NAICS code 517211 (issued Nov. 2005).

[^267]: *Id.* The census data do not provide a more precise estimate of
    the number of firms that have employment of 1,500 or fewer
    employees; the largest category provided is for firms with "1000
    employees or more."

[^268]: *Trends in Telephone Service*, Table 5.3.

[^269]: *Revision of Part 22 and Part 90 of the Commission's Rules to
    Facilitate Future Development of Paging Systems*, WT Docket No.
    96-18, PP Docket No. 93-235, Second Report and Order, 12 FCC Rcd
    2732, 2811-2812, paras. 178-181 (*Paging Second Report and Order*);
    *see also* *Revision of Part 22 and Part 90 of the Commission's
    Rules to Facilitate Future Development of Paging Systems*, WT Docket
    No. 96-18, PP Docket No. 93-235, Memorandum Opinion and Order on
    Reconsideration, 14 FCC Rcd 10030, 10085-10088, paras. 98-107
    (1999).

[^270]: *Paging Second Report and Order*, 12 FCC Rcd at 2811, para. 179.

[^271]: *See* Letter from Aida Alvarez, Administrator, Small Business
    Administration, to Amy Zoslov, Chief, Auctions and Industry Analysis
    Division, Wireless Telecommunications Bureau (dated Dec. 2, 1998)
    (SBA Dec. 2, 1998 Letter).

[^272]: *See* *929 and 931 MHz Paging Auction Closes*, Public Notice, 15
    FCC Rcd 4858 (WTB 2000).

[^273]: *Id..*

[^274]: *See* *Lower and Upper Paging Band Auction Closes*, Public
    Notice, 16 FCC Rcd 21821 (WTB 2002).

[^275]: *See* *Lower and Upper Paging Bands Auction Closes*, Public
    Notice, 18 FCC Rcd 11154 (WTB 2003).

[^276]: SBA Dec. 2, 1998 Letter.

[^277]: 13 C.F.R. § 121.201, NAICS code 517212.

[^278]: *Id.*

[^279]: *Trends in Telephone Service* at Table 5.3.

[^280]: *See Amendment of Parts 20 and 24 of the Commission's Rules --
    Broadband PCS Competitive Bidding and the Commercial Mobile Radio
    Service Spectrum Cap*, WT Docket No. 96-59, Report and Order, 11 FCC
    Rcd 7824, 61 FR 33859 (July 1, 1996) (*PCS Order*); *see also* 47
    C.F.R. § 24.720(b).

[^281]: *See PCS Order*, 11 FCC Rcd 7824.

[^282]: *See, e.g*., *Implementation of Section 309(j) of the
    Communications Act -- Competitive Bidding*, PP Docket No. 93-253,
    Fifth Report and Order, 9 FCC Rcd 5332, 59 FR 37566 (July 22, 1994).

[^283]: FCC News, Broadband PCS, D, E and F Block Auction Closes, No.
    71744 (rel. Jan. 14, 1997); *see also Amendment of the Commission's
    Rules Regarding Installment Payment Financing for Personal
    Communications Services (PCS) Licenses*, WT Docket No. 97-82, Second
    Report and Order, 12 FCC Rcd 16436, 62 FR 55348 (Oct. 24, 1997).

[^284]: *Implementation of Section 309(j) of the Communications Act --
    Competitive Bidding Narrowband PCS*, Third Memorandum Opinion and
    Order and Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, 10 FCC Rcd 175,
    196, para. 46 (1994).

[^285]: *See* *Announcing the High Bidders in the Auction of ten
    Nationwide Narrowband PCS Licenses, Winning Bids Total
    \$617,006,674*, Public Notice, PNWL 94-004 (rel. Aug. 2, 1994);
    *Announcing the High Bidders in the Auction of 30 Regional
    Narrowband PCS Licenses; Winning Bids Total \$490,901,787*, Public
    Notice, PNWL 94-27 (rel. Nov. 9, 1994).

[^286]: *Amendment of the Commission's Rules to Establish New Personal
    Communications Services, Narrowband PCS*, ET Docket No. 92-100, PP
    Docket No. 93-253, Second Report and Order and Second Further Notice
    of Proposed Rule Making, 15 FCC Rcd 10456, 10476, para. 40 (2000).

[^287]: *Id*.

[^288]: *Id*.

[^289]: *See* Letter from Aida Alvarez, Administrator, Small Business
    Administration, to Amy Zoslov, Chief, Auctions and Industry Analysis
    Division, Wireless Telecommunications Bureau, Federal Communications
    Commission (dated Dec. 2, 1998).

[^290]: *See* *Narrowband PCS Auction Closes*, Public Notice, 16 FCC Rcd
    18663 (WTB 2001).

[^291]: 13 C.F.R. § 121.201, NAICS code 517212.

[^292]: U.S. Census Bureau, 1997 Economic Census, Subject Series:
    "Information," Table 5, Employment Size of Firms Subject to Federal
    Income Tax: 1997, NAICS code 513322 (issued Oct. 2000).

[^293]: *Id.* The census data do not provide a more precise estimate of
    the number of firms that have employment of 1,500 or fewer
    employees; the largest category provided is "Firms with 1000
    employees or more."

[^294]: *See* U.S. Census Bureau, 2002 Economic Census, Industry Series:
    "Information," Table 2, Comparative Statistics for the United States
    (1997 NAICS Basis): 2002 and 1997, NAICS code 513322 (issued Nov.
    2004). The preliminary data indicate that the total number of
    "establishments" increased from 2,959 to 9,511. In this context, the
    number of establishments is a less helpful indicator of small
    business prevalence than is the number of "firms," because the
    latter number takes into account the concept of common ownership or
    control. The more helpful 2002 census data on firms, including
    employment and receipts numbers, will be issued in late 2005.

[^295]: *220 MHz Third Report and Order*, 12 FCC Rcd 10943, 11068-70,
    paras. 291-95 (1997).

[^296]: *Id.* at 11068, para. 291.

[^297]: *See* Letter from A. Alvarez, Administrator, SBA, to D.
    Phythyon, Chief, Wireless Telecommunications Bureau, FCC (Jan. 6,
    1998).

[^298]: *See generally* *220 MHz Service Auction Closes*, Public Notice,
    14 FCC Rcd 605 (1998).

[^299]: *See, e.g.*, *FCC Announces It is Prepared to Grant 654 Phase II
    220 MHz Licenses After Final Payment is Made*, Public Notice, 14 FCC
    Rcd 1085 (1999).

[^300]: *Phase II 220 MHz Service Spectrum Auction Closes*, Public
    Notice, 14 FCC Rcd 11218 (1999).

[^301]: 47 C.F.R. § 90.814(b)(1).

[^302]: *See* *Service* *Rules for the 746-764 MHz Bands, and Revisions
    to part 27 of the Commission's Rules*, WT Docket No. 99-168, Second
    Report and Order, 15 FCC Rcd 5299, 65 FR 17594 (2000).

[^303]: *See generally* *220 MHz Service Auction Closes*, Public Notice,
    Report No. WT 98-36 (rel. Oct. 23, 1998).

[^304]: *700 MHz Guard Band Auction Closes*, Public Notice, 16 FCC Rcd
    4590 (rel. Feb. 22, 2001).

[^305]: The service is defined in section 22.99 of the Commission's
    Rules, 47 C.F.R. § 22.99.

[^306]: BETRS is defined in sections 22.757 and 22.759 of the
    Commission's Rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 22.757, 22.759.

[^307]: 13 C.F.R. § 121.201, NAICS code 517212.

[^308]: The service is defined in section 22.99 of the Commission's
    Rules, 47 C.F.R. § 22.99.

[^309]: 13 C.F.R. § 121.201, NAICS code 517212.

[^310]: *Id.*

[^311]: *Amendment of the Commission's Rules Concerning Maritime
    Communications*, PR Docket No. 92-257, Third Report and Order and
    Memorandum Opinion and Order, 13 FCC Rcd 19853 (1998).

[^312]: This service is governed by Subpart I of Part 22 of the
    Commission's rules. *See* 47 C.F.R. §§ 22.1001-.1037.

[^313]: 13 C.F.R. § 121.201, NAICS code 517212.

[^314]: *Id*.

[^315]: *See Amendment of the Commission's Rules Regarding the 37.0-38.6
    GHz and 38.6-40.0 GHz Bands*, ET Docket No. 95-183, Report and Order
    and Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, 12 FCC Rcd 18600, 63 FR 6079
    (Feb. 6, 1998).

[^316]: *Id.*

[^317]: *See* Letter from Aida Alvarez, Administrator, SBA, to Kathleen
    O'Brien Ham, Chief, Auctions and Industry Analysis Division,
    Wireless Telecommunications Bureau, FCC (Feb. 4, 1998).

[^318]: MDS, also known as Multichannel Multipoint Distribution Service
    ("MMDS"), is regulated by Part 21 of the Commission's rules, *see*
    47 C.F.R. Part 21, subpart K, and has been renamed the Broadband
    Radio Service (BRS). S*ee* *Amendment of Parts 1, 21, 73, 74 and 101
    of the Commission's Rules to Facilitate the Provision of Fixed and
    Mobile Broadband Access, Educational and Other Advanced Services in
    the 2150-2162 and 2500-2690 MHz Bands; Part 1 of the Commission\'s
    Rules - Further Competitive Bidding Procedures; Amendment of Parts
    21 and 74 to Enable Multipoint Distribution Service and the
    Instructional Television Fixed Service Amendment of Parts 21 and 74
    to Engage in Fixed Two-Way Transmissions; Amendment of Parts 21 and
    74 of the Commission\'s Rules With Regard to Licensing in the
    Multipoint Distribution Service and in the Instructional Television
    Fixed Service for the Gulf of Mexico; Promoting Efficient Use of
    Spectrum Through Elimination of Barriers to the Development of
    Secondary Markets*, WT Docket Nos. 03-66, 03-67, 02-68, and 00-230,
    MM Docket No. 97-217, RM-10586, RM-9718, Report and Order and
    Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, 19 FCC Rcd 14165 (2004)
    (*MDS/ITFS Order*).

[^319]: ITFS systems are regulated by Part 74 of the Commission's rules;
    *see* 47 C.F.R. Part 74, subpart I. ITFS, an educational service,
    has been renamed the Educational Broadband Service (EBS). S*ee*
    *MDS/ITFS Order*, 19 FCC Rcd 14165. ITFS licensees, however, are
    permitted to lease spectrum for MDS operation.

[^320]: *See* *Annual Assessment of the Status of Competition in the
    Market for the Delivery of Video Programming, Eleventh Annual
    Report,* 20 FCC Rcd 2507, 2565, para. 131 (2006) (*2006 Cable
    Competition Report*).

[^321]: *Id*.

[^322]: *See Rulemaking to Amend Parts 1, 2, 21, and 25 of the
    Commission's Rules to Redesignate the 27.5-29.5 GHz Frequency Band,
    to Reallocate the 29.5-30.0 GHz Frequency Band, to Establish Rules
    and Policies for Local Multipoint Distribution Service and for Fix
    Satellite Services*, CC Docket No. 92-297, Second Report and Order,
    Order on Reconsideration, and Fifth Notice of Proposed Rulemaking,
    12 FCC Rcd 12545 (1997) (*Local Multipoint Distribution Service
    Order*).

[^323]: 13 C.F.R. § 121.201, NAICS code 517510.

[^324]: MDS Auction No. 6 began on November 13, 1995, and closed on
    March 28, 1996. (67 bidders won 493 licenses.)

[^325]: 47 C.F.R. § 21.961(b)(1).

[^326]: *See Amendment of Parts 21 and 74 of the Commission\'s Rules
    With Regard to Filing Procedures in the Multipoint Distribution
    Service & in the Instructional Television Fixed Service*, MM Docket
    No. 94-131, PP Docket No. 93-253, Report and Order, 10 FCC Rcd 9589
    (1995).

[^327]: 47 U.S.C. § 309(j). Hundreds of stations were licensed to
    incumbent MDS licensees prior to implementation of Section 309(j) of
    the Communications Act of 1934, 47 U.S.C. § 309(j). For these
    pre-auction licenses, the applicable standard is SBA's small
    business size standards for "other telecommunications" (annual
    receipts of \$13.5 million or less). *See* 13 C.F.R. § 121.201,
    NAICS code 517910.

[^328]: In addition, the term "small entity" under SBREFA applies to
    small organizations (nonprofits) and to small governmental
    jurisdictions (cities, counties, towns, townships, villages, school
    districts, and special districts with populations of less than
    50,000). 5 U.S.C. §§ 601(4)-(6). We do not collect annual revenue
    data on ITFS licensees.

[^329]: The Commission has held two LMDS auctions: Auction 17 and
    Auction 23. Auction No. 17, the first LMDS auction, began on
    February 18, 1998, and closed on March 25, 1998. (104 bidders won
    864 licenses.) Auction No. 23, the LMDS re-auction, began on April
    27, 1999, and closed on May 12, 1999. (40 bidders won 161 licenses.)

[^330]: *See Local Multipoint Distribution Service Order*, 12 FCC Rcd at
    12545.

[^331]: *Id.*

[^332]: *See* Letter from A. Alvarez, Administrator, SBA, to Daniel
    Phythyon, Chief, Wireless Telecommunications Bureau, FCC (January 6,
    1998).

[^333]: *See Local Multipoint Distribution Service Order*, 12 FCC Rcd
    12545.

[^334]: *Id.*

[^335]: *See* *id*.

[^336]: *See* Letter from Aida Alvarez, Administrator, SBA, from Dan
    Phythyon, Chief, Wireless Telecommunications Bureau, FCC (Jan. 6,
    1998).

[^337]: *Implementation of Section 309(j) of the Communications Act --
    Competitive Bidding*, PP Docket No. 93-253, Fourth Report and Order,
    9 FCC Rcd 2330, 59 FR 24947 (May 13, 1994).

[^338]: *Amendment of Part 95 of the Commission's Rules to Provide
    Regulatory Flexibility in the 218-219 MHz Service*, WT Docket No.
    98-169, Report and Order and Memorandum Opinion and Order, 15 FCC
    Rcd 1497, 64 FR 59656 (Nov. 3, 1999).

[^339]: *Id.*

[^340]: 13 C.F.R. § 121.201, NAICS code 517212.

[^341]: U.S. Census Bureau, 1997 Economic Census, Subject Series:
    Information, "Employment Size of Firms Subject to Federal Income
    Tax: 1997," Table 5, NAICS code 513322 (issued Oct. 2000).

[^342]: *Id.* The census data do not provide a more precise estimate of
    the number of firms that have employment of 1,500 or fewer
    employees; the largest category provided is "Firms with 1,000
    employees or more."

[^343]: Teligent acquired the DEMS licenses of FirstMark, the only
    licensee other than TRW in the 24 GHz band whose license has been
    modified to require relocation to the 24 GHz band.

[^344]: *Amendments to Parts 1,2, 87 and 101 of the Commission's Rules
    to License Fixed Services at 24 GHz*, WT Docket No. 99-327, Report
    and Order, 15 FCC Rcd 16934, 16967, para. 77 (2000); *see also* 47
    C.F.R. § 101.538(a)(2).

[^345]: *Amendments to Parts 1,2, 87 and 101 of the Commission's Rules
    to License Fixed Services at 24 GHz*, WT Docket No. 99-327, Report
    and Order, 15 FCC Rcd 16934, 16967, para. 77 (2000); *see also* 47
    C.F.R. § 101.538(a)(1).

[^346]: *See* Letter from Gary M. Jackson, Assistant Administrator, SBA,
    to Margaret W. Wiener, Deputy Chief, Auctions and Industry Analysis
    Division, Wireless Telecommunications Bureau, FCC (July 28, 2000).

[^347]: U.S. Census Bureau, 2007 NAICS Definitions, "517110 Wired
    Telecommunications Carriers" (partial definition);
    http://www.census.gov/naics/2007/def/ND517110.HTM#N517110.

[^348]: 13 C.F.R. § 121.201, NAICS code 517110.

[^349]: U.S. Census Bureau, 2002 Economic Census, Subject Series:
    Information, Table 4, Receipts Size of Firms for the United States:
    2002, NAICS code 517510 (issued November 2005).

[^350]: *Id*. An additional 61 firms had annual receipts of \$25 million
    or more.

[^351]: 47 C.F.R. § 76.901(e). The Commission determined that this size
    standard equates approximately to a size standard of \$100 million
    or less in annual revenues. *Implementation of Sections of the 1992
    Cable Act: Rate Regulation,* Sixth Report and Order and Eleventh
    Order on Reconsideration, MM Docket Nos. 92-266, 93-215, 10 FCC Rcd
    7393, 7408 (1995).

[^352]: These data are derived from: R.R. Bowker, *Broadcasting & Cable
    Yearbook 2006*, "Top 25 Cable/Satellite Operators," pages A-8 & C-2
    (data current as of June 30, 2005); Warren Communications News,
    *Television & Cable Factbook 2006*, "Ownership of Cable Systems in
    the United States," pages D-1805 to D-1857.

[^353]: 47 C.F.R. § 76.901(c).

[^354]: Warren Communications News, *Television & Cable Factbook 2006*,
    "U.S. Cable Systems by Subscriber Size," page F-2 (data current as
    of Oct. 2005). The data do not include 718 systems for which
    classifying data were not available.

[^355]: 47 U.S.C. § 543(m)(2); *see* 47 C.F.R. § 76.901(f) & nn. 1-3.

[^356]: 47 C.F.R. § 76.901(f); *see FCC Announces New Subscriber Count
    for the Definition of Small Cable Operator*, Public Notice, DA
    01‑158, 16 FCC Rcd 2225 (Cable Services Bureau, Jan. 24, 2001).

[^357]: These data are derived from: R.R. Bowker, *Broadcasting & Cable
    Yearbook 2006*, "Top 25 Cable/Satellite Operators," pages A-8 & C-2
    (data current as of June 30, 2005); Warren Communications News,
    *Television & Cable Factbook 2006*, "Ownership of Cable Systems in
    the United States," pages D-1805 to D-1857.

[^358]: The Commission does receive such information on a case-by-case
    basis if a cable operator appeals a local franchise authority's
    finding that the operator does not qualify as a small cable operator
    pursuant to § 76.901(f) of the Commission's rules. *See* 47 C.F.R. §
    76.909(b).

[^359]: 47 U.S.C. § 571(a)(3)-(4). *See* *Annual Assessment of the
    Status of Competition in the Market for the Delivery of Video
    Programming, Eleventh Annual Report,* 20 FCC Rcd 2507, 2549, para.
    88 (2006) (*2006 Cable Competition Report*).

[^360]: *See* 47 U.S.C. § 573.

[^361]: 13 C.F.R. § 121.201, NAICS code 517510.

[^362]: *See 2006 Cable Competition Report*, 20 FCC Rcd at 2549, para.
    88. BSPs are newer firms that are building state-of-the-art,
    facilities-based networks to provide video, voice, and data services
    over a single network.

[^363]: *See id*. at 2507, para. 14.

[^364]: *See 2006 Cable Competition Report*, 20 FCC Rcd at 2549, para.
    89. WideOpenWest is the second largest BSP and 16th largest MVPD,
    with cable systems serving about 292,000 subscribers as of June,
    2005. The third largest BSP is Knology, serving approximately
    170,800 subscribers as of June 2005. *Id*.

[^365]: U.S. Census Bureau, "2002 NAICS Definitions: 518111 Internet
    Service Providers," *available at*
    http://www.census.gov/epcd/naics02/def/NDEF518.HTM.

[^366]: 13 C.F.R. § 121.201, NAICS code 518111.

[^367]: U.S. Census Bureau, 2002 Economic Census, Subject Series:
    Information, "Establishment and Firm Size (Including Legal Form of
    Organization)," Table 4, NAICS code 518111 (issued Nov. 2005).

[^368]: U.S. Census Bureau, "2002 NAICS Definitions: 518112 Web Search
    Portals," *available at*
    http://www.census.gov/epcd/naics02/def/NDEF518.HTM.

[^369]: 13 C.F.R. § 121.201, NAICS code 518112.

[^370]: U.S. Census Bureau, 2002 Economic Census, Subject Series:
    Information, "Establishment and Firm Size (Including Legal Form of
    Organization)," Table 4, NAICS code 518112 (issued Nov. 2005).

[^371]: U.S. Census Bureau, "2002 NAICS Definitions: 518210 Data
    Processing, Hosting, and Related Services," *available at*
    http://www.census.gov/epcd/naics02/def/NDEF518.HTM.

[^372]: 13 C.F.R. § 121.201, NAICS code 518210.

[^373]: U.S. Census Bureau, 2002 Economic Census, Subject Series:
    Information, "Establishment and Firm Size (Including Legal Form of
    Organization)," Table 4, NAICS code 518210 (issued Nov. 2005).

[^374]: U.S. Census Bureau, "2002 NAICS Definitions: 519190 All Other
    Information Services," *available at*
    http://www.census.gov/epcd/naics02/def/NDEF519.HTM.

[^375]: 13 C.F.R. § 121.201, NAICS code 519190.

[^376]: U.S. Census Bureau, 1997 Economic Census, Subject Series:
    Information, "Establishment and Firm Size (Including Legal Form of
    Organization)," Table 4, NAICS code 519190 (issued Nov. 2005).

[^377]: U.S. Census Bureau, "2002 NAICS Definitions: 516110 Internet
    Publishing and Broadcasting," *available at*
    http://www.census.gov/epcd/naics02/def/NDEF516.HTM.

[^378]: 13 C.F.R. § 121.201, NAICS code 516110.

[^379]: U.S. Census Bureau, 2002 Economic Census, Subject Series:
    Information, "Establishment and Firm Size (Including Legal Form of
    Organization)," Table 5, NAICS code 516110 (issued Nov. 2005).

[^380]: *See* U.S. Census Bureau, "2002 NAICS Definitions: 511210
    Software Publishers," *available at*
    http://www.census.gov/epcd/naics02/def/NDEF511.HTM.

[^381]: 13 C.F.R. § 121.201, NAICS codes 511210, 541511, and 541519.

[^382]: U.S. Census Bureau, 2002 Economic Census, Subject Series:
    Information, "Establishment and Firm Size (Including Legal Form of
    Organization)," Table 4, NAICS code 511210 (issued Nov. 2005).

[^383]: U.S. Census Bureau, 2002 Economic Census, Subject Series:
    Professional, Scientific, and Technical Services, "Establishment and
    Firm Size (Including Legal Form of Organization)," Table 4, NAICS
    code 541511 (issued Nov. 2005).

[^384]: U.S. Census Bureau, 2002 Economic Census, Subject Series:
    Professional, Scientific, and Technical Services, "Establishment and
    Firm Size (Including Legal Form of Organization)," Table 4, NAICS
    code 541519 (issued Nov. 2005).

[^385]: U.S. Census Bureau, 2002 NAICS Definitions, "334111 Electronic
    Computer Manufacturing," *available at*
    http://www.census.gov/epcd/naics02/def/ND334111.HTM#N334111.

[^386]: 13 C.F.R. § 121.201, NAICS code 334111.

[^387]: U.S. Census Bureau, 2002 Economic Census, Industry Series:
    Manufacturing, "Electronic Computer Manufacturing," Table 4, NAICS
    code 334111 (issued Dec. 2004).

[^388]: U.S. Census Bureau, 2002 NAICS Definitions, "334112 Computer
    Storage Device Manufacturing," *available at*
    http://www.census.gov/epcd/naics02/def/ND334112.HTM#N334112.

[^389]: 13 C.F.R. § 121.201, NAICS code 334112.

[^390]: U.S. Census Bureau, 2002 Economic Census, Industry Series:
    Manufacturing, "Computer Storage Device Manufacturing," Table 4,
    NAICS code 334112 (issued Dec. 2004).

[^391]: U.S. Census Bureau, 2002 NAICS Definitions, "334113 Computer
    Terminal Manufacturing," *available at*
    http://www.census.gov/epcd/naics02/def/ND334113.HTM#N334113.

[^392]: 13 C.F.R. § 121.201, NAICS code 334113.

[^393]: U.S. Census Bureau, 2002 Economic Census, Industry Series:
    Manufacturing, "Computer Terminal Manufacturing," Table 4, NAICS
    code 334113 (issued Dec. 2004). In fact, all had employment of under
    500.

[^394]: U.S. Census Bureau, 2002 NAICS Definitions, "334119 Other
    Computer Peripheral Equipment Manufacturing," *available at*
    http://www.census.gov/epcd/naics02/def/ND334119.HTM#N334119.

[^395]: 13 C.F.R. § 121.201, NAICS code 334119.

[^396]: U.S. Census Bureau, 2002 Economic Census, Industry Series:
    Manufacturing, "Other Computer Peripheral Equipment Manufacturing,"
    Table 4, NAICS code 334119 (issued Dec. 2004).

[^397]: U.S. Census Bureau, 2002 NAICS Definitions, "334310 Audio and
    Video Equipment Manufacturing," *available at*
    http://www.census.gov/epcd/naics02/def/ND334310.HTM#N334310.

[^398]: 13 C.F.R. § 121.201, NAICS code 334310.

[^399]: U.S. Census Bureau, 2002 Economic Census, Industry Series:
    Manufacturing, "Audio and Video Equipment Manufacturing," Table 4,
    NAICS code 334310 (issued Dec. 2004).

[^400]: U.S. Census Bureau, 2002 NAICS Definitions, "334411 Electron
    Tube Manufacturing," *available at*
    http://www.census.gov/epcd/naics02/def/ND334411.HTM#N334411.

[^401]: 13 C.F.R. § 121.201, NAICS code 334411.

[^402]: U.S. Census Bureau, 2002 Economic Census, Industry Series:
    Manufacturing, "Electron Tube Manufacturing," Table 4, NAICS code
    334411 (issued Dec. 2004).

[^403]: U.S. Census Bureau, 2002 NAICS Definitions, "334412 Bare Printed
    Circuit Board Manufacturing," *available at*
    http://www.census.gov/epcd/naics02/def/ND334412.HTM#N334412.

[^404]: 13 C.F.R. § 121.201, NAICS code 334412.

[^405]: U.S. Census Bureau, 2002 Economic Census, Industry Series:
    Manufacturing, "Bare Printed Circuit Board Manufacturing," Table 4,
    NAICS code 334412 (issued Jan. 2005).

[^406]: U.S. Census Bureau, 2002 NAICS Definitions, "334413
    Semiconductor and Related Device Manufacturing," *available at*
    http://www.census.gov/epcd/naics02/def/ND334413.HTM#N334413.

[^407]: 13 C.F.R. § 121.201, NAICS code 334413.

[^408]: U.S. Census Bureau, 2002 Economic Census, Industry Series:
    Manufacturing, "Semiconductor and Related Device Manufacturing ,"
    Table 4, NAICS code 334413 (issued Jan. 2005).

[^409]: U.S. Census Bureau, 2002 NAICS Definitions, "334414 Electronic
    Capacitor Manufacturing," *available at*
    http://www.census.gov/epcd/naics02/def/ND334414.HTM#N334414.

[^410]: 13 C.F.R. § 121.201, NAICS code 334414.

[^411]: U.S. Census Bureau, 2002 Economic Census, Industry Series:
    Manufacturing, "Electronic Capacitor Manufacturing," Table 4, NAICS
    code 334414 (issued Jan. 2005).

[^412]: U.S. Census Bureau, 2002 NAICS Definitions, "334415 Electronic
    Resistor Manufacturing," *available at*
    http://www.census.gov/epcd/naics02/def/ND334415.HTM#N334415.

[^413]: 13 C.F.R. § 121.201, NAICS code 334415.

[^414]: U.S. Census Bureau, 2002 Economic Census, Industry Series:
    Manufacturing, "Electronic Resistor Manufacturing," Table 4, NAICS
    code 334415 (issued Jan. 2005).

[^415]: U.S. Census Bureau, 2002 NAICS Definitions, "334416 Electronic
    Coil, Transformer, and Other Inductor Manufacturing," *available at*
    http://www.census.gov/epcd/naics02/def/ND334416.HTM#N334416.

[^416]: 13 C.F.R. § 121.201, NAICS code 334416.

[^417]: U.S. Census Bureau, 2002 Economic Census, Industry Series:
    Manufacturing, "Electronic Coil, Transformer, and Other Inductor
    Manufacturing," Table 4, NAICS code 334416 (issued Jan. 2005).

[^418]: U.S. Census Bureau, 2002 NAICS Definitions, "334417 Electronic
    Connector Manufacturing," *available at*
    http://www.census.gov/epcd/naics02/def/ND334417.HTM#N334417.

[^419]: 13 C.F.R. § 121.201, NAICS code 334417.

[^420]: U.S. Census Bureau, 2002 Economic Census, Industry Series:
    Manufacturing, "Electronic Connector Manufacturing," Table 4, NAICS
    code 334417 (issued Jan. 2005).

[^421]: U.S. Census Bureau, 2002 NAICS Definitions, "334418 Printed
    Circuit Assembly (Electronic Assembly) Manufacturing," *available
    at* http://www.census.gov/epcd/naics02/def/ND334418.HTM#N334418.

[^422]: 13 C.F.R. § 121.201, NAICS code 334418.

[^423]: U.S. Census Bureau, 2002 Economic Census, Industry Series:
    Manufacturing, "Printed Circuit Assembly (Electronic Assembly)
    Manufacturing," Table 4, NAICS code 334418 (issued Jan. 2005).

[^424]: U.S. Census Bureau, 2002 NAICS Definitions, "334419 Other
    Electronic Component Manufacturing," *available at*
    http://www.census.gov/epcd/naics02/def/ND334419.HTM#N334419.

[^425]: 13 C.F.R. § 121.201, NAICS code 334419.

[^426]: U.S. Census Bureau, 2002 Economic Census, Industry Series:
    Manufacturing, "Other Electronic Component Manufacturing," Table 4,
    NAICS code 334419 (issued Jan. 2005).

[^427]: U.S. Census Bureau, 2002 NAICS Definitions, "335921 Fiber Optic
    Cable Manufacturing," *available at*
    http://www.census.gov/epcd/naics02/def/ND335921.HTM#N335921.

[^428]: 13 C.F.R. § 121.201, NAICS code 335921.

[^429]: U.S. Census Bureau, 2002 Economic Census, Industry Series:
    Manufacturing, "Fiber Optic Cable Manufacturing," Table 4, NAICS
    code 335921 (issued Dec. 2004).

[^430]: U.S. Census Bureau, 2002 NAICS Definitions, "335929 Other
    Communication and Energy Wire Manufacturing," *available at*
    http://www.census.gov/epcd/naics02/def/ND335929.HTM#N335929.

[^431]: 13 C.F.R. § 121.201, NAICS code 335929.

[^432]: U.S. Census Bureau, 2002 Economic Census, Industry Series:
    Manufacturing, "Other Communication and Energy Wire Manufacturing,"
    Table 4, NAICS code 335929 (issued Dec. 2004).

[^433]: *See* Report and Order, *supra* para. 32.

[^434]: *See* *id.*, *supra* para. 33.

[^435]: *See* *id.*, *supra* note 114.

[^436]: *See id.*, *supra* para. 40.

[^437]: *See id.*

[^438]: *See* *id.*, *supra* para. 38.

[^439]: 5 U.S.C. § 603(c).

[^440]: *See* *IP-Enabled Services Notice*, 19 FCC Rcd at 4912-14,
    paras. 74-76.

[^441]: *See* Report and Order, *supra* paras. 17, 26.

[^442]: *See id*.

[^443]: *See* *id.*, *supra* para. 27.

[^444]: *See* *id.*, *supra* para. 38.

[^445]: *See* *id*.

[^446]: *See* 5 U.S.C. § 801(a)(1)(A).

[^447]: *See* 5 U.S.C. § 604(b).

[^448]: *See* 5 U.S.C. § 603. The RFA, *see* 5 U.S.C. §§ 601-612, has
    been amended by the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness
    Act of 1996 (SBREFA), Pub. L. No. 104-121, Title II, 110 Stat. 857
    (1996).

[^449]: *See Federal Communications Commission Seeks Comment on Initial
    Regulatory Flexibility Analysis in Telephone Number Portability
    Proceeding*, CC Docket No. 95-116, Public Notice, 20 FCC Rcd 8616
    (2005) (*Number Portability IRFA Notice*); *see also* 70 Fed. Reg.
    41655 (Jul. 20, 2005).

[^450]: *See* 5 U.S.C. § 604.

[^451]: 47 U.S.C. § 251(b).

[^452]: *See Intermodal Number Portability Order*, 18 FCC Rcd at 23706,
    para. 22.

[^453]: *See United States Telecom Ass'n. v. FCC*, 400 F.3d at 43.

[^454]: *See* 5 U.S.C. § 604.

[^455]: *See, e.g.*, NTCA/OPASTCO Comments, CC Docket No. 95-116, at
    18-19 (filed Aug. 19, 2005); NTCA/OPASTCO Reply, CC Docket No.
    95-116, at 5 (filed Sept. 7, 2005); Office of Advocacy, SBA
    Comments, CC Docket No. 95-116, at 8 (filed Aug. 15, 2005); Missouri
    Small Telephone Company Group, CC Docket No. 95-116, at 4-7 (filed
    Aug. 19, 2005); Nebraska Rural Independent Companies Comments, CC
    Docket No. 95-116, at 6-7 (filed Aug. 19, 2005).

[^456]: Rating and routing issues are currently before the Commission in
    several proceedings. *See, e.g.*, *Developing a Unified Intercarrier
    Compensation Regime*, CC Docket No. 01-92, Notice of Proposed
    Rulemaking, 16 FCC Rcd 9610 (2001) (*Intercarrier Compensation
    Notice of Proposed Rulemaking*); *Developing a Unified Intercarrier
    Compensation Regime*, CC Docket No. 01-92, Further Notice of
    Proposed Rulemaking, 20 FCC Rcd 4685 (2005) (*Intercarrier
    Compensation Further Notice*); *Developing a Unified Intercarrier
    Compensation Regime*, CC Docket No. 01-92, Order, 21 FCC Rcd 14764
    (WCB 2007); *Pleading Cycle Extended for Comment on Amendments to
    the Missoula Plan Intercarrier Compensation Proposal to Incorporate
    a Federal Benchmark Mechanism*, CC Docket No. 01-92, Public Notice,
    22 FCC Rcd 5098 (2007); Sprint Petition for Declaratory Ruling, CC
    Docket No. 01-92, at 1 (filed May 9, 2002); *see also* *Comment
    Sought on Petitions for Declaratory Ruling Regarding Intercarrier
    Compensation for Wireless Traffic*, CC Docket 01-92, Public Notice,
    17 FCC Rcd 19046 (2002); ASAP Paging, Inc. Petition for Preemption
    of Public Utility Commission of Texas Concerning Retail Rating of
    Local Calls to CMRS Carriers, WC Docket No. 04-6 (filed Dec. 22,
    2003); *Pleading Cycle Establishing for Petition of ASAP Paging,
    Inc. for Preemption of the Public Utility Commission of Texas
    Concerning Retail Rating of Local Calls to CMRS Carriers*, WC Docket
    No. 04-6, Public Notice, 19 FCC Rcd 936 (2004).

[^457]: *See Intermodal Number Portability Order*, 18 FCC Rcd at 23713,
    para. 40. We emphasize that our findings in this FRFA are limited to
    the context of the wireline-to-wireless intermodal LNP requirements
    that are applicable to wireline carriers qualifying as small
    entities under the RFA. We make no determination regarding issues
    pending in the intercarrier compensation proceeding and nothing in
    this FRFA should be viewed as prejudging the outcome of that
    proceeding. Our decision here does not prejudge the ability of state
    commissions to consider rating and routing issues or transport costs
    in their review of petitions filed pursuant to section 251(f)(2).

[^458]: *See, e.g*., Missouri Small Telephone Company Group Comments, CC
    Docket No. 95-116, at 13 (filed Aug. 19, 2005); Nebraska Rural
    Independent Companies Comments, CC Docket No. 95-116, at 8 (filed
    Aug. 19, 2005); Rural Iowa Independent Telephone Association
    Comments, CC Docket No. 95-116, at 5 (filed Aug. 19, 2005); South
    Dakota Telecommunications Association, CC Docket No. 95-116, at 6
    (filed Aug. 19, 2005).

[^459]: *See, e.g.*, Missouri Small Telephone Company Group Comments, CC
    Docket No. 95-116, at 2-6 (filed Aug. 19, 2005); Montana Small Rural
    Independents Comments, CC Docket No. 95-116, at 10 (filed Aug. 19,
    2005); Nebraska Rural Independent Companies Comments, CC Docket No.
    95-116, at 4 (filed Aug. 19, 2005); USTA Comments, CC Docket No.
    95-116, at 8-10 (filed Aug. 19, 2005); USTA Reply, CC Docket No.
    95-116, at 8 (filed Sept. 6, 2005).

[^460]: *See, e.g*., CTIA Comments, CC Docket No. 95-116, at 7 (filed
    Aug. 19, 2005); Verizon Wireless Comments, CC Docket No. 95-116, at
    2 (filed Aug. 19, 2005). CTIA, for example, citing the Missouri
    Small Telephone Company Group's implementation cost estimate of
    \$1,000,000 for all of its twenty-five member companies, notes that,
    when divided by the 88,500 lines the group's members serve and
    divided by the five years during which carriers are permitted to
    recover these non-recurring charges, the charge amounts to \$0.19
    per line, per month. *See* CTIA Reply, CC Docket No. 95-116, at 13
    (filed Sept. 6, 2005). Verizon Wireless notes that, in Iowa, a rural
    carrier can implement LNP for a monthly per customer cost of \$0.18,
    in Nebraska, a carrier can do so for \$0.67, and in Missouri, a
    carrier can complete the implementation for \$0.11 per month. *See*
    Verizon Wireless Reply, CC Docket No. 95-116, at 2 (filed Sept. 6,
    2005). Further, such costs may be even less for those carriers who
    have already implemented wireline-to-wireline porting and thus have
    the infrastructure for porting already in place.

[^461]: The South Dakota Telecommunications Association, for example,
    indicated that its member companies estimated transport costs to
    range from \$0.20 to \$30 per line, per month. *See* South Dakota
    Telecommunications Association Comments, CC Docket No. 95-116, at
    3-4 (filed Aug. 29, 2005). One member company of the Missouri Small
    Telephone Company Group, located in a remote area, estimated its
    monthly transport cost to be \$1500, or 85% of its monthly recurring
    LNP costs. *See* Missouri Small Telephone Company Group Comments, CC
    Docket No. 95-116, at 3 (filed Aug. 19, 2005).

[^462]: While the Commission sought comment on this category of costs in
    the associated IRFA, it did so because the issue was raised by the
    SBA. *See Number Portability IRFA Notice*, 20 FCC Rcd at 8622, para.
    10 & n.20. The Public Notice did not reverse Commission precedent,
    nor does the record here persuade us to do so.

[^463]: *See Numbering Resource Optimization; Implementation of the
    Local Competition Provisions of the Telecommunications Act of 1996;
    Telephone Number Portability*, CC Docket Nos. 99-200, 96-98, 95-116,
    Fourth Report and Order and Fourth Further Notice of Proposed
    Rulemaking, 18 FCC Rcd 12472, 12475, para. 8 (2003) (*NRO and LNP
    Fourth Report and Order*). In addition, carriers operating outside
    of the 100 largest MSAs have six months after receiving a request
    from another carrier in which to provide LNP. *Id.* at 12475, n.17;
    *see* 47 C.F.R. § 52.23(c). The Commission also delegated authority
    to the state to require carriers within the 100 largest MSAs to
    implement LNP even in the absence of a request, if doing so "would
    serve the public interest, because there is actual, meaningful
    consumer demand, as evidenced by consumer requests" for LNP in such
    areas. *NRO and LNP Fourth Report and Order*, 18 FCC Rcd at
    12476-77, paras. 11-12.

[^464]: *See First Number Portability Order on Reconsideration*, 12 FCC
    Rcd at 7343-44, App. D, paras. 29-30.

[^465]: *See* 47 C.F.R. § 1.3.

[^466]: 47 U.S.C. § 251(f)(2).

[^467]: *See* 5 U.S.C. § 603(b)(3).

[^468]: 5 U.S.C. § 601(6).

[^469]: 5 U.S.C. § 601(3) (incorporating by reference the definition of
    "small business concern" in the Small Business Act, 15 U.S.C. §
    632). Pursuant to 5 U.S.C. § 601(3), the statutory definition of a
    small business applies "unless an agency, after consultation with
    the Office of Advocacy of the Small Business Administration and
    after opportunity for public comment, establishes one or more
    definitions of such term which are appropriate to the activities of
    the agency and publishes such definitions(s) in the Federal
    Register."

[^470]: 15 U.S.C. § 632.

[^471]: 13 C.F.R. § 121.201, NAICS code 517110.

[^472]: U.S. Census Bureau, 2002 Economic Census, Subject Series:
    Information, "Establishment and Firm Size (Including Legal Form of
    Organization," Table 5, NAICS code 517110 (issued Nov. 2005).

[^473]: *Id.* The census data do not provide a more precise estimate of
    the number of firms that have employment of 1,500 or fewer
    employees; the largest category provided is for firms with "1000
    employees or more."

[^474]: 5 U.S.C. § 601(3).

[^475]: *See* Letter from Jere W. Glover, Chief Counsel for Advocacy,
    SBA, to Chairman William E. Kennard, 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* 5 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).

[^476]: FCC, Wireline Competition Bureau, Industry Analysis and
    Technology Division, *Trends in Telephone Service* at Table 5.3,
    Page 5-5 (Feb. 2007) (*Trends in Telephone Service*). This source
    uses data that are current as of October 20, 2005.

[^477]: 13 C.F.R. § 121.201, NAICS code 517110.

[^478]: *Trends in Telephone Service* at Table 5.3.

[^479]: *See* 5 U.S.C. § 603.

[^480]: *See* Report and Order, *supra.* para. 51; *see also*
    *Intermodal Number Portability Order*, 18 FCC Rcd at 23698, para. 1.

[^481]: *See id.* at 23703, para. 16.

[^482]: *See id.* at 23708, para. 27.

[^483]: *See id.*

[^484]: *See id.* at 23704, para. 16.

[^485]: *See id.* at 23713, paras. 39-40.

[^486]: *See, e.g*., CTIA Reply, CC Docket No. 95-116, at 6-7 (filed
    Sept. 6, 2005); Dobson Cellular Reply, CC Docket No. 95-116, at 8-9
    (filed Sept. 6, 2005); Sprint/Nextel Reply, CC Docket No. 95-116, at
    16-18 (filed Sept. 6, 2005); T-Mobile Reply, CC Docket No. 95-116,
    at 8 (filed Sept. 6, 2005); Verizon Wireless Reply, CC Docket No.
    95-116, at 2-3 (filed Sept. 6, 2005).

[^487]: 47 C.F.R. § 1.3.

[^488]: 47 U.S.C. § 251(f)(2).

[^489]: *See, e.g*., Nebraska Rural Independent Companies Comments, CC
    Docket No. 95-116, at 7 (filed Aug. 19, 2005); NTCA/OPASTCO
    Comments, CC Docket No. 95-116, at 16 (filed Aug. 19, 2005); South
    Dakota Telecommunications Association Comments, CC Docket No.
    95-116, at 7-8 (filed Aug. 19, 2005).

[^490]: *See, e.g*., Iowa Utility Board Comments, CC Docket No. 95-116,
    at 6 (filed Aug. 19, 2005); Montana Independent Telecommunications
    Systems Comments, CC Docket No. 95-116, at 12-13 (filed Aug. 19,
    2005) (commenting that the section 251(f) state proceeding was a
    highly effective way of addressing these LNP issues before a
    decision-maker who was familiar with the particular nature of the
    small rural LECs).

[^491]: *See* *NRO and LNP Fourth Report and Order*, 18 FCC Rcd at
    12475, para. 8. In addition, carriers operating outside of the 100
    largest MSAs have six months after receiving a request from another
    carrier in which to provide LNP. *See id.* at 12475, n.17; *see
    also* 47 C.F.R. § 52.23(c).

[^492]: *See First Number Portability Order on Reconsideration*, 12 FCC
    Rcd at 7343-44, App. D, paras. 29-30.

[^493]: We thus reject commenters' arguments that demand for intermodal
    porting among rural customers is low and does not justify imposing
    these costs on small carriers. *See, e.g.*, Montana Small Rural
    Independents Comments, CC Docket No. 95-116, at 6 (filed Aug. 19,
    2005); Rural Iowa Independent Telephone Association Comments, CC
    Docket No. 95-116, at 2 (filed Aug. 19, 2005).

[^494]: *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*, WT Docket No. 06-17, Eleventh Report, 21 FCC Rcd 10947,
    11006, para. 148 (2006).

[^495]: *See* 5 U.S.C. § 801(a)(1)(A).

[^496]: *See* 5 U.S.C. § 604(b).

[^497]: *See* 5 U.S.C. § 603. The RFA, *see* 5 U.S.C. §§ 601-612, has
    been amended by the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness
    Act of 1996 (SBREFA), Pub. L. No. 104-121, Title II, 110 Stat. 857
    (1996).

[^498]: *See* 5 U.S.C. § 603(a).

[^499]: *See id.*

[^500]: *See* Notice, *supra* para. 53.

[^501]: *See id.*, *supra* paras. 54-66.

[^502]: *See* *id.*, *supra* paras. 59-65.

[^503]: *See id.*, *supra* paras. 54-66.

[^504]: 5 U.S.C. §§ 603(b)(3), 604(a)(3).

[^505]: 5 U.S.C. § 601(6).

[^506]: 5 U.S.C. § 601(3) (incorporating by reference the definition of
    "small business concern" in the Small Business Act, 15 U.S.C.
    § 632). Pursuant to 5 U.S.C. § 601(3), the statutory definition of a
    small business applies "unless an agency, after consultation with
    the Office of Advocacy of the Small Business Administration and
    after opportunity for public comment, establishes one or more
    definitions of such terms which are appropriate to the activities of
    the agency and publishes such definitions(s) in the Federal
    Register."

[^507]: 15 U.S.C. § 632.

[^508]: *See* SBA, Programs and Services, SBA Pamphlet No. CO-0028, at
    40 (July 2002).

[^509]: Independent Sector, The New Nonprofit Almanac & Desk Reference
    (2002).

[^510]: 5 U.S.C. § 601(5).

[^511]: U.S. Census Bureau, Statistical Abstract of the United States:
    2006, Section 8, at 272, Table 415.

[^512]: We assume that the villages, school districts, and special
    districts are small, and total 48,558. *See* U.S. Census Bureau,
    Statistical Abstract of the United States: 2006, Section 8, at 273,
    Table 417. For 2002, Census Bureau data indicate that the total
    number of county, municipal, and township governments nationwide was
    38,967, of which 35,819 were small. *Id.*

[^513]: 15 U.S.C. § 632.

[^514]: Letter from Jere W. Glover, Chief Counsel for Advocacy, SBA, to
    William E. Kennard, Chairman, FCC (May 27, 1999). The Small Business
    Act contains a definition of "small-business concern," which the RFA
    incorporates into its own definition of "small business." *See* 15
    U.S.C. § 632(a) (Small Business Act); 5 U.S.C. § 601(3) (RFA). SBA
    regulations interpret "small business concern" to include the
    concept of dominance on a national basis. *See* 13 C.F.R.
    § 121.102(b).

[^515]: 13 C.F.R. § 121.201, NAICS code 517110.

[^516]: FCC, Wireline Competition Bureau, Industry Analysis and
    Technology Division, *Trends in Telephone Service* at Table 5.3,
    page 5-5 (Feb. 2007) (*Trends in Telephone Service*). This source
    uses data that are current as of October 20, 2005.

[^517]: 13 C.F.R. § 121.201, NAICS code 517110.

[^518]: *Trends in Telephone Service* at Table 5.3.

[^519]: 13 C.F.R. § 121.201, NAICS code 517310.

[^520]: *Trends in Telephone Service* at Table 5.3.

[^521]: 13 C.F.R. § 121.201, NAICS code 517310.

[^522]: *Trends in Telephone Service* at Table 5.3.

[^523]: 13 C.F.R. § 121.201, NAICS code 517110.

[^524]: *Trends in Telephone Service* at Table 5.3.

[^525]: 13 C.F.R. § 121.201, NAICS code 517110.

[^526]: *Trends in Telephone Service* at Table 5.3.

[^527]: 13 C.F.R. § 121.201, NAICS code 517110.

[^528]: *Trends in Telephone Service* at Table 5.3.

[^529]: 13 C.F.R. § 121.201, NAICS code 517310.

[^530]: *Trends in Telephone Service* at Table 5.3.

[^531]: We include all toll-free number subscribers in this category,
    including those for 888 numbers.

[^532]: U.S. Census Bureau, 2007 NAICS Definitions, "517911
    Telecommunications Resellers" (partial definition);
    http://www.census.gov/naics/2007/def/ND517911.HTM#N517911.

[^533]: 13 C.F.R. § 121.201, NAICS code 517911.

[^534]: U.S. Census Bureau, 2002 Economic Census, Subject Series:
    Information, "Establishment and Firm Size (Including Legal Form of
    Organization," Table 5, NAICS code 517310 (issued Nov. 2005). Prior
    to 2007, the subject category was numbered 517310.

[^535]: *Id.* The census data do not provide a more precise estimate of
    the number of firms that have employment of 1,500 or fewer
    employees; the largest category provided is for firms with "1000
    employees or more."

[^536]: *Trends in Telephone Service* at Tables 18.4-18.8.

[^537]: 13 C.F.R. § 121.201, NAICS codes 517410 and 517910.

[^538]: U.S. Census Bureau, "2002 NAICS Definitions: 517410 Satellite
    Telecommunications," *available at*
    http://www.census.gov/epcd/naics02/def/ND517410.HTM (visited Oct.
    16, 2007).

[^539]: U.S. Census Bureau, 2002 Economic Census, Subject Series:
    Information, "Establishment and Firm Size (Including Legal Form of
    Organization)," Table 4, NAICS code 517410 (issued Nov. 2005).

[^540]: *Id*. An additional 38 firms had annual receipts of \$25 million
    or more.

[^541]: U.S. Census Bureau, "2002 NAICS Definitions: 517910 Other
    Telecommunications," *available at*
    http://www.census.gov/epcd/naics02/def/ND517910.HTM (visited Oct.
    16, 2007).

[^542]: U.S. Census Bureau, 2002 Economic Census, Subject Series:
    Information, "Establishment and Firm Size (Including Legal Form of
    Organization)," Table 4, NAICS code 517910 (issued Nov. 2005).

[^543]: *Id*. An additional 14 firms had annual receipts of \$25 million
    or more.

[^544]: 13 C.F.R. § 121.201, NAICS code 517211 (changed from 513321 in
    Oct. 2002).

[^545]: 13 C.F.R. § 121.201, NAICS code 517212 (changed from 513322 in
    Oct. 2002).

[^546]: U.S. Census Bureau, 2002 Economic Census, Subject Series:
    Information, "Establishment and Firm Size (Including Legal Form of
    Organization)," Table 5, NAICS code 517211 (issued Nov. 2005).

[^547]: *Id.* The census data do not provide a more precise estimate of
    the number of firms that have employment of 1,500 or fewer
    employees; the largest category provided is firms with "1000
    employees or more."

[^548]: U.S. Census Bureau, 2002 Economic Census, Subject Series:
    Information, "Establishment and Firm Size (Including Legal Form of
    Organization)," Table 5, NAICS code 517212 (issued Nov. 2005).

[^549]: *Id.* The census data do not provide a more precise estimate of
    the number of firms that have employment of 1,500 or fewer
    employees; the largest category provided is firms with "1000
    employees or more."

[^550]: 13 C.F.R. § 121.201, NAICS code 513322 (changed to 517212 in
    Oct. 2002).

[^551]: U.S. Census Bureau, 2002 Economic Census, Subject Series:
    Information, "Establishment and Firm Size (Including Legal Form of
    Organization)," Table 5, NAICS code 517212 (issued Nov. 2005).

[^552]: *Id.* The census data do not provide a more precise estimate of
    the number of firms that have employment of 1,500 or fewer
    employees; the largest category provided is firms with "1000
    employees or more."

[^553]: *Trends in Telephone Service* at Table 5.3.

[^554]: *Id.*

[^555]: 13 C.F.R. § 121.201, NAICS code 517211.

[^556]: U.S. Census Bureau, 2002 Economic Census, Subject Series:
    Information, "Establishment and Firm Size (Including Legal Form of
    Organization)," Table 5, NAICS code 517211 (issued Nov. 2005).

[^557]: *Id.* The census data do not provide a more precise estimate of
    the number of firms that have employment of 1,500 or fewer
    employees; the largest category provided is for firms with "1000
    employees or more."

[^558]: *Trends in Telephone Service*, Table 5.3.

[^559]: *Revision of Part 22 and Part 90 of the Commission's Rules to
    Facilitate Future Development of Paging Systems*, WT Docket No.
    96-18, PP Docket No. 93-235, Second Report and Order, 12 FCC Rcd
    2732, 2811-2812, paras. 178-181 (*Paging Second Report and Order*);
    *see also* *Revision of Part 22 and Part 90 of the Commission's
    Rules to Facilitate Future Development of Paging Systems*, WT Docket
    No. 96-18, PP Docket No. 93-235, Memorandum Opinion and Order on
    Reconsideration, 14 FCC Rcd 10030, 10085-10088, paras. 98-107
    (1999).

[^560]: *Paging Second Report and Order*, 12 FCC Rcd at 2811, para. 179.

[^561]: *See* Letter from Aida Alvarez, Administrator, Small Business
    Administration, to Amy Zoslov, Chief, Auctions and Industry Analysis
    Division, Wireless Telecommunications Bureau (dated Dec. 2, 1998)
    (SBA Dec. 2, 1998 Letter).

[^562]: *See* "929 and 931 MHz Paging Auction Closes," Public Notice, 15
    FCC Rcd 4858 (WTB 2000).

[^563]: *Id..*

[^564]: *See* *Lower and Upper Paging Band Auction Closes*, Public
    Notice, 16 FCC Rcd 21821 (WTB 2002).

[^565]: *See* *Lower and Upper Paging Bands Auction Closes*, Public
    Notice, 18 FCC Rcd 11154 (WTB 2003).

[^566]: 13 C.F.R. § 121.201, NAICS code 517212.

[^567]: *Id.*

[^568]: *Trends in Telephone Service* at Table 5.3.

[^569]: *See Amendment of Parts 20 and 24 of the Commission's Rules --
    Broadband PCS Competitive Bidding and the Commercial Mobile Radio
    Service Spectrum Cap*, WT Docket No. 96-59, Report and Order, 11 FCC
    Rcd 7824, 61 FR 33859 (July 1, 1996) (*PCS Order*); *see also* 47
    C.F.R. § 24.720(b).

[^570]: *See PCS Order*, 11 FCC Rcd 7824.

[^571]: *See, e.g*., *Implementation of Section 309(j) of the
    Communications Act -- Competitive Bidding*, PP Docket No. 93-253,
    Fifth Report and Order, 9 FCC Rcd 5332, 59 FR 37566 (July 22, 1994).

[^572]: FCC News, Broadband PCS, D, E and F Block Auction Closes, No.
    71744 (rel. Jan. 14, 1997); *see also Amendment of the Commission's
    Rules Regarding Installment Payment Financing for Personal
    Communications Services (PCS) Licenses*, WT Docket No. 97-82, Second
    Report and Order, 12 FCC Rcd 16436, 62 FR 55348 (Oct. 24, 1997).

[^573]: *Implementation of Section 309(j) of the Communications Act --
    Competitive Bidding Narrowband PCS*, Third Memorandum Opinion and
    Order and Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, 10 FCC Rcd 175,
    196, para. 46 (1994).

[^574]: *See* *Announcing the High Bidders in the Auction of ten
    Nationwide Narrowband PCS Licenses, Winning Bids Total
    \$617,006,674*, Public Notice, PNWL 94-004 (rel. Aug. 2, 1994);
    Announcing the High Bidders in the Auction of 30 Regional Narrowband
    PCS Licenses; Winning Bids Total \$490,901,787, Public Notice, PNWL
    94-27 (rel. Nov. 9, 1994).

[^575]: *Amendment of the Commission's Rules to Establish New Personal
    Communications Services, Narrowband PCS*, ET Docket No. 92-100, PP
    Docket No. 93-253, Second Report and Order and Second Further Notice
    of Proposed Rule Making, 15 FCC Rcd 10456, 10476, para. 40 (2000).

[^576]: *Id*.

[^577]: *Id*.

[^578]: *See* Letter from Aida Alvarez, Administrator, Small Business
    Administration,to Amy Zoslov, Chief, Auctions and Industry Analysis
    Division, Wireless Telecommunications Bureau, Federal Communications
    Commission (dated Dec. 2, 1998).

[^579]: *See* *Narrowband PCS Auction Closes*, Public Notice, 16 FCC Rcd
    18663 (WTB 2001).

[^580]: *See* 47 C.F.R. § 22.99 (defining Rural Radiotelephone Service).

[^581]: *See* 47 C.F.R. §§ 22.757, 22.759 (defining BETRS).

[^582]: 13 C.F.R. § 121.201, NAICS code 517212.

[^583]: *See* 47 C.F.R. § 22.99 (defining Air-Ground Radiotelephone
    Service).

[^584]: 13 C.F.R. § 121.201, NAICS code 517212 (changed from 513322 in
    Oct. 2002).

[^585]: This service is governed by Subpart I of Part 22 of the
    Commission's rules. *See* 47 C.F.R. §§ 22.1001-22.1037.

[^586]: 13 C.F.R. § 121.201, NAICS code 517212.

[^587]: *Id*.

[^588]: U.S. Census Bureau, 2007 NAICS Definitions, "517110 Wired
    Telecommunications Carriers" (partial definition);
    http://www.census.gov/naics/2007/def/ND517110.HTM#N517110.

[^589]: 13 C.F.R. § 121.201, NAICS code 517110.

[^590]: U.S. Census Bureau, 2002 Economic Census, Subject Series:
    Information, Table 4, Receipts Size of Firms for the United States:
    2002, NAICS code 517510 (issued November 2005).

[^591]: *Id*. An additional 61 firms had annual receipts of \$25 million
    or more.

[^592]: 47 C.F.R. § 76.901(e). The Commission determined that this size
    standard equates approximately to a size standard of \$100 million
    or less in annual revenues. *Implementation of Sections of the 1992
    Cable Act: Rate Regulation,* Sixth Report and Order and Eleventh
    Order on Reconsideration, MM Docket Nos. 92-266, 93-215, 10 FCC Rcd
    7393, 7408 (1995).

[^593]: These data are derived from: R.R. Bowker, *Broadcasting & Cable
    Yearbook 2006*, "Top 25 Cable/Satellite Operators," pages A-8 & C-2
    (data current as of June 30, 2005); Warren Communications News,
    *Television & Cable Factbook 2006*, "Ownership of Cable Systems in
    the United States," pages D-1805 to D-1857.

[^594]: 47 C.F.R. § 76.901(c).

[^595]: Warren Communications News, *Television & Cable Factbook 2006*,
    "U.S. Cable Systems by Subscriber Size," page F-2 (data current as
    of Oct. 2005). The data do not include 718 systems for which
    classifying data were not available.

[^596]: 47 U.S.C. § 543(m)(2); *see* 47 C.F.R. § 76.901(f) & nn. 1-3.

[^597]: 47 C.F.R. § 76.901(f); *see FCC Announces New Subscriber Count
    for the Definition of Small Cable Operator*, Public Notice, DA
    01‑158, 16 FCC Rcd 2225 (Cable Services Bureau, Jan. 24, 2001).

[^598]: These data are derived from: R.R. Bowker, *Broadcasting & Cable
    Yearbook 2006*, "Top 25 Cable/Satellite Operators," pages A-8 & C-2
    (data current as of June 30, 2005); Warren Communications News,
    *Television & Cable Factbook 2006*, "Ownership of Cable Systems in
    the United States," pages D-1805 to D-1857.

[^599]: The Commission does receive such information on a case-by-case
    basis if a cable operator appeals a local franchise authority's
    finding that the operator does not qualify as a small cable operator
    pursuant to § 76.901(f) of the Commission's rules. *See* 47 C.F.R. §
    76.909(b).

[^600]: 47 U.S.C. § 571(a)(3)-(4). *See* *Annual Assessment of the
    Status of Competition in the Market for the Delivery of Video
    Programming, Eleventh Annual Report,* 20 FCC Rcd 2507, 2549, para.
    88 (2006) (*2006 Cable Competition Report*).

[^601]: *See* 47 U.S.C. § 573.

[^602]: 13 C.F.R. § 121.201, NAICS code 517510.

[^603]: *See 2006 Cable Competition Report*, 20 FCC Rcd at 2549, para.
    88. BSPs are newer firms that are building state-of-the-art,
    facilities-based networks to provide video, voice, and data services
    over a single network.

[^604]: *See id*. at 2507, para. 14.

[^605]: *See 2006 Cable Competition Report*, 20 FCC Rcd at 2549, para.
    89. WideOpenWest is the second largest BSP and 16th largest MVPD,
    with cable systems serving about 292,000 subscribers as of June,
    2005. The third largest BSP is Knology, serving approximately
    170,800 subscribers as of June 2005. *Id*.

[^606]: U.S. Census Bureau, "2002 NAICS Definitions: 518111 Internet
    Service Providers," *available at*
    http://www.census.gov/epcd/naics02/def/ND518111.HTM (visited Oct.
    16, 2007).

[^607]: 13 C.F.R. § 121.201, NAICS code 518111 (changed from 514191,
    "On-Line Information Services," in Oct. 2002).

[^608]: U.S. Census Bureau, 2002 Economic Census, Subject Series:
    Information, "Establishment and Firm Size (Including Legal Form of
    Organization," Table 4, NAICS code 518111 (issued Nov. 2005).

[^609]: U.S. Census Bureau, "2002 NAICS Definitions: 519190 All Other
    Information Services," *available at*
    http://www.census.gov/epcd/naics02/def/ND519190.HTM (visited Oct.
    16, 2007).

[^610]: 13 C.F.R. § 121.201, NAICS code 519190.

[^611]: U.S. Census Bureau, 1997 Economic Census, Subject Series:
    Information, "Establishment and Firm Size (Including Legal Form of
    Organization)," Table 4, NAICS code 514199 (issued Oct. 2000). This
    category was created for the 2002 Economic Census by taking a
    portion of the superseded 1997 category, "All Other Information
    Services," NAICS code 514199. The data cited in the text above are
    derived from the superseded category.

[^612]: U.S. Census Bureau, 2002 NAICS Definitions, "334220 Radio and
    Television Broadcasting and Wireless Communications Equipment
    Manufacturing," *available at*
    http://www.census.gov/epcd/naics02/def/NDEF334.HTM#N3342.

[^613]: 13 C.F.R. § 121.201, NAICS code 334220.

[^614]: U.S. Census Bureau, American FactFinder, 2002 Economic Census,
    Industry Series, Industry Statistics by Employment Size, NAICS code
    334220 (released May 26, 2005); http://factfinder.census.gov. The
    number of "establishments" is a less helpful indicator of small
    business prevalence in this context than would be the number of
    "firms" or "companies," because the latter take into account the
    concept of common ownership or control. Any single physical location
    for an entity is an establishment, even though that location may be
    owned by a different establishment. Thus, the numbers given may
    reflect inflated numbers of businesses in this category, including
    the numbers of small businesses. In this category, the Census
    breaks-out data for firms or companies only to give the total number
    of such entities for 2002, which was 929.

[^615]: *Id*. An additional 18 establishments had employment of 1,000 or
    more.

[^616]: U.S. Census Bureau, 2002 NAICS Definitions, "334210 Telephone
    Apparatus Manufacturing," *available at*
    http://www.census.gov/epcd/naics02/def/NDEF334.HTM#N3342.

[^617]: 13 C.F.R. § 121.201, NAICS code 334210.

[^618]: U.S. Census Bureau, American FactFinder, 2002 Economic Census,
    Industry Series, Industry Statistics by Employment Size, NAICS code
    334210 (released May 26, 2005); http://factfinder.census.gov. The
    number of "establishments" is a less helpful indicator of small
    business prevalence in this context than would be the number of
    "firms" or "companies," because the latter take into account the
    concept of common ownership or control. Any single physical location
    for an entity is an establishment, even though that location may be
    owned by a different establishment. Thus, the numbers given may
    reflect inflated numbers of businesses in this category, including
    the numbers of small businesses. In this category, the Census
    breaks-out data for firms or companies only to give the total number
    of such entities for 2002, which was 450.

[^619]: *Id*. An additional 4 establishments had employment of 2,500 or
    more.

[^620]: U.S. Census Bureau, 2002 NAICS Definitions, "334413
    Semiconductor and Related Device Manufacturing," *available at*
    http://www.census.gov/epcd/nacis02/def/ND334413.HTM#N334413.

[^621]: 13 C.F.R. § 121.201, NAICS code 334413.

[^622]: U.S. Census Bureau, 2002 Economic Census, Industry Series:
    Manufacturing, "Semiconductor and Related Device Manufacturing ,"
    Table 4, NAICS code 334413 (issued Jan. 2005).

[^623]: U.S. Census Bureau, "2002 NAICS Definitions: 334112 Computer
    Storage Device Manufacturing," *available at*
    http://www.census.gov/epcd/naics02/def/ND334112.HTM (visited Oct.
    16, 2007).

[^624]: 13 C.F.R. § 121.201, NAICS code 334112.

[^625]: U.S. Census Bureau, 2002 Economic Census, Industry Series:
    Manufacturing, "Computer Storage Device Manufacturing," Table 4,
    NAICS code 334112 (issued Dec. 2004).

[^626]: *See* Notice, *supra* para. 53.

[^627]: *See* *id.*, *supra* para. 57.

[^628]: *See id.*, *supra* para. 59.

[^629]: *See id.*, *supra* para. 63.

[^630]: *See* *id.*, *supra* paras. 53, 58, 64.

[^631]: 5 U.S.C. § 603(c).

[^632]: *See* Notice, *supra* para. 53.

[^633]: *See id.*, *supra* para. 58.

[^634]: *See id.*, *supra* para. 64.