**Before the**

**Federal Communications Commission**

**Washington, D.C. 20554**

+----------------------------------+---+---------------------------------+
| In the Matters of                | * | > WC Docket No. 04-36           |
|                                  | * | >                               |
| IP-Enabled Services              | ) | > WC Docket No. 05-196          |
|                                  | ) |                                 |
| E911 Requirements for IP-Enabled | ) |                                 |
| Service Providers                | ) |                                 |
|                                  | ) |                                 |
|                                  | ) |                                 |
|                                  | * |                                 |
|                                  | * |                                 |
+----------------------------------+---+---------------------------------+

**FIRST REPORT AND ORDER**

**AND**

**NOTICE OF PROPOSED RULEMAKING**

**Adopted: May 19, 2005 Released: June 3, 2005**

**Comment Date: \[45 days after publication in the Federal Register\]**

**Reply Comment Date: \[75 days after publication in the Federal
Register\]**

By the Commission: Chairman Martin, and Commissioners Abernathy, Copps
and Adelstein issuing separate statements.

**TABLE OF CONTENTS**

**Paragraph**

I. Introduction [2](#introduction)

II\. Background [4](#background)

**A.** **History of 911 Service** [4](#__RefHeading___Toc135731249)

**B.** **911 Technical and Operational Issues**
[6](#__RefHeading___Toc135731250)

**C.** **The IP-Enabled Services Notice**
[10](#__RefHeading___Toc135731251)

**D.** **The Vonage Order** [11](#__RefHeading___Toc135731252)

**E.** **NENA Standards Development** [11](#__RefHeading___Toc135731253)

III\. Discussion [12](#discussion)

**A.** **Scope** [12](#__RefHeading___Toc135731255)

**B.** **Authority** [17](#__RefHeading___Toc135731256)

**C.** **Requirements** [22](#__RefHeading___Toc135731257)

**D.** **911 Funding** [30](#__RefHeading___Toc135731258)

**E.** **Liability** [31](#__RefHeading___Toc135731259)

IV\. Notice of Proposed Rulemaking [32](#notice-of-proposed-rulemaking)

V. Procedural MATTERS [36](#procedural-matters)

VI\. Ordering Clauses [38](#ordering-clauses)

**APPENDIX A -- LIST OF COMMENTERS**

**APPENDIX B -- FINAL RULES**

**APPENDIX C -- REGULATORY FLEXIBILITY ANALYSES**

# **Introduction** 

1.  In this Order, we adopt rules requiring providers of interconnected
    voice over Internet Protocol (VoIP) service to supply enhanced 911
    (E911) capabilities to their customers.[^1] Interconnected VoIP
    providers may satisfy this requirement by interconnecting indirectly
    through a third party such as a competitive local exchange carrier
    (LEC), interconnecting directly with the Wireline E911 Network, or
    through any other solution that allows a provider to offer E911
    service. The characteristics of interconnected VoIP services have
    posed challenges for 911/E911 and threaten to compromise public
    safety.[^2] Thus, we require providers of interconnected VoIP
    service to provide E911 services to all of their customers as a
    standard feature of the service, rather than as an optional
    enhancement. We further require them to provide E911 from wherever
    the customer is using the service, whether at home or away from
    home.

2.  We adopt an immediate E911 requirement that applies to all
    interconnected VoIP services. In some cases, this requirement relies
    on the customer to self-report his or her location. We intend in a
    future order to adopt an advanced E911 solution for interconnected
    VoIP that must include a method for determining a user's location
    without assistance from the user as well as firm implementation
    deadlines for that solution. To this end, we seek comment in the
    Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (*NPRM*) on possible additional
    solutions including technical options and possible timelines for
    implementation.

3.  In many ways, our action today is a necessary and logical follow-up
    to the *Vonage Order* issued late last year.[^3] In that order, the
    Commission determined that Vonage's DigitalVoice service -- an
    interconnected VoIP service -- cannot be separated into interstate
    and intrastate communications and that this Commission has the
    responsibility and obligation to decide whether certain regulations
    apply to DigitalVoice and other IP‑enabled services having similar
    capabilities.[^4] The *Vonage Order* also made clear that questions
    regarding what regulatory obligations apply to providers of such
    services would be addressed in the pending *IP-Enabled Services*
    proceeding.[^5] Today, in accord with that statement, we take
    critical steps to advance the goal of public safety by imposing E911
    obligations on certain VoIP providers, steps we believe will have
    support in the public safety community and the industry.[^6]

4.  The IP-enabled services marketplace is the latest new frontier of
    our nation's communications landscape. As such, new entrants and
    existing stakeholders are rushing to bring IP‑enabled facilities and
    services to this market, relying on new technologies to provide a
    quickly evolving list of service features and functionalities.
    Although the Commission is committed to allowing these services to
    evolve without undue regulation in accord with our nation's policies
    for Internet services, we are, at the same time, aware of our
    obligation to promote "safety of life and property"[^7] and to
    "encourage and facilitate the prompt deployment throughout the
    United States of a seamless, ubiquitous, and reliable end-to-end
    infrastructure"[^8] for public safety. Congress has also established
    911 as the national emergency number to enable all citizens to reach
    emergency services directly and efficiently, irrespective of whether
    a citizen uses wireline or wireless technology when calling for help
    by dialing 911.[^9] As the Commission previously has stated,[^10]
    and as commenters generally recognize, 911 service is critical to
    our nation's ability to respond to a host of crises.[^11] Efforts by
    federal, state, and local government, along with the significant
    efforts by wireline and wireless service providers, have resulted in
    the nearly ubiquitous deployment of this life-saving service.[^12]

5.  Our decisions in this Order simply extend our longstanding and
    continuing commitment to a nationwide communications system that
    promotes the safety and welfare of all Americans. We believe that it
    is critically important to impose E911 obligations on interconnected
    VoIP providers and to set firm but realistic target deadlines for
    implementation of those requirements. At the same time, however, we
    allow the providers flexibility to adopt a technological solution
    that works best for them. In this Order, we take the necessary steps
    to promote cooperative efforts by state and local governments,
    public safety answering point (PSAP) administrators, 911 systems
    service providers, and interconnected VoIP providers that will lead
    to improved emergency services. Accordingly, today we adopt a
    balanced approach that takes into consideration the expectations of
    consumers, the need to strengthen Americans' ability to access
    public safety in times of crisis, and the needs of entities offering
    these innovative services.

# **Background**

A.  []{#__RefHeading___Toc135731249 .anchor}**History of 911 Service**

```{=html}
<!-- -->
```
6.  Since AT&T first made the digits "9-1-1" available nationally for
    wireline access to emergency services in 1965,[^13] the American
    public increasingly has come to depend on 911 service; the National
    Emergency Number Association (NENA) estimates that as of February
    2005, some form of 911 service was available to nearly 99 percent of
    the population in 96 percent of the counties in the United
    States,[^14] and 200 million calls are made to 911 in the United
    States each year.[^15] It should therefore come as no surprise that
    the American public has developed certain expectations with respect
    to the availability of 911 and E911 emergency services via certain
    classes of communications devices.[^16]

7.  The availability of this critical service is due largely to the
    efforts of state and local authorities and telecommunications
    carriers, who have used the 911 abbreviated dialing code to provide
    access to increasingly advanced and effective emergency service
    capabilities.[^17] Indeed, absent appropriate action by, and funding
    for, states and localities, there can be no effective 911 service.
    Responsibility for establishing and designating PSAPs or appropriate
    default answering points, purchasing customer premises equipment
    (CPE), retaining and training PSAP personnel, purchasing 911 network
    services, and implementing a cost recovery mechanism to fund all of
    the foregoing, among other things, falls squarely on the shoulders
    of states and localities.

8.  At the same time, however, new communications technologies have
    posed technical and operational challenges to the 911 system,
    necessitating the adoption of a uniform national approach to ensure
    that the quality and reliability of 911 service is not damaged by
    the introduction of such communications technologies. For example,
    following the introduction of CMRS in the United States, the
    Commission in 1996 established rules requiring CMRS carriers to
    implement basic 911 and E911 services.[^18] Virtually all CMRS
    carriers and wireline LECs now provide at least basic 911
    service.[^19]

9.  Congress adopted the 911 Act to promote and enhance public safety
    through the use of wireless communications services.[^20] More
    broadly, the 911 Act directed the Commission to designate 911 as the
    universal emergency assistance number for wireless and wireline
    calls,[^21] which the Commission accomplished in August 1999.[^22]
    The 911 Act further requires the Commission to "consult and
    cooperate with state and local officials" in its role of encouraging
    and supporting the deployment of "comprehensive end-to-end emergency
    communications infrastructure and programs."[^23] The Commission
    continues to meet Congress' mandate,[^24] and states and localities
    continue to make progress towards meeting Congress' goal.[^25]

10. As the Commission has previously noted, the emergence of IP as a
    means of transmitting voice and data and providing other services
    via wireless, cable, and wireline infrastructure has significant
    implications for meeting the nation's critical infrastructure and
    911 communications needs.[^26] Intrado has estimated that while the
    number of residential 911 calls placed over VoIP services (VoIP 911
    calls) will account for less than two percent of all residential 911
    calls for the period 2004-2006, the number of residential VoIP 911
    calls will rise from 370,000 in 2004 to 3.5 million in 2006.[^27]
    This nearly tenfold increase in expected VoIP 911 calls dictates
    swift action on our part. Through this Order, we fulfill our role to
    ensure that the increasingly widespread deployment of a new
    communications technology does not damage the ability of states and
    localities to provide reliable and high-quality 911 service to all
    citizens.

```{=html}
<!-- -->
```
B.  []{#__RefHeading___Toc135731250 .anchor}**911 Technical and
    Operational Issues**

```{=html}
<!-- -->
```
11. 911 service features, and the ability of PSAPs to make use of them,
    vary from location to location and network to network. 911 service
    generally, however, falls into two categories -- basic and enhanced.

12. ***Basic 911.*** Basic 911 service is a forwarding arrangement in
    which calls dialed to 911 are transmitted from the service
    provider's switch to a single geographically appropriate PSAP or
    public safety agency, usually over dedicated emergency trunks.[^28]
    Basic 911 networks are not capable of processing the caller's
    location, but simply forward all 911 calls to the appropriate PSAP
    or public safety agency.[^29] Nor does basic 911 provide PSAP call
    takers with the caller's location information or, in some cases, a
    call back number.[^30] Although some emergency systems provide only
    basic 911 service, most systems have implemented E911 service.[^31]

13. ***E911.*** E911 systems route 911 calls through the use of a
    Selective Router to a geographically appropriate PSAP based on the
    caller's location.[^32] E911 also provides the call taker with the
    caller's call back number, referred to as Automatic Numbering
    Information (ANI),[^33] and, in many cases, location information --
    a capability referred to as Automatic Location Identification (ALI).
    Both wireline and wireless carriers provide E911 services in many
    localities.

14. ***Wireline E911.*** The core of the existing wireline E911 network
    is a dedicated, redundant, highly reliable wireline network
    (Wireline E911 Network), which is interconnected with but largely
    separate from the PSTN.[^34] The Wireline E911 Network generally has
    been implemented, operated, and maintained by a subset of incumbent
    LECs, and generally is paid for by PSAPs through tariffs. [^35]
    Network implementations vary from carrier to carrier and
    jurisdiction to jurisdiction, but usually are based on a 25-year-old
    architecture and implemented with legacy components that place
    significant limitations on the functions that can be performed over
    the network.[^36]

15. In a typical implementation, the Wireline E911 Network includes the
    Selective Router, which receives 911 calls from competitive and
    incumbent LEC central offices over dedicated trunks.[^37] The
    Selective Router, after querying an incumbent LEC-maintained
    Selective Router Database (SRDB) to determine which PSAP serves the
    caller's geographic area, forwards the calls to the PSAP that has
    been designated to serve the caller's area, along with the caller's
    phone number (ANI). The PSAP then forwards the caller's ANI to an
    incumbent LEC-maintained Automatic Location Information database
    (ALI Database),[^38] which returns the caller's physical address
    (that has previously been verified by comparison to a separate
    database known as the Master Street Address Guide (MSAG)).[^39] The
    Wireline E911 Network thus consists of: the Selective Router; the
    trunk line(s) between the Selective Router and the PSAP; the ALI
    Database; the SRDB; the trunk line(s) between the ALI database and
    the PSAP; and the MSAG.[^40]

16. ***Wireless E911.*** Under the Commission's wireless E911 rules,
    wireless carriers are obligated to "provide the telephone number of
    the originator of a 911 call" (*i.e.*, ANI) and information
    regarding the caller's location (*i.e.*, ALI) to any PSAP that has
    requested that such information be delivered with 911 calls.[^41]

17. The mobile nature of wireless technology and service presents
    significant obstacles to making E911 effective -- in particular the
    provision to PSAPs of accurate ALI.[^42] Specifically, the mobility
    of wireless subscribers renders the use of permanent street
    addresses as a location indicator useless, and in fact may require
    the provision of real-time location updates to the PSAP.[^43]
    Wireless carriers therefore have developed various techniques to
    provision ANI and ALI to the PSAP that involve enhancements and/or
    "add-ons" to the existing Wireline E911 Network.[^44] Many of these
    techniques involve the use of "pseudo-ANI" or "p-ANI": a "number,
    consisting of the same number of digits as ANI, that is not a North
    American Numbering Plan telephone directory number and may be used
    in place of ANI to convey special meaning" to the Selective Router,
    PSAP, and other elements of the 911 system.[^45] For example,
    Selective Routers that have been programmed to handle p-ANI will be
    able to properly route 911 calls from any wireless subscriber to a
    geographically appropriate PSAP, even if the caller has an NPA-NXX
    number[^46] not associated with his or her location.[^47] PSAPs that
    are equipped to handle p-ANI can distinguish wireless from wireline
    calls, and can use the p-ANI to query the ALI Database for
    non-traditional location information.[^48] Forms of p-ANI known as
    "Emergency Services Routing Key" (ESRK), "Emergency Services Query
    Key" (ESQK), and "Emergency Services Routing Digits" (ESRD)
    currently are used to cause the Wireline E911 Network to properly
    handle and process E911 calls placed by CMRS subscribers.[^49]

18. Development and implementation of these enhancements required
    significant cooperative efforts from wireless and wireline
    providers, manufacturers, third-party providers, state and local
    governments, public safety authorities, and consumer interest
    groups.[^50] The Commission ultimately held, however, that in the
    absence of an agreement to the contrary, the appropriate demarcation
    point for allocating responsibilities and costs between wireless
    carriers and PSAPs for such enhancements is the input to the
    Selective Router.[^51] Thus, a wireless carrier is responsible for
    all hardware and software components and functionalities that
    precede the Selective Router, including the trunk from the carrier's
    Mobile Switching Center to the Selective Router, and the particular
    databases, interface devices, and trunk lines that may be needed to
    deliver E911 data to the PSAP.[^52] The PSAP is responsible for any
    costs associated with the Selective Router itself, any required
    upgrades to the Selective Router, the ALI Database and any upgrades
    thereto, the SRDB and any upgrades thereto, the MSAG, the trunk from
    the Selective Router to the PSAP, and the PSAP CPE.[^53]

```{=html}
<!-- -->
```
C.  []{#__RefHeading___Toc135731251 .anchor}**The IP-Enabled Services
    Notice**

```{=html}
<!-- -->
```
19. In the *Notice*, we asked, among other things, about the potential
    applicability of "basic 911," "enhanced 911," and related critical
    infrastructure regulation to VoIP and other IP-enabled
    services.[^54] Specifically, after noting that the Commission
    previously found in the *E911 Scope Order* that it has statutory
    authority under sections 1, 4(i), and 251(e)(3) of the
    Communications Act of 1934, as amended (Act),[^55] to determine what
    entities should be subject to the Commission's 911 and E911
    rules,[^56] the Commission sought comment on whether it should
    exercise its regulatory authority in the context of IP-enabled
    services.[^57] The Commission further sought comment on the
    appropriate criteria for determining whether and to what extent
    IP-enabled services should fall within the scope of its 911 and E911
    regulatory framework,[^58] and whether IP-enabled services are
    technically and operationally capable of meeting the Commission's
    basic and/or E911 rules or of providing analogous functionalities
    that would meet the intent of the 911 Act and the Commission's
    regulations.[^59]

```{=html}
<!-- -->
```
D.  []{#__RefHeading___Toc135731252 .anchor}**The Vonage Order**

```{=html}
<!-- -->
```
20. On November 12, 2004, the Commission released the *Vonage Order*, in
    which it preempted an order of the Minnesota Public Utilities
    Commission (Minnesota Commission) that applied Minnesota's
    traditional "telephone company" regulations to Vonage's DigitalVoice
    service.[^60] Vonage's DigitalVoice service is a portable service
    that is available anywhere the Vonage customer is able to obtain a
    broadband connection.[^61] Vonage does not supply that broadband
    connection.[^62] Vonage's DigitalVoice service assigns its users
    North American Numbering Plan (NANP) numbers and provides them the
    ability to place and receive calls to and from the PSTN.[^63] As
    described more fully in that order, the Commission held that
    DigitalVoice cannot be separated into interstate and intrastate
    communications for compliance with Minnesota's requirements without
    negating valid federal policies and rules.[^64] Thus, without
    classifying Vonage's service as either an information service or as
    a telecommunications service under the Act, the Commission preempted
    the Minnesota Commission's requirements and ruled that the Minnesota
    Commission "may not require Vonage to comply with its certification,
    tariffing or other related requirements as conditions to offering
    DigitalVoice in that State."[^65] The Commission expressed no
    opinion with respect to the applicability to Vonage of Minnesota's
    general laws governing entities conducting business within the
    state.[^66] Appeals of that order were filed before a number of
    United States Courts of Appeals.[^67]

```{=html}
<!-- -->
```
E.  []{#__RefHeading___Toc135731253 .anchor}**NENA Standards
    Development**

```{=html}
<!-- -->
```
21. Consistent with the December 2003 agreement between NENA and the
    Voice on the Net (VON) Coalition, industry participants, state
    agencies and commissions, public safety officials and PSAPs, and the
    Association of Public-Safety Communications Officials -
    International, Inc. (APCO) have been working together under the
    auspices of NENA to develop solutions that will lead to VoIP
    subscribers receiving E911 functionality.[^68] Specifically, NENA is
    expected to publish within the next few months an "I2" standard
    designed to allow VoIP providers to deliver 911 calls through the
    Wireline E911 Network with call back numbers and location
    information.[^69] The Commission applauds NENA's leadership and
    industry's efforts in this regard, which will likely play a critical
    role in the provision of E911 services by interconnected VoIP
    service providers.

# Discussion {#discussion .Style-Heading-1-+-12-pt-Char-Char}

22. In this Order, we define "interconnected VoIP service" and require
    providers of this type of VoIP service to incorporate E911 service
    into all such offerings within the period of time specified below.
    We commit ourselves to swift and vigorous enforcement of the rules
    we adopt today. Because we have not decided whether interconnected
    VoIP services are telecommunications services or information
    services, we analyze the issues addressed in this Order primarily
    under our Title I ancillary jurisdiction to encompass both types of
    service. We decline to exempt providers of interconnected VoIP
    services from liability under state law related to their E911
    services. Accompanying today's Order is an *NPRM* that addresses a
    number of issues raised by our decision today.

```{=html}
<!-- -->
```
A.  []{#__RefHeading___Toc135731255 .anchor}**Scope**

```{=html}
<!-- -->
```
23. Our first task is to determine what IP-enabled services should be
    the focus of our concern. We begin by limiting our inquiry to VoIP
    services, for which some type of 911 capability is most
    relevant.[^70] The Commission previously has determined that
    customers today lack any expectation that 911 will function for
    non-voice services like data services.[^71] The record clearly
    indicates, however, that consumers expect that VoIP services that
    are interconnected with the PSTN will function in some ways like a
    "regular telephone" service.[^72] At least regarding the ability to
    provide access to emergency services by dialing 911, we find these
    expectations to be reasonable. If a VoIP service subscriber is able
    to receive calls from other VoIP service users *and* from telephones
    connected to the PSTN, and is able to place calls to other VoIP
    service users *and* to telephones connected to the PSTN, a customer
    reasonably could expect to be able to dial 911 using that service to
    access appropriate emergency services.[^73] Thus, we believe that a
    service that enables a customer to do everything (or nearly
    everything[^74]) the customer could do using an analog telephone,
    and more, can at least reasonably be expected and required to route
    911 calls to the appropriate destination.

24. The E911 rules the Commission adopts today apply to those VoIP
    services that can be used to receive telephone calls that originate
    on the PSTN and can be used to terminate calls to the PSTN --
    "interconnected VoIP services." Although the Commission has not
    adopted a formal definition of "VoIP," we use the term generally to
    include any IP-enabled services offering real-time, multidirectional
    voice functionality, including, but not limited to, services that
    mimic traditional telephony.[^75] Thus, an interconnected VoIP
    service is one we define for purposes of the present Order as
    bearing the following characteristics: (1) the service enables
    real-time, two-way voice communications; (2) the service requires a
    broadband connection from the user's location;[^76] (3) the service
    requires IP-compatible CPE;[^77] and (4) the service offering
    permits users generally to receive calls that originate on the PSTN
    *and* to terminate calls to the PSTN.[^78] We make no findings today
    regarding whether a VoIP service that is interconnected with the
    PSTN should be classified as a telecommunications service or an
    information service under the Act.[^79]

25. While the rules we adopt today apply to providers of all
    interconnected VoIP services, we recognize that certain VoIP
    services pose significant E911 implementation challenges. For
    example, the mobility enabled by a VoIP service that can be used
    from any broadband connection creates challenges similar to those
    presented in the wireless context.[^80] These "portable" VoIP
    service providers often have no reliable way to discern from where
    their customers are accessing the VoIP service.[^81] The
    Commission's past experience with setting national rules for
    911/E911 service is informative, and we expect that our adoption
    today of E911 service obligations for providers of interconnected
    VoIP service will speed the further creation and adoption of such
    services, similar to the manner in which the Commission's adoption
    of E911 service obligations in the wireless context helped foster
    the widespread availability of E911 services for mobile wireless
    users, where it formerly was not possible for wireless carriers
    automatically to determine the precise geographic location of their
    customers.[^82] We recognize and applaud the progress that has
    already been made to ensure that VoIP customers have E911
    services.[^83] We stress, however, that should the need arise, we
    stand ready to expand the scope or substance of the rules we adopt
    today if necessary to ensure that the public interest is fully
    protected. Indeed, the *NPRM* that accompanies today's Order seeks
    comment on whether further intervention is necessary in this
    area.[^84]

```{=html}
<!-- -->
```
B.  []{#__RefHeading___Toc135731256 .anchor}**Authority**

```{=html}
<!-- -->
```
26. We conclude that we have authority under Title I of the Act to
    impose E911 requirements on interconnected VoIP providers, and
    commenters largely agree.[^85] In addition, we conclude that we have
    authority to adopt these rules under our plenary numbering authority
    pursuant to section 251(e) of the Act.[^86] We find that regardless
    of the regulatory classification, the Commission has ancillary
    jurisdiction to promote public safety by adopting E911 rules for
    interconnected VoIP services. This Order, however, in no way
    prejudges how the Commission might ultimately classify these
    services. To the extent that the Commission later finds these
    services to be telecommunications services, the Commission would
    have additional authority under Title II to adopt these rules.

27. 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[^87] and the
    assertion of jurisdiction is "reasonably ancillary to the effective
    performance of \[its\] various responsibilities."[^88] Both
    predicates for ancillary jurisdiction are satisfied here.

28. First, based on sections 1 and 2(a) of the Act,[^89] coupled with
    the definitions set forth in section 3(33) ("radio communication")
    and section 3(52) ("wire communication"),[^90] we find that
    interconnected VoIP is covered by the Commission's general
    jurisdictional grant. Specifically, section 1 states that the
    Commission is created "\[f\]or the purpose of regulating interstate
    and foreign commerce in communication by wire and radio so as to
    make available, so far as possible, to all the people of the United
    States . . . a rapid, efficient, Nation-wide, and world-wide wire
    and radio communication service with adequate facilities at
    reasonable charges," and that the agency "shall execute and enforce
    the provisions of th\[e\] Act."[^91] Section 2(a), in turn, confers
    on the Commission regulatory authority over all interstate
    communication by wire or radio.[^92] In the *Notice*, the Commission
    adopted no formal definition of "VoIP" but used the term generally
    to include "any IP-enabled services offering real-time,
    multidirectional voice functionality, including, but not limited to,
    services that mimic traditional telephony."[^93] Recently, in the
    *Vonage Order*, the Commission found that Vonage's DigitalVoice
    service -- an interconnected VoIP service -- is subject to the
    Commission's interstate jurisdiction.[^94] Consistent with that
    conclusion, we find that interconnected 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.

29. Second, our analysis requires us to evaluate whether imposing a E911
    requirement is reasonably ancillary to the effective performance of
    the Commission's various responsibilities. Based on the record in
    this matter, we find that the requisite nexus exists. The Act
    charges the Commission with responsibility for making available "a
    rapid, efficient, Nation-wide, and world-wide wire and radio
    communication service . . . for the purpose of *promoting safety of
    life and property* through the use of wire and radio
    communication."[^95] In light of this statutory mandate, promoting
    an effective nationwide 911/E911 emergency access system has become
    one of the Commission's primary public safety responsibilities under
    the Act. As the Commission has recognized, "\[i\]t is difficult to
    identify a nationwide wire or radio communication service more
    immediately associated with promoting safety of life and property
    than 911."[^96] Indeed, the Commission has previously relied on
    Title I to satisfy both prongs of the standard for asserting
    ancillary jurisdiction: (1) subject matter jurisdiction; and (2) the
    statutory goal furthered by the regulation. For example, in *Rural
    Telephone Coalition v. FCC*, the United States Court of Appeals for
    the District of Columbia Circuit (D.C. Circuit) upheld the
    Commission's assertion of ancillary jurisdiction to establish a
    funding mechanism to support universal service in the absence of
    specific statutory authority as ancillary to its responsibilities
    under section 1 of the Act to "further the objective of making
    communications service available to all Americans at reasonable
    charges."[^97] Thus, we conclude that as more consumers begin to
    rely on interconnected VoIP services for their communications needs,
    the action we take here ensures that the Commission continues to
    "further the achievement of long-established regulatory goals"[^98]
    to "promot\[e\] safety of life and property."[^99]

30. Our actions today are consistent with, and a necessary extension of,
    our prior exercises of authority to ensure public safety. Since
    1996, the Commission has acted to impose 911/E911 rules on providers
    of new technologies.[^100] Since that time, the Commission has
    affirmed and expanded on those efforts by exercising jurisdiction
    over other services to impose 911/E911 requirements, relying
    primarily on its Title I authority.[^101] That exercise of authority
    has been ratified, not rebuked, by Congress.[^102]

31. Further, we note that our actions here are consistent with other
    provisions of the Act. For example, we are guided by section
    706,[^103] which directs the Commission (and state commissions with
    jurisdiction over telecommunications services) to encourage the
    deployment of advanced telecommunications capability to all
    Americans by using measures that "promote competition in the local
    telecommunications market" and removing "barriers to infrastructure
    investment."[^104] Internet-based services such as interconnected
    VoIP are commonly accessed via broadband facilities (*i.e.*,
    advanced telecommunications capabilities under the 1996 Act).[^105]
    The uniform availability of E911 services may spur consumer demand
    for interconnected VoIP services, in turn driving demand for
    broadband connections, and consequently encouraging more broadband
    investment and deployment consistent with the goals of section
    706.[^106] Indeed, the Commission's most recent *Fourth Section 706
    Report to Congress* recognizes the nexus between VoIP services and
    accomplishing the goals of section 706.[^107]

32. Moreover, as stated above, in recognition of the critical role
    911/E911 services play in achieving the Act's goal of promoting
    safety of life and property, Congress passed the 911 Act, which
    among other things made 911 the universal emergency telephone number
    for both wireline and wireless telephone service for the
    nation.[^108] In the 911 Act, Congress made a number of findings
    regarding wireline and wireless 911 services, including that
    "improved public safety remains an important public health objective
    of Federal, State, and local governments and substantially
    facilitates interstate and foreign commerce," and that "emerging
    technologies can be a critical component of the end-to-end
    communications infrastructure connecting the public with emergency
    \[services\]."[^109] Thus, we believe that our action here to impose
    E911 obligations on interconnected VoIP providers is consistent with
    Congress' public safety policy objectives.

33. Finally, as an additional and separate source of authority for the
    requirements we impose on providers of interconnected VoIP service
    in this Order, we rely on the plenary numbering authority over U.S.
    NANP numbers Congress granted this Commission in section 251(e) of
    the Act and,[^110] in particular, Congress' direction to use its
    plenary numbering authority to designate 911 as the universal
    emergency telephone number within the United States, which "shall
    apply to both wireline and wireless telephone service."[^111] We
    exercise our authority under section 251(e) of the Act because
    interconnected VoIP providers use NANP numbers to provide their
    services.

34. When the Commission initially implemented the 911 Act, it took
    actions similar to those we take today under its numbering
    authority. For instance, in the order implementing the 911 Act, the
    Commission exercised federal jurisdiction over the establishment of
    the deadlines by when all carriers had to provide 911 functionality,
    and adopted various deadlines depending on such things as whether a
    local community had established a PSAP.[^112] The Commission also
    required carriers to implement certain switching and routing changes
    to their networks. Specifically, the Commission required all
    carriers to "implement a permissive dialing period, during which
    emergency calls will be routed to the appropriate emergency response
    point using either 911 or the seven- or ten-digit number."[^113] In
    order to achieve this, carriers had to "prepare and modify switches
    to 'translate' the three-digit 911 dialed emergency calls at the
    appropriate network points to the seven- or ten-digit emergency
    number in use by those PSAPs, and, subsequently, route the calls to
    them."[^114] The Commission also recognized that the transition to
    911 in general required more network changes than required by
    translation.[^115]

35. The Commission's authority to require network changes to provide the
    E911 features that have long been central to the nation's 911
    infrastructure[^116] is included within Congress' directive to the
    Commission to require the establishment of 911 as a "universal
    emergency telephone number . . . for reporting an emergency to
    appropriate authorities and requesting assistance."[^117]

```{=html}
<!-- -->
```
C.  []{#__RefHeading___Toc135731257 .anchor}**Requirements**

```{=html}
<!-- -->
```
36. In this Order, we adopt an immediate E911 solution that applies to
    all interconnected VoIP services. We find that this requirement most
    appropriately discharges the Commission's statutory obligation to
    promote an effective nationwide 911/E911 emergency access system by
    recognizing the needs of the public safety community to get call
    back and location information and balancing those needs against
    existing technological limitations of interconnected VoIP
    providers.[^118] By requiring interconnected VoIP providers to adopt
    E911 solutions as a top priority, we hope to minimize the likelihood
    of situations like the recent incidents discussed above.[^119] With
    regard to portable interconnected VoIP services, however, we intend
    to adopt in a future order an advanced E911 solution for
    interconnected VoIP that must include a method for determining a
    user's location without assistance from the user as well as firm
    implementation deadlines for that solution. To this end, we seek
    comment in the *NPRM* on possible additional solutions including
    technical options and possible timelines for implementation.

37. ***Enhanced 911 Service.*** We require that, within 120 days of the
    effective date of this Order, an interconnected VoIP provider must
    transmit all 911 calls, as well as a call back number and the
    caller's "Registered Location" for each call,[^120] to the PSAP,
    designated statewide default answering point, or appropriate local
    emergency authority that serves the caller's Registered Location and
    that has been designated for telecommunications carriers under
    section 64.3001 of the Commission's rules.[^121] These calls must be
    routed through the use of ANI and, if necessary, pseudo-ANI,[^122]
    via the dedicated Wireline E911 Network,[^123] and the Registered
    Location must be available from or through the ALI Database. As
    explained in paragraph 42 *infra*, however, an interconnected VoIP
    provider need only provide such call back and location information
    as a PSAP, designated statewide default answering point, or
    appropriate local emergency authority is capable of receiving and
    utilizing. While 120 days is an aggressively short amount of time in
    which to comply with these requirements, the threat to public safety
    if we delay further is too great and demands near immediate action.

38. Interconnected VoIP providers may satisfy this requirement by
    interconnecting indirectly through a third party such as a
    competitive LEC, interconnecting directly with the Wireline E911
    Network, or through any other solution that allows a provider to
    offer E911 service as described above. As an example of the first
    type of arrangement, Level 3 offers a wholesale product that allows
    certain interconnected VoIP providers to provide E911 service to
    their customers.[^124] 8x8, Inc. recently announced that it is
    utilizing Level 3's service to provide E911 service to its Packet8
    service subscribers in 2,024 rate centers covering 43 U.S.
    states.[^125] Likewise, Intrado has indicated that it is prepared to
    operate as a competitive LEC in a number of states to provide
    indirect interconnection to interconnected VoIP providers,[^126] and
    Pac-West Telecom is offering a similar service in "virtually 100%"
    of the state of California.[^127] We note that the Commission
    currently requires LECs to provide access to 911 databases and
    interconnection to 911 facilities to all telecommunications
    carriers, pursuant to sections 251(a) and (c) and section
    271(c)(2)(B)(vii) of the Act.[^128] We expect that this would
    include all the elements necessary for telecommunications carriers
    to provide 911/E911 solutions that are consistent with the
    requirements of this Order, including NENA's I2 or wireless
    E911-like solutions.

39. At the same time, the record indicates that incumbent LECs are
    increasingly offering E911 solutions that allow VoIP providers to
    interconnect directly to the Wireline E911 Network through tariff,
    contract, or a combination thereof. For example, Qwest has tariffed
    E911 offerings that are currently available to VoIP providers and
    can be coupled with third party service offerings to enable the
    provision of E911 service to portable interconnected VoIP services,
    including those that allow their end users to use non-native NPA-NXX
    numbers.[^129] Verizon is developing an E911 solution for
    interconnected VoIP providers that is comparable to the solution it
    offers for wireless E911.[^130] Verizon has announced that it will
    offer this solution in New York City beginning in summer 2005 and
    will roll it out in other locations if the New York City model
    succeeds.[^131] BellSouth currently offers tariffed services similar
    to those that Qwest uses to provide its VoIP E911 solution and
    recently announced that it is offering interconnected VoIP providers
    access to 911 facilities equivalent to that which it offers CMRS
    carriers.[^132] SBC has offered to negotiate commercial agreements
    with VoIP providers for direct connection to Selective Routers and
    ALI databases, comparable to the E911 access that SBC provides to
    competitive LECs.[^133] SBC further has established a new commercial
    offering that "will enable VoIP providers to offer customers who use
    their service at a fixed location, such as their home" full E911
    service and has stated that it is "willing to develop a
    wireless-like VOIP 911 capability for VOIP providers" pending
    receipt of necessary technical information.[^134]

40. We are requiring that all interconnected VoIP 911 calls be routed
    through the dedicated Wireline E911 Network because of the
    importance of protecting consumers who have embraced this new
    technology. We recognize that compliance with this obligation is
    necessarily dependent on the ability of the interconnected VoIP
    providers to have access to trunks and selective routers via
    competitive LECs that have negotiated access with the incumbent
    LECs, through direct connections to the incumbent LECs, or through
    third-party providers. We expect and strongly encourage all parties
    involved to work together to develop and deploy VoIP E911 solutions
    and we point out that incumbent LECs, as common carriers, are
    subject to sections 201 and 202 of the Act. The Commission will
    closely monitor these efforts within the industry and will not
    hesitate to take further action should that be necessary.

41. By requiring that all 911 calls be routed via the dedicated Wireline
    E911 Network, we are requiring interconnected VoIP service providers
    to provide E911 service only in those areas where Selective Routers
    are utilized.[^135] We expect that few VoIP 911 calls will be placed
    in areas that are not interconnected with a dedicated Wireline E911
    Network.[^136] We further note that nothing in this Order prevents
    interconnected VoIP providers from entering into mutually acceptable
    911 call termination arrangements with PSAPs that are not
    interconnected with a dedicated Wireline E911 Network. In the
    attached *NPRM*, we seek comment on whether the Commission need take
    specific action with respect to such calls.[^137]

42. ***Service Level Obligation.*** For the purposes of these
    requirements, the phrase "all 911 calls" is defined as "any voice
    communication initiated by an interconnected VoIP user dialing
    911."[^138] We recognize that not all PSAPs will immediately be
    capable of receiving and utilizing the call back number and
    Registered Location information associated with the E911
    requirements outlined above.[^139] By way of example, NENA estimates
    that approximately 26.6 percent of all PSAPs are not currently
    capable of receiving and utilizing wireless E911 Phase I data.[^140]
    We therefore hold that the E911 requirements set forth above shall
    be applicable when an interconnected VoIP provider provides service
    to a Registered Location only to the extent that the PSAP,
    designated statewide default answering point, or appropriate local
    emergency authority designated to serve that Registered Location is
    capable of receiving and utilizing the data, such as ALI or ANI,
    associated with those requirements. Even in those areas where the
    PSAP is not capable of receiving or processing location or call back
    information, however, we conclude that interconnected VoIP providers
    must transmit all 911 calls to the appropriate PSAP via the Wireline
    E911 Network. To be clear, this means that interconnected VoIP
    providers are *always* required to transmit all 911 calls to the
    appropriate PSAP, designated statewide default answering point, or
    appropriate local emergency authority utilizing the Selective
    Router, the trunk line(s) between the Selective Router and the PSAP,
    and such other elements of the Wireline E911 Network[^141] as are
    necessary in those areas where Selective Routers are utilized.[^142]

43. We further hold that the obligation to determine what type of
    information, such as ALI or ANI, each PSAP is capable of receiving
    and utilizing rests with the provider of interconnected VoIP
    services. There is no limit to the number of entities that may
    engage in the provision of interconnected VoIP services in a given
    geographic area. It would be unreasonable to require PSAPs to
    attempt to inform every provider of interconnected VoIP services
    when the PSAP is prepared to receive and utilize the information
    associated with E911 service.

44. We decline at this time to adopt performance standards regarding how
    much time may elapse after an end user updates the Registered
    Location before the provider has taken such actions as are necessary
    to provide that end user with the level of E911 service specified in
    this Order.[^143] We request comment, however, on whether such
    performance standards are necessary and, if so, what form they
    should take in the *NPRM* issued in conjunction with this
    Order.[^144]

45. We also require interconnected VoIP providers to take certain
    additional steps to minimize the scope of the 911 issues associated
    with their service and to facilitate their compliance with our new
    VoIP E911 rules, as explained below. First, we require
    interconnected VoIP providers to obtain, and facilitate updating of,
    customer location information. Second, we preclude interconnected
    VoIP providers from requiring subscribers to "opt-in" or allowing
    subscribers to "opt-out" of 911 services and expect that VoIP
    providers will notify their customers of the limitations of their
    911 service offerings.

46. ***Registered Location Requirement***. We recognize that it
    currently is not always technologically feasible for providers of
    interconnected VoIP services to automatically determine the location
    of their end users without end users' active cooperation.[^145] We
    therefore require providers of interconnected VoIP services to
    obtain location information from their customers.[^146]
    Specifically, interconnected VoIP providers must obtain from each
    customer, prior to the initiation of service, the physical location
    at which the service will first be utilized.[^147] Furthermore,
    providers of interconnected VoIP services that can be utilized from
    more than one physical location must provide their end users one or
    more methods of updating information regarding the user's physical
    location. Although we decline to specify any particular method, we
    require that any method utilized allow an end user to update his or
    her Registered Location at will and in a timely manner, including at
    least one option that requires use only of the CPE necessary to
    access the interconnected VoIP service. We caution interconnected
    VoIP providers against charging customers to update their Registered
    Location, as this would discourage customers from doing so and
    therefore undermine this solution. The most recent location provided
    to an interconnected VoIP provider by a customer is the "Registered
    Location."[^148] Interconnected VoIP providers can comply with this
    requirement directly or by utilizing the services of a third party.

47. ***Customer Requirements.*** In light of the recent incidents
    involving problems with 911 access from interconnected VoIP
    services,[^149] it is clear that not all providers of interconnected
    VoIP are including E911 as a standard feature of their
    services.[^150] We find that allowing customers of interconnected
    VoIP providers to opt-in to or, for that matter, opt-out of E911
    service is fundamentally inconsistent with our obligation to
    "encourage and support efforts by States to deploy comprehensive
    end-to-end emergency communications infrastructure and
    programs."[^151] Thus, interconnected VoIP providers must, as a
    condition of providing that service to a consumer, provide that
    consumer with E911 service as outlined in the requirements
    above.[^152]

48. Further, although many VoIP providers include explanations of the
    limitations of their 911-like service (or lack thereof) in the
    Frequently Asked Questions sections on their web sites or in their
    terms of service,[^153] recent incidents make clear that consumers
    in many cases may not understand that the reasonable expectations
    they have developed with respect to the availability of 911/E911
    service via wireless and traditional wireline telephones may not be
    met when they utilize interconnected VoIP services.[^154] In order
    to ensure that consumers of interconnected VoIP services are aware
    of their interconnected VoIP service's actual E911 capabilities, by
    the effective date of this Order, we require that all providers of
    interconnected VoIP service specifically advise every subscriber,
    both new and existing, prominently and in plain language, the
    circumstances under which E911 service may not be available through
    the interconnected VoIP service or may be in some way limited by
    comparison to traditional E911 service.[^155] VoIP providers shall
    obtain and keep a record of affirmative acknowledgement by every
    subscriber, both new and existing, of having received and understood
    this advisory. In addition, in order to ensure to the extent
    possible that the advisory is available to all potential users of an
    interconnected VoIP service,[^156] interconnected VoIP service
    providers shall distribute to all subscribers, both new and
    existing, warning stickers or other appropriate labels warning
    subscribers if E911 service may be limited or not available and
    instructing the subscriber to place them on and/or near the CPE used
    in conjunction with the interconnected VoIP service.

49. Additional customer education efforts may well be necessary for
    users of portable interconnected VoIP, for whom E911 service
    requires that they notify their service provider affirmatively of
    their location. For example, customers of portable interconnected
    VoIP services likely will need to be instructed on how to register
    their locations with their providers, the need to update that
    information promptly when they relocate, and how to confirm that the
    registration is effective.[^157] In the attached *NPRM*, we seek
    comment on whether stronger Commission action is needed with respect
    to customer notification.[^158]

50. ***Compliance Letter.*** We require all interconnected VoIP
    providers to submit a letter to the Federal Communications
    Commission detailing their compliance with our rules no later than
    120 days after the effective date of this Order. The letter and all
    other filings related to this Order should be filed with the
    Commission's Secretary in WC Docket No. 05-196 on a going-forward
    basis.

51. Because of the vital public safety interests at stake in this
    proceeding, we are committed to ensuring compliance with the rules
    we adopt in this Order. Failure to comply with these rules cannot
    and will not be tolerated, as noncompliance may have a direct effect
    on the lives of those customers who choose to obtain service from
    the interconnected VoIP providers covered by this Order.
    Interconnected VoIP providers who do not comply fully with the
    requirements set forth in this Order will be subject to swift
    enforcement action by the Commission, including substantial proposed
    forfeitures and, in appropriate cases, cease and desist orders and
    proceedings to revoke any Commission licenses held by the
    interconnected VoIP provider.

```{=html}
<!-- -->
```
D.  []{#__RefHeading___Toc135731258 .anchor}**911 Funding**

```{=html}
<!-- -->
```
52. We believe that the requirements we establish today will
    significantly expand and improve interconnected VoIP 911 service
    while substantially reducing the threat to 911 funding that some
    VoIP services currently pose.[^159] First, we recognize that while
    some state laws today may already require 911 funding contributions
    from providers of interconnected VoIP, interconnected VoIP providers
    may not be covered by existing state 911 funding mechanisms in other
    states.[^160] But even in the latter circumstance, the record does
    not indicate that states are receiving no 911 funding contributions
    from interconnected VoIP providers. On the contrary, the record
    indicates that many interconnected VoIP providers currently are
    contributing to state 911 funding mechanisms.[^161] In addition,
    states have the option of collecting 911 charges from wholesale
    providers with whom interconnected VoIP providers contract to
    provide E911 service, rather than assessing those charges on the
    interconnected VoIP providers directly. For example, we have
    explained that interconnected VoIP providers often enlist a
    competitive LEC partner in order to obtain interconnection to the
    Wireline E911 Network, and we believe that as a result of this
    Order, many more will do so.[^162] In that situation, states may
    impose 911 funding obligations on the competitive LEC partners of
    interconnected VoIP providers, regardless of whether the VoIP
    providers themselves are under any obligation to contribute.[^163]
    Similarly, states may be able to impose funding obligations on
    systems service providers, such as incumbent LECs, that provide
    direct interconnection to interconnected VoIP providers. We believe
    that the ability to assess 911 funds on interconnected VoIP
    providers indirectly should narrow any gap in 911 funding
    attributable to consumers switching to interconnected VoIP service.

53. Second, the record indicates that the network components that have
    been developed to make wireless E911 possible can also be used for
    VoIP E911, which should make the implementation process simpler and
    far less expensive than the initial upgrades necessary for wireless
    E911.[^164] For that reason, we do not expect the rules we adopt
    today to impose substantial implementation costs on PSAPs.[^165] In
    short, we believe that the rules we adopt today will neither
    contribute to the diminishment of 911 funding nor require a
    substantial increase in 911 spending by state and local
    jurisdictions.

```{=html}
<!-- -->
```
E.  []{#__RefHeading___Toc135731259 .anchor}**Liability**

```{=html}
<!-- -->
```
54. We decline to exempt providers of interconnected VoIP service from
    liability under state law related to their E911 services. Although
    the *Notice* did not directly address the issue, Intrado, among
    others, requests that the Commission insulate these VoIP providers
    from liability to the same extent that Congress insulated wireless
    carriers from liability related to the provision of 911/E911 service
    in the wireless context.[^166] In the 911 Act, Congress gave
    wireless carriers providing 911 service liability protection equal
    to that available to wireline carriers for 911 calls.[^167] Congress
    has enacted no similar protection for providers of interconnected
    VoIP service. As the Commission has said in an analogous context,
    before we would consider taking any action to preempt liability
    under state law, the Commission would need to demonstrate that
    limiting liability is essential to achieving the goals of the
    Act.[^168]

55. No commenter has identified a source of authority for the Commission
    to limit liability in this way.[^169] Limiting liability related to
    the use or provision of E911 services is not necessary to the
    creation or use of E911 services, and we are not persuaded that
    absent the liability protection sought by Intrado and others,
    interconnected VoIP providers will be unwilling or unable to provide
    E911 services. Rather, the record shows that some interconnected
    VoIP providers have already begun deploying E911 services.[^170] In
    addition, to the extent individual interconnected VoIP providers
    believe they need this type of liability protection, they may seek
    to protect themselves from liability for negligence through their
    customer contracts and through their agreements with PSAPs, as some
    interconnected VoIP providers have done.[^171]

# Notice of Proposed Rulemaking {#notice-of-proposed-rulemaking .Style-Heading-1-+-12-pt-Char-Char}

56. In this *NPRM*, we seek comment on what additional steps the
    Commission should take to ensure that providers of VoIP services
    that interconnect with the nation's PSTN provide ubiquitous and
    reliable E911 service.[^172] The Order that accompanies this *NPRM*
    is this Commission's first step to ensure that the life-saving
    benefits of E911 service that wireline telephone and wireless
    telephone users have come to rely on also are extended to citizens
    who choose to communicate using interconnected VoIP services. Due to
    the existing state of technology, today's Order relies in some cases
    on users to provide the location information that will be delivered
    to PSAPs in an emergency, and thus is an immediate step toward a
    more advanced solution in which the user automatically can be
    located without assistance from the user. We seek comment on what
    the Commission can do to further the development of this new
    technology, and on issues raised by today's Order, including whether
    the Commission should expand the scope and requirements of this
    Order. Commenters should take note of the Commission's view that
    while a provider of VoIP service enjoys the opportunity to introduce
    new and exciting public interest benefits to the communications
    marketplace, and to profit from those offerings, that opportunity
    brings with it the responsibility to ensure that public safety is
    protected.

57. As the Commission previously has discussed, one of the central
    customer benefits of portable interconnected VoIP services is the
    lack of geographic restrictions.[^173] However, because portable
    interconnected VoIP services may be offered independent of
    geography, currently there is no way for portable VoIP providers
    reliably and automatically to provide location information to PSAPs
    for these services without the customer's active cooperation. What
    can the Commission do to facilitate the development of techniques
    for automatically identifying the geographic location of users of
    this type of VoIP service? What role should the Commission play to
    further the evolution of E911 service and E911 systems that do not
    depend on a customer providing his or her location information? A
    number of possible methods have been proposed to automatically
    identify the location of a VoIP user, including gathering location
    information through the use of: an access jack inventory; a wireless
    access point inventory; access point mapping and triangulation; HDTV
    signal triangulation; and various GPS-based solutions.[^174] What
    role would be most productive for the Commission to play in
    facilitating the adoption of one or more of these possible
    solutions, or facilitating some other solution, to automatically
    identify a VoIP service customer's location? Are any of these
    solutions more promising than others? Are there any reasons why
    certain of these solutions are unworkable? What other solutions
    could be used to provide location information automatically in the
    VoIP service context? Should the Commission require all terminal
    adapters or other equipment used in the provision of interconnected
    VoIP service sold as of June 1, 2006 to be capable of providing
    location information automatically, whether embedded in other
    equipment or sold to customers as a separate device? Under what
    authority could the Commission take such actions?

58. We also seek comment on issues raised by our decision today to
    impose E911 service obligations on providers of interconnected VoIP
    services. The scope of today's Order is limited to providers of
    interconnected VoIP services. We seek comment on whether the
    Commission should extend these obligations, or similar obligations,
    to providers of other VoIP services that are not covered by the
    rules adopted today. For instance, what E911 obligations, if any,
    should apply to VoIP services that are not fully interconnected to
    the PSTN? Specifically, should E911 obligations apply to VoIP
    services that enable users to terminate calls to the PSTN but do not
    permit users to receive calls that originate on the PSTN? Should
    E911 obligations apply to the converse situation in which a VoIP
    service enables users to receive calls from the PSTN but does not
    permit the user to make calls terminating to the PSTN?[^175] We
    tentatively conclude that a provider of a VoIP service offering that
    permits users generally to receive calls that originate on the PSTN
    and separately makes available a different offering that permits
    users generally to terminate calls to the PSTN should be subject to
    the rules we adopt in today's Order if a user can combine those
    separate offerings or can use them simultaneously or in immediate
    succession. Are there any other services upon which the Commission
    should impose E911 obligations, including any IP-based voice
    services that do not require a broadband connection?

59. Does the Commission need to adopt regulations in addition to those
    imposed by today's Order to ensure that interconnected VoIP service
    customers obtain the required level of E911 services? It is our
    expectation that end-user updates of Registered Location information
    will take place immediately. If this is not feasible, what
    performance standards should the Commission adopt regarding the
    length of time between when an end user updates Registered Location
    information and when the service provider takes the actions
    necessary to enable E911 from that new location? How should such
    requirements be structured? How should providers of interconnected
    VoIP service satisfy the requirements we adopt today in cases in
    which a subscriber's Registered Location is not associated with a
    street address? What requirements, if any, should we impose on
    providers of interconnected VoIP service in geographic areas served
    by PSAPs that are not connected to a Selective Router? How should
    the use of wireless broadband connections such as Wi-Fi or WiMax
    impact the applicability of the obligations we adopt today? Would
    providers of wireless interconnected VoIP service be more
    appropriately subject to our existing 911/E911 rules for CMRS?
    Should the Commission require VoIP service providers to create
    redundant systems for providing E911 services, such as requiring
    redundant trunks to each Selective Router and/or requiring that
    multiple Selective Routers be able to route calls to each PSAP? We
    also seek comment on whether the Commission should impose additional
    or more restrictive customer notification requirements relating to
    E911 on VoIP providers, and on the sufficiency of our customer
    acknowledgement requirements.

60. Should the Commission impose reporting obligations on VoIP service
    providers other than the compliance letter we impose in today's
    Order? Are there other ways for the Commission to monitor
    implementation of its E911 rules without imposing reporting
    requirements? We note that the Commission has imposed progress
    reporting requirements in the past for implementation and
    enforcement of 911/E911 transition deadlines for wireless[^176] and
    wireline providers.[^177] Should the Commission require
    interconnected VoIP providers to report what progress they are
    making in developing ways to locate automatically a user who dials
    911? Should the Commission require reporting of any other
    information by interconnected VoIP providers? If the Commission
    adopts additional reporting requirements, what are the appropriate
    deadlines for such progress reports? Under what authority could the
    Commission take such actions?

61. We seek comment on what role states can and should play to help
    implement the E911 rules we adopt today. We recognize the historic
    and important role of states and localities in public safety
    matters. State and local governments have filled an especially
    important role in creating and regulating 911/E911 operations -- a
    role states have shouldered even in the context of wireless
    services.[^178] Should state and local governments play a role
    similar to the roles they play in implementing the Commission's
    wireless 911/E911 rules? Should the Commission take any action to
    facilitate the states' ability to collect 911 fees from
    interconnected VoIP providers, either directly or indirectly? How
    can the Commission and the states work together to ensure the
    public's safety?

62. Should the Commission adopt any customer privacy protections related
    to provision of E911 service by interconnected VoIP service
    providers? The E911 rules we adopt today when fully implemented will
    require interconnected VoIP service providers to transmit a
    customer's Registered Location to an appropriate PSAP, which
    necessarily requires providers of such services to maintain a list
    of their customers' Registered Location, and makes that information
    available to public safety professionals and others when the
    customer dials 911. Wireline and wireless telecommunications
    carriers are already subject to privacy requirements.[^179] Should
    the Commission adopt similar privacy protections in the context of
    interconnected VoIP service? Under what authority could we adopt
    such rules?

63. Finally, we seek comment on whether persons with disabilities can
    use interconnected VoIP service and other VoIP services to directly
    call a PSAP via a TTY in light of the requirement in Title II of the
    Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) that PSAPs be directly
    accessible by TTYs.[^180] Furthermore, as we noted in the *Notice*,
    the Commission in 1999 released a Notice of Inquiry raising specific
    questions regarding the application of the disability accessibility
    provisions found in sections 251(a)(2) and 255 of the Act in the
    context of "IP telephony" and "computer-based equipment that
    replicates telecommunications functionality."[^181] That Notice
    sought comment on the extent to which Internet telephony was
    impairing access to communications services among people with
    disabilities, the efforts that manufacturers were taking to render
    new technologies accessible, and the degree to which these
    technologies should be subjected to the same disability access
    requirements as traditional telephony facilities.[^182] We ask
    commenters to refresh the record in that proceeding in light of
    today's Order by filing comments in this docket. Are there any steps
    that the Commission needs to take to ensure that people with
    disabilities who desire to use interconnected VoIP service obtain
    access to E911 services? What is the basis of the Commission's
    authority to impose any obligations that commenters feel are
    warranted?

# Procedural MATTERS {#procedural-matters .Style-Heading-1-+-12-pt-Char-Char}

A.  ***Ex Parte* Presentations**

```{=html}
<!-- -->
```
64. This matter shall be treated as a "permit-but-disclose" proceeding
    in accordance with the Commission's *ex parte* rules.[^183] 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 is generally required.[^184] Other
    requirements pertaining to oral and written presentations are set
    forth in section 1.1206(b) of the Commission's rules.

```{=html}
<!-- -->
```
B.  **Comment Filing Procedures**

```{=html}
<!-- -->
```
65. Pursuant to sections 1.415 and 1.419 of the Commission's rules, 47
    C.F.R §§ 1.415, 1.419, interested parties may file comments and
    reply comments on or before the dates indicated on the first page of
    this document. **All filings related to this Order and the Notice of
    Proposed Rulemaking should refer to WC Docket No. 05-196**. We
    hereby incorporate the comments and *ex parte* presentations in WC
    Docket No. 04-36 into WC Docket No. 05-196. Commenters need not
    resubmit material previously filed in that proceeding. 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 FR 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](http://www.regulations.gov/). Filers
    should follow the instructions provided on the website for
    submitting comments.

    -   For ECFS filers, if multiple docket or rulemaking numbers appear
        in the caption of this proceeding, filers must transmit one
        electronic copy of the comments for each docket or rulemaking
        number referenced in the caption. In completing the transmittal
        screen, filers should include their full name, U.S. Postal
        Service mailing address, and the applicable docket or rulemaking
        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. If more than one docket or
    rulemaking number appears in the caption of this proceeding, filers
    must submit two additional copies for each additional docket or
    rulemaking number.

> 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, Office of the Secretary, Federal
> Communications Commission.

-   The Commission's contractor will receive hand-delivered or
    messenger-delivered paper filings for the Commission's Secretary at
    236 Massachusetts Avenue, NE., Suite 110, Washington, DC 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 12^th^ Street, SW, Washington DC 20554.

    1.  All filings must be addressed to the Commission's Secretary,
        Marlene H. Dortch, Office of the Secretary, Federal
        Communications Commission, 445 12th Street, SW, Washington,
        DC 20554. Parties should also send a copy of their filings to
        Janice Myles, Competition Policy Division, Wireline Competition
        Bureau, Federal Communications Commission, Room 5-C140, 445 12th
        Street, SW, Washington, D.C. 20554, or by e-mail to
        janice.myles@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, SW, Room CY-B402,
        Washington, D.C. 20554, (202) 488-5300, or via e-mail to
        fcc@bcpiweb.com.

    2.  Documents in WC Docket Nos. 04-36 and 05-196 are available for
        public inspection and copying during business hours at the FCC
        Reference Information Center, Portals II, 445 12th St. SW, Room
        CY-A257, Washington, DC 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.

    ```{=html}
    <!-- -->
    ```
    A.  **Accessible Formats**

    ```{=html}
    <!-- -->
    ```
    3.  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) 418-0531 (voice), (202)
        418-7365 (TTY).

    ```{=html}
    <!-- -->
    ```
    B.  **Regulatory Flexibility Analyses**

    ```{=html}
    <!-- -->
    ```
    4.  As required by the Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980, *see* 5
        U.S.C. § 604, the Commission has prepared a Final Regulatory
        Flexibility Analysis (FRFA) of the possible significant economic
        impact on small entities of the policies and rules addressed in
        this document. The FRFA is set forth in Appendix C.

    5.  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 C. Written
        public comments are requested on the IRFA. These comments must
        be filed in accordance with the same filing deadlines as
        comments filed in response to this Notice of Proposed Rulemaking
        as set forth in paragraph 65, and have a separate and distinct
        heading designating them as responses to the IRFA.

    ```{=html}
    <!-- -->
    ```
    C.  **Paperwork Reduction Act Analysis**

    ```{=html}
    <!-- -->
    ```
    6.  This document contains new information collection requirements
        subject to 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 information collection requirements contained
        in this proceeding.

    ```{=html}
    <!-- -->
    ```
    D.  **Congressional Review Act**

    ```{=html}
    <!-- -->
    ```
    7.  The Commission will send a copy of this Report and Order in a
        report to be sent to Congress and the Government Accountability
        Office pursuant to the Congressional Review Act (CRA), *see* 5
        U.S.C. § 801(a)(1)(A).

# Ordering Clauses {#ordering-clauses .Style-Heading-1-+-12-pt-Char-Char}

8.  Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that pursuant to sections 1, 4(i), 4(j),
    251(e) and 303(r) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47
    U.S.C. §§ 151, 154(i)-(j), 251(e), 303(r), the Report and Order in
    WC Docket No. 04-36 IS ADOPTED, and that Part 9 of the Commission's
    Rules, 47 C.F.R. Part 9, is added as set forth in Appendix B. The
    Order shall become effective 30 days after publication in the
    Federal Register subject to OMB approval for new information
    collection requirements.[^185] Accordingly, subject to such OMB
    approval: (i) the customer notification requirements set forth in
    paragraphs 48 and 49 of the Order shall become effective upon the
    effective date of the Order; (ii) the compliance letter described in
    paragraph 50 of the Order must be submitted to the Commission no
    later than 120 days after the effective date of the Order; and (iii)
    all other requirements shall become effective 120 days after the
    effective date of the Order.

9.  IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that pursuant to the authority contained in
    sections 1, 4(i), 4(j), 251(e), and 303(r) of the Communications Act
    of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. §§ 151, 154(i)-(j), 251(e), 303(r),
    the Notice of Proposed Rulemaking in WC Docket No. 05-196 IS
    ADOPTED.

10. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Commission's Consumer and
    Governmental Affairs Bureau, Reference Information Center, SHALL
    SEND a copy of this First Report and Order and Notice of Proposed
    Rulemaking, including the Final Regulatory Flexibility Analysis 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

LIST OF COMMENTERS

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

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

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

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

APPENDIX B

FINAL RULES

Part 9 of Title 47 of the Code of Federal Regulations is added to read
as follows:

**PART 9 ---INTERCONNECTED VOICE OVER INTERNET PROTOCOL SERVICES**

Sec.

9.1 Purpose.

9.3 Definitions.

9.5 E911 Service

AUTHORITY: 47 U.S.C. 151, 154(i)-(j), 251(e), and 303(r) unless
otherwise noted.

**[§ 9.1 Purpose]{.underline}**

The purpose of these rules is to set forth the E911 service requirements
and conditions applicable to interconnected Voice over Internet Protocol
service providers.

**[§ 9.3 Definitions.]{.underline}**

[Appropriate local emergency authority]{.underline}. An emergency
answering point that has not been officially designated as a Public
Safety Answering Point (PSAP), but has the capability of receiving 911
calls and either dispatching emergency services personnel or, if
necessary, relaying the call to another emergency service provider. An
appropriate local emergency authority may include, but is not limited
to, an existing local law enforcement authority, such as the police,
county sheriff, local emergency medical services provider, or fire
department.

[ANI]{.underline}. Automatic Number Identification, as such term is
defined in Section 20.3 of these rules.

[Interconnected VoIP service]{.underline}. An interconnected Voice over
Internet protocol (VoIP) service is 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.

[Pseudo Automatic Number Identification (Pseudo-ANI)]{.underline}. A
number, consisting of the same number of digits as ANI, that is not a
North American Numbering Plan telephone directory number and may be used
in place of an ANI to convey special meaning. The special meaning
assigned to the pseudo-ANI is determined by agreements, as necessary,
between the system originating the call, intermediate systems handling
and routing the call, and the destination system.

[PSAP]{.underline}. Public Safety Answering Point, as such term is
defined in Section 20.3 of these rules.

[Registered Location]{.underline}. The most recent information obtained
by an interconnected VoIP service provider that identifies the physical
location of an end user.

[Statewide default answering point]{.underline}. An emergency answering
point designated by the State to receive 911 calls for either the entire
State or those portions of the State not otherwise served by a local
PSAP.

[Wireline E911 Network]{.underline}. A dedicated wireline network that
(1) is interconnected with but largely separate from the public switched
telephone network, (2) includes a selective router, and (3) is utilized
to route emergency calls and related information to PSAPs, designated
statewide default answering points, appropriate local emergency
authorities or other emergency answering points.

**[§ 9.5 E911 Service.]{.underline}**

\(a\) [Scope of Section]{.underline}. The following requirements are
only applicable to providers of interconnected VoIP services. Further,
the following requirements apply only to 911 calls placed by users whose
Registered Location is in a geographic area served by a Wireline E911
Network (which, as defined in Section 9.3, includes a selective router).

\(b\) [E911 Service]{.underline}. As of \[120 days after the effective
date of the Order\]:

> \(1\) Interconnected VoIP service providers must, as a condition of
> providing service to a consumer, provide that consumer with E911
> service as described in this section;
>
> \(2\) Interconnected VoIP service providers must transmit all 911
> calls, as well as ANI and the caller's Registered Location for each
> call, to the PSAP, designated statewide default answering point, or
> appropriate local emergency authority that serves the caller's
> Registered Location and that has been designated for
> telecommunications carriers pursuant to section 64.3001 of this
> chapter, provided that "all 911 calls" is defined as "any voice
> communication initiated by an interconnected VoIP user dialing 911";
>
> \(3\) All 911 calls must be routed through the use of ANI and, if
> necessary, pseudo-ANI, via the dedicated Wireline E911 Network; and
>
> \(4\) The Registered Location must be available to the appropriate
> PSAP, designated statewide default answering point, or appropriate
> local emergency authority from or through the appropriate automatic
> location information (ALI) database.

\(c\) [Service Level Obligation]{.underline}. Notwithstanding the
provisions in paragraph (b) of this section, if a PSAP, designated
statewide default answering point, or appropriate local emergency
authority is not capable of receiving and processing either ANI or
location information, an interconnected VoIP service provider need not
provide such ANI or location information; however, nothing in this
paragraph affects the obligation under paragraph (b) of an
interconnected VoIP service provider to transmit via the Wireline E911
Network all 911 calls to the PSAP, designated statewide default
answering point, or appropriate local emergency authority that serves
the caller's Registered Location and that has been designated for
telecommunications carriers pursuant to section 64.3001 of this chapter.

\(d\) [Registered Location Requirement]{.underline}. As of \[120 days
after the effective date of the Order\], interconnected VoIP service
providers must:

> \(1\) Obtain from each customer, prior to the initiation of service,
> the physical location at which the service will first be utilized; and
>
> \(2\) Provide their end users one or more methods of updating their
> Registered Location, including at least one option that requires use
> only of the CPE necessary to access the interconnected VoIP service.
> Any method utilized must allow an end user to update the Registered
> Location at will and in a timely manner.

\(e\) [Customer Notification]{.underline}. Each interconnected VoIP
service provider shall:

> \(1\) Specifically advise every subscriber, both new and existing,
> prominently and in plain language, of the circumstances under which
> E911 service may not be available through the interconnected VoIP
> service or may be in some way limited by comparison to traditional
> E911 service. Such circumstances include, but are not limited to,
> relocation of the end user's IP-compatible CPE, use by the end user of
> a non-native telephone number, broadband connection failure, loss of
> electrical power, and delays that may occur in making a Registered
> Location available in or through the ALI database;
>
> \(2\) Obtain and keep a record of affirmative acknowledgement by every
> subscriber, both new and existing, of having received and understood
> the advisory described in subparagraph (1); and
>
> \(3\) Distribute to its existing subscribers warning stickers or other
> appropriate labels warning subscribers if E911 service may be limited
> or not available and instructing the subscriber to place them on or
> near the equipment used in conjunction with the interconnected VoIP
> service. Each interconnected VoIP provider shall distribute such
> warning stickers or other appropriate labels to each new subscriber
> prior to the initiation of that subscriber's service.

\(f\) [Compliance Letter]{.underline}. All interconnected VoIP providers
must submit a letter to the Commission detailing their compliance with
this section no later than \[120 days after the effective date of this
Order\].

**APPENDIX C**

**REGULATORY FLEXIBILITY ANALYSES**

**I. FINAL REGULATORY FLEXIBILITY ANALYSIS**

1.  As required by the Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980, as amended
    (RFA),[^186] an Initial Regulatory Flexibility Analysis (IRFA) was
    incorporated in the *Notice* in WC Docket 04-36.[^187] The
    Commission sought written public comment on the proposals in the
    *Notice*, including comment on the IRFA.[^188] We received comments
    specifically directed toward the IRFA from three commenters. These
    comments are discussed below. This Final Regulatory Flexibility
    Analysis (FRFA) conforms to the RFA.[^189]

**A. Need for, and Objectives of, the Rules**

2.  Today's Order establishes rules requiring providers of
    interconnected VoIP -- meaning VoIP service that allows a user
    generally to receive calls originating from and to terminate calls
    to the public switched telephone network (PSTN) -- to provide
    enhanced 911 (E911) capabilities to their customers as a standard
    feature of service. The Order requires providers of interconnected
    VoIP service to provide E911 service no matter where the customer is
    using the service, whether at home or away.

3.  The Order is in many ways a necessary and logical follow-up to the
    *Vonage Order* issued late last year. In that order, the Commission
    determined that Vonage's DigitalVoice service -- an interconnected
    VoIP service -- cannot be separated into interstate and intrastate
    communications and that this Commission has the responsibility and
    obligation to decide whether certain regulations apply to
    DigitalVoice and other IP‑enabled services having similar
    capabilities. The *Vonage Order* also made clear that questions
    regarding what regulatory obligations apply to providers of such
    services would be addressed in the pending *IP-Enabled Services*
    proceeding. In accord with that statement, today's Order takes
    critical steps to advance the goal of public safety by imposing E911
    obligations on certain VoIP providers.

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

4.  In this section, we respond to comments filed in response to the
    IRFA.[^190] To the extent we received comments raising general small
    business concerns during this proceeding, those comments are
    discussed throughout the Order.

5.  We disagree with SBA and Menard that the Commission should postpone
    acting in this proceeding -- thereby postponing imposing E911
    obligations on interconnected VoIP service providers -- and instead
    should reevaluate the economic impact and the compliance burdens on
    small entities and issue a further notice of proposed rulemaking in
    conjunction with a supplemental IRFA identifying and analyzing the
    economic impacts on small entities and less burdensome
    alternatives.[^191] We believe the additional steps suggested by SBA
    and Menard are unnecessary because, as described below, small
    entities already have received sufficient notice of the issues
    addressed in today's Order and because the Commission, as requested
    by the VON Coalition, 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.[^192]

6.  The *Notice* specifically sought comment on what 911/E911
    obligations should apply in the context of IP-enabled services, and
    discussed the criteria the Commission previously has used to
    determine the scope of its existing 911/E911 rules.[^193] The
    *Notice* asked whether it would be appropriate for the Commission to
    "impose a requirement that some or all IP-enabled voice services
    provide 911 functionality to consumers and \[sought\] comment on
    this proposal," and also sought comment on whether the Commission
    should impose E911 obligations on IP-enabled services which would
    involve immediate costs versus imposing E911 obligations at a later
    time which would involve "costly and inefficient 'retrofitting' of
    embedded IP infrastructure."[^194] The *Notice* also asked whether
    less burdensome alternatives would be preferable to imposing E911
    obligations as direct regulation, including whether the promulgation
    of best practices or technical guidelines would adequately promote
    the provision of effective IP-based E911 services, and whether
    voluntary agreements among public safety trade associations,
    commercial IP-stakeholders, consumers, and state and local E911
    coordinators and administrators would be preferable to direct
    regulation.[^195] The Commission also sought comment on ways it
    could provide for technological flexibility so that our rules allow
    for the development of new and innovative technologies.[^196] While
    the *Notice* did not specify particular rules the Commission might
    adopt -- and the IRFA therefore did not catalogue the effects that
    such particular rules might have on small businesses -- the
    Commission provided notice to parties regarding the range of policy
    outcomes that might result from today's Order. A summary of the
    *Notice* was published in the Federal Register, and we believe that
    such publication constitutes appropriate notice to small businesses
    subject to this Commission's regulation.[^197] We note that a number
    of small entities submitted comments in this proceeding.[^198] The
    comments of all entities that specifically addressed issues
    affecting small businesses, including different types of VoIP
    service providers, enabled the Commission to consider the concerns
    of small businesses throughout this Order. Moreover, in Part C,
    below, we attempt to estimate the number of small businesses that
    will be affected by the rules we adopt herein.[^199] Therefore, we
    believe that small entities were not prejudiced by any lack of
    specificity regarding what rules the Commission might adopt in this
    proceeding.

7.  Moreover, we note that we have attempted to balance the economic
    interests of small businesses with the public's great interest in
    access to E911 services when using interconnected VoIP services. The
    Order discusses how E911 service is critical to our nation's ability
    to respond to a host of crises and that the public has come to rely
    on the life-saving benefits of such services in emergency
    situations.[^200] While the Commission sought comment on, and
    considered, ways that public safety could be protected through
    access to E911 services that are less burdensome to small businesses
    than the imposition of E911 obligations, the Commission concluded
    that it was important for *all* interconnected VoIP service
    providers to participate in protecting public safety. As SBA notes,
    many VoIP providers are likely to be small businesses.[^201] SBA
    claims that "\[t\]hese small providers are developing a nascent
    technology and are especially vulnerable to disproportionate
    regulatory costs."[^202] Nevertheless, as discussed in the Order, we
    believe it is reasonable to expect any business electing to
    interconnect with the PSTN to the extent required to provide
    interconnected VoIP service also to provide E911 service in order to
    protect the public interest.[^203] Small businesses may still offer
    VoIP service without being subject to the rules adopted in today's
    Order by electing not to provide an *interconnected* VoIP
    service.[^204] We therefore have provided alternatives for small
    entities.[^205]

8.  We disagree with Menard's contention that the Commission did not
    meet its obligations under the RFA because it failed to list as a
    significant alternative to the proposed rulemaking imposing economic
    regulation on the underlying facilities of cable carriers.[^206] The
    rules we adopt today do apply to cable operators that provide
    interconnected VoIP service. Moreover, we reject the above
    contention as insufficient to achieve our goal of ensuring that
    users of interconnected VoIP service have access to E911, as well as
    rejecting it for the reasons already provided generally. As
    discussed in the Order, there currently is no way for portable VoIP
    providers reliably and automatically to provide location information
    to PSAPs without the customer's active cooperation.[^207] Not only
    is the provider of an interconnected VoIP service the entity
    actively involved in routing the calls of users of interconnected
    VoIP service, but it is the entity that has the relationship with
    the customer who currently plays an essential role in providing
    accurate location information; hence, it is reasonable to impose
    E911 rules on that interconnected VoIP service provider. In
    addition, although the Commission determined that it was necessary
    to impose E911 obligations on all providers of interconnected VoIP
    service in order to ensure the ubiquitous availability of E911
    service for users of interconnected VoIP service, the Commission
    minimized the burdens of this regulation by, for example, by
    requiring straightforward reporting requirements and by setting
    reasonable timetables for implementation of the rules adopted
    today.[^208] The Commission minimized the burdens of this regulation
    by not mandating any particular technical solution; interconnected
    VoIP providers may connect directly to the Wireline E911 Network,
    connect indirectly through a third party, such as a competitive
    local exchange carrier, or through any other solution that allows a
    provider to offer E911 service.[^209]

9.  We also disagree with Menard's contention that the Commission
    inappropriately failed to "weigh the impact on non-affiliated
    regional Internet Service Providers of the consequence for the
    removal of all forms of economic regulation for broadband services
    provided by incumbent carriers."[^210] Today's Order does not remove
    "all forms of economic regulation for broadband services provided by
    incumbent carriers," and would be an inappropriate forum for
    reconsideration of any such decision the Commission has made in
    other proceedings.[^211] The Commission reached its decision today
    in full awareness and consideration of the Commission's other rules
    and to that extent satisfied Menard's request and SBA's request to
    consider how the requirements imposed in today's Order overlap with
    other requirements imposed on small entities.[^212]

10. Finally, we reject claims that the present proceeding is not the
    appropriate docket in which to address what E911 obligations should
    be imposed on providers of interconnected VoIP service. The
    Commission provided proper notice that these issues would be
    addressed in this proceeding, and in the *Vonage Order* made clear
    that questions regarding what regulatory obligations apply to
    providers of a type of interconnected VoIP service would be
    addressed in this proceeding.[^213] Therefore, we do not accede to
    the preferences of some small businesses that the Commission resolve
    various other proceedings, including proceedings involving E911
    requirements, prior to addressing issues in the *IP-Enabled
    Services* docket.[^214] We reject Menard's claim that the Commission
    is using the present rulemaking as a way of by-passing its statutory
    obligations under section 10 of the Telecommunications Act of 1996
    (section 10) because that statutory section is not applicable to the
    present situation.[^215] Section 10 sets forth the Commission's
    obligation to forbear from existing regulation to a
    telecommunications carrier or a telecommunications service, or class
    of telecommunications carriers or telecommunications services, if
    certain criteria are satisfied.[^216] Prior to today's Order, the
    Commission had not imposed E911 obligations on interconnected VoIP
    service providers. In addition, the Commission to date has not
    classified interconnected VoIP service as a telecommunications
    service.

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

11. 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.[^217] The RFA generally defines the
    term "small entity" as having the same meaning as the terms "small
    business," "small organization," and "small governmental
    jurisdiction."[^218] In addition, the term "small business" has the
    same meaning as the term "small business concern" under the Small
    Business Act.[^219] 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).[^220]

12. *Small Businesses.* Nationwide, there are a total of approximately
    22.4 million small businesses, according to SBA data.[^221]

13. *Small Organizations*. Nationwide, there are approximately 1.6
    million small organizations.[^222]

14. *Small Governmental Jurisdictions.* The term "small governmental
    jurisdiction" is defined as "governments of cities, towns,
    townships, villages, school districts, or special districts, with a
    population of less than fifty thousand."[^223] As of 1997, there
    were approximately 87,453 governmental jurisdictions in the United
    States.[^224] This number includes 39,044 county governments,
    municipalities, and townships, of which 37,546 (approximately 96.2%)
    have populations of fewer than 50,000, and of which 1,498 have
    populations of 50,000 or more. Thus, we estimate the number of small
    governmental jurisdictions overall to be 84,098 or fewer.

**1. Telecommunications Service Entities**

**a. Wireline Carriers and Service Providers**

15. We have included small incumbent local exchange carriers in this
    present RFA analysis. As noted above, a "small business" under the
    RFA is one that, *inter alia*, meets the pertinent small business
    size standard (*e.g*., a telephone communications business having
    1,500 or fewer employees), and "is not dominant in its field of
    operation."[^225] The SBA's Office of Advocacy contends that, for
    RFA purposes, small incumbent local exchange carriers are not
    dominant in their field of operation because any such dominance is
    not "national" in scope.[^226] We have therefore included small
    incumbent local exchange carriers in this RFA analysis, although we
    emphasize that this RFA action has no effect on Commission analyses
    and determinations in other, non-RFA contexts.

16. *Incumbent Local Exchange Carriers (LECs)*. Neither the Commission
    nor the SBA has developed a small business size standard
    specifically for incumbent local exchange services. The appropriate
    size standard under SBA rules is for the category Wired
    Telecommunications Carriers. Under that size standard, such a
    business is small if it has 1,500 or fewer employees.[^227]
    According to Commission data,[^228] 1,310 carriers have reported
    that they are engaged in the provision of incumbent local exchange
    services. Of these 1,310 carriers, an estimated 1,025 have 1,500 or
    fewer employees and 285 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. In addition, limited preliminary census data
    for 2002 indicate that the total number of wired communications
    carriers increased approximately 34 percent from 1997 to 2002.[^229]

17. *Competitive Local Exchange Carriers (CLECs), 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.[^230] According to Commission data,[^231] 563 carriers
    have reported that they are engaged in the provision of either
    competitive access provider services or competitive local exchange
    carrier services. Of these 563 carriers, an estimated 472 have 1,500
    or fewer employees and 91 have more than 1,500 employees. In
    addition, 14 carriers have reported that they are "Shared-Tenant
    Service Providers," and all 14 are estimated to have 1,500 or fewer
    employees. In addition, 37 carriers have reported that they are
    "Other Local Service Providers." Of the 37, an estimated 36 have
    1,500 or fewer employees and one has more than 1,500 employees.
    Consequently, the Commission estimates that most providers of
    competitive local exchange service, competitive access providers,
    "Shared-Tenant Service Providers," and "Other Local Service
    Providers" are small entities that may be affected by our action. In
    addition, limited preliminary census data for 2002 indicate that the
    total number of wired communications carriers increased
    approximately 34 percent from 1997 to 2002.[^232]

18. *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.[^233] According to Commission data,[^234] 127
    carriers have reported that they are engaged in the provision of
    local resale services. Of these, an estimated 121 have 1,500 or
    fewer employees and six 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.

19. *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.[^235] According to Commission data,[^236] 645
    carriers have reported that they are engaged in the provision of
    toll resale services. Of these, an estimated 619 have 1,500 or fewer
    employees and 35 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.

20. *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.[^237] According to Commission data,[^238] 613
    carriers have reported that they are engaged in the provision of
    payphone services. Of these, an estimated 609 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. In addition,
    limited preliminary census data for 2002 indicate that the total
    number of wired communications carriers increased approximately 34
    percent from 1997 to 2002.[^239]

21. *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.[^240] According to Commission
    data,[^241] 281 carriers have reported that they are engaged in the
    provision of interexchange service. Of these, an estimated 254 have
    1,500 or fewer employees and 27 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. In addition,
    limited preliminary census data for 2002 indicate that the total
    number of wired communications carriers increased approximately 34
    percent from 1997 to 2002.[^242]

22. *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.[^243] According to Commission data,[^244] 21
    carriers have reported that they are engaged in the provision of
    operator services. Of these, an estimated 20 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. In addition, limited preliminary
    census data for 2002 indicate that the total number of wired
    communications carriers increased approximately 34 percent from 1997
    to 2002.[^245]

23. *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.[^246] According to Commission data,[^247] 40
    carriers have reported that they are engaged in the provision of
    prepaid calling cards. Of these, all are estimated to have 1,500 or
    fewer 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.

24. *800 and 800-Like Service Subscribers.*[^248] Neither the Commission
    nor the SBA has developed a small business size standard
    specifically for 800 and 800-like service ("toll free") subscribers.
    The appropriate size standard under SBA rules is for the category
    Telecommunications Resellers. Under that size standard, such a
    business is small if it has 1,500 or fewer employees.[^249] The most
    reliable source of information regarding the number of these service
    subscribers appears to be data the Commission collects on the 800,
    888, and 877 numbers in use.[^250] According to our data, at the end
    of January, 1999, the number of 800 numbers assigned was 7,692,955;
    the number of 888 numbers assigned was 7,706,393; and the number of
    877 numbers assigned was 1,946,538. We do not have data specifying
    the number of these subscribers that are not independently owned and
    operated or have more than 1,500 employees, and thus are unable at
    this time to estimate with greater precision the number of toll free
    subscribers that would qualify as small businesses under the SBA
    size standard. Consequently, we estimate that there are 7,692,955 or
    fewer small entity 800 subscribers; 7,706,393 or fewer small entity
    888 subscribers; and 1,946,538 or fewer small entity 877
    subscribers.

**b. International Service Providers**

25. 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 categories of
    Satellite Telecommunications and Other Telecommunications. Under
    both categories, such a business is small if it has \$12.5 million
    or less in average annual receipts.[^251] For the first category of
    Satellite Telecommunications, Census Bureau data for 1997 show that
    there were a total of 324 firms that operated for the entire
    year.[^252] Of this total, 273 firms had annual receipts of under
    \$10 million, and an additional 24 firms had receipts of \$10
    million to \$24,999,999. Thus, the majority of Satellite
    Telecommunications firms can be considered small.

26. The second category -- Other Telecommunications -- includes
    "establishments primarily engaged in ... 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."[^253] According to Census Bureau data for
    1997, there were 439 firms in this category that operated for the
    entire year.[^254] Of this total, 424 firms had annual receipts of
    \$5 million to \$9,999,999 and an additional six firms had annual
    receipts of \$10 million to \$24,999,990. Thus, under this second
    size standard, the majority of firms can be considered small.

**c. Wireless Telecommunications Service Providers**

27. 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.

28. *Wireless Service Providers.* The SBA has developed a small business
    size standard for wireless firms within the two broad economic
    census categories of "Paging"[^255] and "Cellular and Other Wireless
    Telecommunications."[^256] 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 1997 show that there were
    1,320 firms in this category, total, that operated for the entire
    year.[^257] Of this total, 1,303 firms had employment of 999 or
    fewer employees, and an additional 17 firms had employment of 1,000
    employees or more.[^258] Thus, under this category and associated
    small business size standard, the majority of firms can be
    considered small. 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.[^259] 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.[^260] Thus, under this second category and size
    standard, the majority of firms can, again, be considered small. In
    addition, limited preliminary census data for 2002 indicate that the
    total number of paging providers decreased approximately 51 percent
    from 1997 to 2002.[^261] 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.[^262]

29. *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."[^263]
    Under this SBA category, a wireless business is small if it has
    1,500 or fewer employees. For the census category Cellular and Other
    Wireless Telecommunications firms, Census Bureau data for 1997 show
    that there were 977 firms in this category, total, that operated for
    the entire year.[^264] 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.[^265] Thus, under this category and size
    standard, the great majority of firms can be considered small. Also,
    according to Commission data, 45 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.[^266] We
    have estimated that 245 of these are small, under the SBA small
    business size standard.[^267]

30. *Common Carrier Paging.* The SBA has developed a small business size
    standard for wireless firms within the broad economic census
    category, "Cellular and Other Wireless Telecommunications."[^268]
    Under this SBA category, a wireless business is small if it has
    1,500 or fewer employees. For the census category of Paging, Census
    Bureau data for 1997 show that there were 1,320 firms in this
    category, total, that operated for the entire year.[^269] Of this
    total, 1,303 firms had employment of 999 or fewer employees, and an
    additional 17 firms had employment of 1,000 employees or more.[^270]
    Thus, under this category and associated small business size
    standard, the majority of firms can be considered small. In the
    Paging *Third Report and Order*, we developed a small business size
    standard for "small businesses" and "very small businesses" for
    purposes of determining their eligibility for special provisions
    such as bidding credits and installment payments.[^271] A "small
    business" is an entity that, together with its affiliates and
    controlling principals, has average gross revenues not exceeding
    \$15 million for the preceding three years. Additionally, a "very
    small business" is an entity that, together with its affiliates and
    controlling principals, has average gross revenues that are not more
    than \$3 million for the preceding three years.[^272] The SBA has
    approved these small business size standards.[^273] An auction of
    Metropolitan Economic Area licenses commenced on February 24, 2000,
    and closed on March 2, 2000.[^274] Of the 985 licenses auctioned,
    440 were sold. Fifty-seven companies claiming small business status
    won. Also, according to Commission data, 346 carriers reported that
    they were engaged in the provision of paging and messaging
    services.[^275] Of those, we estimate that 341 are small, under the
    SBA-approved small business size standard.[^276]

31. *Wireless Communications Services*. This service can be used for
    fixed, mobile, radiolocation, and digital audio broadcasting
    satellite uses. The Commission established small business size
    standards for the wireless communications services (WCS) auction. A
    "small business" is an entity with average gross revenues of \$40
    million for each of the three preceding years, and a "very small
    business" is an entity with average gross revenues of \$15 million
    for each of the three preceding years. The SBA has approved these
    small business size standards.[^277] 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.

32. *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.[^278] Under that SBA small business
    size standard, a business is small if it has 1,500 or fewer
    employees.[^279] According to Commission data, 445 carriers reported
    that they were engaged in the provision of wireless telephony.[^280]
    We have estimated that 245 of these are small under the SBA small
    business size standard.

33. *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.[^281] 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."[^282] These standards defining "small entity" in
    the context of broadband PCS auctions have been approved by the
    SBA.[^283] 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.[^284] 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.

34. *Narrowband Personal Communications Services.* To date, two auctions
    of narrowband personal communications services (PCS) licenses have
    been conducted. For purposes of the two auctions that have already
    been held, "small businesses" were entities with average gross
    revenues for the prior three calendar years of \$40 million or less.
    Through these auctions, the Commission has awarded a total of 41
    licenses, out of which 11 were obtained by small businesses. To
    ensure meaningful participation of small business entities in future
    auctions, the Commission has adopted a two-tiered small business
    size standard in the *Narrowband PCS Second Report and Order*.[^285]
    A "small business" is an entity that, together with affiliates and
    controlling interests, has average gross revenues for the three
    preceding years of not more than \$40 million. A "very small
    business" is an entity that, together with affiliates and
    controlling interests, has average gross revenues for the three
    preceding years of not more than \$15 million. The SBA has approved
    these small business size standards.[^286] In the future, the
    Commission will auction 459 licenses to serve Metropolitan Trading
    Areas (MTAs) and 408 response channel licenses. There is also one
    megahertz of narrowband PCS spectrum that has been held in reserve
    and that the Commission has not yet decided to release for
    licensing. The Commission cannot predict accurately the number of
    licenses that will be awarded to small entities in future auctions.
    However, four of the 16 winning bidders in the two previous
    narrowband PCS auctions were small businesses, as that term was
    defined. The Commission assumes, for purposes of this analysis, that
    a large portion of the remaining narrowband PCS licenses will be
    awarded to small entities. The Commission also assumes that at least
    some small businesses will acquire narrowband PCS licenses by means
    of the Commission's partitioning and disaggregation rules.

35. *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.[^287] 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.[^288] 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.[^289]
    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.[^290]

36. *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.[^291] 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.[^292] 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.[^293] Auctions of Phase II licenses commenced on
    September 15, 1998, and closed on October 22, 1998.[^294] 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.[^295] 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.[^296]

37. *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.[^297] 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.

38. *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.[^298] 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.[^299] 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.[^300]

39. *Rural Radiotelephone Service.* The Commission has not adopted a
    size standard for small businesses specific to the Rural
    Radiotelephone Service.[^301] A significant subset of the Rural
    Radiotelephone Service is the Basic Exchange Telephone Radio System
    (BETRS).[^302] 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.[^303] 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.

40. *Air-Ground Radiotelephone Service.* The Commission has not adopted
    a small business size standard specific to the Air-Ground
    Radiotelephone Service.[^304] 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.[^305] 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.

41. *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.[^306]
    Most applicants for recreational licenses are individuals.
    Approximately 581,000 ship station licensees and 131,000 aircraft
    station licensees operate domestically and are not subject to the
    radio carriage requirements of any statute or treaty. For purposes
    of our evaluations in this analysis, we estimate that there are up
    to approximately 712,000 licensees that are small businesses (or
    individuals) under the SBA standard. In addition, between December
    3, 1998 and December 14, 1998, the Commission held an auction of 42
    VHF Public Coast licenses in the 157.1875-157.4500 MHz (ship
    transmit) and 161.775-162.0125 MHz (coast transmit) bands. For
    purposes of the auction, the Commission defined a "small" business
    as an entity that, together with controlling interests and
    affiliates, has average gross revenues for the preceding three years
    not to exceed \$15 million dollars. In addition, a "very small"
    business is one that, together with controlling interests and
    affiliates, has average gross revenues for the preceding three years
    not to exceed \$3 million dollars.[^307] 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.

42. *Fixed Microwave Services.* Fixed microwave services include common
    carrier,[^308] private operational-fixed,[^309] and broadcast
    auxiliary radio services.[^310] At present, there are approximately
    22,015 common carrier fixed licensees and 61,670 private
    operational-fixed licensees and broadcast auxiliary radio licensees
    in the microwave services. The Commission has not created a size
    standard for a small business specifically with respect to fixed
    microwave services. 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.[^311] The Commission does not have data specifying the
    number of these licensees that have more than 1,500 employees, and
    thus is unable at this time to estimate with greater precision the
    number of fixed microwave service licensees that would qualify as
    small business concerns under the SBA's small business size
    standard. Consequently, the Commission estimates that there are up
    to 22,015 common carrier fixed licensees and up to 61,670 private
    operational-fixed licensees and broadcast auxiliary radio licensees
    in the microwave services that may be small and may be affected by
    the rules and policies adopted herein. We noted, however, that the
    common carrier microwave fixed licensee category includes some large
    entities.

43. *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]

44. *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.

45. *Multipoint Distribution Service, Multichannel Multipoint
    Distribution Service, and ITFS.* Multichannel Multipoint
    Distribution Service (MMDS) systems, often referred to as "wireless
    cable," transmit video programming to subscribers using the
    microwave frequencies of the Multipoint Distribution Service (MDS)
    and Instructional Television Fixed Service (ITFS).[^318] In
    connection with the 1996 MDS auction, the Commission established a
    small business size standard as an entity that had annual average
    gross revenues of less than \$40 million in the previous three
    calendar years.[^319] The MDS auctions resulted in 67 successful
    bidders obtaining licensing opportunities for 493 Basic Trading
    Areas (BTAs). Of the 67 auction winners, 61 met the definition of a
    small business. MDS also includes licensees of stations authorized
    prior to the auction. In addition, the SBA has developed a small
    business size standard for Cable and Other Program Distribution,
    which includes all such companies generating \$12.5 million or less
    in annual receipts.[^320] According to Census Bureau data for 1997,
    there were a total of 1,311 firms in this category, total, that had
    operated for the entire year.[^321] Of this total, 1,180 firms had
    annual receipts of under \$10 million and an additional 52 firms had
    receipts of \$10 million or more but less than \$25 million.
    Consequently, we estimate that the majority of providers in this
    service category are small businesses that may be affected by the
    rules and policies adopted herein. This SBA small business size
    standard also appears applicable to ITFS. There are presently 2,032
    ITFS licensees. All but 100 of these licenses are held by
    educational institutions. Educational institutions are included in
    this analysis as small entities.[^322] Thus, we tentatively conclude
    that at least 1,932 licensees are small businesses.

46. *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.[^323] The auction of the 1,030 Local Multipoint
    Distribution Service (LMDS) licenses began on February 18, 1998 and
    closed on March 25, 1998. The Commission established a small
    business size standard for LMDS licenses as an entity that has
    average gross revenues of less than \$40 million in the three
    previous calendar years.[^324] 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.[^325] The
    SBA has approved these small business size standards in the context
    of LMDS auctions.[^326] 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.

47. *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.[^327] 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.[^328] 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.[^329] 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.

48. *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.[^330] According to Census Bureau data for 1997,
    there were 977 firms in this category, total, that operated for the
    entire year.[^331] 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.[^332] 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[^333]
    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.

49. *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.[^334] "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.[^335] The SBA
    has approved these small business size standards.[^336] These size
    standards will apply to the future auction, if held.

**2. Cable and OVS Operators**

50. *Cable and Other Program Distribution*. This category includes cable
    systems operators, closed circuit television services, direct
    broadcast satellite services, multipoint distribution systems,
    satellite master antenna systems, and subscription television
    services. The SBA has developed small business size standard for
    this census category, which includes all such companies generating
    \$12.5 million or less in revenue annually.[^337] According to
    Census Bureau data for 1997, there were a total of 1,311 firms in
    this category, total, that had operated for the entire year.[^338]
    Of this total, 1,180 firms had annual receipts of under \$10 million
    and an additional 52 firms had receipts of \$10 million or more but
    less than \$25 million. Consequently, the Commission estimates that
    the majority of providers in this service category are small
    businesses that may be affected by the rules and policies adopted
    herein.

51. *Cable System Operators (Rate Regulation Standard).* The Commission
    has developed its own small business size standard for cable system
    operators, for purposes of rate regulation. Under the Commission's
    rules, a "small cable company" is one serving fewer than 400,000
    subscribers nationwide.[^339] The most recent estimates indicate
    that there were 1,439 cable operators who qualified as small cable
    system operators at the end of 1995.[^340] Since then, some of those
    companies may have grown to serve over 400,000 subscribers, and
    others may have been involved in transactions that caused them to be
    combined with other cable operators. Consequently, the Commission
    estimates that there are now fewer than 1,439 small entity cable
    system operators that may be affected by the rules and policies
    adopted herein.

52. *Cable System Operators (Telecom Act Standard)*. The Communications
    Act of 1934, as amended, also contains a size standard for small
    cable system operators, which is "a cable operator that, directly or
    through an affiliate, serves in the aggregate fewer than 1 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."[^341] The Commission has determined that
    there are 67,700,000 subscribers in the United States.[^342]
    Therefore, 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.[^343] Based on available data, the
    Commission estimates that the number of cable operators serving
    677,000 subscribers or fewer, totals 1,450.[^344] The Commission
    neither requests nor collects information on whether cable system
    operators are affiliated with entities whose gross annual revenues
    exceed \$250 million,[^345] and therefore are unable, at this time,
    to estimate more accurately the number of cable system operators
    that would qualify as small cable operators under the size standard
    contained in the Communications Act of 1934.

53. *Open Video Services.* Open Video Service (OVS) systems provide
    subscription services.[^346] The SBA has created a small business
    size standard for Cable and Other Program Distribution.[^347] This
    standard provides that a small entity is one with \$12.5 million or
    less in annual receipts. The Commission has certified approximately
    25 OVS operators to serve 75 areas, and some of these are currently
    providing service.[^348] Affiliates of Residential Communications
    Network, Inc. (RCN) received approval to operate OVS systems in New
    York City, Boston, Washington, D.C., and other areas. RCN has
    sufficient revenues to assure that they do not qualify as a small
    business entity. Little financial information is available for the
    other entities that are authorized to provide OVS and are not yet
    operational. Given that some entities authorized to provide OVS
    service have not yet begun to generate revenues, the Commission
    concludes that up to 24 OVS operators (those remaining) might
    qualify as small businesses that may be affected by the rules and
    policies adopted herein.

**3. Internet Service Providers**

54. *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."[^349] Under
    the SBA size standard, such a business is small if it has average
    annual receipts of \$21 million or less.[^350] According to Census
    Bureau data for 1997, there were 2,751 firms in this category that
    operated for the entire year. [^351] Of these, 2,659 firms had
    annual receipts of under \$10 million, and an additional 67 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. In addition, limited
    preliminary census data for 2002 indicate that the total number of
    Internet service providers increased approximately five percent from
    1997 to 2002.[^352]

**4. Other Internet-Related Entities**

55. *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."[^353] The SBA
    has developed a small business size standard for this category; that
    size standard is \$6 million or less in average annual
    receipts.[^354] According to Census Bureau data for 1997, there were
    195 firms in this category that operated for the entire year.[^355]
    Of these, 172 had annual receipts of under \$5 million, and an
    additional nine 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. *Data Processing, Hosting, and Related Services*. Entities in this
    category "primarily ... provid\[e\] infrastructure for hosting or
    data processing services."[^356] The SBA has developed a small
    business size standard for this category; that size standard is \$21
    million or less in average annual receipts.[^357] According to
    Census Bureau data for 1997, there were 3,700 firms in this category
    that operated for the entire year.[^358] Of these, 3,477 had annual
    receipts of under \$10 million, and an additional 108 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.

57. *All Other Information Services*. "This industry comprises
    establishments primarily engaged in providing other information
    services (except new syndicates and libraries and archives)."[^359]
    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 million
    or less in average annual receipts.[^360] According to Census Bureau
    data for 1997, there were 195 firms in this category that operated
    for the entire year.[^361] Of these, 172 had annual receipts of
    under \$5 million, and an additional nine 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.

58. *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."[^362] The SBA has developed a small business size
    standard for this new (2002) census category; that size standard is
    500 or fewer employees.[^363] To assess the prevalence of small
    entities in this category, we will use 1997 Census Bureau data for a
    relevant, now-superseded census category, "All Other Information
    Services." The SBA small business size standard for that prior
    category was \$6 million or less in average annual receipts.
    According to Census Bureau data for 1997, there were 195 firms in
    the prior category that operated for the entire year.[^364] Of
    these, 172 had annual receipts of under \$5 million, and an
    additional nine firms had receipts of between \$5 million and
    \$9,999,999. Consequently, we estimate that the majority of the
    firms in this current category are small entities that may be
    affected by our action.

59. *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. The SBA has developed a small business size
    standard of \$21 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.[^365] For Software Publishers, Census Bureau data for 1997
    indicate that there were 8,188 firms in the category that operated
    for the entire year.[^366] Of these, 7,633 had annual receipts under
    \$10 million, and an additional 289 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 19,334 firms that operated for the entire year.[^367] Of these,
    18,786 had annual receipts of under \$10 million, and an additional
    352 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 5,524 firms that operated for the entire
    year.[^368] Of these, 5,484 had annual receipts of under \$10
    million, and an additional 28 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**

60. The equipment manufacturers described in this section are merely
    indirectly affected by our current action, and therefore are not
    formally a part of this RFA analysis. We have included them,
    however, to broaden the record in this proceeding and to alert them
    to our decisions.

61. *Wireless Communications Equipment Manufacturers*. The SBA has
    established a small business size standard for Radio and Television
    Broadcasting and Wireless Communications Equipment Manufacturing.
    Examples of products in this category include "transmitting and
    receiving antennas, cable television equipment, GPS equipment,
    pagers, cellular phones, mobile communications equipment, and radio
    and television studio and broadcasting equipment"[^369] and may
    include other devices that transmit and receive IP-enabled services,
    such as personal digital assistants (PDAs). Under the SBA size
    standard, firms are considered small if they have 750 or fewer
    employees.[^370] According to Census Bureau data for 1997, there
    were 1,215 establishments[^371] in this category that operated for
    the entire year.[^372] Of those, there were 1,150 that had
    employment of under 500, and an additional 37 that had employment of
    500 to 999. The percentage of wireless equipment manufacturers in
    this category was approximately 61.35%,[^373] so we estimate that
    the number of wireless equipment manufacturers with employment of
    under 500 was actually closer to 706, with an additional 23
    establishments having employment of between 500 and 999.
    Consequently, we estimate that the majority of wireless
    communications equipment manufacturers are small entities that may
    be affected by our action.

62. *Telephone Apparatus Manufacturing.* This category "comprises
    establishments primarily engaged primarily in manufacturing wire
    telephone and data communications equipment."[^374] Examples of
    pertinent products are "central office switching equipment, cordless
    telephones (except cellular), PBX equipment, telephones, telephone
    answering machines, and data communications equipment, such as
    bridges, routers, and gateways."[^375] The SBA has developed a small
    business size standard for this category of manufacturing; that size
    standard is 1,000 or fewer employees.[^376] According to Census
    Bureau data for 1997, there were 598 establishments in this category
    that operated for the entire year.[^377] Of these, 574 had
    employment of under 1,000, and an additional 17 establishments had
    employment of 1,000 to 2,499. Consequently, we estimate that the
    majority of these establishments are small entities that may be
    affected by our action.

63. *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."[^378] The SBA has
    developed a small business size standard for this category of
    manufacturing; that size standard is 1,000 or fewer employees.[^379]
    According to Census Bureau data for 1997, there were 563
    establishments in this category that operated for the entire
    year.[^380] Of these, 544 had employment of under 1,000, and an
    additional 11 establishments had employment of 1,000 to 2,499.
    Consequently, we estimate that the majority of these establishments
    are small entities that may be affected by our action.

64. *Computer Terminal Manufacturing*. "Computer terminals are
    input/output devices that connect with a central computer for
    processing."[^381] The SBA has developed a small business size
    standard for this category of manufacturing; that size standard is
    1,000 or fewer employees.[^382] According to Census Bureau data for
    1997, there were 142 establishments in this category that operated
    for the entire year, and all of the establishments had employment of
    under 1,000.[^383] Consequently, we estimate that the majority or
    all of these establishments are small entities that may be affected
    by our action.

65. *Other Computer Peripheral Equipment Manufacturing.* Examples of
    peripheral equipment in this category include keyboards, mouse
    devices, monitors, and scanners.[^384] The SBA has developed a small
    business size standard for this category of manufacturing; that size
    standard is 1,000 or fewer employees.[^385] According to Census
    Bureau data for 1997, there were 1061 establishments in this
    category that operated for the entire year.[^386] Of these, 1,046
    had employment of under 1,000, and an additional six establishments
    had employment of 1,000 to 2,499. Consequently, we estimate that the
    majority of these establishments are small entities that may be
    affected by our action.

66. *Fiber Optic Cable Manufacturing.* These establishments manufacture
    "insulated fiber-optic cable from purchased fiber-optic
    strand."[^387] The SBA has developed a small business size standard
    for this category of manufacturing; that size standard is 1,000 or
    fewer employees.[^388] According to Census Bureau data for 1997,
    there were 38 establishments in this category that operated for the
    entire year.[^389] Of these, 37 had employment of under 1,000, and
    one establishment had employment of 1,000 to 2,499. Consequently, we
    estimate that the majority of these establishments are small
    entities that may be affected by our action.

67. *Other Communication and Energy Wire Manufacturing.* These
    establishments manufacture "insulated wire and cable of nonferrous
    metals from purchased wire."[^390] The SBA has developed a small
    business size standard for this category of manufacturing; that size
    standard is 1,000 or fewer employees.[^391] According to Census
    Bureau data for 1997, there were 275 establishments in this category
    that operated for the entire year.[^392] Of these, 271 had
    employment of under 1,000, and four establishments had employment of
    1,000 to 2,499. Consequently, we estimate that the majority or all
    of these establishments are small entities that may be affected by
    our action.

68. *Audio and Video Equipment Manufacturing.* These establishments
    manufacture "electronic audio and video equipment for home
    entertainment, motor vehicle, public address and musical instrument
    amplifications."[^393] The SBA has developed a small business size
    standard for this category of manufacturing; that size standard is
    750 or fewer employees.[^394] According to Census Bureau data for
    1997, there were 554 establishments in this category that operated
    for the entire year.[^395] Of these, 542 had employment of under
    500, and nine establishments had employment of 500 to 999.
    Consequently, we estimate that the majority of these establishments
    are small entities that may be affected by our action.

69. *Electron Tube Manufacturing.* These establishments are "primarily
    engaged in manufacturing electron tubes and parts (except glass
    blanks)."[^396] The SBA has developed a small business size standard
    for this category of manufacturing; that size standard is 750 or
    fewer employees.[^397] According to Census Bureau data for 1997,
    there were 158 establishments in this category that operated for the
    entire year.[^398] Of these, 148 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 that may be affected by our action.

70. *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."[^399]
    The SBA has developed a small business size standard for this
    category of manufacturing; that size standard is 500 or fewer
    employees.[^400] According to Census Bureau data for 1997, there
    were 1,389 establishments in this category that operated for the
    entire year.[^401] Of these, 1,369 had employment of under 500, and
    16 establishments had employment of 500 to 999. Consequently, we
    estimate that the majority of these establishments are small
    entities that may be affected by our action.

71. *Semiconductor and Related 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."[^402] The SBA has developed a
    small business size standard for this category of manufacturing;
    that size standard is 500 or fewer employees.[^403] According to
    Census Bureau data for 1997, there were 1,082 establishments in this
    category that operated for the entire year.[^404] Of these, 987 had
    employment of under 500, and 52 establishments had employment of 500
    to 999.

72. *Electronic Capacitor Manufacturing.* These establishments
    manufacture "electronic fixed and variable capacitors and
    condensers."[^405] The SBA has developed a small business size
    standard for this category of manufacturing; that size standard is
    500 or fewer employees.[^406] According to Census Bureau data for
    1997, there were 128 establishments in this category that operated
    for the entire year.[^407] Of these, 121 had employment of under
    500, and four establishments had employment of 500 to 999.

73. *Electronic Resistor Manufacturing.* These establishments
    manufacture "electronic resistors, such as fixed and variable
    resistors, resistor networks, thermistors, and varistors."[^408] The
    SBA has developed a small business size standard for this category
    of manufacturing; that size standard is 500 or fewer
    employees.[^409] According to Census Bureau data for 1997, there
    were 118 establishments in this category that operated for the
    entire year.[^410] Of these, 113 had employment of under 500, and 5
    establishments had employment of 500 to 999.

74. *Electronic Coil, Transformer, and Other Inductor Manufacturing.*
    These establishments manufacture "electronic inductors, such as
    coils and transformers."[^411] The SBA has developed a small
    business size standard for this category of manufacturing; that size
    standard is 500 or fewer employees.[^412] According to Census Bureau
    data for 1997, there were 448 establishments in this category that
    operated for the entire year.[^413] Of these, 446 had employment of
    under 500, and two establishments had employment of 500 to 999.

75. *Electronic Connector Manufacturing.* These establishments
    manufacture "electronic connectors, such as coaxial, cylindrical,
    rack and panel, pin and sleeve, printed circuit and fiber
    optic."[^414] The SBA has developed a small business size standard
    for this category of manufacturing; that size standard is 500 or
    fewer employees.[^415] According to Census Bureau data for 1997,
    there were 347 establishments in this category that operated for the
    entire year.[^416] Of these, 332 had employment of under 500, and 12
    establishments had employment of 500 to 999.

76. *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."[^417] The SBA has developed a small
    business size standard for this category of manufacturing; that size
    standard is 500 or fewer employees.[^418] According to Census Bureau
    data for 1997, there were 714 establishments in this category that
    operated for the entire year.[^419] Of these, 673 had employment of
    under 500, and 24 establishments had employment of 500 to 999.

77. *Other Electronic Component Manufacturing.* These are establishments
    "primarily engaged in loading components onto printed circuit boards
    or who manufacture and ship loaded printed circuit boards."[^420]
    The SBA has developed a small business size standard for this
    category of manufacturing; that size standard is 500 or fewer
    employees.[^421] According to Census Bureau data for 1997, there
    were 1,835 establishments in this category that operated for the
    entire year.[^422] Of these, 1,814 had employment of under 500, and
    18 establishments had employment of 500 to 999.

78. *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."[^423] The SBA has developed a small
    business size standard for this category of manufacturing; that size
    standard is 1,000 or fewer employees.[^424] According to Census
    Bureau data for 1997, there were 209 establishments in this category
    that operated for the entire year.[^425] Of these, 197 had
    employment of under 500, and eight establishments had employment of
    500 to 999

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

79. We are requiring interconnected VoIP service providers to collect
    certain information and take other actions to comply with our rules
    requiring interconnected VoIP service providers to supply E911
    capabilities to their customers. The Order requires collection of
    information in four instances. First, interconnected VoIP providers
    must obtain from each customer, prior to the initiation of service,
    the physical location at which the service will first be utilized,
    and must provide customers a way to update this information (*i.e.*,
    the "Registered Location").[^426] Second, interconnected VoIP
    providers must place the Registered Location information for their
    customers into, or make that information available through, ALI
    Databases maintained by local exchange carriers (and, in at least
    one case, a state government) across the country. Third, the Order
    requires all providers of interconnected VoIP service specifically
    to advise new and existing subscribers of the circumstances under
    which E911 service may not be available through the interconnected
    VoIP service or may be in some way limited by comparison to
    traditional E911 service, and to obtain and keep a record of
    affirmative acknowledgement by every subscriber of having received
    and understood this advisory.[^427] Fourth, the Order requires all
    interconnected VoIP providers to submit a letter to the Commission
    detailing their compliance with the rules set forth in the Order no
    later than 120 days after the effective date of the Order.[^428]

80. We also impose other requirements on providers of interconnected
    VoIP service. Specifically, the Order requires that, within 120 days
    of the effective date of the Order, an interconnected VoIP provider
    must transmit all 911 calls, as well as a call back number and the
    caller's Registered Location for each call, to the PSAP, designated
    statewide default answering point, or appropriate local emergency
    authority that serves the caller's Registered Location and that has
    been designated for telecommunications carriers under section
    64.3001 of the Commission's rules.[^429] These calls must be routed
    through the use of ANI[^430] via the dedicated Wireline E911
    Network,[^431] and the Registered Location must be available from or
    through the ALI Database. As explained in the Order at paragraph 42,
    *supra*, however, an interconnected VoIP provider need only provide
    such call back and location information as a PSAP, designated
    statewide default answering point, or appropriate local emergency
    authority is capable of receiving and utilizing. The obligation to
    determine what type of information, such as ALI or ANI, each PSAP is
    capable of receiving and utilizing rests with the provider of
    interconnected VoIP services.[^432]

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

81. 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.[^433]

82. The *Notice* invited comment on a number of alternatives to the
    imposition of 911/E911 obligations on providers of interconnected
    VoIP service. For instance, the *Notice* specifically sought comment
    on the effectiveness of alternatives to direct regulation to achieve
    the Commission's public policy goals of ensuring the availability of
    911 and E911 capability.[^434] The Commission also sought comment on
    whether voluntary agreements among public safety trade associations,
    commercial IP-stakeholders, consumers, and state and local E911
    coordinators and administrators could lead to VoIP subscribers
    receiving enhanced 911 functionality, and what the Commission could
    do to facilitate such agreements.[^435] The Commission also asked
    whether "promulgation of best practices or technical guidelines
    \[would\] promote the provision of effective IP-based E911
    services."[^436] The Commission also asked how it could provide for
    technological flexibility so that our rules allow for the
    development of new and innovative technologies in the event it
    concluded that mandatory requirements would be necessary.[^437]

83. In addition, the Commission sought comment on more general issues
    surrounding the possible imposition of a 911/E911 requirement for
    IP-enabled services, which could have prompted commenters to suggest
    other alternatives to the rules adopted today. For instance, the
    Commission sought comment on what ways IP-enabled service providers
    currently seek to provide a emergency services to their
    customers.[^438] The Commission also noted that the development and
    deployment of IP-enabled services is in its early stages, that these
    services are fast-changing and likely to evolve in ways that it
    cannot anticipate, and that imposition of regulatory mandates should
    be undertaken with caution.[^439] In this regard, the Commission
    sought comment on how to weigh the potential public benefits of
    requiring emergency calling and other public safety capabilities
    against the risk that regulation could slow technical and market
    development.[^440]

84. The Commission has considered each of the alternatives described
    above, and in today's Order, imposes minimal regulation on small
    entities to the extent consistent with our goal of ensuring that
    users of interconnected VoIP service have access to appropriate
    emergency services when they dial 911. As an initial matter, the
    Commission limited the scope of today's Order to interconnected VoIP
    service providers. As a result, certain VoIP service providers are
    not subject to the E911 obligations imposed in today's Order.
    Specifically, today's Order does not apply to those entities not
    fully interconnected with the PSTN. Because interconnecting with the
    PSTN can impose substantial costs, we anticipate that many of the
    entities that elect not to interconnect with the PSTN, and which
    therefore are not subject to the rules adopted in today's Order, are
    small entities. Small entities that provide VoIP services therefore
    also have some control over whether they will be subject to the E911
    obligations adopted today. Small businesses may still offer VoIP
    service without being subject to the rules adopted in today's Order
    by electing not to provide an *interconnected* VoIP service.[^441]

85. However, as stated above, we must assess the interests of small
    businesses in light of the overriding public interest in access to
    E911 services when using interconnected VoIP services. The Order
    discusses that E911 service is critical to our nation's ability to
    respond to a host of crises and that the public has come to rely on
    the life-saving benefits of such services in emergency
    situations.[^442] Therefore, the Commission concluded that it was
    important for *all* interconnected VoIP service providers to
    participate in protecting public safety, regardless of their size.
    The Commission therefore rejected solutions that would rely on the
    voluntary agreement of VoIP service providers. The record indicated
    that this alternative had not resulted in, and was not likely soon
    to result in, ubiquitous access to E911 among users of
    interconnected VoIP service, which is the Commission's goal.

86. While the rules adopted today apply to all providers of
    interconnected VoIP service, the Commission attempted to minimize
    the impact of the new rules on all entities, including small
    entities. For instance, while it is essential that interconnected
    VoIP service providers interconnect with the Wireline E911 Network,
    the Commission employed performance rather than design standards to
    achieve this result. Thus, rather than mandating a particular
    technical solution, the Order allows interconnected VoIP providers
    to connect directly to the Wireline E911 Network, or connect
    indirectly through a third party, such as a competitive local
    exchange carrier, or through any other solution that allows a
    provider to offer E911 service, which thereby allows for
    technological and commercial flexibility, and leaves room under the
    new rules for the development of new and innovative
    technologies.[^443] The Commission also declined to specify any
    particular method by which interconnected VoIP service providers
    must enable their customers to provide and update their Registered
    Location. The Commission also declined to specify any particular
    method by which interconnected VoIP service providers must advise
    new and existing subscribers of the E911 service limitations of
    their interconnected VoIP service and declined to specify any
    particular method by which acknowledgments of such limitations must
    be gathered and stored. The Commission expects these decisions will
    help small entities comply with the rules adopted today in the most
    practical means possible. In addition, the Commission today imposes
    straightforward and limited reporting requirements, and sets
    reasonable timetables. For example, regarding reporting
    requirements, the Commission simply requires providers of
    interconnected VoIP service to file a letter detailing their
    compliance with our rules no later than 120 days after the effective
    date of this Order.[^444] In addition, while the Commission's review
    of the record in this proceeding convinces us that ensuring reliable
    E911 service for users of interconnected VoIP service is essential,
    and therefore that the location information of such users who dial
    911 should automatically be sent to the relevant PSAP, the
    Commission did not impose the obligation today automatically to
    locate the interconnected VoIP service user in light of record
    evidence of the current state of technological development and the
    costs, including on small entities, of such an obligation today. The
    Commission fully expects this situation to change in the near
    future, helped in part by the present Order.

87. We also note that by adopting E911 rules for providers of
    interconnected VoIP service at the present time, the Commission
    likely has saved small entities providing these services resources
    in the long run. For instance, in light of the importance of E911
    service to the public, providers of interconnected VoIP service
    likely eventually would have been required by the Commission or
    Congress to provide E911 service. This could have involved "costly
    and inefficient 'retrofitting' of embedded IP infrastructure" for
    any interconnected VoIP service provider that had already adopted a
    E911 solution.[^445]

88. **[Report to Congress]{.underline}:** The Commission will send a
    copy of the Order, including this FRFA, in a report to be sent to
    Congress and the Government Accountability Office pursuant to the
    Congressional Review Act.[^446] In addition, the Commission will
    send a copy of the Order, including this FRFA, to the Chief Counsel
    for Advocacy of the SBA. A copy of the Order and FRFA (or summaries
    thereof) will also be published in the Federal Register.[^447]

**II. Initial Regulatory Flexibility Analysis**

89. As required by the Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980, as amended
    (RFA),[^448] 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 (*NPRM*). 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
    *NPRM* provided above. The Commission will send a copy of the
    *NPRM*, including this IRFA, to the Chief Counsel for Advocacy of
    the Small Business Administration.[^449] In addition, the *NPRM* and
    IRFA (or summaries thereof) will be published in the Federal
    Register.[^450]

**A. Need for, and Objectives of, the Proposed Rules**

90. In the *NPRM*, we seek comment on what additional steps the
    Commission should take to ensure that providers of VoIP services
    that interconnect with the nation's existing public switched
    telephone network -- "interconnected VoIP service" -- provide
    ubiquitous and reliable E911 service.[^451] Due to the existing
    state of technology, the Order adopted today relies on users to
    provide the location information that will be delivered to PSAPs in
    an emergency, and thus is an immediate step toward a more advanced
    solution in which the user automatically can be located without
    assistance form the user. The *NPRM* seeks comment on: what the
    Commission can do to further the development of this new technology;
    whether the Commission should expand the scope and requirements of
    this Order; the role states can and should play in the
    implementation thereof; the need for consumer privacy protections;
    the need for stronger customer notification practices relating to
    911 service; and whether persons with disabilities can use
    interconnected VoIP service and other VoIP services to directly call
    a PSAP via a TTY in light of the requirement in Title II of the
    Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) that PSAPs be directly
    accessible by TTYs.[^452] The *NPRM* further asks commenters to
    refresh the record regarding the application of the disability
    accessibility provisions found in sections 251(a)(2) and 255 of the
    Act in the context of "IP telephony" and "computer-based equipment
    that replicates telecommunications functionality."[^453]

**A. Legal Basis**

91. The legal basis for any action that may be taken pursuant to this
    *NPRM* is contained in sections 1, 4(i), 4(j), 251(e), and 303(r) of
    the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. §§ 151,
    154(i)-(j), 251(e), 303(r), and sections 1.1, 1.48, 1.411, 1.412,
    1.415, 1.419, and 1.1200-1.1216, of the Commission's rules, 47
    C.F.R. §§ 1.1, 1.48, 1.411, 1.412, 1.415, 1.419, 1.1200-1.1216.

**C. Description and Estimate of the Number of Small Entities to Which
the Proposed Rules May Apply**

92. 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.[^454] The RFA generally defines the
    term "small entity" as having the same meaning as the terms "small
    business," "small organization," and "small governmental
    jurisdiction."[^455] In addition, the term "small business" has the
    same meaning as the term "small business concern" under the Small
    Business Act.[^456] 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).[^457] This present
    *NPRM* might, in theory, reach a variety of industries; out of an
    abundance of caution, we have attempted to cast a wide net in
    describing categories of potentially affected small entities. We
    would appreciate any comment on the extent to which the various
    entities might be directly affected by our action.

93. *Small Businesses.* Nationwide, there are a total of approximately
    22.4 million small businesses, according to SBA data.[^458]

94. *Small Organizations*. Nationwide, there are approximately 1.6
    million small organizations.[^459]

95. *Small Governmental Jurisdictions.* The term "small governmental
    jurisdiction" is defined as "governments of cities, towns,
    townships, villages, school districts, or special districts, with a
    population of less than fifty thousand."[^460] As of 1997, there
    were approximately 87,453 governmental jurisdictions in the United
    States.[^461] This number includes 39,044 county governments,
    municipalities, and townships, of which 37,546 (approximately 96.2%)
    have populations of fewer than 50,000, and of which 1,498 have
    populations of 50,000 or more. Thus, we estimate the number of small
    governmental jurisdictions overall to be 84,098 or fewer.

96. We have described and estimated the number of small entities to
    which the proposed rules might apply in the FRFA, *supra*, and
    hereby incorporate by reference those descriptions here.

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

97. The *NPRM* describes a future requirement the Commission intends to
    adopt for an advanced E911 solution for interconnected VoIP that
    must include a method for determining a user's location without
    assistance from the user and that there will be firm implementation
    deadlines for that solution. The *NPRM* also seeks comment on what
    additional steps the Commission should take to ensure that providers
    of VoIP services provide ubiquitous and reliable E911 service in
    light of the technological barriers that apply to VoIP E911
    services. For instance, the Commission seeks comment on how it can
    facilitate the development of techniques for automatically
    identifying the geographic location of users of VoIP services, and
    notes that a number of possible methods have been proposed to
    automatically identify the location of a VoIP user, including
    gathering location information through the use of: an access jack
    inventory; a wireless access point inventory; access point mapping
    and triangulation; HDTV signal triangulation; and various GPS-based
    solutions. The Commission specifically asks whether it should
    require all terminal adapters or other equipment used in the
    provision of interconnected VoIP service sold as of June 1, 2006 to
    be capable of providing location information automatically, whether
    embedded in other equipment or sold to customers as a separate
    device.

98. The *NPRM* also seeks comment on whether the Commission should
    expand the scope of today's Order, which is limited to providers of
    interconnected VoIP services. The Commission tentatively concludes
    that a provider of a VoIP service offering that permits users to
    receive calls that originate on the PSTN and separately makes
    available a different offering that permits users to terminate calls
    generally to the PSTN should be subject to the rules we adopt in
    today's Order if a user can combine those separate offerings or can
    use them simultaneously or in immediate succession.

99. The Commission also seeks comment on whether it should adopt
    additional regulations to ensure that interconnected VoIP service
    customers obtain the required level of E911 services. Among other
    things, the Commission asks whether it should adopt E911 performance
    standards, require system redundancy, and require additional
    reporting requirements. The *NPRM* also seeks comment on whether the
    Commission should impose additional or more restrictive customer
    notification requirements relating to E911 on VoIP providers, and on
    the sufficiency of our customer acknowledgement requirements. It
    also asks whether the Commission should adopt any customer privacy
    protections related to provision of E911 service by interconnected
    VoIP service providers, perhaps similar to the privacy requirements
    that apply to wireline and wireless telecommunications carriers. In
    addition, the *NPRM* seeks comment on whether there are any steps
    the Commission should take to ensure that people with disabilities
    who desire to use VoIP services obtain access to E911 services, such
    as by imposing on VoIP technologies the same disability access
    requirements as traditional telephony facilities.

100. Finally, the Commission also asks what role states can and should
     play to help implement the E911 rules we adopt today. For instance,
     the Commission asks whether state and local governments should play
     a role similar to the roles they play in implementing the
     Commission's wireless E911 rules. The *NPRM* also requests comment
     on whether the Commission should take any action to facilitate the
     states' ability to collect 911 fees from interconnected VoIP
     providers, either directly or indirectly.

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

101. 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.[^462]

102. The *NPRM* specifically seeks comment on whether the Commission
     should expand the scope and requirements of the Order, recognizing
     that such an expansion may not be appropriate with regard to all
     VoIP service providers.[^463] With one exception, the *NPRM* does
     not adopt any tentative conclusions regarding what specific
     regulations would apply to any entity, including small entities. We
     seek comment here on the effect the various proposals described in
     the *NPRM*, and summarized above, will have on small entities, and
     on what effect alternative rules would have on those entities. How
     can the Commission achieve its goal of ensuring that all users of
     VoIP services ultimately covered by the Commission's E911 rules are
     able to access ubiquitous and reliable E911 service while also
     imposing minimal burdens on small entities? What specific steps
     could the Commission take in this regard?

**F. Federal Rules that May Duplicate, Overlap, or Conflict with the
Proposed Rules**

103. None.

**STATEMENT OF**

**CHAIRMAN KEVIN J. MARTIN**

*Re: IP-Enabled Services; E911 Requirements for IP-Enabled Service
Providers, First Report and Order and Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (WC
Docket Nos. 04-36, 05-196)*

Today's action seeks to remedy a very serious problem -- one quite
literally of life or death for the millions of customers that subscribe
to VoIP service as a substitute for traditional phone service.
Currently, there are many VoIP providers that either do not provide
their customers with any access to 911 emergency services or only
provide 911 access in certain areas of the country. There are still
other VoIP providers that only provide their customers access to a
non-emergency line of public safety personnel -- a line that does not
connect to trained emergency operators, but instead connects to
administrative staff who may or may not answer the calls. Because
certain VoIP providers do not routinely connect their customers to 911
emergency operators, public safety officials across the country have
been unable to address certain calls for help in a timely fashion,
resulting in several tragedies. This situation is simply unacceptable.

Anyone who dials 911 has a reasonable expectation that he or she will be
connected to an emergency operator; this expectation exists whether that
person is dialing 911 from a traditional wireline phone, a wireless
phone, or a VoIP phone. Today, we take this action to ensure this
expectation is met as soon as possible.

The Order we adopt reaches the following conclusions:

> • Interconnected VoIP providers must deliver all 911 calls to the
> customer's local emergency operator. This must be a standard, rather
> than optional, feature of the service.
>
> • Interconnected VoIP providers must provide emergency operators with
> the call back number and location information of their customers
> (i.e., E911) where the emergency operator is capable of receiving it.
> Although the customer must provide the location information, the VoIP
> provider must provide the customer a means of updating this
> information, whether he or she is at home or away from home.
>
> • By the effective date, interconnected VoIP providers must inform
> their customers, both new and existing, of the E911 capabilities and
> limitations of their service.
>
> • The incumbent LECs are required to continue to provide access to
> their E911 networks to any requesting telecommunications carrier. They
> must continue to provide access to trunks, selective routers, and E911
> databases to competing carriers. The Commission will closely monitor
> this obligation.

In short, the rules we adopt today require all VoIP providers that
permit their customers to receive and place calls over the
public-switched telephone network to provide their customers with 911
access. By not dictating the technical means by which providers must
come into compliance, we do not impose undue regulation on these
services. Although I would have liked to make these rules effective
immediately, I recognize that there are technical issues that must be
worked out and coordination that must take place with public safety
officials before providers can comply. Accordingly, these rules will be
effective 120 days from the effective date of this Order. I believe that
this timeframe properly balances the nonnegotiable need of VoIP
customers to access public safety with the practical need for adequate
industry coordination.

To comply with our rules, VoIP providers may interconnect directly with
the incumbent LECs' 911 network or purchase access to this network from
competitive carriers and other third-party providers. In this regard, I
note that incumbent LECs currently have a statutory obligation to
provide requesting telecommunications carriers access to their 911
network. I am extremely encouraged by and commend the efforts of the
Bell Operating Companies (BOCs) in permitting VoIP providers access to
their 911 network. Significantly, each BOC currently offers 911
capability to VoIP providers, and some BOCs have already entered into
911 arrangements with these providers. I recognize that successful
nationwide solutions are dependent on the cooperation of VoIP providers,
incumbent LECs, third party vendors, and the public safety community.
Such cooperation is already taking place in several major markets, and I
have every reason to believe that this cooperation will continue
throughout the country.

The requirement to provide access to 911 is about public safety. Because
the Commission previously found that the VoIP services at issue were
interstate, the Commission assumed the responsibility to ensure that
basic public safety requirements are implemented and satisfied. Today,
we fulfill that responsibility.

I am extremely supportive of fostering innovation and driving the
adoption of new technologies, and I firmly believe that the emergency
access requirements that we adopt today are compatible with these goals.
Congress has mandated that the Commission promote the "safety of life
and property." This obligation transcends new technologies and cannot be
compromised.

While the rules we adopt today are a step in the right direction our
actions today are not the end of the story. An advanced 911 solution
needs to be developed that enables VoIP providers to locate their
customers automatically much like wireless providers are able to locate
their customers today. Every American deserves ubiquitous and reliable
911 service regardless of the technology that is being used.

The provision of access to 911 should not be optional for any telephone
service provider. We need to take whatever actions are necessary to
swiftly enforce these requirements to ensure that no lives are lost due
to lack of access to 911.

**STATEMENT OF\
COMMISSIONER KATHLEEN Q. ABERNATHY**

*Re: IP-Enabled Services; E911 Requirements for IP-Enabled Service
Providers, First Report and Order and Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (WC
Docket Nos. 04-36, 05-196)*

This Order promotes a critical public policy objective by ensuring that
voice-over-IP (VOIP) services provide customers with E911 service. While
I have long championed a light regulatory touch for IP-enabled services,
I have also recognized that governmental mandates may be necessary to
ensure fulfillment of core social goals such as public safety. Indeed,
in the very first sentence of the Communications Act, Congress made it
one of our paramount obligations to "promot\[e\] safety of life and
property through the use of wire and radio communication." 47 U.S.C. §
151. This responsibility is particularly compelling in the context of
E911, which consumers have reasonably come to expect as a core component
of any telephone service.\
\
Some VOIP providers contend that the industry is working toward
solutions and mandates are not necessary to ensure the timely rollout of
E911 service. Ordinarily I would be sympathetic to this view, but recent
tragic failures of the current approach ― which left families unable to
connect to emergency services in time to save lives ― underscore the
need for immediate intervention. Not only must we ensure prompt
deployment of E911 capabilities, but I strongly support the decision to
require clear and conspicuous disclosures to consumers regarding any
limitations on emergency calling capabilities. Such regulations, paired
with continued forbearance from economic regulations (such as mandates
concerning price and service quality), are fully compatible with the
pro-investment, pro-innovation environment the Commission has worked
hard to foster.

As the Order recognizes, VOIP providers cannot unilaterally provide
customers with fully functioning 911 service. Incumbent LECs and public
safety answering points are key parts of the equation. Thus, I am
pleased that the Commission will monitor and facilitate ILECs' provision
of access to selective routers and other key inputs. I applaud the
efforts of those carriers that have voluntarily arranged to provide such
access, and I expect others to work with VOIP providers to provide
expeditious solutions in the wake of this Order. VOIP providers may
choose to access 911 answering systems indirectly through CLECs or other
third parties, but direct connection should also be available in light
of the mandate we are imposing. Because of the incipient nature of
arrangements between VOIP providers and ILECs, implementation will not
be problem-free. Nevertheless, a tight compliance deadline is
appropriate in light of the critical nature of the public safety
interests at stake. To the extent that VOIP providers are unable to
comply based on ILEC provisioning delays or other factors beyond their
control, the Commission should be prepared to grant limited waivers or
take other appropriate action.\
\
While this Order represents an important step in ensuring that consumers
can connect to E911 services regardless of the telephone service they
choose, we all recognize that the solutions we impose are interim in
nature. Relying on manually entered customer location registrations will
not provide long-term reliability, particularly as mobile VOIP services
become more prevalent. I appreciate the leadership of the National
Emergency Numbering Association in the development of next-generation
E911 solutions. NENA has worked closely with VOIP providers and other
industry participants, and its continued involvement will be invaluable.
I am optimistic that, while new IP networks and services pose near-term
challenges for emergency calling, the new technology will enable
long-term public safety enhancements by creating more efficient and
feature-filled emergency response systems.

**STATEMENT OF**

**COMMISSIONER MICHAEL J. COPPS**

*Re: IP-Enabled Services; E911 Requirements for IP-Enabled Service
Providers, First Report and Order and Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (WC
Docket Nos. 04-36, 05-196)*

Last November the Commission asserted that certain VoIP services were
interstate in nature and therefore subject to exclusive FCC
jurisdiction. Seen by some as a grand and glorious pronouncement, others
of us warned that a simple assertion of Washington control over these
services without any indication of what this meant in such critical
areas as public safety, homeland security and consumer protection was
hardly the stuff of bold leadership. Preemption without policy is power
without responsibility.

Today the Commission attempts to put a policy into place regarding the
responsibilities of VoIP providers to deliver effective E911 emergency
calling services to their customers. For far too many years now, the
Commission has engaged in all sorts of term-parsing and linguistic
exegesis as if just finding the right descriptor for new technologies
would magically create a policy framework for them. Yet here we are
today still trying to determine if those who provide new calling
technologies need also to provide up-to-date emergency calling and
location capabilities to those who use their services. The sad fact is
that we have spent so much time splitting hairs about what is a
telecommunications service and what is an information service that we
have endangered public safety. At some point the semantic debates must
end and reality must assert itself---when customers sign up for a
telephone they expect it to deliver like a telephone. When an intruder
is in the house and the homeowner goes to the phone to call the police,
that's a call that just has to go through.

Today we face up to this challenge. I want to commend Chairman Martin
for putting this item before us today. In the discussions he and I have
had about this subject, I have seen in him a genuine commitment to the
idea that the safety of the people is always the first obligation of the
public servant. The item we vote on today is ambitious. But being less
than ambitious on public safety is simply not an acceptable option. I
also want to thank each of my colleagues for their work to make this a
better item.

Our work today flows directly from the first sentence of the
Communications Act, which commands us to "make available . . . to all
the people of the United States . . . a rapid, efficient, Nation-wide .
. . communication service . . . for the purpose of promoting safety of
life and property." Sixty-five years after these words were signed into
law, Congress updated them in the Wireless Communications and Public
Safety Act, which designates 911 as the universal emergency telephone
number in the United States.

Our decision builds on these mandates. We are putting in place rules
that require interconnected VoIP providers to transmit 911 calls to a
PSAP over the existing E911 network. We require interconnected VoIP
providers to obtain location information from each customer about where
the service will be used. We require VoIP providers to offer customers
the ability to update this location information. Our goal here must be
that this registration process be effectuated as quickly as possible.

Critically, we limit our requirements here to services that are capable
of origination and termination on the public-switched network. This
means they are directed squarely at substitutes for basic telephony. Our
rules govern the kind of services that a parent or child or babysitter
or co-worker will justifiably expect to work in a 911 emergency
situation. By moving swiftly, we will save lives. The recent incidents
in Texas and Connecticut and Florida that we have just heard about make
this point with chilling and regrettable clarity.

So I am pleased to support today's decision. We must recognize, of
course, that much work needs to be done to shore up the reliability of
VoIP 911 services. As the decision notes, interconnected VoIP providers
can obtain access to selective routers and other functionalities
necessary to provide 911 capabilities through competitive carriers,
third-parties, incumbent carrier tariffs, contracts with incumbent
carriers, or a combination thereof. All of the Bell companies have now
announced service offerings for VoIP providers. This is a positive and
truly encouraging development. But access to selective routers has to be
achieved and achieved soon, so if the options that we could agree on
today prove insufficient, the Commission will need to step in to prevent
the public safety of VoIP customers from falling through the cracks. By
the same token, port blocking or discrimination could impede even the
best VoIP E911 arrangements. I believe the Commission will need to be
vigilant about this threat, too. Our goal must be to resolve these
issues so we can avoid more horrible outcomes like those we have heard
about so painfully today.

We must also do more to coordinate with state and local authorities and
PSAP officials. They are the unsung heroes of 911. They have played a
vital and historic role in public safety matters involving both wireline
and wireless technologies. We will need to do everything within our
powers to ensure they have the resources necessary to respond to
emergency calls. There's no solution without them.

A 911 call is the single most important call any of us may ever make.
Today we take significant steps to provide consumers with the confidence
they expect when they dial for public safety. This is our obligation
under the law. It is the right thing to do. I fully support it. Now
let's all of us, as parties to its implementation, roll up our sleeves
and get the job done.

**STATEMENT OF**

**COMMISSIONER JONATHAN S. ADELSTEIN**

*Re: IP-Enabled Services; E911 Requirements for IP-Enabled Service
Providers, First Report and Order and Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (WC
Docket Nos. 04-36, 05-196)*

There is no higher calling or higher priority for us at the Commission
than improving 911 and E911 services. I support this Order because it
reaffirms the commitment of both Congress and this Commission to a
nationwide public safety system, even as our communications networks
migrate to new and innovative technologies like
Voice-over-Internet-Protocol (or VoIP).

Since its inception in the 1960s, "911" has become synonymous with help
being just a phone call away. Americans make 200 million calls to 911
each year, with a third of those calls coming from wireless phones. The
ability to reach public safety officials from both their homes and from
mobile devices has had a remarkably beneficial impact on American
consumers. One benefit of access to wireless 911 is that Emergency
Medical Services (EMS) notification times for fatal crashes have dropped
an average of 30%, shaving valuable minutes off that so-called "golden
hour" where help is most crucial. These achievements have come through
the vital partnership between service providers, the public safety
community, State and local officials, the Commission, and Congress.

This Order builds on those past efforts by ensuring the benefits of our
E911 networks extend to users of interconnected VoIP services that are
increasingly used by American consumers to communicate with the rest of
the voice phone network. All indicators suggest that the IP-based
services, like VoIP, are rapidly becoming the building block for the
future of telecommunications. Somewhere between one and two million
Americans currently use some form of VoIP services. These services
promise a new era of consumer choice, and we must continue to promote
the deployment of new technologies. At the same time, we cannot let our
desire to see VoIP proliferate come at the cost of providing the best
emergency services available today, nor can we afford to take any steps
backward. Given the rapid adoption rate for these new technologies, it
is incumbent upon us to see that VoIP providers adapt their system
design and operations to offer access to the safety net on which
Americans have come to rely.

Through this item, we set tight deadlines for VoIP providers to offer
these public safety capabilities to their consumers. This Order responds
to calls from leading public safety organizations and others who have
asked us to promptly implement E911 and warned about the dangers
associated with the current practices of some VoIP providers. The
heart-wrenching testimony of our guests at today's open meeting, Andrea
and Douglas McClanaghan, Sosomma and Peter John, and Cheryl and Joe
Waller, only serves to reinforce the urgency of this matter.

With this Order, we make clear that a VoIP customer must not discover in
their time of need that the 911 service for which they carefully
registered actually routes them to an administrative line with a
recording. Nor can Americans stop trusting the emergency response
system, for it will undermine the important work that industry, the
public safety community and the Commission has already accomplished in
making it a reliable source of help.

To achieve these goals, the Commission adopts a broadly-stated E911
requirement that applies to all interconnected VoIP services, while
allowing providers flexibility to choose among technological solutions.
The Order permits VoIP providers to meet this requirement by
interconnecting indirectly through a third party such as a competitive
local phone company, interconnecting directly with the E911 network, or
through any other solution that allows a provider to offer 911/E911
service. The Order recognizes that some VoIP services, particularly
those nomadic services that allow consumers to take their VoIP service
from their home to their office or their beach house, face significant
implementation challenges. Access to the trunks, selective routers, and
databases of the E911 network is essential to meet the obligations set
out here. Although I am pleased that this Order acknowledges the
importance of this access and recognizes the important role of the E911
network providers including incumbent phone companies, it is critical
that we monitor developments on this front closely. We must all remain
committed to taking the necessary steps to make E911 for these services
a success.

It is also important that consumers understand that there may still be
limitations associated with the E911 functionality through some
services. This Order recognizes that power outages, loss of a consumer's
broadband connection, or the time needed to update E911 location
databases may affect a consumer's ability to reach public safety through
911. To this end, this item includes a requirement that VoIP providers
notify consumers about the actual E911 capabilities of their service and
explores these issues further in the attached Further Notice. I am also
pleased that we seek comment on what role our State commission partners
can play in implementing these rules.

Beyond the important steps that we take here today, IP-based services
hold great promise for E911. I appreciate the efforts that NENA and
those in the VoIP industry have made to develop innovative solutions for
911/E911 services and encourage these industry participants to continue
their efforts. By all accounts, these next generation capabilities have
tremendous potential to improve on emergency response and medical
monitoring services with video and other capabilities that will help
Public Safety Answering Points (PSAPs) and first responders. These are
innovations that will truly benefit all Americans, but in the meantime,
it is the Commission's duty to direct VoIP providers to do more to
ensure that all Americans will have access to 911 when they need it.

I want to thank Chairman Martin for his leadership and willingness to
act swiftly on this issue. E911 has been one of my priorities at the
Commission and I have spoken often about the need to address public
safety access for VoIP customers. I know that the Chairman and my
colleagues share this goal, and I look forward to our continued and
mutual commitment to make our decision today a success.

[^1]: The term "interconnected" refers to the ability of the user
    generally to receive calls from and terminate calls to the public
    switched telephone network (PSTN), including commercial mobile radio
    service (CMRS) networks. *See infra* Part III.A.

[^2]: In this Order, we act on the E911 issues before the other issues
    pending in the *IP-Enabled Services* proceeding because of the
    urgent need to address public safety issues related to
    interconnected VoIP. For example, we are aware of a recent incident
    in Texas in which it was reported that a 911 call was not completed
    when an interconnected VoIP user dialed 911 to seek emergency
    assistance during a home invasion burglary. *See, e.g.*, Attorney
    General of Texas, *Texas Attorney General Abbott Takes Legal Action
    to Protect Internet Phone Customers*, News Release (Mar. 22, 2005)
    \<http://www.oag.state.tx.us/oagnews/release.php?id=850&PHPSESSID=251eucgngcvrihiolvs370jo3\>;
    Paul Davidson, *Net-based 911 Fight Puts Lives on Line: Regulatory
    Issues Among Obstacles*, USA Today (Mar. 1, 2005). In another
    incident, it was reported that a Connecticut woman was not able to
    reach an emergency dispatcher by dialing 911 using her
    interconnected VoIP service when her infant son needed emergency
    medical attention. *See* Connecticut Attorney General, *Attorney
    General, DCP Sue Broadband Phone Company for Misrepresenting Its
    9‑1‑1 Emergency Capabilities*, Press Release (May 3, 2005)
    \<http://www.cslib.org/attygenl/mainlinks/tabindex4.htm\>; Marian
    Gail Brown, *Dialing Up Panic with 911*, Connecticut Post (May 2,
    2005); *see also* Alicia A. Caldwell, *Pair Crusades for Better
    Access to 911 from High-Tech Phones*, Orlando Sentinel (May 7, 2005)
    (describing an incident in which a Florida mother reportedly was not
    able to reach an emergency dispatcher by dialing 911 using her
    interconnected VoIP service to get emergency medical assistance for
    her infant daughter); NASUCA Comments at 49-50.

[^3]: *See Vonage Holdings Corporation Petition for Declaratory Ruling
    Concerning an Order of the Minnesota Public Utilities Commission*,
    WC Docket No. 03-211, Memorandum Opinion and Order, 19 FCC Rcd
    22404, 22405, para. 2 (2004) (*Vonage Order*), *appeal pending*,
    *National Ass'n of State Util. Consumer Advocates v. FCC*, No.
    05-71238 (9th Cir. filed Feb. 22, 2005); *id.* at 22432, para. 44
    ("\[W\]e intend to address the 911 issue as soon as possible,
    perhaps even separately.").

[^4]: *See Vonage Order,* 19 FCC Rcd at 22405, 22424, paras. 1, 32.

[^5]: On March 10, 2004, the Commission released a Notice of Proposed
    Rulemaking to examine issues relating to services and applications
    making use of Internet Protocol (IP), including but not limited to
    VoIP services (collectively, "IP-enabled services"). *See*
    *IP-Enabled Services*, WC Docket No. 04-36, Notice of Proposed
    Rulemaking, 19 FCC Rcd 4863, 4864, para. 1 n.1 (2004) (*Notice*)
    (defining the term "IP-enabled services"). 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). In the *Notice*, the Commission sought comment
    on, among other things, the potential applicability of "basic 911,"
    "enhanced 911," and related critical infrastructure regulation to
    VoIP and other IP-enabled services. *See* *Notice*, 19 FCC Rcd at
    4898-99, para. 53. The remaining issues raised in the *Notice* will
    be addressed in the pending *IP-Enabled Services* proceeding.

[^6]: *See, e.g.*, Vonage Comments at 37 ("Vonage understands that it is
    in the public interest to provide customers access to emergency
    services, and believes that the continued development of these
    services is an important national priority.").

[^7]: *See* 47 U.S.C. § 151.

[^8]: Wireless Communications and Public Safety Act of 1999, Pub. L. No.
    106-81, 113 Stat. 1286, § 2(b) (1999) (911 Act).

[^9]: *See* 911 Act § 3 (codified at 47 U.S.C. § 251(e)).

[^10]: *See, e.g.*, *Revision of the Commission's Rules to Ensure
    Compatibility with Enhanced 911 Emergency Calling Systems*, CC
    Docket No. 94-102, RM-8143, 11 FCC Rcd 18676, 18679, para. 5 (1996)
    (*E911 First Report and Order*) ("E911 saves lives and property by
    helping emergency services personnel do their jobs more quickly and
    efficiently."); *Revision of the Commission's Rules to Ensure
    Compatibility with Enhanced 911 Emergency Calling Systems; Amendment
    of Parts 2 and 25 to Implement the Global Mobile Personal
    Communications by Satellite (GMPCS) Memorandum of Understanding and
    Arrangements; Petition of the National Telecommunications and
    Information Administration to Amend Part 25 of the Commission's
    Rules to Establish Emissions Limits for Mobile and Portable Earth
    Stations Operating in the 1610-1660.5 MHz Band*, CC Docket No.
    94-102, IB Docket No. 99‑67, Report and Order and Second Further
    Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, 18 FCC Rcd 25340, 25340, para. 1
    (2003) (*E911 Scope Order*) ("As many citizens, elected
    representatives, and public safety personnel recognize, 911 service
    is critical to our Nation's ability to respond to a host of
    crises.").

[^11]: *See, e.g.*, AARP Comments at 2; APCO Comments at 4; Arizona
    Commission Comments at 13-14; Avaya Comments at 17; BRETSA Comments
    at 1; Cisco Comments at 11; CUB Comments at 28; FERUP Comments at
    14; Missouri Commission Comments at 10; NASUCA Comments at 47; NENA
    Comments at 3; New Jersey Ratepayer Advocate Comments at 17; NCL
    Comments at 4; CWA Comments at 21; King County Comments at 6; Qwest
    Comments at 42; TCCFUI Comments at 4; USTA Comments at 40; Utah
    Commission Comments at 7-8; Cingular Reply at 15; Florida Commission
    Reply at 22; IAC Reply at 7-8; NASUCA Reply at 43-44; NENA Reply at
    2; New Jersey Ratepayer Advocate Reply at 12; NATOA *et al.* Reply
    at 14-15.

[^12]: *See E911 Scope Order*, 18 FCC Rcd at 25340, para. 1*.*

[^13]: *See Revision of the Commission's Rules to Ensure Compatibility
    with Enhanced 911 Emergency Calling Systems*, CC Docket No. 94-102,
    Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, 9 FCC Rcd 6170, 6172, para. 3 (1994)
    (*E911 NPRM*); *Implementation of the 911 Act; The Use of N11 Codes
    and Other Abbreviated Dialing Arrangements*, WT Docket No. 01-110,
    CC Docket No. 92-105, Fourth Report and Order and Third Notice of
    Proposed Rulemaking, and Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, 15 FCC Rcd
    17079, 17084, para. 9 (2000) (*N11 Codes Fourth Report and Order*)
    (citing *E911 First Report and Order*, 11 FCC Rcd at 18678, paras.
    1-2).

[^14]: *See* National Emergency Number Association, *911 Fast Facts*
    (visited Apr. 25, 2005)
    \<http://www.nena.org/911_facts/911fastfacts.htm\> (NENA 911 Fast
    Facts).

[^15]: *See* *id.*

[^16]: *See generally* Dale N. Hatfield, *A Report on Technical and
    Operational Issues Impacting the Provision of Wireless Enhanced 911
    Services* \<http://gullfoss2.fcc.gov/prod/ecfs/retrieve.cgi?
    native_or_pdf=pdf&id_document=6513296239\> (Hatfield Report).
    Indeed, one of the criteria the Commission identified in the *E911
    Scope Order* as relevant to determining whether particular entities
    should be subject to some form of 911/E911 regulation was whether
    customers using the service or device have a reasonable expectation
    of access to 911 and E911 services. *See* *E911 Scope Order*, 18 FCC
    Rcd at 25347, paras. 18-19. Numerous commenters in this proceeding
    also noted the expectations that Americans have developed with
    respect to the availability of 911 service. *See, e.g.*, Alcatel
    Comments at 18-19; APCO Comments at 4, 7; Arizona Commission
    Comments at 13-14; CenturyTel Comments at 24; Cox Comments at 19;
    King County E911 Program Comments at 2; SBC Comments at 60; IAC
    Reply at 7; NENA Reply at 1. *But see* EFF Comments at 5
    (questioning the Commission's ability to assess consumer
    expectations accurately and noting that consumer expectations change
    over time).

[^17]: *See* *N11 Codes Fourth Report and Order*, 15 FCC Rcd at 17084,
    para. 9 (citing *E911 First Report and Order*, 11 FCC Rcd 18676,
    paras. 1-2); *see also, e.g.*, Letter from Gino P. Menchini,
    Commissioner, New York City Department of Information Technology and
    Telecommunications, and Inspector Charles F. Dowd, Commanding
    Officer, Communications Division/NYC E-911, New York City Police
    Department, to Marlene H. Dortch, Secretary, FCC, WC Docket No.
    04-36 (filed Apr. 22, 2005) (New York City Apr. 22, 2005 *Ex Parte*
    Letter).

[^18]: The basic 911 rules require covered carriers to deliver all 911
    calls to the appropriate PSAP or a designated answering point. *See*
    47 C.F.R. §§ 20.18(b), 64.3001. Basic 911 requirements, however, do
    not address what information the PSAP should receive from that call;
    rather they are designed to ensure the appropriate delivery of 911
    calls. *See* *Notice*, 19 FCC Rcd at 4898, para. 52; *E911 First
    Report and Order*, 11 FCC Rcd at 18679, 20862-69, paras. 4, 29-46.
    The Commission therefore adopted enhanced 911 rules requiring
    covered wireless carriers to be capable of delivering the calling
    party's call back number and the calling party's location
    information to requesting PSAPs. *See* 47 C.F.R. § 20.18; *E911
    First Report and Order*, 11 FCC Rcd at 18689-722, paras. 54-91;
    *infra* note Error: Reference source not found.

[^19]: *See* Federal Communications Commission, *Basic 911 Carrier
    Transition Reports* (last modified Nov. 24, 2004)
    \<http://www.fcc.gov/911/basic/reports/\>. Although there are no
    Commission requirements that wireline LECs provide E911 service,
    some states have laws imposing such requirements. *See, e.g.*, N.J.
    Stat. Ann. § 52:17C-4 (2005); Me. Rev. Stat. Ann. tit. 25, § 2933
    (2005). Wireline LECs provide some level of enhanced 911 service
    (*i.e.*, at least a call back number) for callers located in 93% of
    counties with 911 coverage. *See* NENA 911 Fast Facts.

[^20]: *See* H.R. Rep. No. 106-25 at 1.

[^21]: *See* 911 Act § 3(a) (codified at 47 U.S.C. § 251(e)(3)).

[^22]: *See* *N11 Codes Fourth Report and Order*, 15 FCC Rcd at
    17083-85, paras. 8-14.

[^23]: 911 Act § 3(b).

[^24]: *See, e.g.*, *Implementation of the 911 Act; The Use of N11 Codes
    and Other Abbreviated Dialing Arrangements*, CC Docket No. 92-105,
    WT Docket No. 00-110, Fifth Report and Order, First Report and Order
    and Memorandum Opinion and Order on Reconsideration, 16 FCC Rcd
    22264 (2001) (*N11 Codes Fifth Report and Order*); Federal
    Communications Commission, *State 911 Deployment Plans* (last
    modified Nov. 24, 2004) \<http://www.fcc.gov/911/stateplans/\>;
    Federal Communications Commission, *Wireless E911 Coordination
    Initiative* (last modified Apr. 23, 2004)
    \<http://wireless.fcc.gov/outreach/e911/\>.

[^25]: *See, e.g.*, Federal Communications Commission, *Enhanced 911
    Reports* (last modified Nov. 24, 2004)
    \<http://www.fcc.gov/911/enhanced/reports/\> (providing access to
    carrier generated reports regarding wireless E911 deployment).

[^26]: *See Notice*, 19 FCC Rcd at 4897-98, para. 51.

[^27]: *See* Intrado Inc., *VoIP 9-1-1 Frequently Asked Questions*
    (visited Apr. 20, 2005)
    \<http://www.intrado.com/main/home/news/features/voipfaq.jsp\>.

[^28]: *See E911 NPRM*, 9 FCC Rcd at 6171, para. 5.

[^29]: *See* Hatfield Report at 3. This limitation of basic 911 service
    can be problematic when a single end office serves a geographic area
    that encompasses multiple political jurisdictions; call takers not
    only must determine the caller's location but also determine which
    jurisdiction's first responders should be dispatched. *See id.* at
    4-5.

[^30]: *See* Hatfield Report at 3-4.

[^31]: *See* NENA 911 Fast Facts.

[^32]: *See* Hatfield Report at 5. Thus, unlike normal phone calls, 911
    calls are routed based on the calling number (which is linked to a
    particular geographic area and political jurisdiction), not the
    called number. *See id.*; *see also* *E911 First Report and Order*,
    11 FCC Rcd at 18679, para. 5. The Selective Router is described in
    greater detail in para. 15 *infra*.

[^33]: The use of the term "ANI" is not intended as a reference to
    billing number presentation provided as part of Feature Group B or D
    local exchange services. Although the number presented to a PSAP on
    a wireline E911 call may be derived from Feature Group B or D
    services, the number presented to a PSAP on a wireless or VoIP call
    may be generated by several other means. Thus, the term ANI merely
    identifies a call back number associated with the caller. The term
    does not reflect a specific service or technology. *See* 47 C.F.R. §
    20.3.

[^34]: *See* Hatfield Report at 5; Letter from Cindy Schonhaut,
    Director, Federal Regulatory Affairs, Level 3 Communications, Inc.,
    to Marlene H. Dortch, Secretary, FCC, WC Docket No. 04-36, Attach.
    at 2 (filed Apr. 7, 2005) (Level 3 Apr. 7, 2005 *Ex Parte* Letter).
    Our description of the Wireline E911 Network is intended to be
    illustrative, not definitive. As the Commission has noted
    previously, there are a variety of situations existing in the more
    than 6,000 PSAPs across the nation, including differences in state
    laws and regulations governing the provision of 911 services, the
    configuration of wireless systems, the technical sophistication of
    existing 911 network components, and existing agreements between
    carriers and PSAPs. *See, e.g.*, Letter from Thomas J. Sugrue,
    Chief, Wireless Telecommunications Bureau, to Marlys R. Davis, E911
    Program Manager, Department of Information and Administrative
    Services, King County, Washington, CC Docket No. 94-102 at 3 (dated
    May 7, 2001) (*King County Letter*), *pet. recon. denied*, *Revision
    of the Commission's Rules to Ensure Compatibility with Enhanced 911
    Emergency Calling Systems, Request of King County, Washington*, CC
    Docket No. 94-102, Order on Reconsideration, 17 FCC Rcd 14789,
    14790, para. 3 (2002) (*King County Reconsideration Order*).

[^35]: Incumbent LECs own and operate most of the Selective Routers, ALI
    Databases, the trunks to carry 911 calls, and sometimes the CPE upon
    which a PSAP's 911 system is based. The service between the
    incumbent LEC and PSAP is contractual in nature and paid for by the
    PSAP typically through a special tariff filed with the state public
    utility commission. *See, e.g.*, *Revision of the Commission's Rules
    to Ensure Compatibility with Enhanced 911 Emergency Calling
    Systems*, CC Docket No. 94-102, 14 FCC Rcd 20850, 20886-87, paras.
    92, 94 (1999) (*E911 Second Memorandum Opinion and Order*); *E911
    First Report and Order*, 11 FCC Rcd at 18710, para. 66. States and
    localities have developed cost recovery mechanisms to fund PSAPs.
    *See infra* Part III.D.

[^36]: *See* Hatfield Report at 14.

[^37]: The Selective Router also is known as an E911 Control Office or
    E911 Tandem. *See id.* at 5. The presence of and functionality
    provided by the Selective Router is the key characteristic that
    distinguishes basic 911 from E911 service. *See id.*

[^38]: The SRDB and the ALI Database may be the same database.

[^39]: The ALI Database may also return additional information, such as
    the name of the individual who is billed for telephone service at
    that address.

[^40]: *See* *King County Letter* at 3-6; *King County Reconsideration
    Order*, 17 FCC Rcd at 14792-96, paras. 8-16; Hatfield Report at
    3-5*.*

[^41]: The Commission's wireless E911 requirements are comprised of two
    phases. Pursuant to the Phase I rules, wireless carriers are
    required to provide a call back number for the handset placing the
    911 call and report the location of the cell site or base station
    that received the call. The Phase I rules required compliance by
    April 1, 1998, or within six months of a PSAP request, whichever is
    later. *See* 47 C.F.R. § 20.18(d). Under the Phase II rules,
    wireless carriers are required to provide more accurate 911 call
    location information. *See* 47 C.F.R. § 20.18(e). The degree of
    location accuracy required under the Phase II rules varies,
    depending on whether the carrier utilizes a network-based or
    handset-based solution. *See* 47 C.F.R. § 20.18(h).

[^42]: *See* *E911 First Report and Order*, 11 FCC Rcd at 18680, para.
    7.

[^43]: *See* Hatfield Report at 9.

[^44]: *See E911 Second Memorandum Opinion and Order*, 14 FCC Rcd at
    20881-86, paras. 75-92. For a detailed description of the E911
    implementations utilized by wireless carriers, *see* Hatfield Report
    at 9-11. *See also* NENA, NENA Generic E9-1-1 Requirements Technical
    Information Document, Issue 1 at 7 (July 23, 2004)
    \<http://www.nena9-1-1.org/9-1-1TechStandards/TechInfoDocs/E9-1-1%20Requirements%2008-502u.pdf\>
    (NENA TID).

[^45]: *See* 47 C.F.R. § 20.3. The special meaning assigned to the
    pseudo-ANI is determined by agreements, as necessary, between the
    system originating the call, intermediate systems handling and
    routing the call, and the destination system. *See id.*

[^46]: Telephone numbers consist of ten digits in the form NPA-NXX-XXXX.
    The first three digits, or the "NPA," refer to the area code. The
    second three digits, or the "NXX," refer to the central office code.
    *See* 47 C.F.R. §§ 52.7(a), (c).

[^47]: *See* *King County Reconsideration Order*, 17 FCC Rcd at
    14792-93, para 8 n.17; Hatfield Report at 9-11; NENA TID at 4-5.

[^48]: *See* *King County Reconsideration Order*, 17 FCC Rcd at
    14792-93, para 8 n.17; Hatfield Report at 9-11; NENA TID at 17-18,
    19-20.

[^49]: *See generally* NENA TID.

[^50]: *See E911 Second Memorandum Opinion and Order*, 14 FCC Rcd at
    20855, para. 10.

[^51]: *See* *King County Reconsideration Order*, 17 FCC Rcd at
    14790-91, para 4.

[^52]: *See id.*

[^53]: *See* *id.*

[^54]: *See* *Notice*, 19 FCC Rcd at 4898-99, para. 53.

[^55]: 47 U.S.C. §§ 151, 154(i), 251(e)(3).

[^56]: *See* *Notice*, 19 FCC Rcd at 4898-99, para. 53 n.160 (citing
    *E911 Scope Order*, 18 FCC Rcd at 25345-46, paras. 13-15).

[^57]: *See* *id.* at 4898-99, 4900-01, paras. 53, 55-56. []{.mark}

[^58]: *See* *id.* at 4900-01, paras. 55-56. The *Notice* sets forth
    four criteria the Commission previously has used to determine
    whether particular entities should, in the public interest, be
    subject to some form of 911/E911 regulation: (1) the entity offers
    real-time, two-way switched voice service, interconnected with the
    public switched network, either on a stand-alone basis or packaged
    with other telecommunications services; (2) customers using the
    service or device have a reasonable expectation of access to 911 and
    E911 services; (3) the service competes with traditional CMRS or
    wireline local exchange service; and (4) it is technically and
    operationally feasible for the service or device to support E911.
    *See id.* at 4900, para. 55. The Commission first relied on these
    criteria in the *E911 Scope Order*, where the Commission made clear
    that factors other than the four listed criteria could also inform
    the Commission's decision regarding what 911/E911 obligations should
    be imposed on a service provider. *See id.* (citing *E911 Scope
    Order*, 18 FCC Rcd at 25347, para. 19). In the *Notice*, the
    Commission sought comment on whether VoIP services, and other
    IP-enabled services, satisfy these four criteria. The Commission
    also sought comment on whether these four criteria provide the
    appropriate analytical framework for determining whether, and to
    what extent, IP‑enabled services should fall within the scope of the
    Commission's 911/E911 regulatory framework, and whether
    modifications to these criteria, or other criteria, would better
    serve the public interest in light of the variety of IP‑enabled
    services and their very different functionalities. *See id.*

[^59]: *See* *Notice*, 19 FCC Rcd at 4898-900, paras. 53-54.

[^60]: *See* *Vonage Order*, 19 FCC Rcd at 22411, para. 14. DigitalVoice
    is an IP‑enabled service that provides real-time, multidirectional
    voice functionality to its end users over any broadband connection.
    *See* *id.* at 22407, para. 7.

[^61]: *See* *id.* at 22406, para. 5.

[^62]: *See* *id.*

[^63]: *See* *id.* at 22407-08, paras. 8-9.

[^64]: *See* *id.* at 22411-12, para. 14.

[^65]: *Id.* at 22432, para. 46.

[^66]: *See* *id.* at 22405, para. 1.

[^67]: *See, e.g.*, *California v. FCC*, No. 05-70007 (9th Cir. filed
    Jan. 3, 2005); *New York v. FCC*, No. 05-1060 (2d Cir. filed Jan. 7,
    2005); *Pub. Util. Comm'n of Ohio v. FCC*, No. 05-3056 (6th Cir.
    filed Jan. 7, 2005); *Minnesota Pub. Util. Comm'n v. FCC*, No.
    05-1069 (8th Cir. filed Jan. 6, 2005); *Nat'l Ass'n of State Util.
    Consumer Advocates v. FCC*, No. 05-1122 (8th Cir. filed Jan. 11,
    2005). Each of these cases was consolidated in the United States
    Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit (Ninth Circuit) in
    *California v. FCC*. *See California v. FCC* (No. 05-70007). On
    April 15, 2005, however, the Ninth Circuit granted a motion by the
    state of California and the California Public Utility Commission for
    voluntary dismissal, and currently is considering a motion to
    transfer the remaining cases to the United States Court of Appeals
    for the Eighth Circuit. *See* Petitioners Joint Motion to Transfer
    Proceedings and Amend Briefing Schedule, *National Ass'n of State
    Util. Consumer Advocates v. FCC*, No. 05-71238 (9th Cir. filed Feb.
    22, 2005).

[^68]: *See* VON Coalition and NENA, *Public Safety and Internet Leaders
    Connect on 911*, Press Release (Dec. 1, 2003)
    \<http://www.von.org/usr_files/VOIP%20press%20release%20FINAL%20112803\>
    (setting forth agreement for how two industry groups will work
    together as VoIP is deployed).

[^69]: *See* Letter from Cronan O'Connell, Vice President-Federal
    Regulatory, Qwest, to Marlene H. Dortch, Secretary, FCC, WC Docket
    No. 04-36, at 2 (filed Apr. 11, 2005) (Qwest Apr. 11, 2005 *Ex
    Parte* Letter) ("I2 NENA Specifications targeted for completion in
    April/May 2005"); VON Coalition and NENA, *Answering the Call for
    9‑1‑1 Emergency Services in an Internet World* at 7 (Jan. 2005)
    \<http://www.von.org/usr_files/911%20VON%20White%20Paper%201-12-05%20final.pdf
    \> (VON/NENA Jan. 2005 White Paper) (stating that I2 specification
    will be available in the second quarter of 2005).

[^70]: *Cf*. *Telecommunications Relay Services and Speech-to-Speech
    Services for Individuals with Hearing and Speech Disabilities*, CC
    Docket Nos. 90-571, 98-67, CG Docket No. 03-123, Report and Order,
    Order on Reconsideration, and Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking,
    19 FCC Rcd 12475, 12521-22, paras. 116-18 (2004) (granting extension
    of waiver exempting Video Relay Services providers from requirement
    automatically and immediately to transfer emergency calls to an
    appropriate PSAP); *Provision of Improved Telecommunications Relay
    Services and Speech-to-Speech Services for Individuals with Hearing
    and Speech Disabilities*, CC Docket No. 98‑67, Order on
    Reconsideration, 18 FCC Rcd 4761, 4766, para. 12 (2003)
    ("waiv\[ing\] the TRS mandatory minimum standard requiring emergency
    call handling for a five year period as applied to IP Relay
    providers").

[^71]: *Cf.* *E911 Scope Order*, 18 FCC Rcd at 25351, para. 28
    (exempting from mobile satellite service 911 requirements any
    service that utilizes terrestrial temporary fixed earth station
    terminals which are designed only for data services). As the
    Commission stated in the context of mobile satellite service 911
    obligations, we may revisit this exemption in the future should the
    technology or consumer expectations change. *See id*.

[^72]: *See, e.g.*, APT Comments at 6 (stating that "\[c\]onsumers have
    expectations that VOIP services are fundamentally equivalent to
    telephony services" and quoting a Vonage advertisement stating that
    VoIP service is "like the home phone service you have today" (citing
    Vonage, http://www.vonage.com/learn_tour.php (visited May 20,
    2004))); Alcatel Comments at 18-19 (stating that customers have a
    reasonable expectation that 911/E911 services will be available for
    most VoIP services, and noting that voice functions provided as part
    of an Xbox video game service are a VoIP service for which such an
    expectation is not reasonable because a video game service is not a
    replacement for PSTN service); Nebraska Commission Comments at 6
    (claiming that consumers would expect a service to offer similar
    protections as compared to traditional local exchange service if the
    service uses NANP numbers; utilizes the PSTN in either originating
    or terminating service; is advertised or used as telephone service
    or as a replacement service for POTS; and is functionally equivalent
    to traditional telephony); New Jersey Ratepayer Advocate Comments at
    16, 22 (stating that consumers likely will expect to have rapid
    access to emergency services via 911 for VoIP services that are
    marketed and sold as a substitute for traditional telephone service
    -- which we understand generally are interconnected VoIP services);
    SBC Comments at 58-61 (arguing that consumers would be more likely
    to expect that 911 service would work for interconnected real-time
    voice services than for strictly peer-to-peer services or data
    services); Time Warner Comments at 8; Letter from Glenn S. Richards,
    Counsel for VON Coalition, to Marlene H. Dortch, Secretary, FCC, WC
    Docket No. 04-36, Attach. at 4 (filed May 12, 2005) (VON Coalition
    May 12, 2005 *Ex Parte* Letter); *cf.* EFF Comments at 3-4 (arguing
    that evaluating consumer expectations is difficult and that at a
    minimum the Commission should presume that services with no PSTN
    nexus should be exempt from traditional telecommunications
    regulation).

[^73]: *See, e.g.*, King County Comments at 2 ("The service provider of
    any device that functions like a telephone and has the ability to
    connect to the Public Switched Telephone Network (PSTN) to deliver
    voice calls should be required to provide E911 service to their
    customers. The public expectation is that any device that can make
    voice phone calls can call 911.").

[^74]: For example, some VoIP services that have full interconnection to
    the PSTN may not be line powered and so, unlike an analog telephone
    connected to the PSTN, may not work in a power outage. *See, e.g.*,
    New Jersey Ratepayer Advocate Comments at 23 (stating that packet
    switched networks do not have the same built-in power source that
    circuit switched networks do, and thus are more susceptible to
    service outages); Sonic.net Comments at 3; Montana Commission
    Comments at 5; Letter from Kathleen Grillo, Vice President --
    Federal Regulatory, Verizon, to Marlene H. Dortch, Secretary, FCC,
    WC Docket No. 04-36, Attach. 2 at 4 (filed Apr. 15, 2005) (Verizon
    Apr. 15, 2005 *Ex Parte* Letter) (stating in VoiceWing's Terms of
    Service that a power or broadband service outage will prevent all
    service, including 911 service).

[^75]: *See Notice*, 19 FCC Rcd at 4866, para. 3 n.7.

[^76]: *Cf*. *Vonage Order*, 19 FCC Rcd at 22424, para. 32. While we
    recognize that some kinds of VoIP service can be supported over a
    dialup connection, we expect that most VoIP services will be used
    over a broadband connection. We seek comment in the *NPRM* on
    whether we should expand the scope of the present Order to include
    VoIP services that do not require a broadband connection. *See*
    *infra* Part IV.

[^77]: The term "IP-compatible CPE" refers to end-user equipment that
    processes, receives, or transmits IP packets. Users may in some
    cases attach conventional analog telephones to certain IP-compatible
    CPE in order to use an interconnected VoIP service. For example,
    IP-compatible CPE includes, but is not limited to, (1) terminal
    adapters, which contain an IP digital signal processing unit that
    performs digital-to-audio and audio-to-digital conversion and have a
    standard telephone jack connection for connecting to a conventional
    analog telephone; (2) a native IP telephone; or (3) a personal
    computer with a microphone and speakers, and software to perform the
    conversion (softphone). *See Vonage Order*, 19 FCC Rcd at 22407,
    para. 6; *see also Petition for Declaratory Ruling That Pulver.com's
    Free World Dialup Is Neither Telecommunications Nor a
    Telecommunications Service*, WC Docket No. 03-45, Memorandum Opinion
    and Order, 19 FCC Rcd 3307, 3308 n.2 (2004) (*Pulver Order*).

[^78]: *Cf*. *Vonage Order*, 19 FCC Rcd at 22407-08, paras. 8-9
    (describing the origination and termination of Vonage DigitalVoice
    calls to and from the PSTN). The instant Order does not apply to
    providers of other IP-based services such as instant messaging or
    Internet gaming because although such services may contain a voice
    component, customers of these services cannot place calls to and
    receive calls from the PSTN. The rules we adopt today apply to
    interconnected VoIP services rather than the sale or use of
    IP-compatible CPE, such as an IP-PBX, that itself uses other
    telecommunications services or VoIP services to terminate traffic to
    and receive traffic from the PSTN. The rules we adopt in today's
    Order also apply only to providers that offer a single service that
    provides the functionality described above. *But see* *infra* para.
    58 (tentatively concluding that separate service offerings that can
    be combined by the user should also be subject to our E911
    requirements). Thus, the E911 requirements we impose in this Order
    apply to all VoIP services that are encompassed within the scope of
    the *Vonage Order*. In the *Vonage Order*, the Commission preempted
    certain state regulation of Vonage's "DigitalVoice" VoIP service,
    and indicated that the Commission would preempt similar state
    regulation of other types of IP-enabled services having basic
    characteristics similar to DigitalVoice. It is incumbent on this
    Commission to ensure that customers of these services are still able
    to obtain access to appropriate emergency services when dialing 911.
    We further note that imposing E911 regulation on interconnected VoIP
    service providers is consistent with the four criteria the
    Commission identified in the *E911 Scope Order* that have been used
    to determine whether particular entities should be subject to some
    form of 911/E911 regulation. *See* *supra* note Error: Reference
    source not found (citing *Notice*, 19 FCC Rcd at 4900, para. 55
    (setting forth the four criteria)). In addition, the criteria we use
    to define the scope of the present Order are similar, though not
    identical, to proposals suggested by some commenters. For instance,
    NCTA proposes that the Commission impose certain requirements, such
    as 911 requirements, on VoIP services that: (1) use NANP resources;
    (2) receive calls from -- or terminate them to -- the PSTN; (3)
    represent a possible replacement for POTS; and (4) use IP
    transmission between the service provider and the end user customer,
    including use of an IP terminal adapter and/or IP-based telephone
    set. NCTA, *Balancing Responsibilities and Rights: A Regulatory
    Model for Facilities-Based VoIP Competition*, at 4, 22 (Feb. 2004)
    \<http://www.ncta.com/PDF_files/VoIPWhitePaper.pdf\> (NCTA VoIP
    White Paper). *See also* Level 3 Comments at 3, 25 (stating that
    VoIP providers should be required to provide "911 and E911 (where
    technically and operationally feasible) for those services that
    compete with traditional PSTN services and for which consumers have
    an expectation of such access"); SBC Comments at 58-61 (stating that
    it is most important to ensure that interconnected VoIP services
    offer 911 calling capabilities, as opposed to data-only services or
    services that are not interconnected to the PSTN); Time Warner
    Comments at 8, 13 (proposing that the scope of VoIP services subject
    to an E911 service obligation "be limited to those services that:
    (1) assign their subscribers NANP numbers; and (2) allow subscribers
    to receive calls from and terminate calls to the PSTN"); Letter from
    John T. Nakahata, Counsel for Microsoft, to Marlene H. Dortch,
    Secretary, FCC, WC Docket No. 04-36 (filed May 8, 2005) (urging the
    Commission to limit the scope of the VoIP services that would be
    subject to an E911 mandate to "consumer real-time, two-way switched
    voice services offered for a fee that are interconnected with the
    PSTN, capable of both receiving calls from and terminating calls to
    the PSTN, and for which the service provider assigns the end users
    using the VoIP service a unique working North American Numbering
    Plan telephone number (other than numbers, such as toll-free
    numbers, that are used to reach a database that determines the
    destination telephone number)"); Letter from Henry Goldberg, Counsel
    for Skype, to Marlene H. Dortch, Secretary, FCC, WC Docket No. 04-36
    at 1 (filed May 10, 2005) (Skype May 10, 2005 *Ex Parte* Letter)
    (urging the Commission to impose E911 obligations on interconnected
    VoIP providers that use NANP phone numbers and "include or enable
    use of either traditional CPE or CPE that, like traditional CPE, is
    always on and offers a dial tone"); VON Coalition May 12, 2005 *Ex
    Parte* Letter, Attach. at 4.

[^79]: *Cf. Vonage Order*, 19 FCC Rcd 22414, para. 18 (declining to
    classify Vonage's specific service as a telecommunications service
    or an information service under the Act).

[^80]: In general, providers of solely "fixed" VoIP services (*i.e.*,
    those that are not portable) face fewer technical obstacles to
    providing their customers with E911 service. *See, e.g.*, Letter
    from Bennett L. Ross, General Counsel-D.C., BellSouth D.C., Inc. to
    Marlene H. Dortch, Secretary, FCC, WC Docket No. 04-36 at 1-2 (filed
    May 12, 2005) (BellSouth May 12, 2005 *Ex Parte* Letter) (comparing
    E911 challenges for fixed and nomadic services); *see also* VON
    Coalition May 12, 2005 *Ex Parte* Letter, Attach. at 4 (claiming
    that the most "workable" definition of fixed services is defining
    those VoIP services that are "incapable of being nomadic"). It
    appears that most fixed VoIP service providers already have
    deployed, or are in the process of deploying, E911 services very
    much like those provided to wireline telephone customers. *See,
    e.g.*, Letter from James L. Casserly, Counsel for Comcast, to
    Marlene H. Dortch, Secretary, FCC, WC Docket No. 04-36 at 1 (filed
    May 12, 2005) ("The VoIP service that Comcast is currently offering
    . . . is E911 capable. Comcast selectively routes its customers' 911
    calls to the appropriate PSAPs, and Automatic Location information
    associated with the customer's service address is transmitted to the
    PSAPs along with the caller's telephone number."); NCTA Comments at
    13-14 (listing various cable operators that already provide E911);
    Cablevision*, Optimum Voice Terms of Service, Part B* (visited May
    9, 2005)
    \<http://www.optimumvoice.com/index.jhtml?pageType=terms_of_service\>
    (providing that "\[e\]nhanced 911 (E-911) is a feature of the
    Optimum Voice service that allows emergency operators to
    automatically know the telephone number and address of the dialing
    party"); Cox, *VoIP: Ready for Prime Time*, at 2 (visited May 9,
    2005) \<http://www.cox.com/about/NewsRoom/files/VoIPreadyMay04.pdf\>
    ("Cox's managed VoIP technology enables Enhanced 911 (E-911)
    service, while some Internet Telephony providers do not.").

[^81]: *See Vonage Order*, 19 FCC Rcd at 22406, para. 5; *see also
    Pulver Order*, 19 FCC Rcd at 3322, para. 22; Letter from James R.
    Hobson, Counsel for Greater Harris County (Texas) 9-1-1, Tarrant
    County (Texas) 9-1-1, and NENA to Marlene H. Dortch, Secretary, FCC,
    WC Docket No. 04-36, Attach. at 3 (Greater Harris County/Tarrant
    County/NENA Apr. 15, 2005 *Ex Parte* Letter) ("Since the application
    is separate from the transmission facility, it is highly unlikely
    the VoIP service provider knows where its subscriber is using the
    service at a given time."); Letter from James K. Smith, Executive
    Director - Federal Regulatory, SBC Telecommunications, Inc., to
    Marlene H. Dortch, Secretary, FCC, WC Docket Nos. 04-36, 04-29 and
    03-211, Attach. at 19 (filed Oct. 8, 2004) (stating that it is
    "\[i\]nfeasible to locate \[the\] geographic end point on the IP
    side of an IP-PSTN communication" because "IP communications are
    routed to devices, not geographic locations"). The record
    demonstrates that there currently are no solutions that allow a
    provider of portable VoIP services to determine the location of an
    end user absent the end user affirmatively telling the service
    provider where he or she is. *See* Greater Harris County/Tarrant
    County/NENA Apr. 15, 2005 *Ex Parte* Letter, Attach. at 3 ("\[T\]he
    subscriber must play an active role in identifying his or her
    location for accurate 9-1-1 call routing and ALI purposes.").

[^82]: *But see* Letter from John T. Nakahata, Counsel to Level 3, to
    Marlene H. Dortch, Secretary, FCC, WC Docket No. 04-36 at 6-7 (filed
    May 12, 2005) (Level 3 May 12, 2005 *Ex Parte* Letter).

[^83]: *See supra* note Error: Reference source not found. For instance,
    some VoIP service providers have contracted with a third party such
    as a competitive LEC to indirectly interconnect with the Wireline
    E911 Network at the Selective Router. *See, e.g.*, Letter from Glenn
    T. Reynolds, Vice President -- Federal Regulatory, BellSouth
    Corporation to Marlene H. Dortch, Secretary, FCC, WC Docket No.
    04-36, Attach. at 3 (BellSouth Apr. 19, 2005 *Ex Parte* Letter). In
    addition, a VoIP service provider has established direct
    interconnection with the Selective Router(s) in at least one state.
    *See* Letter from William B. Wilhelm, Jr., Counsel for Vonage, to
    Marlene H. Dortch, Secretary, FCC, WC Docket No. 04-36, Attach. 1
    (filed May 9, 2005) (Vonage May 9, 2005 *Ex Parte* Letter)
    (explaining that in Rhode Island Vonage routes calls directly to the
    Selective Router that services the Rhode Island PSAP). Further,
    several incumbent LECs are offering, or have announced their intent
    to offer, VoIP service providers direct interconnection to their
    Selective Routers through tariff, contract, or a combination
    thereof. *See* Letter from Cronan O'Connell, Vice President --
    Federal Regulatory, Qwest to Marlene H. Dortch, Secretary, FCC, WC
    Docket No. 04-36 at 1, Attach. at 6, 8 (Qwest Apr. 12, 2005 *Ex
    Parte* Letter); Verizon, *Verizon Identifies Solution Enabling VoIP
    Companies to Connect to E911 Emergency Calling System*, Press
    Release (rel. Apr. 26, 2005) \<http://newscenter.verizon.com\>;
    Letter from Glenn T. Reynolds, Vice President -- Federal Regulatory,
    BellSouth, to Marlene H. Dortch, Secretary, FCC, WC Docket No. 04-36
    (filed May 11, 2005) (setting forth BellSouth's "commitment to
    expeditious development and provision of an additional product
    allowing VoIP providers to purchase direct connection to the E911
    selective routers"); *see* *also, e.g.*, Letter from Mary Boyd, Vice
    President Government & External Affairs, Intrado, to Marlene H.
    Dortch, Secretary, FCC, WC Docket No. 04-36, Attach. at 7 (filed
    Apr. 4, 2005) (Intrado Apr. 4, 2005 *Ex Parte* Letter) (stating that
    VoIP service providers can use existing 911/E911 infrastructure for
    certain services); NENA *Ex Parte* Comments, WC Docket No. 04-36 at
    7 (filed Feb. 22, 2005) (stating that competitive LECs and cable
    VoIP providers already have access to systems necessary to provide
    E911 service). We further understand that it is technically possible
    today for interconnected VoIP providers to deliver a 911 caller's
    call back number and location to a geographically appropriate PSAP
    over the Wireline E911 Network utilizing location information
    provided by the caller. *See, e.g.*, Letter from Jeffrey A. Citron,
    Chairman and CEO, Vonage Holdings Corp., to Christopher Rice,
    Executive Vice President, Network Planning & Engineering, SBC, WC
    Docket 04-36 at 1 (filed Mar. 30, 2005) (Vonage Mar. 30, 2005 *Ex
    Parte* Letter) (noting that Vonage has already deployed a VoIP E911
    solution in Rhode Island and trialed a solution in Qwest's King
    County territory); Intrado Apr. 4, 2005 *Ex Parte* Letter, Attach.
    at 5 ("Technology exists to enable full E9-1-1 for VoIP subscribers
    regardless of movement and \[telephone number\] assignment.");
    Letter from William B. Wilhelm, Jr., Counsel for Vonage Holdings
    Corp., to Marlene H. Dortch, Secretary, FCC, WC Docket No. 04-36 at
    1-2 (filed Apr. 7, 2005) (Vonage Apr. 7, 2005 *Ex Parte* Letter)
    (noting interim solution trial with Verizon in New York and 911
    access made available by SBC to its VoIP affiliate); New York City
    Apr. 22, 2005 *Ex Parte* Letter (stating that New York is working
    with Vonage and others so that VoIP users will have access to the
    City's 911 emergency response system); Verizon Apr. 15, 2005 *Ex
    Parte* Letter at 1 (noting that a Verizon VoIP 911 solution is being
    developed in New York City); Letter from Kathleen Grillo, Vice
    President, Federal Regulatory, Verizon to Marlene H. Dortch,
    Secretary, FCC, WC Docket No. 04-36 at 2-3 (filed May 11, 2005)
    (Verizon May 11, 2005 *Ex Parte* Letter) (detailing New York City
    solution); Qwest Apr. 12, 2005 *Ex Parte* Letter at 1, Attach. at
    6-8 (discussing the Vonage/Qwest King County trial and Qwest's
    PS/ALI offering); Letter from William B. Wilhelm, Jr., Counsel for
    Vonage Holdings Corp., to Marlene H. Dortch, Secretary, FCC, WC
    Docket No. 04-36 at 2 (filed Apr. 18, 2005) (Vonage Apr. 18, 2005
    *Ex Parte* Letter) (noting that "Qwest's cooperation has shown that
    implementing the I2 solution is technically feasible"); Greater
    Harris County/Tarrant County/NENA Apr. 15, 2005 *Ex Parte* Letter,
    Attach. at 1, 5; Letter from Mary Boyd, Vice President Government &
    External Affairs, Intrado, to Marlene H. Dortch, Secretary, FCC, WC
    Docket No. 04-36, Attach. at 10 (filed Apr. 19, 2005) (Intrado Apr.
    19, 2005 *Ex Parte* Letter) (identifying two I2 solutions
    "operational today"); BellSouth Apr. 19, 2005 *Ex Parte* Letter at 1
    (stating "there are numerous E911 solutions available today to any
    VoIP provider interested in providing such service to their end
    users"); Letter from Bruce A. White, Vice President and General
    Counsel, TeleCommunication Systems, Inc., to Marlene H. Dortch,
    Secretary, FCC, WC Docket No. 04-36, Attach. at 25-28 (filed Apr.
    22, 2005) (describing the TeleCommunication Systems, Inc. VoIP 911
    offering currently being trialed in Kansas City) (TCS Apr. 22, 2005
    *Ex Parte* Letter).

[^84]: *See infra* Part IV.

[^85]: *See, e.g.*, AT&T Comments at 29; BellSouth Comments at 63;
    Comcast Comments at 15; Cox Comments at 22-25; NCTA Comments at
    23-24; NENA Comments at 2; Net2Phone Comments at 8-9; New Jersey
    Ratepayer Advocate Comments at 18; SBC Comments at 57, 95-98; USCCB
    *et al.* Comments at 29-35; AT&T Reply at 19-21; Cingular Reply at
    9-10. *But see* CompTel/Ascent Comments at 19; New York City
    Comments at 2-5; Sprint Comments at 27-29.

[^86]: 47 U.S.C. § 251(e).

[^87]: *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*); *see
    also American Library Ass'n v. FCC*, No. 04-1037, slip op. (D.C.
    Cir. May 6, 2005) (holding that the Commission lacked authority to
    impose broadcast content redistribution rules on equipment
    manufacturers using ancillary jurisdiction because the equipment at
    issue was not subject to the Commission's subject matter
    jurisdiction over wire and radio communications).

[^88]: *Southwestern Cable*, 392 U.S. at 178.

[^89]: 47 U.S.C. §§ 151, 152(a).

[^90]: Section 3(33) of the Act defines the term "radio communication"
    or "communication by radio" to mean "the transmission by radio of
    writing, signs, signals, pictures, and sounds of all kinds,
    including all instrumentalities, facilities, apparatus, and services
    (among other things, the receipt, forwarding, and delivery of
    communications) incidental to such transmission." 47 U.S.C. §
    153(33). Section 3(52) of the Act defines the term "wire
    communication" or "communication by wire" to mean "the transmission
    of writing, signs, signals, pictures, and sounds of all kinds by aid
    of wire, cable, or other like connection between the points of
    origin and reception of such transmission, including all
    instrumentalities, facilities, apparatus, and services (among other
    things, the receipt, forwarding, and delivery of communications)
    incidental to such transmission." 47 U.S.C. § 153(52).

[^91]: 47 U.S.C. § 151.

[^92]: *See* 47 U.S.C. § 152(a) (stating that the provisions of the Act
    "shall apply to all interstate and foreign communication by wire or
    radio and all interstate and foreign transmission of energy by
    radio, which originates and/or is received within the United States,
    and to all persons engaged within the United States in such
    communication or such transmission of energy by radio. . .").

[^93]: *Notice*, 19 FCC Rcd at 4866, para. 3 n.7.

[^94]: *See Vonage Order*, 19 FCC Rcd at 22413-14, para. 18. In
    addition, the Commission adopted an order declaring that
    pulver.com's Free World Dialup VoIP service is an information
    service under the Act and is subject to federal jurisdiction. *See*
    *Pulver Order*, 19 FCC Rcd at 3311, para. 8.

[^95]: 47 U.S.C. § 151 (emphasis added). Our actions today are not in
    conflict or otherwise inconsistent with any other provision of the
    Act. We acknowledge that section 230 of the Act 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). We do not, however,
    believe that this policy statement precludes us from adopting E911
    rules for interconnected VoIP providers here. We note that the
    Commission's discussion of section 230 in the *Vonage Order* as
    cautioning against regulation was limited to "traditional common
    carrier economic regulations." *Vonage Order*, 19 FCC Rcd at 22426,
    para. 35.

    In addition, while we acknowledge that there are generally
    intrastate components to interconnected VoIP service and E911
    service, we reject any argument that 911/E911 services are purely
    intrastate and therefore the Commission has no jurisdiction in this
    area. The Commission has long maintained a federal role in wireline
    and wireless 911/E911 issues*. See generally, e.g.*, *E911 Scope
    Order*, 18 FCC Rcd 25340; *N11 Codes Fifth Report and Order*, 16 FCC
    Rcd 22264; *E911 First Report and Order*, 11 FCC Rcd 18676;
    *Amendment of Part 63 of the Commission's Rules to Provide for
    Notification by Common Carriers of Service Disruptions*, CC Docket
    No. 91-273, Second Report and Order, 9 FCC Rcd 3911, 3925, para. 35
    (1994) (*Part 63 Notification Order*) ("We reject suggestions that
    the reliability and efficiency of 911 systems are not of Commission
    interest."). The Commission's assertion of federal jurisdiction over
    911/E911 matters has since been ratified twice by Congress. *See*
    911 Act § 2(a)(4) (finding that "improved public safety remains an
    important public health objective of Federal, State, and local
    governments and substantially facilitates interstate and foreign
    commerce"). *See generally* 911 Act; Ensuring Needed Help Arrives
    Near Callers Employing 911 Act of 2004, Pub. Law 108-494 (2004)
    (codified at 47 U.S.C. § 901 nt.) (ENHANCE 911 Act of 2004). Indeed,
    similar to the Commission's conclusions in the wireless 911/E911
    context, we identify various inseverable, nationwide aspects of E911
    operations for interconnected VoIP services, including: (1)
    ubiquitous E911 operational compatibility; (2) avoiding
    state-by-state technical and operational requirements that would
    burden equipment manufacturers and providers; and (3) avoiding
    confusion by end users who attempt to contact emergency services
    while using the interconnected VoIP service away from their primary
    locations. *See E911 First Report and Order*, 11 FCC Rcd at
    18729-30, para. 104.

[^96]: *E911 NPRM*, 9 FCC Rcd at 6171, para. 7; *see Part 63
    Notification Order*, 9 FCC Rcd at 3925, para. 35 ("The reliability
    of 911 service is integrally related to our responsibilities under
    Section 1 of the Act, which include 'promoting safety of life and
    property through the use of wire and radio communication.'"); *see
    also Revision of the Commission's Rules to Ensure Compatibility with
    Enhanced 911 Emergency Calling Systems; E911 Phase II Compliance
    Deadlines for Tier III Carriers*, CC Docket No. 94-102, Order, FCC
    05-79 (rel. Apr. 1, 2005); Federal Communications Commission, *FCC
    Amended Report to Congress on the Deployment of E-911 Phase II
    Services by Tier III Service Providers* at 2, 11 (Apr. 1, 2005);
    *E911 Scope Order*, 18 FCC Rcd at 25346, paras. 13, 16; *E911 First
    Report and Order*, 11 FCC Rcd at 18681, para. 8.

[^97]: *Rural Tel. Coalition v. FCC*, 838 F.2d 1307, 1315 (D.C. Cir.
    1988).

[^98]: *Midwest Video I*, 406 U.S. at 667-68 (quoting *CATV* *First
    Report and Order*, 20 FCC 2d at 202).

[^99]: 47 U.S.C. § 151.

[^100]: *See generally E911 First Report and Order*, 11 FCC Rcd 18676;
    *E911 Scope Order*, 18 FCC Rcd 25340.

[^101]: *See* *E911 Scope Order*, 18 FCC Rcd at 25345-46, paras. 12-16.

[^102]: *See generally* 911 Act; ENHANCE 911 Act of 2004.

[^103]: 47 U.S.C. § 157 nt. (incorporating section 706 of the
    Telecommunications Act of 1996, Pub. Law No. 104-104, 110 Stat. 56
    (1996) (1996 Act)).

[^104]: 47 U.S.C. § 157 nt.; *see also, e.g.*, 47 U.S.C. § 154(o)
    (requiring the Commission, "\[f\]or the purpose of obtaining maximum
    effectiveness from the use of radio and wire communications in
    connection with safety of life and property," to investigate and
    study "methods of obtaining the cooperation and coordination of
    these systems"); 47 U.S.C. § 271(c)(2)(B)(vii) (requiring the
    Commission, in order to grant a Bell operating company (BOC)
    interLATA authority, to find that the BOC is providing
    nondiscriminatory access to 911 and E911 services).

[^105]: *See* 47 U.S.C. § 157 nt. (c)(1) (defining "advanced
    telecommunications capability").

[^106]: *Cf.* Letter from Donna N. Lampert, Counsel for AOL, to Marlene
    H. Dortch, Secretary, FCC, WC Docket No. 04-36 at 1 (filed May 11,
    2005) (AOL May 11, 2005 *Ex Parte* Letter) (stating that AOL has a
    "strong concern that VoIP providers with inferior emergency services
    reduce consumer confidence in VoIP, negatively affecting AOL").

[^107]: *See Availability of Advanced Telecommunications Capability in
    the United States*, GN Docket No. 04-54, Fourth Report to Congress,
    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).

[^108]: *See* 911 Act § 3(a). *Cf.* ENHANCE 911 Act of 2004, § 102(4)
    ("\[E\]nhanced 911 is a high national priority and it requires
    Federal leadership, working in cooperation with State and local
    governments and with the numerous organizations dedicated to
    delivering emergency communications services.").

[^109]: 47 U.S.C. § 615(a)(3).

[^110]: 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."). The
    Commission has been granted explicit authority to "delegat\[e\] to
    State commissions or other entities all or any portion of such
    jurisdiction." *Id.* The Commission has declared that it has
    retained its "authority to set policy with respect to all facets of
    numbering administration in the United States." *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. 268
    (1996) (explaining that by retaining exclusive jurisdiction over
    numbering policy the Commission preserves its ability to act
    flexibly and expeditiously). However, the Commission has delegated
    to others the authority to address technical and operational issues,
    such as the delegation to state commissions of numbering authority
    to address the technical and operational issues associated with the
    implementation of 811. *See* *Use of N11 Codes and Other Abbreviated
    Dialing Arrangements*, CC Docket No. 92‑105, Sixth Report and Order,
    FCC 05-59, para. 35 (rel. Mar. 14, 2005).

[^111]: *See* 47 U.S.C. § 251(e)(3).

[^112]: *See N11 Codes Fifth Report and Order*, 16 FCC Rcd 22266-82,
    paras. 4-45.

[^113]: *Id*. at 22271, para. 16.

[^114]: *Id*. at 22272, para. 19.

[^115]: *See id*. at 22272, para. 20.

[^116]: *See, e.g.*, *E911 First Report and Order*, 11 FCC Rcd at 18679,
    para. 5 (explaining that in the previous decade most PSAPs had been
    upgraded to receive call back and location information to permit
    more efficient and speedy response by emergency service personnel
    and that, at the time, 85% of 911 services included some form of
    enhanced 911).

[^117]: 47 U.S.C. § 251(e)(3).

[^118]: *See supra* para. 25*.* Indeed, the Commission similarly imposed
    difficult but achievable requirements on CMRS providers in the name
    of public safety. *See supra* paras. 16-18.

[^119]: *See supra* note Error: Reference source not found (describing
    incidents in Texas, Connecticut, and Florida in which users of
    interconnected VoIP services were reported to be unable to reach
    emergency dispatchers by dialing 911).

[^120]: The term "Registered Location" is defined *infra*, para. 46.

[^121]: 47 C.F.R. § 64.3001; *see also N11 Codes Fifth Report and
    Order*, 16 FCC Rcd 22269-77, paras. 10-31.

[^122]: The terms "ANI" and "pseudo-ANI" as used herein have the same
    meanings as those set forth in section 20.3 of the Commission's
    rules. 47 C.F.R. § 20.3.

[^123]: The term Wireline E911 Network is defined *supra*, para. 14.

[^124]: *See* Level 3 May 12, 2005 *Ex Parte* Letter at 2 (describing
    product as suitable for providers of fixed interconnected VoIP
    services that utilize only "native" telephone numbers); Level 3,
    *E-911: Enhanced 911 for VoIP* (visited Apr. 26, 2005)
    \<http://www.level3.com/userimages/dotcom/pdf/Level_3_E-911_Fact_Sheet.pdf\>
    (stating that Level 3 offers certain types of VoIP providers the
    ability to provide full E911 service for approximately 60% of the
    U.S. households with plans to support 70-80% later in 2005).

[^125]: *See* 8x8, Inc., *Packet8 E911 \'Real\' Emergency Phone Service
    Now Available in Over 2,000 U.S. Rate Centers*, Press Release (rel.
    May 12, 2005)
    \<http://www.8x8.com/index.php?s=press_releases&item=40\>; Level 3,
    *8x8 Teams with Level 3 to Enhance Residential VoIP Services*, Press
    Release (rel. June 14, 2004)
    \<http://www.level3.com/press/5013.html\>.

[^126]: *See* Letter from Mary Boyd, Vice President Government &
    External Affairs, Intrado, to Marlene Dortch, Secretary, FCC, WC
    Docket 04-36, Attach. at 1, 4-5 (filed Apr. 25, 2005) (Intrado Apr.
    25, 2005 *Ex Parte* Letter). Intrado currently provides an array of
    E911 services to many major VoIP providers, but does not typically
    provide interconnection. *See id.*; Intrado Apr. 4, 2005 *Ex Parte*
    Letter, Attach. at 3.

[^127]: *See* Pac-West Telecomm, Inc., *Pac-West Telecomm Provides E911
    Capabilities to VoIP Providers*, Press Release (rel. May 16, 2005)
    \<http://www.pacwest.com/investor/investor_releases.cfm?ticker=PACW&script=415&layout=6&item_id=710492\>.

[^128]: *See* 47 U.S.C. § 251(a)(1) (requiring all telecommunications
    carriers "to interconnect directly or indirectly with the facilities
    and equipment of other telecommunications carriers"); 47 U.S.C. §
    251(c) (requiring incumbent LECs, other than those exempted by
    section 251(f), to make available unbundled network elements to
    requesting telecommunications carriers); 47 C.F.R. § 51.319(f) ("An
    incumbent LEC shall provide a requesting telecommunications carrier
    with nondiscriminatory access to 911 and E911 databases on an
    unbundled basis, in accordance with section 251(c)(3) of the Act . .
    . ."); *Review of the Section 251 Unbundling Obligations of
    Incumbent Local Exchange Carriers; Implementation of the Local
    Competition Provisions of the Telecommunications Act of 1996;
    Deployment of Wireline Services Offering Advanced Telecommunications
    Capability*, CC Docket Nos. 01-338, 96-98, 98-147, Report and Order
    and Order on Remand and Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, 18
    FCC Rcd 16978, 17332, para. 557 (2003) ("\[B\]ecause of the unique
    nature of 911 and E911 services and the public safety issues
    inherent in ensuring nondiscriminatory access to such databases, we
    conclude that . . . competitive carriers must continue to obtain
    unbundled access to those databases to ensure that their customers
    have access to emergency services."); 47 U.S.C. §
    271(c)(2)(B)(vii)(1) (requiring BOCs to provide nondiscriminatory
    access to 911 and E911 services to other telecommunications
    carriers); *Application of Ameritech Michigan Pursuant to Section
    271 of the Communications Act of 1934, as Amended, to Provide
    In-Region, InterLATA Services in Michigan*, CC Docket No. 97-137,
    Memorandum Opinion and Order, 12 FCC Rcd 20543, 20679, para. 256
    (1997) ("\[S\]ection 271 requires a BOC to provide competitors
    access to its 911 and E911 services in the same manner that a BOC
    obtains such access, *i.e.*, at parity."); *id.* ("For
    facilities-based carriers, nondiscriminatory access to 911 and E911
    service also includes the provision of unbundled access to \[a
    BOC's\] 911 database and 911 interconnection, including the
    provision of dedicated trunks from the requesting carrier's
    switching facilities to the 911 control office . . . ."). Of course,
    if we find interconnected VoIP to be a telecommunications service,
    or if a provider of interconnected VoIP holds itself out as a
    telecommunications carrier and complies with appropriate federal and
    state requirements, access under these provisions would be available
    to those providers as well.

[^129]: *See* Qwest Apr. 12, 2005 *Ex Parte* Letter at 1 (describing
    Qwest's PS/ALI offering and how such offering can be bundled with a
    third party ALI database interface to provide E911 service to
    nomadic VoIP customers); Letter from Cronan O'Connell, Vice
    President-Federal Regulatory, Qwest to Marlene H. Dortch, Secretary,
    FCC, WC Docket No. 04-36 at 1 (filed May 12, 2005) (Qwest May 12,
    2005 *Ex Parte* Letter). Qwest's E911 offering for interconnected
    VoIP is essentially the E911 solution that Qwest developed for
    Multi-Line Telephone Systems, and is sold out of Qwest's retail
    tariffs. *See* Qwest Apr. 12, 2005 *Ex Parte* Letter, Attach. at
    6-7*.* At least one provider of interconnected VoIP services has
    found Qwest's offering sufficient. *See* Letter from Jeffery A.
    Citron, Chairman and CEO, Vonage Holdings Corp., to Richard C.
    Notebaert, Qwest Communications (dated Apr. 13, 2005) *in* Vonage
    Apr. 18, 2005 *Ex Parte* Letter ("With the access Qwest has agreed
    to provide, Vonage will be able to route emergency service calls
    placed by its customers directly to public safety operators . . .
    .").

[^130]: *See* Verizon Apr. 15, 2005 *Ex Parte* Letter at 1; Verizon May
    11, 2005 *Ex Parte* Letter at 2-3.

[^131]: *See* Verizon, *Verizon Identifies Solution Enabling VoIP
    Companies to Connect to E911 Emergency Calling System*, Press
    Release (rel. Apr. 26, 2005) \<http://newscenter.verizon.com\>; *see
    also* New York City Apr. 22, 2005 *Ex Parte* Letter at 1; Verizon
    May 11, 2005 *Ex Parte* Letter at 2-3.

[^132]: *See* BellSouth Apr. 19, 2005 *Ex Parte* Letter at 1; BellSouth
    May 12, 2005 *Ex Parte* Letter at 3-4 (stating that "\[u\]sing
    \[BellSouth's CMRS 911\] offering as the baseline, BellSouth is
    offering equivalent 9-1-1 infrastructure network access to VoIP
    providers"); Letter from Bennett L. Ross, General Counsel-D.C.,
    BellSouth D.C., Inc. to Marlene H. Dortch, Secretary, FCC, WC Docket
    No. 04-36 at 1 (filed May 16, 2005) (BellSouth May 16, 2005 *Ex
    Parte* Letter) (stating that BellSouth's offering to interconnected
    VoIP providers "provides the same access as that which BellSouth
    currently provides to CMRS carriers").

[^133]: *See* Letter from Christopher T. Rice, Executive Vice President,
    Network Planning & Engineering, SBC, to Jeffrey A. Citron, Chairman
    & CEO, Vonage (dated Apr. 18, 2005) (SBC/Vonage Apr. 18, 2005
    Letter) *in* Letter from James K. Smith, Executive Director --
    Federal Regulatory, SBC Services, Inc. to Marlene H. Dortch,
    Secretary, FCC, WC Docket No. 04-36 at 10 (SBC Apr. 26, 2005 *Ex
    Parte* Letter) (explaining that SBC currently permits VoIP providers
    to purchase a tariffed interconnection service called TIPToP and
    offers access to its Selective Routers and 911 databases pursuant to
    an optional ancillary agreement).

[^134]: *See* Letter from James K. Smith, Executive Director - Federal
    Regulatory, SBC Services, Inc., to Marlene H. Dortch, Secretary,
    FCC, WC Docket No. 04-36 at 1, Attach. at 1 (filed May 12, 2004)
    (SBC May 12, 2005 *Ex Parte* Letter).

[^135]: *See* *supra* note Error: Reference source not found
    (identifying selective routing capability as the key characteristic
    distinguishing basic 911 and E911).

[^136]: We note that NENA estimates that 93% of counties with wireline
    911 service have E911 service. *See* NENA 911 Fast Facts.

[^137]: *See infra* Part IV.

[^138]: We note that end users may not be able to initiate a voice
    communication, by dialing 911 or otherwise, where their broadband
    connection has failed or they have lost electrical power. *Cf.* AOL
    May 11, 2005 *Ex Parte* Letter at 2; Letter from Jennifer L.
    Phurrough, Counsel for EarthLink, Inc. to Marlene H. Dortch,
    Secretary, FCC, WC Docket No. 04-36 at 1 (EarthLink May 12, 2005 *Ex
    Parte* Letter).

[^139]: The term "Registered Location" is defined *infra*, para. 46.

[^140]: *See* NENA 911 Fast Facts.

[^141]: The Wireline E911 Network is described *supra*, paras. 14-15.

[^142]: We emphasize that interconnected VoIP providers may not fulfill
    their E911 obligations by routing 911 calls to 10-digit NPA-NXX
    numbers (so called "administrative numbers") of PSAPs, designated
    statewide default answering points, or appropriate local emergency
    authorities where a Selective Router is utilized. *Cf.* NASUCA
    Comments at 52 ("Delivering 911 calls to the PSAP this way is better
    than not delivering them at all, but not much better"); New York
    City Apr. 22, 2005 *Ex Parte* Letter at 1 (stating "the routing by
    VOIP providers of 911-dialed calls to administrative desks at 911
    calling centers is unacceptable and hazardous"); Letter from Gregory
    Ballentine, President, APCO International, to Kevin J. Martin,
    Chairman, FCC, WC Docket No 04-36 at 1 (filed Apr. 15, 2005) (APCO
    Apr. 15, 2005 *Ex Parte* Letter) (stating that while routing 911
    calls to administrative numbers is "perhaps acceptable for some
    PSAPs, such an approach could endanger the public and disrupt
    already over-burdened PSAP operations" at others). Nothing in this
    Order, however, prevents interconnected VoIP providers from entering
    into mutually acceptable 911 call termination arrangements, with
    PSAPs, designated statewide default answering points, or appropriate
    local emergency authorities that are not interconnected with a
    Selective Router through a dedicated Wireline E911 Network. *Cf.*
    *id.* at 1.

[^143]: With a NENA I2 or wireless E911-like solution in place, an
    interconnected VoIP provider should be able to provide an end user's
    updated location to a requesting PSAP in "real time." *See* Intrado
    Apr. 19, 2005 *Ex Parte* Letter, Attach. at 11; Letter from William
    B. Wilhelm, Jr., Counsel for Vonage Holdings Corp. to Marlene H.
    Dortch, Secretary, FCC, WC Docket No. 04-36, Attach. at 8 (Vonage
    May 13, 2005 *Ex Parte* Letter). We understand, however, that
    updating an end user's location information in the ALI database can
    require between 24 and 120 hours where a wireless E911-like solution
    is not in place. *See* Vonage May 9, 2005 *Ex Parte* Letter at 4
    (24-48 hours); Qwest May 12, 2005 *Ex Parte* Letter at 2 (72 hours);
    Level 3 May 12, 2005 *Ex Parte* Letter at 2 (120 hours).

[^144]: *See infra* Part IV.

[^145]: *See, e.g.*, 8X8 Comments at 17, 25; Alcatel Comments at 18;
    AT&T Comments at 30 n.18; Avaya Comments at 19; Dialpad *et al.*
    Comments at 15; Qwest Comments at 13 n.47; Letter from Ronald W. Del
    Sesto, Jr., Counsel for Nuvio, to Marlene H. Dortch, Secretary, FCC,
    WC Docket No. 04-36 at 2 (filed Apr. 1, 2005); Greater Harris
    County/Tarrant County/NENA Apr. 15, 2005 *Ex Parte* Letter, Attach.
    at 3; *see also Vonage Order*, 19 FCC Rcd at 22419-21, paras. 24-29
    (explaining that VoIP providers have neither the means nor any
    service-driven reason to track the actual end points of
    communications).

[^146]: We emphasize that we are not requiring interconnected VoIP
    providers to automatically determine the location of their end
    users. Nothing in these rules, however, prevents an interconnected
    VoIP provider from automatically obtaining an accurate Registered
    Location if it is capable of doing so.

[^147]: Interconnected VoIP providers also must obtain from their
    existing customers, within 120 days of the effective date of this
    Order, the physical location at which the service is being utilized.

[^148]: We expect that customers of interconnected VoIP service
    providers will, in almost all cases, be able to provide their
    Registered Location in the form of a valid street address. We
    recognize, however, that wireless broadband technologies may
    increase the possibility that a user's location is not associated
    with a street address, and request comment on whether some other
    solution is necessary in that circumstance. *See infra* Part IV.

[^149]: *See supra* note Error: Reference source not found (describing
    incidents in Texas, Connecticut, and Florida in which users of
    interconnected VoIP services reportedly were unable to reach
    emergency dispatchers by dialing 911).

[^150]: Some interconnected VoIP providers do not provide any 911 or
    911-like service. *See, e.g.*, Net2Phone, *FAQs (Frequently Asked
    Questions)* (visited Apr. 25, 2005)
    \<http://web.net2phone.com/consumer/voiceline/support_faq.asp#Doyouprovide911service\>
    (Net2Phone FAQ). Other providers require their customers to
    affirmatively request, or "opt-in" to, the provider's 911 or
    911-like services. *See, e.g.*, Packet8, *Feature Details* (visited
    Apr. 25, 2005)
    \<http://www.packet8.net/about/featuresdetails0604.asp#e911\>
    (Packet8 Feature Details); Vonage, *Vonage Lets You Dial 911*
    (visited Apr. 25, 2005)
    \<http://www.vonage.com/features.php?feature=911\> (Vonage 911 FAQ).

[^151]: 911 Act § 3(b). The prospect that an individual might opt out of
    911 service on his or her primary home communications system also
    raises serious public policy issues. *See* CUB Comments at 28.

[^152]: Thus, interconnected VoIP providers must make E911 an included
    feature of their service, not an optional one. *Cf., e.g.*, Packet8,
    *Feature Details* (visited Apr. 25, 2005)
    \<http://www.packet8.net/about/featuresdetails0604.asp#e911\>. We do
    not dictate how providers recover their costs for E911. *See*
    *infra* Part III.D.

[^153]: *See, e.g.*, Net2Phone FAQ; Skype, *SkypeOut Frequently Asked
    Questions* (visited Apr. 25, 2005)
    \<http://www.skype.com/help/faq/skypeout.html#calling\>; Skype,
    *Terms of Service* (visited May 18, 2005)
    \<http://www.skype.com/company/legal/terms/tos_voip.html\>; Packet8
    Feature Details; Packet8, *Terms and Conditions of Service*,
    (visited May 18, 2005)
    \<http://www.packet8.net/about/service_terms.asp\>; Vonage 911 FAQ;
    Vonage, Terms of Service (visited May 18, 2005)
    \<http://www.vonage.com/features_terms_service.php?lid=footer_terms\>;
    VoiceWing, FAQs - Product Features (visited Apr. 25, 2005)
    \<https://www22.verizon.com/CustomerHelp/CGI-BIN/SmartHelp.asp?St=221&E=0000000000000779354&K=9408&Sxi=4&dtree=257#622\>;
    VoiceWing, Verizon VoiceWing Terms of Service (visited May 18, 2005)
    \<https://www22.verizon.com/ForYourHome/VOIP/Popup_PrintTos.aspx\>.

[^154]: *See supra* note Error: Reference source not found (describing
    incidents in Texas, Connecticut, and Florida in which users of
    interconnected VoIP services were unable to reach emergency
    dispatchers by dialing 911); *see also supra* note Error: Reference
    source not found (highlighting consumer expectations that
    interconnected VoIP services will function in some ways like a
    "regular telephone" service, including with respect to E911
    service).

[^155]: Such circumstances include, but are not limited to, relocation
    of the end user's IP-compatible CPE, use by the end user of a
    non-native telephone number, broadband connection failure, loss of
    electrical power, and delays that may occur in making a Registered
    Location available in or through the ALI database. *See, e.g.*, AOL
    May 11, 2005 *Ex Parte* Letter at 2 (stating that VoIP service does
    not work during power outages without backup power capabilities or
    during broadband service interruptions); EarthLink May 12, 2005 *Ex
    Parte* Letter at 1 (same).

[^156]: Some users of an interconnected VoIP service will not be
    subscribers. Guests at a subscriber's premises, for example, may not
    know their host's phone service is provided via interconnected VoIP.

[^157]: *See supra* para. 46. We have seen examples of customer
    notification efforts. Verizon, for example, includes in the terms
    and conditions for its VoiceWing VoIP product a detailed description
    of the service's 911 capabilities and limitations. *See* Verizon
    Apr. 15, 2005 *Ex Parte* Letter, Attach. at 3-4. This description
    contains instructions for notifying Verizon when the customer uses
    the service at a new location, as well as an explanation of
    potential 911 service interruptions due to power outages or network
    congestion. *See id.*

[^158]: *See infra* para. 59.

[^159]: Some commenters have expressed concern about the effect of
    increased use of VoIP services on 911 funding. *See, e.g.*, APCO
    Comments at 9; BellSouth Comments at 52; BRETSA Comments at 4, 6;
    CUB Comments at 27; FERUP Comments at 15; Global Crossing Comments
    at 15; King Country Comments at 3-5; Missouri Commission Comments at
    4; NARUC Comments at 8; NASUCA Comments at 55; NCL Comments at 5;
    NENA Comments at 8; Spokane County Comments at 1; TCCFUI Comments at
    3-4; TCSEC Comments at 3-5; AT&T Reply at 22; Intrado Reply at 2-3;
    NASUCA Reply at 50-51; New Jersey Ratepayer Advocate Reply at 24-25.

[^160]: *See, e.g.*, Letter from Robert M. Gurss, Director of Legal and
    Government Affairs, APCO, to Marlene Dortch, Secretary, FCC, WC
    Docket No. 04-36, Attach. (filed May 10, 2005) (describing state
    funding mechanisms). States may be in the process of modifying their
    911 funding requirements to cover interconnected VoIP providers.
    *See, e.g.*, H.F. No. 2103, 84th Leg. Sess., Reg. Sess. (Minn. 2005)
    (proposing to expand applicability of state 911/E911 law beyond
    telecommunications service providers to include "other entit\[ies\]
    determined by the commissioner to be capable of providing effective
    and efficient components of the 911 system"). We use the term
    "state" for purposes of this discussion, although we recognize that
    in many areas, local authorities are responsible for 911 funding.

[^161]: According to NENA and the VON Coalition, 75% of signatories to
    the VON/NENA Agreement currently are paying into state and local 911
    funds. *See* VON/NENA Jan. 2005 White Paper at 10.

[^162]: *See supra* para. 38.

[^163]: Because 911 contribution obligations are typically assessed on a
    per-line basis, states may need to explore other means of collecting
    an appropriate amount from competitive LECs on behalf of their
    interconnected VoIP partners, such as a per-subscriber basis.
    Similarly, if an interconnected VoIP provider interconnects directly
    with a systems service provider or PSAP, states may need to explore
    collecting amounts from these entities, which could pass the charges
    through to the interconnected VoIP provider.

[^164]: *See supra* para. 17 & note Error: Reference source not found
    (explaining that wireless E911 requires that PSAPs be able to
    receive and process pseudo-ANI, and that interconnected VoIP
    providers may utilize pseudo-ANI to deliver non-traditional location
    information to the PSAP). For this reason, we do not require that a
    cost recovery mechanism be in place for PSAPs before a VoIP provider
    must comply with the E911 obligations we establish today. In this
    respect we deviate from the wireless E911 scheme, under which a PSAP
    must have a means of covering its costs of receiving and utilizing
    the data elements associated with wireless E911 calls before a
    wireless carrier is required to provide E911 pursuant to that PSAP's
    request. *See* 47 C.F.R. § 20.18(j); *see also E911 Second
    Memorandum Opinion and Order*, 14 FCC Rcd at 20860, para. 23. There
    is no need to specify a cost recovery mechanism for interconnected
    VoIP providers because their rates are not regulated, so they are
    fully able to recover their E911 costs by raising their rates. *Cf.
    E911 Second Memorandum Opinion and Order*, 14 FCC Rcd at 20854,
    para. 7 (eliminating a cost recovery mechanism requirement for
    wireless carriers' costs because wireless carriers' rates were
    unregulated, giving them full flexibility to recover their costs
    without a mandatory mechanism)*.* To the extent that it becomes a
    concern, we believe that the demarcation point that the Commission
    established for wireless E911 cost allocation would be equally
    appropriate for VoIP. *See King County Letter*; *King County
    Reconsideration Order,* 17 FCC Rcd 14789.

[^165]: In fact, APCO's concerns about PSAP costs focused on the expense
    of responding to stopgap solutions, such as routing VoIP 911 calls
    to PSAPs' administrative numbers, and indicated a preference for a
    uniform VoIP E911 approach such as the one we adopt today. *See*
    APCO Apr. 15, 2005 *Ex Parte* Letter at 2 (stating that VoIP
    providers should be required to provide their customers with "full
    access to existing \[E911\] capability" rather than being permitted
    to route their calls to PSAPs' administrative numbers because PSAPs
    "lack the resources to be constantly upgrading and modifying their
    operations to be compatible with the latest technological fads").

[^166]: *See* Intrado Apr. 4, 2005 *Ex Parte* Letter, Attach. at 14
    (seeking the Commission to provide VoIP service providers with the
    same liability protection that wireless carriers receive under 47
    U.S.C. § 615a); AOL May 11, 2005 *Ex Parte* Letter at 2 (same); *see
    also* NCTA VoIP White Paper at 22 n.29 ("As with all service
    providers that offer 911/E911 capabilities, VoIP service providers
    should be protected by statutory and other limitations on liability
    pertaining to the provision of 911/E911 services."); Letter from
    Robert W. Quinn, Jr., Federal Government Affairs, Vice President,
    AT&T to Marlene H. Dortch, Secretary, FCC, WC Docket No. 04-36 at 5
    (filed May 9, 2005) (seeking the Commission to provide VoIP
    providers with "liability immunity" if they comply with notice and
    disclosure obligations and/or E911); Level 3 May 12, 2005 *Ex Parte*
    Letter at 6 ("Without a clear liability limitation, retail and
    wholesale VoIP providers may be reluctant to work on solutions for
    these vexing issues.").

[^167]: *See* 47 U.S.C. § 615a; 911 Act § 4 (providing wireless
    carriers, wireless users and PSAPs in a State the same degree of
    liability protection related to 911/E911 service as local exchange
    carriers, users and PSAPs have under federal or state law with
    respect to local exchange service in that State); *see also* TCS
    Apr. 22, 2005 *Ex Parte* Letter, Attach. at 41 (stating that
    wireless and wireline carriers are insulated from liability except
    for gross negligence).

[^168]: *See E911 First Report and Order*, 11 FCC Rcd at 18728, para.
    100; *see also Revision of the Commission's Rules to Ensure
    Compatibility with Enhanced 911 Emergency Calling Systems*, CC
    Docket No. 04-102, Memorandum Opinion and Order, 12 FCC Rcd 22665,
    22731-34, paras. 137-42 (1997). As the Commission noted in the *E911
    First Report and Order*, the D.C. Circuit has struck down, as
    infringing on the jurisdiction of state courts, a Federal Energy
    Regulatory Commission (FERC) ruling that conditioned the granting of
    licenses for dams on a rule of strict liability for property damage
    caused by seismically-induced dam failure, and noted that FERC
    failed to show that the action was essential to achieving the goals
    of the Federal Power Act. *See E911 First Report and Order*, 11 FCC
    Rcd at 18728, para. 100 (citing *South Carolina Pub. Serv. Authority
    v. FERC*, 850 F.2d 788 (D.C. Cir. 1988)).

[^169]: *See, e.g.*, TCS Apr. 22, 2005 *Ex Parte* Letter, Attach.
    (noting that VoIP service providers do not receive the same
    liability protection as wireline and wireless carriers).

[^170]: *See, e.g.*, Letter from Glenn S. Richards, Counsel for VON
    Coalition, to Marlene H. Dortch, Secretary, FCC, WC Docket No.
    04-36, Attach. at 13-14 (filed Apr. 15, 2005) (listing progress
    various entities are making in providing emergency services to VoIP
    users today).

[^171]: *See* Verizon Apr. 15, 2005 *Ex Parte* Letter, Attach. 2 at 9
    (disclaiming liability in VoiceWing's Terms of Service for inability
    to access emergency service personnel through 911, E911, or
    otherwise); Letter from James K. Smith, Executive Director --
    Federal Regulatory, SBC Services, Inc., to Marlene H. Dortch,
    Secretary, FCC, WC Docket No. 04-36, Attach. at 8, para. 15 (filed
    Apr. 12, 2005) (exempting the VoIP service provider from liability
    related to the provision of VoIP 911 service except for gross
    negligence, recklessness or intentional misconduct).

[^172]: We hereby incorporate the comments and *ex parte* presentations
    in WC Docket No. 04-36 into this docket. Commenters need not
    resubmit material previously filed in that proceeding.

[^173]: *See Vonage Order*, 19 FCC Rcd 22420, 22422, paras. 25, 29.

[^174]: *See* Intrado Apr. 19, 2005 *Ex Parte* Letter, Attach. at 14.

[^175]: *See* *supra* para. 24.

[^176]: *See, e.g.*, 47 C.F.R. § 20.18(i) (requiring certain wireless
    licensees to "report to the Commission their plans for implementing
    Phase II enhanced 911 service, including the location-determination
    technology they plan to employ and the procedure they intend to use
    to verify conformance with the Phase II accuracy requirements" and
    to update those plans within thirty days of the adoption of any
    change).

[^177]: *See N11 Codes Fifth Report and Order*, 16 FCC Rcd at 22281-82,
    paras. 42-45.

[^178]: *See, e.g., id.* at 22283-85, paras. 48-52*; see also supra*
    para. 7 & note Error: Reference source not found.

[^179]: Section 222 of the Act prevents telecommunications carriers from
    disclosing customer proprietary network information (CPNI),
    including customer location information, without customer approval.
    *See* 47 U.S.C. § 222(c)(1). The Act excludes from the definition of
    CPNI a customer's address that is listed in a directory. *See* 47
    U.S.C. § 222(h)(3). We also note that Congress in the 911 Act
    provided certain privacy protections related to wireless carriers'
    ability automatically to obtain and transmit precise customer
    location information, and exceptions from those rules for the
    provision of E911 service. *See* 911 Act § 5 (amending section 222
    by, *inter alia*, adding new sections 47 U.S.C. § 222(d)(4), (f)
    (concerning wireless location information) and 47 U.S.C. § 222(g)
    (concerning subscriber information)). Also, in redesignating former
    section 47 U.S.C. § 222(f) as section 47 U.S.C. § 222(h), the 911
    Act amended an existing definition and added new definitions. *See*
    47 U.S.C. § 222(h)(1)(A), (4)‑(7). We note that section 222 applies
    to telecommunications carriers. Interconnected VoIP service
    providers to date have not been classified as telecommunications
    carriers under the Act.

[^180]: *See* 42 U.S.C. §§ 12131-12134. Pursuant to the ADA
    requirements, telephone emergency services, including 911 services,
    are required to provide direct access to individuals who use
    telecommunication devices for the deaf (TDDs, or as now commonly
    called, TTYs) and computer modems, without relying on outside relay
    services or third party services. *See* 28 C.F.R. § 35.162; *see
    also* 28 C.F.R. § 35.160(a) (providing that a public entity shall
    "take appropriate steps to ensure that communications with
    applicants, participants, and members of the public with
    disabilities are as effective as communications with others"); 28
    C.F.R. § 35.161 (stating that "\[w\]here a public entity
    communicates by telephone with applicants and beneficiaries, TDD's
    or equally effective telecommunication systems shall be used to
    communicate with individuals with impaired hearing or speech").

[^181]: *Implementation of Sections 255 and 251(a)(2) of the
    Communications Act of 1934, as Enacted by the Telecommunications Act
    of 1996; Access to Telecommunications Service, Telecommunications
    Equipment and Customer Premises Equipment by Persons with
    Disabilities*, WT Docket No. 96-198, Report and Order and Further
    Notice of Inquiry, 16 FCC Rcd 6417, 6483-84, para. 175 (1999)
    (*Disability Access Order*); *see generally id*. at 6483-6486,
    paras. 173-85.

[^182]: *See id.*, 16 FCC Rcd at 6484-86, paras. 179-85.

[^183]: 47 C.F.R. §§ 1.200 *et seq*.

[^184]: *See* 47 C.F.R. § 1.1206(b)(2).

[^185]: In light of the importance of these rules, the Commission is
    seeking emergency approval from OMB. The Commission will issue a
    public notice announcing the date upon which the information
    collection requirements set forth in this Order shall become
    effective following receipt of such emergency approval.

[^186]: *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).

[^187]: *See* *Notice*, 19 FCC Rcd at 4917, 4919-50, para. 91 & Appendix
    A.

[^188]: *Id*.

[^189]: *See* 5 U.S.C. § 604.

[^190]: *See* SBA Comments; Menard Comments; Menard Reply Comments;
    Letter from Glenn S. Richards, Counsel for VON Coalition, to Marlene
    H. Dortch, Secretary, FCC, WC Docket No. 04-36, Attach. at 7 (filed
    May 12, 2005) (VON Coalition May 12, 2005 *Ex Parte* Letter).

[^191]: *See* SBA Comments at 2, 4, 6; Menard Comments; Menard Reply
    Comments at 4.

[^192]: *See* VON Coalition May 12, 2005 *Ex Parte* Letter at 7.

[^193]: *See* *Notice*, 19 FCC Rcd at 4898-01, paras. 53-57. We reject
    as inaccurate Menard's contention that nowhere in the *Notice* does
    the Commission seek comment on the appropriate grounds on which to
    differentiate among providers of IP‑enabled services. Menard
    Comments at 4 (claiming that the Commission only seeks comment on
    how to distinguish IP-enabled services). The *Notice* specifically
    asks whether the Commission should "distinguish between classes of
    IP-enabled service providers based on the method by which they
    provide \[911/E911\] capabilities." *See* *Notice*, 19 FCC Rcd at
    4900, para. 54.

[^194]: *See* *Notice*, 19 FCC Rcd at 4901, para. 57.

[^195]: *See* *id.* at 4900-01, para. 56.

[^196]: *See* *id.* at 4901, para. 56.

[^197]: *See* 5 U.S.C. § 603(a); *see also Regulatory Requirements for
    IP-Enabled Services*, WC Docket No. 04-36, Notice of Proposed
    Rulemaking, 69 Fed. Reg. 16193-01 (Mar. 29, 2004).

[^198]: *See* *supra* Appendix A.

[^199]: The VON Coalition's May 12, 2005 *ex parte* filing contends
    that, before the Commission may adopt rules in the *IP-Enabled
    Services* proceeding, it "is obligated to contact SBA's Office of
    Size Standards to determine the appropriate size standard for VoIP
    providers." VON Coalition May 12, 2005 *Ex Parte* Letter, Attach. at
    7. This contention is incorrect. The Commission used the appropriate
    size standards for VoIP providers. In addition, the Commission did
    not adopt any special exemptions from the rules adopted today based
    on small business size standards, and therefore we are not obligated
    to obtain prior SBA approval as suggested by the VON Coalition.

[^200]: *See, e.g.*, Order, *supra*, at paras. 4-5.

[^201]: *See* SBA Comments at 4.

[^202]: *See* *id.*

[^203]: *See* Order, *supra*, at para. 23.

[^204]: *See* *id*. at Section III.A.

[^205]: *See* 5 U.S.C. § 604(a)(5).

[^206]: Menard Comments at 3. To the extent it is possible to interpret
    Menard's comments as suggesting that, in order to comply with
    section 603(c), the Commission must anticipate and discuss every
    theoretically possible alternative to the proposed rules that might
    accomplish the stated objectives and minimize any significant
    economic impact on small entities, we find that suggestion to be an
    unreasonable interpretation of the statute. 5 U.S.C. § 603(c).

[^207]: *See, e.g.*, Order, *supra*, at para. 46.

[^208]: *See* 5 U.S.C. § 603(c); Order, *supra*, at paras. 37, 50.

[^209]: *See* Order, *supra*, at para. 38.

[^210]: Menard Comments at 4.

[^211]: *See id.*

[^212]: *See* SBA Comments at 5 (noting that the Commission is
    considering in this and other proceedings such issues as disability
    access, intercarrier compensation and universal service
    obligations).

[^213]: *See Vonage Order*, 19 FCC Rcd at 22405, para. 2; *see also id*.
    at 22432, para. 44 (noting that the Commission might address 911
    issues in the *IP-Enabled Services* proceeding "as soon as possible,
    perhaps even separately").

[^214]: SBA Comments at 5.

[^215]: 47 U.S.C. § 160.

[^216]: *See* 47 U.S.C. § 160.

[^217]: 5 U.S.C. §§ 603(b)(3), 604(a)(3).

[^218]: 5 U.S.C. § 601(6).

[^219]: 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."

[^220]: 15 U.S.C. § 632.

[^221]: *See* SBA, Programs and Services, SBA Pamphlet No. CO-0028, at
    page 40 (July 2002).

[^222]: Independent Sector, The New Nonprofit Almanac & Desk Reference
    (2002).

[^223]: 5 U.S.C. § 601(5).

[^224]: U.S. Census Bureau, Statistical Abstract of the United States:
    2000, Section 9, pages 299-300, Tables 490 and 492.

[^225]: 15 U.S.C. § 632.

[^226]: 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).

[^227]: 13 C.F.R. § 121.201, NAICS code 517110 (changed from 513310 in
    Oct. 2002).

[^228]: FCC, Wireline Competition Bureau, Industry Analysis and
    Technology Division, "Trends in Telephone Service" at Table 5.3,
    page 5-5 (May 2004) ("Trends in Telephone Service"). This source
    uses data that are current as of October 22, 2003.

[^229]: *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 513310 (issued Nov.
    2004). The preliminary data indicate that the total number of
    "establishments" increased from 20,815 to 27, 891. 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.

[^230]: 13 C.F.R. § 121.201, NAICS code 517110 (changed from 513310 in
    Oct. 2002).

[^231]: "Trends in Telephone Service" at Table 5.3.

[^232]: *See* *supra* note Error: Reference source not found.

[^233]: 13 C.F.R. § 121.201, NAICS code 517310 (changed from 513330 in
    Oct. 2002).

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

[^235]: 13 C.F.R. § 121.201, NAICS code 517310 (changed from 513330 in
    Oct. 2002).

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

[^237]: 13 C.F.R. § 121.201, NAICS code 517110 (changed from 513310 in
    Oct. 2002).

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

[^239]: *See* *supra* note Error: Reference source not found.

[^240]: 13 C.F.R. § 121.201, NAICS code 517110 (changed from 513310 in
    Oct. 2002).

[^241]: "Trends in Telephone Service" at Table 5.3.

[^242]: *See* *supra* note Error: Reference source not found.

[^243]: 13 C.F.R. § 121.201, NAICS code 517110 (changed from 513310 in
    Oct. 2002).

[^244]: "Trends in Telephone Service" at Table 5.3.

[^245]: *See* *supra* note Error: Reference source not found.

[^246]: 13 C.F.R. § 121.201, NAICS code 517310 (changed from 513330 in
    Oct. 2002).

[^247]: "Trends in Telephone Service" at Table 5.3.

[^248]: We include all toll-free number subscribers in this category,
    including those for 888 numbers.

[^249]: 13 C.F.R. § 121.201, NAICS code 517310 (changed from 513330 in
    Oct. 2002).

[^250]: *See* FCC, Common Carrier Bureau, Industry Analysis Division,
    *Study on Telephone Trends*, Tables 21.2, 21.3, and 21.4 (Feb.
    1999).

[^251]: 13 C.F.R. § 121.201, NAICS codes 517410 and 517910 (changed from
    513340 and 513390 in Oct. 2002).

[^252]: U.S. Census Bureau, 1997 Economic Census, Subject Series:
    Information, "Establishment and Firm Size (Including Legal Form of
    Organization)," Table 4, NAICS code 513340 (issued Oct. 2000).

[^253]: Office of Management and Budget, North American Industry
    Classification System 513 (1997) (NAICS code 513390, changed to
    517910 in Oct. 2002).

[^254]: U.S. Census Bureau, 1997 Economic Census, Subject Series:
    Information, "Establishment and Firm Size (Including Legal Form of
    Organization)," Table 4, NAICS code 513390 (issued Oct. 2000).

[^255]: 13 C.F.R. § 121.201, NAICS code 513321 (changed to 517211 in
    October 2002).

[^256]: 13 C.F.R. § 121.201, NAICS code 513322 (changed to 517212 in
    October 2002).

[^257]: U.S. Census Bureau, 1997 Economic Census, Subject Series:
    "Information," Table 5, Employment Size of Firms Subject to Federal
    Income Tax: 1997, NAICS code 513321 (issued October 2000).

[^258]: *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."

[^259]: 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 October 2000).

[^260]: *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."

[^261]: *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 513321 (issued Nov.
    2004). The preliminary data indicate that the total number of
    "establishments" decreased from 3,427 to 1,664. 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.

[^262]: *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.

[^263]: 13 C.F.R. § 121.201, NAICS code 513322 (changed to 517212 in
    October 2002).

[^264]: 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 October 2000).

[^265]: *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."

[^266]: "Trends in Telephone Service" at Table 5.3.

[^267]: *Id.*

[^268]: 13 C.F.R. § 121.201, NAICS code 513322 (changed to 517212 in
    October 2002).

[^269]: U.S. Census Bureau, 1997 Economic Census, Subject Series:
    "Information," Table 5, Employment Size of Firms Subject to Federal
    Income Tax: 1997, NAICS code 513321 (issued October 2000).

[^270]: *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."

[^271]: *Amendment of Part 90 of the Commission's Rules to Provide for
    the Use of the 220-222 MHz Band by the Private Land Mobile Radio
    Service*, PR Docket No. 89-552, Third Report and Order and Fifth
    Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, 12 FCC Rcd 10943, 11068-70, paras.
    291-295, 62 FR 16004 (Apr. 3, 1997).

[^272]: *See* Letter to Amy Zoslov, Chief, Auctions and Industry
    Analysis Division, Wireless Telecommunications Bureau, FCC, from A.
    Alvarez, Administrator, SBA (Dec. 2, 1998) (SBA Dec. 2, 1998
    letter).

[^273]: *Revision of Part 22 and Part 90 of the Commission's Rules to
    Facilitate Future Development of Paging Systems*, Memorandum Opinion
    and Order on Reconsideration and Third Report and Order, 14 FCC Rcd
    10030, paras. 98-107 (1999).

[^274]: *Id.* at 10085, para. 98.

[^275]: "Trends in Telephone Service" at Table 5.3.

[^276]: *Id.*

[^277]: SBA Dec. 2, 1998 letter.

[^278]: 13 C.F.R. § 121.201, NAICS code 513322 (changed to 517212 in
    October 2002).

[^279]: *Id.*

[^280]: "Trends in Telephone Service" at Table 5.3.

[^281]: *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).

[^282]: *See PCS Order*, 11 FCC Rcd 7824.

[^283]: *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).

[^284]: 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).

[^285]: *Amendment of the Commission's Rules to Establish New Personal
    Communications Services, Narrowband PCS*, Docket No. ET 92-100,
    Docket No. PP 93-253, Second Report and Order and Second Further
    Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, 15 FCC Rcd 10456, 65 FR 35875 (June
    6, 2000).

[^286]: *See* SBA Dec. 2, 1998 letter.

[^287]: 13 C.F.R. § 121.201, NAICS code 513322 (changed to 517212 in
    October 2002).

[^288]: 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 October 2000).

[^289]: *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."

[^290]: *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.

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

[^292]: *Id.* at 11068, para. 291.

[^293]: *See* Letter to D. Phythyon, Chief, Wireless Telecommunications
    Bureau, Federal Communications Commission, from A. Alvarez,
    Administrator, Small Business Administration (Jan. 6, 1998).

[^294]: *See generally* Public Notice, "220 MHz Service Auction Closes,"
    14 FCC Rcd 605 (1998).

[^295]: *See, e.g.,* Public Notice, "FCC Announces It is Prepared to
    Grant 654 Phase II 220 MHz Licenses After Final Payment is Made," 14
    FCC Rcd 1085 (1999).

[^296]: Public Notice, "Phase II 220 MHz Service Spectrum Auction
    Closes," 14 FCC Rcd 11218 (1999).

[^297]: 47 C.F.R. § 90.814(b)(1).

[^298]: *See* *Service* *Rules for the 746-764 MHz Bands, and Revisions
    to part 27 of the Commission's Rules*, WT Docket No. 99-168, Second
    Report and Order, 65 FR 17599 (Apr. 4, 2000).

[^299]: *See generally* Public Notice, "220 MHz Service Auction Closes,"
    Report No. WT 98-36 (Oct. 23, 1998).

[^300]: Public Notice, "700 MHz Guard Band Auction Closes," DA 01-478
    (rel. Feb. 22, 2001).

[^301]: The service is defined in section 22.99 of the Commission's
    Rules, 47 C.F.R. § 22.99.

[^302]: BETRS is defined in sections 22.757 and 22.759 of the
    Commission's Rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 22.757 and 22.759.

[^303]: 13 C.F.R. § 121.201, NAICS code 517212.

[^304]: The service is defined in section 22.99 of the Commission's
    Rules, 47 C.F.R. § 22.99.

[^305]: 13 C.F.R. § 121.201, NAICS codes 517212.

[^306]: 13 C.F.R. § 121.201, NAICS code 513322 (changed to 517212 in
    October 2002).

[^307]: *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).

[^308]: *See* 47 C.F.R. §§ 101 *et seq*. (formerly, Part 21 of the
    Commission's Rules) for common carrier fixed microwave services
    (except Multipoint Distribution Service).

[^309]: Persons eligible under parts 80 and 90 of the Commission's Rules
    can use Private Operational-Fixed Microwave services. *See* 47
    C.F.R. Parts 80 and 90. Stations in this service are called
    operational-fixed to distinguish them from common carrier and public
    fixed stations. Only the licensee may use the operational-fixed
    station, and only for communications related to the licensee's
    commercial, industrial, or safety operations.

[^310]: Auxiliary Microwave Service is governed by Part 74 of Title 47
    of the Commission's rules. *See* 47 C.F.R. Part 74. This service is
    available to licensees of broadcast stations and to broadcast and
    cable network entities. Broadcast auxiliary microwave stations are
    used for relaying broadcast television signals from the studio to
    the transmitter, or between two points such as a main studio and an
    auxiliary studio. The service also includes mobile television
    pickups, which relay signals from a remote location back to the
    studio.

[^311]: 13 C.F.R. § 121.201, NAICS code 517212.

[^312]: This service is governed by Subpart I of Part 22 of the
    Commission's rules. *See* 47 C.F.R. §§ 22.1001-22.1037.

[^313]: 13 C.F.R. § 121.201, NAICS code 513322 (changed to 517212 in
    October 2002).

[^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, 63 Fed. Reg. 6079 (Feb. 6, 1998).

[^316]: *Id.*

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

[^318]: *Amendment of Parts 21 and 74 of the Commission's Rules with
    Regard to Filing Procedures in the Multipoint Distribution Service
    and in the Instructional Television Fixed Service and Implementation
    of Section 309(j) of the Communications Act -- Competitive Bidding*,
    MM Docket No. 94-131 and PP Docket No. 93-253, Report and Order, 10
    FCC Rcd 9589, 9593, para. 7 (1995).

[^319]: 47 C.F.R. § 21.961(b)(1).

[^320]: 13 C.F.R. § 121.201, NAICS code 513220 (changed to 517510 in
    October 2002).

[^321]: U.S. Census Bureau, 1997 Economic Census, Subject Series:
    Information, "Establishment and Firm Size (Including Legal Form of
    Organization)", Table 4, NAICS code 513220 (issued October 2000).

[^322]: In addition, the term "small entity" within 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.

[^323]: *See Local Multipoint Distribution Service*, Second Report and
    Order, 12 FCC Rcd 12545 (1997).

[^324]: *Id.*

[^325]: *See* *id*.

[^326]: *See* Letter to Dan Phythyon, Chief, Wireless Telecommunications
    Bureau, FCC, from Aida Alvarez, Administrator, SBA (Jan. 6, 1998).

[^327]: *Implementation of Section 309(j) of the Communications Act --
    Competitive Bidding*, PP Docket No. 93-253, Fourth Report and Order,
    59 Fed. Reg. 24947 (May 13, 1994).

[^328]: *Amendment of Part 95 of the Commission's Rules to Provide
    Regulatory Flexibility in the 218-219 MHz Service*, WT Docket No.
    98-169, Report and Order and Memorandum Opinion and Order, 64 Fed.
    Reg. 59656 (Nov. 3, 1999).

[^329]: *Amendment of Part 95 of the Commission's Rules to Provide
    Regulatory Flexibility in the 218-219 MHz Service*, WT Docket No.
    98-169, Report and Order and Memorandum Opinion and Order, 64 Fed.
    Reg. 59656 (Nov. 3, 1999).

[^330]: 13 C.F.R. § 121.201, NAICS code 513322 (changed to 517212 in
    October 2002).

[^331]: 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).

[^332]: *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."

[^333]: 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.

[^334]: *Amendments to Parts 1,2, 87 and 101 of the Commission's Rules
    to License Fixed Services at 24 GHz*, Report and Order, 15 FCC Rcd
    16934, 16967 (2000); *see also* 47 C.F.R. § 101.538(a)(2).

[^335]: *Amendments to Parts 1,2, 87 and 101 of the Commission's Rules
    to License Fixed Services at 24 GHz*, Report and Order, 15 FCC Rcd
    16934, 16967 (2000); *see also* 47 C.F.R. § 101.538(a)(1).

[^336]: *See* Letter to Margaret W. Wiener, Deputy Chief, Auctions and
    Industry Analysis Division, Wireless Telecommunications Bureau, FCC,
    from Gary M. Jackson, Assistant Administrator, SBA (July 28, 2000).

[^337]: 13 C.F.R. § 121.201, North American Industry Classification
    System (NAICS) code 513220 (changed to 517510 in October 2002).

[^338]: U.S. Census Bureau, 1997 Economic Census, Subject Series:
    Information, "Establishment and Firm Size (Including Legal Form of
    Organization)," Table 4, NAICS code 513220 (issued October 2000).

[^339]: 47 C.F.R. § 76.901(e). The Commission developed this definition
    based on its determination that a small cable system operator is one
    with annual revenues of \$100 million or less. *Implementation of
    Sections of the 1992 Cable Act: Rate Regulation,* Sixth Report and
    Order and Eleventh Order on Reconsideration, 10 FCC Rcd 7393 (1995),
    60 FR 10534 (Feb. 27, 1995).

[^340]: Paul Kagan Associates, Inc., *Cable TV Investor*, February 29,
    1996 (based on figures for December 30, 1995).

[^341]: 47 U.S.C. § 543(m)(2).

[^342]: *See FCC Announces New Subscriber Count for the Definition of
    Small Cable Operator*, Public Notice DA 01‑158 (Jan. 24, 2001).

[^343]: 47 C.F.R. § 76.901(f).

[^344]: *See* *FCC Announces New Subscriber Count for the Definition of
    Small Cable Operators*, Public Notice, DA 01‑0158 (rel. Jan. 24,
    2001).

[^345]: 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).

[^346]: *See* 47 U.S.C. § 573.

[^347]: 13 C.F.R. § 121.201, NAICS code 513220 (changed to 517510 in
    October 2002).

[^348]: *See* \<http://www.fcc.gov/csb/ovs/csovscer.html\> (current as
    of March 2002).

[^349]: U.S. Census Bureau, "2002 NAICS Definitions: 518111 Internet
    Service Providers" (Feb. 2004) \<www.census.gov\>.

[^350]: 13 C.F.R. § 121.201, NAICS code 518111 (changed from previous
    code 514191, "On-Line Information Services," in Oct. 2002).

[^351]: U.S. Census Bureau, 1997 Economic Census, Subject Series:
    Information, "Establishment and Firm Size (Including Legal Form of
    Organization)," Table 4, NAICS code 514191 (issued Oct. 2000).

[^352]: *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 514191 (issued Nov.
    2004). The preliminary data indicate that the total number of
    "establishments" increased from 4,165 to 4,394. 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.

[^353]: U.S. Census Bureau, "2002 NAICS Definitions: 518112 Web Search
    Portals" (Feb. 2004) \<www.census.gov\>.

[^354]: 13 C.F.R. § 121.201, NAICS code 518112 (changed from 514199 in
    Oct. 2002).

[^355]: 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.

[^356]: U.S. Census Bureau, "2002 NAICS Definitions: 518210 Data
    Processing, Hosting, and Related Services" (Feb. 2004)
    \<www.census.gov\>.

[^357]: 13 C.F.R. § 121.201, NAICS code 518210 (changed from 514210 in
    Oct. 2002).

[^358]: U.S. Census Bureau, 1997 Economic Census, Subject Series:
    Information, "Establishment and Firm Size (Including Legal Form of
    Organization)," Table 4, NAICS code 514210 (issued Oct. 2000).

[^359]: U.S. Census Bureau, "2002 NAICS Definitions: 519190 All Other
    Information Services" (Feb. 2004) \<www.census.gov\>.

[^360]: 13 C.F.R. § 121.201, NAICS code 519190 (changed from 514199 in
    Oct. 2002).

[^361]: 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.

[^362]: U.S. Census Bureau, "2002 NAICS Definitions: 516110 Internet
    Publishing and Broadcasting" (Feb. 2004) \<www.census.gov\>.

[^363]: 13 C.F.R. § 121.201, NAICS code 516110 (derived from 514199 and
    other 1997 codes).

[^364]: 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 portions
    of numerous 1997 categories.

[^365]: 13 C.F.R. § 121.201, NAICS codes 511210, 541511, and 541519.

[^366]: U.S. Census Bureau, 1997 Economic Census, Subject Series:
    Information, "Establishment and Firm Size (Including Legal Form of
    Organization)," Table 4, NAICS code 511210 (issued Oct. 2000).

[^367]: U.S. Census Bureau, 1997 Economic Census, Subject Series:
    Professional, Scientific, and Technical Services, "Establishment and
    Firm Size (Including Legal Form of Organization)," Table 4a, NAICS
    code 541511 (issued Oct. 2000).

[^368]: U.S. Census Bureau, 1997 Economic Census, Subject Series:
    Professional, Scientific, and Technical Services, "Establishment and
    Firm Size (Including Legal Form of Organization)," Table 4a, NAICS
    code 541519 (issued Oct. 2000).

[^369]: Office of Management and Budget, North American Industry
    Classification System 308-09 (1997) (NAICS code 334220).

[^370]: 13 C.F.R. § 121.201, NAICS code 334220.

[^371]: 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 1997, which were 1,089.

[^372]: U.S. Census Bureau, 1997 Economic Census, Industry Series:
    Manufacturing, "Industry Statistics by Employment Size," Table 4,
    NAICS code 334220 (issued Aug. 1999).

[^373]: *Id*. at Table 5.

[^374]: Office of Management and Budget, North American Industry
    Classification System 308 (1997) (NAICS code 334210).

[^375]: *Id*.

[^376]: 13 C.F.R. § 121.201, NAICS code 334210.

[^377]: U.S. Census Bureau, 1997 Economic Census, Industry Series:
    Manufacturing, "Telephone Apparatus Manufacturing," Table 4, NAICS
    code 334210 (issued Sept. 1999).

[^378]: Office of Management and Budget, North American Industry
    Classification System 306 (1997) (NAICS code 334111).

[^379]: 13 C.F.R. § 121.201, NAICS code 334111.

[^380]: U.S. Census Bureau, 1997 Economic Census, Industry Series:
    Manufacturing, "Electronic Computer Manufacturing," Table 4, NAICS
    code 334111 (issued Aug. 1999).

[^381]: Office of Management and Budget, North American Industry
    Classification System 307 (1997) (NAICS code 334113).

[^382]: 13 C.F.R. § 121.201, NAICS code 334113.

[^383]: U.S. Census Bureau, 1997 Economic Census, Industry Series:
    Manufacturing, "Computer Terminal Manufacturing," Table 4, NAICS
    code 334113 (issued Aug. 1999).

[^384]: Office of Management and Budget, North American Industry
    Classification System 307-08 (1997) (NAICS code 334119).

[^385]: 13 C.F.R. § 121.201, NAICS code 334119.

[^386]: U.S. Census Bureau, 1997 Economic Census, Industry Series:
    Manufacturing, "Other Computer Peripheral Equipment Manufacturing,"
    Table 4, NAICS code 334119 (issued Aug. 1999).

[^387]: Office of Management and Budget, North American Industry
    Classification System 330 (1997) (NAICS code 335921).

[^388]: 13 C.F.R. § 121.201, NAICS code 335921.

[^389]: U.S. Census Bureau, 1997 Economic Census, Industry Series:
    Manufacturing, "Fiber Optic Cable Manufacturing," Table 4, NAICS
    code 335921 (issued Nov. 1999).

[^390]: Office of Management and Budget, North American Industry
    Classification System 331 (1997) (NAICS code 335929).

[^391]: 13 C.F.R. § 121.201, NAICS code 335929.

[^392]: U.S. Census Bureau, 1997 Economic Census, Industry Series:
    Manufacturing, "Other Communication and Energy Wire Manufacturing,"
    Table 4, NAICS code 335929 (issued Nov. 1999).

[^393]: U.S. Census Bureau, "2002 NAICS Definitions: 334310 Audio and
    Video Equipment Manufacturing" (Feb. 2004) \<www.census.gov\>.

[^394]: 13 C.F.R. § 121.201, NAICS code 334310.

[^395]: U.S. Census Bureau, 1997 Economic Census, Industry Series:
    Manufacturing, "Audio and Video Equipment Manufacturing," Table 4,
    NAICS code 334310 (issued Aug. 1999).

[^396]: U.S. Census Bureau, "2002 NAICS Definitions: 334411 Electron
    Tube Manufacturing" (Feb. 2004) \<www.census.gov\>.

[^397]: 13 C.F.R. § 121.201, NAICS code 334411.

[^398]: U.S. Census Bureau, 1997 Economic Census, Industry Series:
    Manufacturing, "Electron Tube Manufacturing," Table 4, NAICS code
    334411 (issued July 1999).

[^399]: U.S. Census Bureau, "2002 NAICS Definitions: 334412 Bare Printed
    Circuit Board Manufacturing" (Feb. 2004) \<www.census.gov\>.

[^400]: 13 C.F.R. § 121.201, NAICS code 334412.

[^401]: U.S. Census Bureau, 1997 Economic Census, Industry Series:
    Manufacturing, "Bare Printed Circuit Board Manufacturing," Table 4,
    NAICS code 334412 (issued Aug. 1999).

[^402]: U.S. Census Bureau, "2002 NAICS Definitions: 334413
    Semiconductor and Related Device Manufacturing" (Feb. 2004)
    \<www.census.gov\>.

[^403]: 13 C.F.R. § 121.201, NAICS code 334413.

[^404]: U.S. Census Bureau, 1997 Economic Census, Industry Series:
    Manufacturing, "Semiconductor and Related Device Manufacturing ,"
    Table 4, NAICS code 334413 (issued July 1999).

[^405]: U.S. Census Bureau, "2002 NAICS Definitions: 334414 Electronic
    Capacitor Manufacturing" (Feb. 2004) \<www.census.gov\>.

[^406]: 13 C.F.R. § 121.201, NAICS code 334414.

[^407]: U.S. Census Bureau, 1997 Economic Census, Industry Series:
    Manufacturing, "Electronic Capacitor Manufacturing," Table 4, NAICS
    code 334414 (issued July 1999).

[^408]: U.S. Census Bureau, "2002 NAICS Definitions: 334415 Electronic
    Resistor Manufacturing" (Feb. 2004) \<www.census.gov\>.

[^409]: 13 C.F.R. § 121.201, NAICS code 334415.

[^410]: U.S. Census Bureau, 1997 Economic Census, Industry Series:
    Manufacturing, "Electronic Resistor Manufacturing," Table 4, NAICS
    code 334415 (issued Aug. 1999).

[^411]: U.S. Census Bureau, "2002 NAICS Definitions: 334416 Electronic
    Coil, Transformer, and Other Inductor Manufacturing" (Feb. 2004)
    \<www.census.gov\>.

[^412]: 13 C.F.R. § 121.201, NAICS code 334416.

[^413]: U.S. Census Bureau, 1997 Economic Census, Industry Series:
    Manufacturing, "Electronic Coil, Transformer, and Other Inductor
    Manufacturing," Table 4, NAICS code 334416 (issued Aug. 1999).

[^414]: U.S. Census Bureau, "2002 NAICS Definitions: 334417 Electronic
    Connector Manufacturing" (Feb. 2004) \<www.census.gov\>.

[^415]: 13 C.F.R. § 121.201, NAICS code 334417.

[^416]: U.S. Census Bureau, 1997 Economic Census, Industry Series:
    Manufacturing, "Electronic Connector Manufacturing," Table 4, NAICS
    code 334417 (issued July 1999).

[^417]: U.S. Census Bureau, "2002 NAICS Definitions: 334418 Printed
    Circuit Assembly (Electronic Assembly) Manufacturing" (Feb. 2004)
    \<www.census.gov\>.

[^418]: 13 C.F.R. § 121.201, NAICS code 334418.

[^419]: U.S. Census Bureau, 1997 Economic Census, Industry Series:
    Manufacturing, "Printed Circuit Assembly (Electronic Assembly)
    Manufacturing," Table 4, NAICS code 334418 (issued Sept. 1999).

[^420]: U.S. Census Bureau, "2002 NAICS Definitions: 334419 Other
    Electronic Component Manufacturing" (Feb. 2004) \<www.census.gov\>.

[^421]: 13 C.F.R. § 121.201, NAICS code 334419.

[^422]: U.S. Census Bureau, 1997 Economic Census, Industry Series:
    Manufacturing, "Other Electronic Component Manufacturing," Table 4,
    NAICS code 334419 (issued Aug. 1999).

[^423]: U.S. Census Bureau, "2002 NAICS Definitions: 334112 Computer
    Storage Device Manufacturing" (Feb. 2004) \<www.census.gov\>.

[^424]: 13 C.F.R. § 121.201, NAICS code 334112.

[^425]: U.S. Census Bureau, 1997 Economic Census, Industry Series:
    Manufacturing, "Computer Storage Device Manufacturing," Table 4,
    NAICS code 334112 (issued July 1999).

[^426]: The term "Registered Location" is defined in the Order, *supra*,
    at para. 46.

[^427]: *See* Order, *supra*, at para. 48.

[^428]: *See id.* at para. 50.

[^429]: 47 C.F.R. § 64.3001; *see also N11 Codes Fifth Report and
    Order*, 16 FCC Rcd 22269-77, paras. 10-31.

[^430]: Providers must also use Pseudo-ANI if necessary. The terms "ANI"
    and "Pseudo-ANI" as used herein have the same meanings as those set
    forth in section 20.3 of the Commission's rules. 47 C.F.R. § 20.3.

[^431]: The term Wireline E911 Network is defined in the Order, *supra*,
    at para. 14.

[^432]: *See* Order, *supra*, at para. 43.

[^433]: 5 U.S.C. § 603(c).

[^434]: *See Notice*, 19 FCC Rcd at 4900, para. 56.

[^435]: *See id.* at 4900-01, para. 56.

[^436]: *See id.* at 4901, para. 56.

[^437]: *See id.* at 4901, para. 56.

[^438]: *See id.* at 4899, para. 53.

[^439]: *See id.* at 4898, para. 53.

[^440]: *See id.* at 4898-99, para. 53.

[^441]: *See* *supra*, Order, Section III.A.

[^442]: *See, e.g.*, *id.* at paras. 4-5.

[^443]: *See* Order, *supra*, at para. 38; *see also* *Notice*, 19 FCC
    Rcd at 4901, para. 56.

[^444]: *See* Order, *supra*, at para. 50.

[^445]: *See* *Notice*, 19 FCC Rcd at 4901, para. 57.

[^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. §§ 601-12, has
    been amended by the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness
    Act of 1996 (SBREFA), Pub. L. No. 104-121, 110 Stat. 857 (1996).

[^449]: *See* 5 U.S.C. § 603(a).

[^450]: *See* 5 U.S.C. § 603(a).

[^451]: In the Order, the Commission concluded that interconnected VoIP
    service providers must provide E911 capabilities to their customers
    as a standard feature of service. The Order requires providers of
    interconnected VoIP service to provide E911 service no matter where
    the customer is using the service, whether at home or away. *See*
    Order, *supra*, at para. 37.

[^452]: *See* 42 U.S.C. §§ 12131-34. Pursuant to the ADA requirements,
    telephone emergency services, including 911 services, are required
    to provide direct access to individuals who use TDDs (or as now
    commonly called, TTYs) and computer modems, without relying on
    outside relay services or third party services. *See* 28 C.F.R. §
    35.162; *see also* 28 C.F.R. § 35.160(a) (providing that a public
    entity shall "take appropriate steps to ensure that communications
    with applicants, participants, and members of the public with
    disabilities are as effective as communications with others"); 28
    C.F.R. § 35.161 (stating that "\[w\]here a public entity
    communicates by telephone with applicants and beneficiaries, TDD's
    or equally effective telecommunication systems shall be used to
    communicate with individuals with impaired hearing or speech").

[^453]: *Disability Access Order*, 16 FCC Rcd at 6483-84, para. 175;
    *see generally id*. at 6483-6486, paras. 173-85.

[^454]: 5 U.S.C. §§ 603(b)(3), 604(a)(3).

[^455]: 5 U.S.C. § 601(6).

[^456]: 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."

[^457]: 15 U.S.C. § 632.

[^458]: *See* SBA, Programs and Services, SBA Pamphlet No. CO-0028, at
    page 40 (July 2002).

[^459]: Independent Sector, The New Nonprofit Almanac & Desk Reference
    (2002).

[^460]: 5 U.S.C. § 601(5).

[^461]: U.S. Census Bureau, Statistical Abstract of the United States:
    2000, Section 9, pages 299-300, Tables 490 and 492.

[^462]: 5 U.S.C. § 603(c).

[^463]: *See* NPRM, *supra*, paras. 56, 58.