Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 39 / Monday, February 28, 2011 / Proposed Rules 10827 

and safety, and other advantages; 

distributive impacts; and equity). HRSA 

believes that this proposed rule is not a 

significant regulatory action under the 

Executive Order. 

The Regulatory Flexibility Act 

requires agencies to analyze regulatory 

options that would minimize any 

significant impact of a rule on small 

entities. Because this proposed rule 

simply updates an existing regulation to 

add further details to the description of 

certain situations that are covered by the 

FTCA, and because such coverage is 

provided for under Federal law, HRSA 

certifies that the rule will not have a 

significant economic impact on a 

substantial number of small entities. 

Section 202(a) of the Unfunded 

Mandates Reform Act of 1995 requires 

that agencies prepare a written 

statement, which includes an 

assessment of anticipated costs and 

benefits, before proposing ‘‘any rule that 

includes any Federal mandate that may 

result in the expenditure by State, local, 

and Tribal governments, in the 

aggregate, or by the private sector, of 

$100,000,000 or more (adjusted 

annually for inflation) in any one year.’’ 

HRSA does not expect this proposed 

rule to result in any one-year 

expenditure that would meet or exceed 

this amount. 

Paperwork Reduction Act 

This rule does not contain any new 

information collection or recordkeeping 

requirements that fall under the 

purview of the Paperwork Reduction 

Act of 1995. The recordkeeping 

requirements contained in this rule are 

part of normal business practice and do 

not require the collection of new 

information or impose additional 

requirements beyond current routine 

practice. 

List of Subjects in 42 CFR Part 6 

Emergency medical services, Health 

care, Health facilities, Tort claims. 

Dated: May 27, 2010. 

Mary Wakefield, 

Administrator, Health Resources and Services 

Administration. 

Approved: January 24, 2011. 

Kathleen Sebelius, 

Secretary. 

For the reasons stated in the 

preamble, we are proposing to amend 42 

CFR part 6 as follows: 

PART 6—FEDERAL TORT CLAIMS 

ACT COVERAGE OF CERTAIN 

GRANTEES AND INDIVIDUALS 

1. The authority citation for part 6 

continues to read as follows: 

Authority: Sections 215 and 224 of the 

Public Health Service Act, 42 U.S.C. 216 and 

233. 

2. In § 6.6, revise paragraph (e) to read 

as follows: 

§ 6.6 Covered acts and omissions. 

* * * * * 

(e) For the specific activities 

described in this paragraph, when 

carried out by an entity that has been 

covered under paragraph (c) of this 

section, the Department has determined 

that coverage is provided under 

paragraph (d) of this section, without 

the need for specific application for a 

coverage determination under paragraph 

(d) of this section, if the activity or 

arrangement in question fits squarely 

within the examples of activities listed 

below; otherwise, the health center 

should seek a particularized 

determination of coverage under 

paragraph (d) of this section. 

(1) Community-Wide Interventions. (i) 

School-Based Clinics. Health center staff 

provide primary and preventive health 

care services at a facility located in a 

school or on school grounds. The health 

center has a written affiliation 

agreement with the school. 

(ii) School-Linked Clinics. Health 

center staff provide primary and 

preventive health care services, at a site 

not located on school grounds, to 

students of one or more schools. The 

health center has a written affiliation 

agreement with each school. 

(iii) Health Fairs. Health center staff 

conduct an event to attract community 

members for purposes of performing 

health assessments. Such events may be 

held in the health center, outside on its 

grounds, or elsewhere in the 

community. 

(iv) Immunization Campaigns. Health 

center staff conduct an event to 

immunize individuals against infectious 

illnesses. The event may be held at the 

health center, schools, or elsewhere in 

the community. 

(v) Migrant Camp Outreach. Health 

center staff travel to a migrant 

farmworker residence camp to conduct 

intake screening to determine those in 

need of clinic services (which may 

mean health care is provided at the time 

of such intake activity or during 

subsequent clinic staff visits to the 

camp). 

(vi) Homeless Outreach. Health center 

staff travel to a shelter for homeless 

persons, or a street location where 

homeless persons congregate, to 

conduct intake screening to determine 

those in need of clinic services (which 

may mean health care is provided at the 

time of such intake activity or during 

subsequent clinic staff visits to that 

location). 

(2) Hospital-Related Activities. 

Periodic hospital call or hospital 

emergency room coverage is required by 

the hospital as a condition for obtaining 

hospital admitting privileges. There 

must also be documentation for the 

particular health care provider that this 

coverage is a condition of employment 

at the health center. 

(3) Coverage-Related Activities. As 

part of a health center’s arrangement 

with local community providers for 

after-hours coverage of its patients, the 

health center’s providers are required by 

their employment contract to provide 

periodic or occasional cross-coverage for 

patients of these providers. 

(4) Coverage in Certain Individual 

Emergencies. A health center provider is 

providing or undertaking to provide 

covered services to a health center 

patient within the approved scope of 

project of the center, or to an individual 

who is not a patient of the health center 

under the conditions set forth in this 

rule, when the provider is then asked, 

called upon, or undertakes, at or near 

that location and as the result of a nonhealth center patient’s emergency 

situation, to temporarily treat or assist 

in treating that non-health center 

patient. In addition to any other 

documentation required for the original 

services, the health center must have 

documentation (such as employee 

manual provisions, health center 

bylaws, or an employee contract) that 

the provision of individual emergency 

treatment, when the practitioner is 

already providing or undertaking to 

provide covered services, is a condition 

of employment at the health center. 

[FR Doc. 2011–3439 Filed 2–25–11; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4160–15–P 

FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS 

COMMISSION 

47 CFR Parts 1, 20, and 43 

[WCB: WC Docket Nos. 07–38, 09–190, 10– 

132, 11–10; FCC 11–14] 

Modernizing the FCC Form 477 Data 

Program 

AGENCY: Federal Communications 

Commission. 

ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking. 

SUMMARY: In this document, the 

Commission considers whether and 

how to reform the Form 477 data 

program, which serves as the 

Commission’s primary tool for 

collecting broadband and local 

telephone data. The Commission 


srobinson on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with PROPOSALS
10828 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 39 / Monday, February 28, 2011 / Proposed Rules 

believes it is time to consider whether 

modifying the Form 477 will improve 

the Commission’s ability to carry out its 

duties under the Communications Act 

of 1934, as amended (the Act), and is an 

important part of the Commission’s 

larger initiative to modernize and 

streamline how the Commission 

collects, uses, and disseminates data. 

DATES: Comments are due on or before 

March 30, 2011, and reply comments 

are due on or before April 14, 2011. 

Written comments on the Paperwork 

Reduction Act proposed or modified 

information collection requirements 

must be submitted by the public, Office 

of Management and Budget (OMB), and 

other interested parties on or before 

April 29, 2011. 

ADDRESSES: You may submit comments, 

identified by WC Docket No.11–10, by 

any of the following methods: 

• Federal eRulemaking Portal: http:// 

www.regulations.gov. Follow the 

instructions for submitting comments. 

• Federal Communications 

Commission’s Web Site: http:// 

fjallfoss.fcc.gov/ecfs2/. Follow the 

instructions for submitting comments. 

• People with Disabilities: Contact the 

FCC to request reasonable 

accommodations (accessible format 

documents, sign language interpreters, 

CART, etc.) by e-mail: FCC504@fcc.gov 

or phone: (202) 418–0530 or TTY: (202) 

418–0432. 

For detailed instructions for submitting 

comments and additional information 

on the rulemaking process, see the 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION section of 

this document. In addition to filing 

comments with the Secretary, a copy of 

any comments on the Paperwork 

Reduction Act information collection 

requirements contained herein should 

be submitted to the Federal 

Communications Commission via e-mail 

to PRA@fcc.gov and to Nicholas A. 

Fraser, Office of Management and 

Budget, via e-mail to 

Nicholas_A._Fraser@omb.eop.gov or via 

fax at 202–395–5167. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Jeremy Miller at (202) 418–1507, 

Wireline Competition Bureau, Industry 

Analysis and Technology Division. For 

additional information concerning the 

Paperwork Reduction Act information 

collection requirements contained in 

this document, send an e-mail to 

PRA@fcc.gov or contact Judith Boley 

Herman at 202–418–0214. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: This is a 

synopsis of the Commission’s Notice of 

Proposed Rulemaking in WC Docket 

Nos. 07–38, 09–190, 10–132 and 11–10, 

adopted and released on February 8, 

2011. The complete text of this 

document is available for inspection 

and copying during normal business 

hours in the FCC Reference Information 

Center, Portals II, 445 12th Street, SW., 

Room CY–A257, Washington, DC 20554. 

The document may also be purchased 

from the Commission’s duplicating 

contractor, Best Copy and Printing, Inc., 

445 12th Street, SW., Room CY–B402, 

Washington, DC 20554, telephone (800) 

378–3160 or (202) 863–2893, facsimile 

(202) 863–2898, or via the Internet at 

http://www.bcpiweb.com. It is also 

available on the Commission’s Web site 

at http://www.fcc.gov. 

Pursuant to §§ 1.415 and 1.419 of the 

Commission’s rules, 47 CFR 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. 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, May 1, 1998. 

• Electronic Filers: Comments may be 

filed electronically using the Internet by 

accessing the ECFS: http://www.fcc.gov/ 

cgb/ecfs/ or the Federal eRulemaking 

Portal: http://www.regulations.gov. 

Filers should follow the instructions 

provided on the Web site for submitting 

comments. 

Æ 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 email 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. 

Æ 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. 

Æ The Commission’s contractor will 

receive hand-delivered or messengerdelivered 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 a.m. to 7 p.m. All 

hand deliveries must be held together 

with rubber bands or fasteners. Any 

envelopes must be disposed of before 

entering the building. 

Æ 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. 

Æ U.S. Postal Service first-class, 

Express, and Priority mail should be 

addressed to 445 12th Street, SW., 

Washington, DC 20554. 

People with Disabilities: To request 

materials in accessible formats for 

people with disabilities (Braille, large 

print, electronic files, audio format), 

send an e-mail to fcc504@fcc.gov or call 

the Consumer & Governmental Affairs 

Bureau at (202) 418–0530 (voice) or 

(202) 418–0432 (TTY). Contact the FCC 

to request reasonable accommodations 

for filing comments (accessible format 

documents, sign language interpreters, 

CART, etc.) by e-mail: fcc504@fcc.gov; 

phone: (202) 418–0530 or (202) 418– 

0432 (TTY). 

In addition, one copy of each pleading 

must be sent to each of the following: 

Æ The Commission’s duplicating 

contractor, Best Copy and Printing, Inc., 

445 12th Street, SW., Room CY–B402, 

Washington, DC 20554; Web site: http:// 

www.bcpiweb.com; phone: 1–800–378– 

3160; and 

Æ Jeremy Miller, Competition Policy 

Division, Industry Analysis and 

Technology Division, 445 12th Street, 

SW., Room 5–B145, Washington, DC 

20554; e-mail: Jeremy.Miller@fcc.gov or 

telephone number (202) 418–1507. 

Filings and comments are also 

available for public inspection and 

copying during regular business hours 

at the FCC Reference Information 

Center, Portals II, 445 12th Street, SW., 

Room CY–A257, Washington, DC, 

20554. Copies may also be purchased 

from the Commission’s duplicating 

contractor, BCPI, 445 12th Street, SW., 

Room CY–B402, Washington, DC 20554. 

Customers may contact BCPI through its 

Web site: 

http://www.bcpiweb.com, by e-mail at 

fcc@bcpiweb.com, by telephone at (202) 

488–5300 or (800) 378–3160 (voice), 

(202) 488–5562 (TTY), or by facsimile at 

(202) 488–5563. 


srobinson on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 39 / Monday, February 28, 2011 / Proposed Rules 10829 

Comments and reply comments must 

include a short and concise summary of 

the substantive arguments raised in the 

pleading. Comments and reply 

comments must also comply with § 1.49 

and all other applicable sections of the 

Commission’s rules. We direct all 

interested parties to include the name of 

the filing party and the date of the filing 

on each page of their comments and 

reply comments. All parties are 

encouraged to utilize a table of contents, 

regardless of the length of their 

submission. We also strongly encourage 

parties to track the organization set forth 

in the NPRM in order to facilitate our 

internal review process. 

Initial Paperwork Reduction Act of 

1995 Analysis 

This document proposes new or 

revised information collection 

requirements. The reporting 

requirements, if any, that might be 

adopted pursuant to this NPRM are too 

speculative at this time to request 

comment from the OMB or interested 

parties under section 3507(d) of the 

Paperwork Reduction Act, 44 U.S.C. 

3507(d). Therefore, if the Commission 

determines that reporting is required, it 

will seek comment from the OMB and 

interested parties prior to any such 

requirements taking effect. Nevertheless, 

interested parties are encouraged to 

comment on whether any new or 

revised information collection is 

necessary, and if so, how the 

Commission might minimize the burden 

of any such collection. In addition, 

pursuant to the Small Business 

Paperwork Relief Act of 2002, we will 

seek specific comment on how we might 

‘‘further reduce the information 

collection burden for small business 

concerns with fewer than 25 

employees.’’ Nevertheless, interested 

parties are encouraged to comment on 

whether any new or revised information 

collection is necessary, and if so, how 

the Commission might minimize the 

burden of any such collection. 

Synopsis of the Further Notice of 

Proposed Rulemaking 

I. Introduction 

1. In this Notice of Proposed 

Rulemaking (NPRM), we seek comment 

on whether and how to reform the Form 

477 data program to improve the 

Commission’s ability to carry out its 

statutory duties, while streamlining and 

minimizing the overall costs of the 

program, including the burdens 

imposed on service providers. This 

NPRM is an important part of our larger 

Data Innovation Initiative to modernize 

and streamline how we collect, use, and 

disseminate data, and to ensure that all 

of the data we collect is useful for 

supporting informed policymaking, 

promoting competition, and protecting 

consumers. We are focused on giving 

careful consideration to the benefits and 

burdens of our data collections, and 

eliminating unnecessary collections 

where possible. For example, the 

Initiative already has identified over 

twenty data collections across the entire 

Commission that may be outdated and 

ripe for elimination, as well as a number 

of statutory reporting obligations that 

may have outlived their usefulness. 

Similarly, for each type of data 

discussed in this NPRM, we will 

consider the burdens and benefits of any 

proposed changes. Our goal is to ensure 

that the Commission has the data it 

needs, while minimizing the overall 

burdens of data collection. 

2. Established in 2000, Form 477 is 

the Commission’s primary tool for 

collecting data about broadband and 

local telephone networks and services. 

The form requires providers of 

broadband service, local telephone 

service, interconnected Voice over 

Internet Protocol (VoIP) service, and 

mobile telephone service to report the 

number of subscribers they have in their 

respective service areas. But the 

Commission has in the past noted 

shortcomings of the data collected using 

Form 477, and after more than a decade 

of rapid innovation in the market for 

broadband and telephone services, and 

consistent with the Government 

Accountability Office’s (GAO) recent 

finding that the Commission’s 

broadband data collection fails to collect 

key data required to inform policy 

decisions and generally needs 

improvement, we believe it may be time 

to modify Form 477 to better serve the 

needs of the Commission, Congress, 

service providers, and consumers. In 

fact, since the last modification of Form 

477, Congress directed the FCC to 

collect additional information to 

supplement its analysis of broadband 

deployment and availability. As we 

have noted before, Form 477 collects 

data that are ‘‘a critical precursor’’ to the 

Commission’s ability to fulfill its 

statutory duties, and provides the 

Commission with ‘‘a set of data of 

uniform quality and reliability’’ superior 

to other publicly available information 

sources. Form 477 also enables us to 

fulfill our obligation to reduce 

government regulation wherever 

possible, by providing ‘‘a factual basis to 

evaluate the nature and impact of our 

existing regulation and, in particular, to 

identify areas where competition has 

developed sufficiently to justify 

deregulation.’’ 

II. Background 

A. Form 477 Data Program 

3. Development of FCC Form 477. The 

Commission initiated the Form 477 data 

program in May 2000 to ‘‘materially 

improve its ability to develop, evaluate, 

and revise policy’’ for broadband and 

telephone services, and ‘‘to provide 

valuable benchmarks for Congress, the 

Commission, other policy makers, and 

consumers.’’ The Commission designed 

the program as a standardized 

collection, with separate sections on 

subscriptions to broadband services, 

local telephone service competition, and 

mobile telephony services. 

4. In establishing the Form 477 

framework for broadband data, the 

Commission anticipated that a ‘‘regular 

and consistent survey of broadband 

deployment’’ would substantially assist 

it in fulfilling its statutory duty under 

Section 706 of the Telecommunications 

Act to report to Congress on broadband 

deployment and availability, and to 

encourage the deployment of broadband 

to all Americans. To that end, the initial 

Form 477 collected broadband 

subscribership data. Specifically, the 

form collected data from facilities-based 

providers on the numbers of 

connections to the Internet in service to 

consumers in each State, and whether 

such connections used the provider’s 

own facilities, unbundled network 

elements (UNEs), special-access lines or 

other leased lines, or wireless channels. 

The Commission established 200 

kilobits per second (kbps) as the 

minimum transfer-speed threshold for 

the connections it would track, and 

required providers to identify the 

technology used to provide the 

connections, the percentage of 

connections offered to residential 

customers and small businesses, and 

each ZIP code in which the providers 

had at least one connection in service. 

5. The initial Form 477 likewise 

collected subscribership data for local 

telephone service, including data from 

incumbent local exchange carriers 

(LECs) and competitive LECs on the 

number of voice-grade equivalent lines 

and fixed wireless channels in service 

for the provision of local exchange or 

exchange access service to end-user 

customers and for resale. The original 

Form 477 required LECs to report the 

five-digit ZIP codes in which customers 

served, by reported lines and wireless 

channels. Mobile telephony providers 

were required to report their total 

subscribers by State, and the percentage 


srobinson on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with PROPOSALS
10830 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 39 / Monday, February 28, 2011 / Proposed Rules 

of customers billed directly by the 

reporting provider. 

6. The initial Form 477 program did 

not require small providers to file 

reports. Specifically, broadband service 

providers with fewer than 250 

connections in service in a State were 

not required to file the form. LECs with 

fewer than 10,000 voice-grade 

equivalent lines or wireless channels in 

service, and mobile telephony providers 

with fewer than 10,000 subscribers were 

similarly not required to file. 

7. Revisions to Form 477. The 

Commission has twice modified Form 

477. First, in 2004, the Commission 

revised the Form 477 program to require 

submissions from all facilities-based 

providers of broadband connections, in 

order to capture a more comprehensive 

picture of broadband deployment in 

rural areas. Further, the Commission 

required filers to report the percentage 

of their connections that fell into five 

speed tiers. The Commission also 

required all wired and fixed wireless 

providers to report the technologies 

used to provide service in the ZIP codes 

in which at least one connection was in 

service. The Commission acknowledged 

that mobile broadband service differs in 

some respects from fixed broadband 

service, and required filers reporting 

mobile wireless broadband subscribers 

to list the ZIP codes that ‘‘best represent 

the filers’ mobile wireless broadband 

coverage areas.’’ 

8. The Commission next refined the 

Form 477 data program in 2008, 

establishing the framework that is 

currently in place. The Commission 

decided to collect more granular 

subscription and speed data, and to 

improve the quality of data on mobile 

wireless broadband services. All 

wireline and terrestrial-fixed wireless 

broadband service providers must now 

report the numbers of subscribers at the 

census-tract level, broken down by 

technology and more disaggregated 

speed tiers; and the percentage of 

subscribers that are residential. 

Incumbent LECs must continue to report 

the percentage of their service areas 

where DSL connections are available to 

residential premises, and cable system 

operators must do the same with regard 

to cable modem service availability. 

Providers of terrestrial mobile wireless 

broadband services must continue to 

submit their broadband subscriber totals 

on a State-by-State basis, rather than at 

the census-tract level, and must report 

on the census tracts that ‘‘best represent’’ 

their broadband service footprint for 

each speed tier in which they offer 

service. 

9. The 2008 Broadband Data 

Gathering Order and Further NPRM, 73 

FR 37911, July 2, 2008, also required 

providers of interconnected VoIP 

services to report the number of 

subscribers in each State, the number of 

subscribers who purchase the service in 

conjunction with the purchase of a 

broadband connection and, of those, the 

types of connections purchased. 

Interconnected VoIP providers also 

must report the percentage of 

subscribers who can use the service over 

any broadband connection. 

10. 2008 Further NPRM. The 

Commission sought comment in 2008 

on further revisions to Form 477, 

including whether and how to institute 

a national broadband availability 

mapping program. The Commission 

tentatively concluded that it ‘‘should 

collect information that providers use to 

respond to prospective customers to 

determine on an address-by-address 

basis whether service is available.’’ The 

Commission sought comment on 

standardized collection formats; 

whether it should collect information on 

pricing and actual speeds of broadband 

services; how generally to maintain the 

confidentiality of broadband data; 

whether the Commission should 

conduct and publish periodic consumer 

surveys on broadband services; and 

whether it should require LECs and 

interconnected VoIP providers to report 

the number of subscribers in geographic 

units below the State level, either by ZIP 

code or census tract. 

B. Other Developments Relating to Data 

Collection 

11. Since the adoption of the 2008 

Broadband Data Gathering Order and 

Further NPRM, 73 FR 37911, July 2, 

2008, a number of legislative and 

regulatory developments have affected 

the obligations of the Commission and 

other government agencies to collect 

data related to telephone and broadband 

services. 

1. Broadband Data Improvement Act 

12. On October 10, 2008, Congress 

enacted the Broadband Data 

Improvement Act (BDIA), expressly 

finding that ‘‘[i]mproving Federal data 

on the deployment and adoption of 

broadband service will assist in the 

development of broadband technology 

across all regions of the nation.’’ The 

BDIA imposed several new obligations 

on the Commission and other Federal 

agencies. 

a. Revisions to Section 706 Reporting 

Requirements 

13. The BDIA amended Section 706 of 

the Telecommunications Act of 1996 to 

improve the quality and quantity of data 

the Commission collects on the 

deployment and adoption of broadband 

services. First, the BDIA requires the 

Commission to publish its Section 706 

reports ‘‘annually’’ instead of ‘‘regularly,’’ 

as previously required. Second, the 

BDIA requires the Commission to 

compile ‘‘demographic information for 

unserved areas’’ as part of the annual 

Section 706 inquiry. Specifically, the 

BDIA requires that the Commission 

‘‘compile a list of geographical areas not 

served by any provider of advanced 

telecommunications capability.’’ If 

Census Bureau data are available, the 

Commission must ‘‘determine, for each 

such unserved area—(1) The 

population; (2) the population density; 

and (3) the average per capita income.’’ 

14. The BDIA also requires the 

Commission to perform an international 

comparison in its annual broadband 

deployment report conducted pursuant 

to Section 706 of the 

Telecommunications Act. Specifically, 

Section 1303 of Title 47 now requires 

the Commission to ‘‘include information 

comparing the extent of broadband 

service capability (including data 

transmission speeds and price for 

broadband service capability) in a total 

of 75 communities in at least 25 

countries abroad for each of the data 

rate benchmarks for broadband service 

utilized by the Commission to reflect 

different speed tiers.’’ 

b. The GAO’s Report on Broadband 

Metrics and Standards 

15. In addition, the BDIA required the 

GAO’s Comptroller General to conduct 

a study and issue a report on broadband 

metrics and standards by October 10, 

2009. That report evaluated the 

‘‘broadband metrics that may be used by 

industry and the Federal Government 

[including the Commission] to provide 

users with more accurate information 

about the cost and capability of their 

broadband connection[s], and to better 

compare the deployment and 

penetration of broadband in the United 

States with other countries.’’ 

16. The GAO found that current 

measures of broadband performance 

‘‘have limitations,’’ that ‘‘views were 

mixed on potential alternatives, and 

ongoing [broadband data collection] 

efforts need improvement.’’ Further, 

stakeholders reported to the GAO that 

the data collected by the FCC Form 477 

‘‘[do] not include information on 

availability, price, or actual delivered 

speeds, which limits the ability to make 

comparisons across the country and 

inform policy or investment decisions.’’ 

2. Recovery Act 

17. In February 2009, Congress 

enacted the American Recovery and 


srobinson on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 39 / Monday, February 28, 2011 / Proposed Rules 10831 

Reinvestment Act (ARRA), which 

directed the Commission to develop a 

national broadband plan to ensure that 

all people of the United States have 

access to broadband. The ARRA also 

directed the National 

Telecommunications and Information 

Administration (NTIA) to develop and 

maintain a comprehensive nationwide 

and publicly available map of 

broadband service capability and 

availability. 

a. National Broadband Plan 

18. Section 6001(k) of the ARRA 

instructed the Commission to submit to 

Congress a national broadband plan that 

would analyze mechanisms for ensuring 

broadband access by all people of the 

United States, provide a detailed 

strategy for achieving affordability and 

maximum usage, and include a plan for 

use of broadband to advance national 

purposes such as education, health care, 

energy, and public safety. The resulting 

National Broadband Plan, published on 

March 16, 2010, noted the necessity for 

‘‘continuous collection and analysis of 

detailed data on competitive behavior,’’ 

and stressed the need for the 

Commission to conduct ‘‘more thorough 

data collection to monitor and 

benchmark competitive behavior.’’ In 

particular, recommendation 4.2 of the 

Plan suggested that the Commission 

‘‘revise Form 477 to collect data relevant 

to broadband availability, adoption and 

competition.’’ 

b. NTIA’s Broadband Inventory Map 

19. In order to comply with 

requirements under the BDIA and the 

ARRA, NTIA in July 2009 established a 

State Broadband Data and Development 

Grant Program (SBDD). Through this 

program, NTIA has awarded grants, 

funded through 2015, to certain Statedesignated entities to fund the 

collection of data from broadband 

providers. The data collected by NTIA 

as part of the SBDD program will help 

populate a national broadband 

inventory map, which will be made 

public in February of this year. In 

accordance with the ARRA, this map 

will allow consumers to determine 

broadband ‘‘availability’’ through a Web 

site that is ‘‘interactive and searchable.’’ 

3. The Commission’s Data Innovation 

Initiative 

20. On June 29, 2010, the Commission 

launched the Data Innovation Initiative, 

designed to modernize and streamline 

how the Commission collects, uses, and 

disseminates data. As part of the 

Initiative, the Wireline Competition, 

Wireless Telecommunications, and 

Media Bureaus released public notices 

seeking input on which existing data 

collections should be eliminated or 

improved, and which new ones should 

be added. Review of the resulting 

record, along with staff work in the 

three Bureaus, has identified over 

twenty data collections that may be 

outdated and ripe for elimination, as 

well as a number of statutory reporting 

obligations that may have outlived their 

usefulness. We will initiate proceedings 

to consider elimination of those data 

collections that are completely within 

our purview. Recognizing that data 

collection is essential to fulfill the 

Commission’s central statutory 

obligations, including advancing 

universal service, protecting consumers, 

promoting competition, and ensuring 

public safety, we also look forward to 

working with Congress to eliminate any 

outdated statutory reporting obligations 

that they choose to relieve us of. 

4. 2010 Biennial Review 

21. The Commission also is 

conducting its 2010 biennial review of 

telecommunications regulations, 

pursuant to Section 11 of the 

Communications Act of 1934, as 

amended. This section requires the 

Commission (1) to review biennially its 

regulations ‘‘that apply to the operations 

or activities of any provider of 

telecommunications service,’’ and (2) to 

‘‘determine whether any such regulation 

is no longer necessary in the public 

interest as the result of meaningful 

economic competition between 

providers of such service.’’ The 

Commission is directed to repeal or 

modify any regulations that it finds are 

no longer in the public interest. 

III. Purposes for Which the Commission 

Must Obtain Data 

22. The Commission must collect 

timely and reliable information to carry 

out its statutory duties. In the eleven 

years that have passed since the 

Commission established the Form 477 

data program, commenters in a number 

of proceedings have suggested that the 

broadband and telephone subscription 

data we currently collect are insufficient 

to allow the Commission to fulfill its 

statutory responsibilities. 

Telecommunications markets are now 

in a period of transition to a world in 

which fixed and mobile broadband 

networks give consumers access to not 

only voice communications capability 

but a myriad of other applications and 

services. Commission data shows that 

there are now more than 274 million 

mobile telephony subscriptions in the 

United States, and interconnected VoIP 

subscriptions increased by more than 

20% during 2009 while traditional 

PSTN switched access lines decreased 

by 6%. 

23. The National Broadband Plan 

recommended that the Commission 

closely observe this transition from 

legacy circuit-switched networks to all 

IP, broadband networks to ensure that 

legacy regulations and services do not 

impede the transition to a modern and 

efficient use of resources, that 

businesses can plan for and adjust to 

new standards, and, perhaps most 

importantly, that consumers do not lose 

access to statutorily required ‘‘adequate 

facilities at reasonable charges.’’ 

Commenters in the National Broadband 

Plan suggested that the Commission 

collect data, or seek comment on the 

need to collect data, on a variety of 

issues related to this transition, 

including public safety, service quality, 

customer satisfaction, and price. Below, 

we identify a number of important 

purposes for which the Commission and 

commenters have noted that we may 

require more robust data, and seek 

comment on the data needed to fulfill 

those purposes. 

A. Ensuring Universal Service 

24. Section 254 of the Act, which 

governs administration of universal 

service programs, requires the 

Commission to base its universal service 

policies on certain principles, including 

that ‘‘[q]uality services’’ be ‘‘available at 

just, reasonable, and affordable rates,’’ 

and that ‘‘[c]onsumers in all regions of 

the Nation, including low-income 

consumers and those in rural, insular, 

and high cost areas, should have access 

to telecommunications and information 

services * * * that are reasonably 

comparable to those services provided 

in urban areas and that are available at 

rates that are reasonably comparable to 

rates charged for similar services in 

urban areas.’’ A key goal set forth in the 

National Broadband Plan is to reform 

the Universal Service Fund (USF) to 

‘‘accelerate the deployment of 

broadband to unserved areas,’’ and the 

Commission’s unanimously adopted 

Joint Statement on Broadband calls for 

the USF to be reformed ‘‘to increase 

accountability and efficiency, encourage 

targeted investment in broadband 

infrastructure, and emphasize the 

importance of broadband to the future of 

these programs.’’ 

25. We seek comment on the data 

needed to ensure universal service. 

Numerous stakeholders have asserted 

that the Commission must collect 

deployment, price, and service quality 

data to effectively fulfill its obligations 

under Section 254 and to modernize the 

USF to focus on broadband. For 

example, Verizon has stated that the 


srobinson on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with PROPOSALS
10832 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 39 / Monday, February 28, 2011 / Proposed Rules 

Commission must have reliable data to 

identify areas that are truly unserved by 

broadband to implement USF reform. 

The National Broadband Plan noted that 

‘‘[a]cross the four USF programs, there is 

a lack of adequate data to make critical 

policy decisions regarding how to better 

utilize funding to promote universal 

service objectives.’’ The Commission 

itself has noted the importance of 

having reliable data to measure the 

performance of the USF and to protect 

against waste, fraud, and abuse. Would 

data on deployment, price, service 

quality, and subscription be required to 

assess whether the performance goals 

proposed for the USF high-cost program 

and Connect America Fund in the 

NPRM released today are being 

achieved? Would voice and broadband 

pricing data be necessary to develop 

possible rate benchmarks for voice and/ 

or broadband service in order to 

determine if services are ‘‘affordable’’ 

and ‘‘reasonably comparable to rates in 

urban areas’’? Would determining 

whether particular areas of the 

country—including rural, insular, and 

high-cost areas—should be exempt from 

aspects of the USF reform program or 

afforded different treatment require 

deployment, subscription, price and 

service quality data? 

B. Ensuring Public Safety 

26. The Communications Act charges 

the Commission with ensuring that 

‘‘wire and radio communications service 

with adequate facilities at reasonable 

charges’’ are available for the purpose of, 

inter alia, ‘‘promoting safety of life and 

property through the use of wire and 

radio communications.’’ Congress has 

further tasked the Commission with a 

key role in guaranteeing that Americans 

have access to emergency services via 

911. The Commission must be able to 

monitor the performance of both legacy 

circuit-switched networks and 

broadband networks to ensure that 

consumers can access emergency 

services as service providers transition 

from one technology to the other. As 

noted in the National Broadband Plan, 

‘‘[a] more reliable [broadband] network 

would also benefit homeland security, 

public safety, businesses and 

consumers, who are increasingly 

dependent on their broadband 

communications, including their mobile 

phones.’’ 

27. We seek comment on what data 

the Commission needs to fulfill these 

goals. Would mobile service 

deployment data, for example, allow the 

Commission to identify areas where 

consumers lack access to 911 service, 

such as rural highways or remote 

worksites? Would service quality data 

enable the Commission to identify 

networks that limit consumers’ access to 

emergency services as a result of 

excessive downtime? Could customer 

complaint data likewise serve as an 

indicator that networks are 

insufficiently reliable to ensure that 

consumers can depend on them in an 

emergency? 

C. Promoting Telephone and Broadband 

Competition 

28. Promoting competition is a core 

purpose of the Telecommunications Act 

of 1996, as amended, and as the 

National Broadband Plan noted, 

‘‘[c]ompetition is crucial for promoting 

consumer welfare and spurring 

innovation and investment in 

broadband access networks,’’ and 

‘‘provides consumers the benefits of 

choice, better service and lower prices.’’ 

Others have noted the importance of 

competition to consumer welfare. In 

addition, vibrant competition in a 

market can reduce or eliminate the need 

for regulation. For example, 

competition, properly demonstrated, 

can be the basis for forbearance from 

regulations under Section 10 of the Act. 

As the Commission previously has 

found in the context of its Section 10 

analysis, ‘‘competition is the most 

effective means of ensuring that * * * 

charges, practices, classifications, and 

regulations * * * are just and 

reasonable, and not unjustly or 

unreasonably discriminatory.’’ The 

Commission also is required to annually 

present its findings regarding the state 

of competition in the mobile services 

marketplace pursuant to Congress’s 

instruction in Section 332(c)(1)(C) of the 

Act. 

29. Despite the importance of 

assessing competition in order to fulfill 

the Commission’s statutory 

responsibilities, the Commission does 

not always have sufficient information 

about voice and broadband services 

sufficient to assess competition 

accurately. For example, the 

Commission has recognized that a lack 

of comprehensive data on telephone and 

broadband services has, in certain 

situations, compromised the rigor of its 

analysis in proceedings seeking the 

transfer of Title III licenses and Section 

214 authorizations. Similarly, in a 

decision regarding whether to grant 

forbearance from network unbundling 

and other regulations pursuant to 

Section 10 of the Act, the Commission 

was unable to make a definitive finding 

regarding market share in the telephony 

market when the primary cable operator 

did not voluntarily file reliable data. 

30. The National Broadband Plan also 

noted that statements from a number of 

commenters—including officials from 

the Department of Justice and the 

Federal Trade Commission— 

demonstrate that ‘‘additional data are 

needed to more rigorously evaluate 

broadband competition.’’ The Plan 

concluded that to ensure that the right 

policies are put in place so that the 

broadband ecosystem benefits from 

meaningful competition as it evolves, it 

is ‘‘important to have an ongoing, datadriven evaluation of the state of 

competition.’’ The National Broadband 

Plan therefore recommended that the 

Commission ‘‘revise Form 477 to collect 

data relevant to broadband availability, 

adoption and competition.’’ Numerous 

commenters have made similar 

observations and recommendations. 

31. It is important to note that 

although more robust deployment and 

subscription data may give the 

Commission a view of the potential for 

competition in an area, the National 

Broadband Plan and a number of 

commenters have explained that such 

data alone would not necessarily reveal 

the actual extent of competition or the 

level of benefit that consumers enjoy 

from any competition that exists, and 

that price and service quality data could 

fill these gaps. We seek comment on the 

need for price and service quality data 

as well as deployment and subscription 

data to satisfy relevant statutory goals. 

D. Promoting Broadband Deployment 

and Availability 

32. As discussed above, Section 

706(b) of the Telecommunications Act 

of 1996, as amended, directs the 

Commission to annually ‘‘initiate a 

notice of inquiry concerning the 

availability of advanced 

telecommunications capability to all 

Americans’’ and ‘‘determine whether 

advanced telecommunications 

capability is being deployed to all 

Americans in a reasonable and timely 

fashion.’’ The Commission has noted 

that information about broadband 

deployment and availability throughout 

the nation is essential to fulfill its 

obligations under Section 706, 

including the requirement to compile 

information about demographic 

information for unserved areas. 

33. We seek comment on whether the 

Commission has data sufficient to 

effectively fulfill this purpose. The 

Commission has observed that the data 

it has collected to date have allowed 

only limited assessments of broadband 

deployment and availability. For 

example, the Commission has used 

information about the existence of at 

least one subscriber in a ZIP code or 

census tract as a proxy for both 

deployment and availability. But the 


srobinson on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 39 / Monday, February 28, 2011 / Proposed Rules 10833 

Commission and commenters have 

noted that subscription data, 

particularly when collected above the 

household level, is an imperfect proxy 

for network deployment or capability. 

For example, deployment is overstated 

when households subscribe in one part 

of an area (such as a census tract) but 

service is not offered to households in 

other parts of the same area, while 

deployment is understated if no 

household in an area has chosen to 

subscribe to any service offering 

provided by a network, and capability is 

understated if no household has opted 

for the highest speed offering. 

34. We also note that the Commission 

has long identified broadband 

availability as a broader concept than 

broadband deployment. A number of 

commenters have suggested that the 

Commission collect other types of data 

beyond the Form 477 subscribership 

data to fulfill its obligations under 

Section 706, including information on 

where infrastructure has been deployed, 

the price of broadband services, and 

service quality. Would the use of such 

data sources in conjunction with 

subscription data provide additional 

insights into broadband adoption in the 

United States? If infrastructure data 

were collected, how could the 

Commission ensure that sensitive 

information on critical infrastructure is 

appropriately shielded and protected? 

E. Other Statutory Obligations 

35. We seek comment on other 

statutory obligations and Commission 

efforts that may require the Commission 

to reform the 477 data program. In 

addition, we seek comment on whether 

the subscription data currently collected 

via Form 477 and the Commission’s 

other data collection programs are 

sufficient for such obligations, or 

whether the Commission should collect 

additional types of data. Commenters 

who advocate the collection of 

additional data should explain how 

collecting specific types of data would 

result in concrete benefits for 

consumers, service providers, and other 

stakeholders, and explain whether the 

benefits would outweigh the burdens. 

IV. Revisions to the FCC Form 477 Data 

Program 

36. In the preceding section, we 

discussed specific statutory obligations 

of the Commission that, to be performed 

effectively, may require the collection of 

better data. We turn now to discussion 

of what specific data may be necessary 

to discharge these statutory 

responsibilities, and whether and 

(where relevant) how we should collect 

each type of data using Form 477. After 

reviewing input from outside parties, 

we believe that there are five categories 

of data that may be necessary to meet 

the Congressional mandates described 

in the prior section: deployment, 

pricing, and service quality and 

customer satisfaction data, which 

provide measures of supply; 

subscription data, which provides a 

measure of consumer demand; and 

ownership and contact information, 

which serves multiple statutory 

purposes. While collecting other 

categories of data, such as the location 

of last- and middle-mile infrastructure, 

could prove useful to the Commission, 

Form 477 may not be the most 

appropriate tool for collecting such data. 

We seek comment on whether there are 

other types of data necessary for the 

Commission to complete its mandates 

that should be collected using Form 

477. 

37. We recognize that data collections 

place burdens—and potentially 

significant burdens—on those required 

to file, and we actively seek to balance 

the benefits of data collected against 

those burdens. We seek comment on 

whether each of the types of data noted 

below is necessary for the Commission 

to fulfill its statutory mandates. Those 

who suggest that the Commission does 

not need particular data should specify 

how the Commission can meet its 

obligations without such data. For data 

that the Commission should collect, we 

seek comment on whether the 

Commission should gather the data 

through an OMB-approved data 

collection or whether there are other 

sources. For example, are there 

commercial data sources that would 

allow the Commission to meet its 

obligations? Alternatively, would it be 

practical for Commission staff to collect 

data from public sources (e.g., from 

service providers’ Web sites)? Those 

advocating the use of commercial or 

publicly available data should discuss 

any limitations associated with such 

sources, the resources the Commission 

would need to devote to the collection 

method proposed (e.g., direct costs, staff 

time), and the impact such a collection 

method would have on other 

Commission efforts. Where a data 

collection is necessary, we seek 

comment on ways that the Commission 

can minimize the burden for filers, for 

example, in the design of the collection 

or in tools the Commission can provide. 

Commenters who cite the burden of an 

OMB-approved collection should 

quantify the burden they expect and 

explain their quantification 

methodology. We seek comment on 

issues specific to reducing the burden of 

each collection as they are discussed in 

the following sections. 

A. General Considerations 

1. Streamlining Collection 

38. To reduce production burdens, 

commenters urge the Commission to 

ensure that the FCC Form 477 collection 

process is as ‘‘streamlined as possible,’’ 

and we agree that streamlining the 

process where appropriate must be a top 

priority for the Commission. For 

example, providers request that the 

Form 477 interface be redesigned to 

allow parties to file data on multiple 

States as a single file. We seek comment 

on these proposals, and on other steps 

the Commission can take to streamline 

the Form 477 data program. 

39. Reporting entities already 

maintain subscriber databases that 

include address-level information; thus, 

providing subscribership information at 

the address level could simplify 

reporting. At the same time, collection 

of address-level deployment and 

availability information would allow the 

Commission to make policy decisions 

based on a more granular and accurate 

understanding of the marketplace. We 

note that some providers have explicitly 

requested that they be allowed to submit 

subscribership data at the address level 

to reduce their reporting burden. We 

seek comment whether it would be less 

burdensome for providers to submit 

address-level data with respect to the 

deployment and availability of services. 

We also seek comment on other ways 

that the Commission can ease the 

burden on small- and medium-sized 

providers. 

40. In addition, we seek comment on 

the extent to which technological tools 

can reduce the burden of producing 

information. For example, the 

Commission now makes available a 

Census Block Conversions application 

programming interface (API) that 

returns a U.S. Census Bureau Census 

Block number given a passed latitude 

and longitude. The API also returns the 

State and county name associated with 

a block. Among other benefits, we 

expect that this API will assist providers 

in assigning subscribers to censusdefined geographic areas. What other 

tools are available to reduce the burdens 

providers face in complying with our 

data reporting programs? Are there other 

tools that the Commission itself should 

develop? 

2. Use of Third-Party and Publicly 

Available Data 

41. We seek comment on whether and 

how the Commission can obtain reliable 

data from third parties and publicly 


srobinson on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with PROPOSALS
10834 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 39 / Monday, February 28, 2011 / Proposed Rules 

available sources. The Commission in 

2007 sought comment on the 

‘‘availability of commercial sources of 

broadband deployment data or dataprocessing programs that could augment 

or otherwise add value to our use of 

Form 477 data, or reduce the associated 

costs and other burdens imposed on 

reporting providers.’’ The Commission 

declined to use any such sources in the 

2008 Broadband Data Gathering Order 

and Further NPRM, 73 FR 37911, July 

2, 2008. We note that the Commission 

currently relies on some third-party data 

that may be considered authoritative, 

and seek comment on what other data 

could be obtained by the Commission 

from third parties. We also seek 

comment on whether there are new 

sources of data that could serve 

Commission goals. 

42. We note that there are limitations 

associated with third-party data sources. 

Commercial data sources rarely rely on 

a census of all data sources of a 

particular type and more often rely on 

sampling. The bias associated with 

sampling, or the use of proprietary 

methods to create or extrapolate from a 

sample, could limit the applicability of 

commercial data. Further, commercial 

data often include restrictions to data 

rights that could limit the Commission’s 

ability to publish underlying data or 

resulting analysis. We seek comment on 

these potential shortcomings of 

commercial data, whether there are 

ways to mitigate them, and the balance 

between these limitations and the 

burden that could be avoided by the use 

of commercial data. The Commission 

could also cull some information from 

public sources, such as company Web 

sites. We note that such data may be 

unreliable or insufficiently detailed, and 

seek comment on the extent to which 

the Commission can base policy on such 

data. To the extent commenters 

advocate for the use of commercial or 

third-party data for a specific collection, 

we ask that they quantify the resources 

the Commission would have to devote 

to procure or process those data. How 

should the Commission balance the 

costs of purchasing data or collecting 

data itself from public sources against 

the burdens that Form 477 data 

collection may impose on service 

providers? 

3. Who Must Report 

43. Four classes of entities currently 

file FCC Form 477: facilities-based 

providers of broadband connections to 

end user locations; providers of wired or 

fixed wireless local exchange telephone 

service; providers of interconnected 

VoIP service; and providers of mobile 

telephony services. Some entities may 

fill out only certain portions of the form. 

44. Some of the proposals identified 

below would have the Commission 

collect from all providers of voice and 

broadband services data that may have 

in the past been collected only from a 

subset of providers. For example, some 

of the service quality data some have 

suggested we should collect from all 

broadband providers formerly were 

collected only from price cap carriers. 

We seek comment on whether there are 

classes of providers that should be 

exempted from reporting elements of 

any proposed data collection. For 

example, small broadband providers 

may find it relatively more burdensome 

to comply with certain data reporting 

obligations than larger carriers. Any 

proposals to exempt certain providers 

should include the legal and policy 

grounds and the policy implications for 

such an exemption. 

45. We also seek comment on whether 

additional classes of entities should be 

required to file FCC Form 477. For 

example, should we revise our 

definition of ‘‘interconnected VoIP’’ for 

the purposes of this collection to 

include services that permit users to 

receive calls that originate on the public 

switched telephone network or to 

terminate calls to the public switched 

telephone network? Proposals to require 

additional classes of entities to file 

should discuss the Commission’s 

authority to do so. 

4. Frequency of Reporting 

46. The Commission previously has 

decided that it can best balance its need 

for timely information with its desire to 

minimize the reporting burden on 

respondents by requiring providers to 

report data on a semi-annual basis. One 

commenter has asked the Commission 

to require quarterly collections ‘‘to keep 

pace with rapidly evolving Internet 

technology and allow regulators to plan 

and adjust policies.’’ Another 

commenter asks that the Commission 

synchronize the filing deadlines for FCC 

Form 477 with those for the NTIA’s 

SBDD. We seek comment on whether 

FCC Form 477 should be filed more or 

less frequently. 

B. Specific Categories of Data 

47. Commenters have identified five 

categories of data that may help the 

Commission more effectively carry out 

its statutory obligations: deployment, 

price, subscription, service quality and 

customer satisfaction, and ownership 

and contact information. We seek 

comment on whether and how the 

Commission should collect such data, 

and the Commission’s authority to do 

so. 

48. Those commenting on how to 

collect data should be as specific as 

possible. Establishing detailed data 

reporting requirements is an inherently 

difficult task. Particular elements of a 

dataset may be simple to describe 

conceptually, but difficult to specify as 

a practical matter. Conversely, a data 

element may be easily specified, but 

difficult to explain in plain language. To 

the extent commenters propose that we 

collect specific data elements, we ask 

that commenters both discuss the 

concept and provide an actual 

specification of each data element. To 

the extent particular proposals are 

offered, are there different data elements 

that might better achieve our goals, 

including minimizing production 

burdens on filers and processing 

burdens on the Commission? 

1. Deployment 

49. As discussed above, numerous 

stakeholders have urged the 

Commission to obtain data that would 

allow it to understand where providers 

have deployed networks capable of 

delivering a given service. We seek 

comment on whether deployment data 

are necessary to fulfill several of the 

purposes discussed above: ensuring 

universal service by tracking the 

expansion of broadband networks, 

identifying areas that lack access to 

fixed or mobile broadband and assisting 

the Commission in targeting support to 

areas that most need it; monitoring 

telephone and broadband competition 

by providing insight into the service 

areas of potential competitors regardless 

of the technology used; and promoting 

broadband deployment and availability 

by providing reliable information about 

broadband deployment nationwide. In 

this section, we seek comment on how 

the Commission might obtain 

deployment data for voice and 

broadband services. 

a. Voice Network Deployment 

(i) Fixed 

50. The Commission currently does 

not collect data on fixed voice network 

deployment. And although the national 

telephone subscription rate has 

remained high over the last decade, a 

number of commenters have informed 

the Commission that residents in some 

areas of the country—particularly rural, 

insular, high-cost, and Tribal areas—do 

not have access to basic fixed telephone 

service. Other commenters assert that 

State carrier of last resort obligations are 

sufficient to ensure that fixed voice 

networks are ubiquitously deployed. We 


srobinson on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 39 / Monday, February 28, 2011 / Proposed Rules 10835 

seek comment on whether the 

Commission should collect fixed voice 

network deployment data. If such a 

collection is warranted, should it be 

limited to areas in which network 

deployment has historically been a 

concern, such as rural, insular, highcost, and Tribal areas? What geographic 

area (e.g., census block or address-level) 

would be appropriate for reporting such 

data? 

(ii) Mobile 

51. The Commission currently 

licenses a dataset from a commercial 

source, American Roamer, for data on 

mobile network deployment. American 

Roamer provides coverage boundary 

maps for mobile voice and broadband 

networks based on information 

provided to them by mobile wireless 

network operators. The Commission 

previously has noted that analysis based 

on this data ‘‘likely overstates the 

coverage actually experienced by 

consumers, because American Roamer 

reports advertised coverage as reported 

to it by many mobile wireless service 

providers, each of which uses a different 

definition of coverage. The data do not 

expressly account for factors such as 

signal strength, bit rate, or in-building 

coverage, and they may convey a false 

sense of consistency across geographic 

areas and service providers. 

Nonetheless, the analysis is useful 

because it provides a quantitative 

baseline that can be compared across 

network types, technologies, and 

carriers, over time.’’ 

52. We seek comment on whether it 

is appropriate to continue relying on 

American Roamer’s mobile telephony 

deployment data. Are alternative 

datasets available, and if so, how do 

they compare to the data available to 

and currently purchased by the 

Commission? Are such datasets 

available only as off-the-shelf products, 

or would it be possible to acquire 

datasets tailored to the Commission’s 

specifications? For such datasets, what 

are the likely costs, and how timely is 

the data? Should the Commission 

require carriers to submit mobile 

telephony deployment data, 

notwithstanding the availability of some 

data from third parties? If so, what data 

submissions should be required? Should 

the Commission collect data that are 

based on a standardized definition of 

coverage or a range of signal strengths 

that would reflect a likely consumer 

experience? We also seek comment on 

whether the Commission should collect 

data on the spectrum bands used for 

mobile voice network deployment in 

specific geographic areas, which would 

help the Commission to fulfill its 

spectrum management responsibilities 

under Title III of the Act. How 

burdensome would the collection of 

mobile telephony deployment data be 

for providers? What are the benefits of 

obtaining such information? 

b. Broadband Network Deployment 

(i) SBDD Data 

53. The national broadband inventory 

map under development by the NTIA is 

an important step toward collecting 

more robust data about broadband 

deployment and availability. The GAO’s 

report noted that stakeholders ‘‘generally 

agreed’’ that this national broadband 

map ‘‘would address some gaps and 

provide detailed data on availability, 

subscribership, and actual delivered 

speeds,’’ but there were concerns that 

the data collection mechanism used— 

which depends on voluntary reporting 

by providers to State entities whose 

methods may vary from State to State— 

could ‘‘result in inconsistent data and 

limit the effectiveness of the effort.’’ 

54. Broadband deployment data 

collected via Form 477 could address 

these consistency concerns and provide 

an ongoing source of data at the 

conclusion of the SBDD program. 

Verizon, Sprint, T-Mobile, and NCTA 

suggest that the Commission consider 

the extent to which it is necessary to 

collect broadband deployment data 

through Form 477 once NTIA’s national 

broadband inventory map is online and 

the data become available to the 

Commission. We seek comment on this 

suggestion. On what data would the 

Commission rely at the conclusion of 

the SBDD program, and how would the 

Commission reliably analyze trends in 

broadband deployment if there are gaps 

in data collected by the SBDD program? 

(ii) Data Collection by the Commission 

55. We seek comment on a number of 

issues raised by commenters who 

recommend that the Commission collect 

data on broadband network deployment. 

56. Geographic Area. Parties have 

proposed varying levels of geographic 

specificity the Commission should 

require when collecting deployment 

information. Currently, the Commission 

collects subscription data—which it 

uses as a proxy for deployment—for 

fixed broadband providers at the census 

tract level. In the 2008 Broadband Data 

Gathering Order and Further NPRM, 73 

FR 37911, July 2, 2008, the Commission 

tentatively concluded that it should 

measure deployment on an address-byaddress basis, which would provide the 

most granular and accurate information. 

A number of commenters in prior 

proceedings, particularly State 

regulatory agencies, have expressed 

support for collection of broadband 

deployment data at the address level. 

These commenters note that address-byaddress data would yield the most 

useful data for the Commission about 

where broadband is deployed. Some 

smaller providers also state that 

reporting at the subscriber address level 

would ease the burden of reporting. 

Other commenters, however, have 

suggested that reporting address-level 

deployment information would be 

unduly burdensome for providers, 

particularly for small- and mediumsized providers that do not maintain 

such data. We seek comment on the 

benefits and burdens of requiring 

address-level deployment data. In 

addition, we seek comment on how to 

account for areas where networks are 

deployed, but there are no homes or 

businesses with addresses (e.g., 

uninhabited highways with mobile 

network coverage). At least one State 

(California) already requires addresslevel reporting for the construction of its 

broadband map. We seek comment on 

this and similar State agency initiatives 

and request any empirical evidence of 

the burdens and impact of compliance. 

57. Some commenters in prior 

proceedings have suggested that the 

Commission collect deployment data at 

the census block level. The California 

Public Utility Commission (PUC) notes 

that reporting by census block would 

yield an average of 22 households, 

whereas a census tract yields an average 

of 1,628 households. Census block-level 

reporting could provide a balance 

between being more granular than 

census tract-level reporting and 

avoiding any privacy issues associated 

with address-by-address reporting. 

Commenters have also noted that the 

utilization of a Census geography 

facilitates the application and analysis 

of Census demographic data, such as 

income, race, age, and household size 

and composition. We seek comment on 

whether the burdens imposed by 

collecting census block-level data are 

significantly greater than those 

associated with collecting census tractlevel data. Would the burdens imposed 

by collecting census block-level data be 

substantially greater than requiring 

address-level reporting? Are there 

particular benefits to using census-block 

level reporting? What were the costs and 

benefits of initiatives that have used 

census block-level reporting? What 

alternative reporting methods could the 

Commission use to ease the burden on 

carriers that might find census blocklevel data to be unduly burdensome, 


srobinson on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with PROPOSALS
10836 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 39 / Monday, February 28, 2011 / Proposed Rules 

while still collecting comparable and 

useful data? 

58. NTIA’s broadband mapping effort 

sought deployment data for a smaller 

geographic area than a census block for 

census blocks larger than two square 

miles. We seek comment on the benefits 

and costs of this approach. What unit of 

measurement should the Commission 

utilize for larger census blocks if the 

Commission does not use address-byaddress reporting? 

59. Speed. The National Broadband 

Plan noted the importance of speed data 

to consumers and policymakers, and 

stakeholders generally acknowledge its 

usefulness. The Commission currently 

collects information about advertised 

broadband speeds in its Form 477 

collection. The National Broadband 

Plan noted, however, that consumers 

and policymakers would benefit from 

data on actual speeds. The Commission 

has sought information about how best 

to measure actual broadband speeds. 

Recognizing the difficulty of measuring 

actual speeds, a number of stakeholders 

have nonetheless urged the Commission 

to require providers to report actual 

speeds. Some have suggested that the 

Commission require providers to report 

a statistical sampling of average speeds. 

Others have suggested requiring 

providers to report data contention 

ratios (the ratio of the potential 

maximum demand to the actual 

bandwidth available). Broadband 

providers and their industry 

associations have argued that actual 

speeds are affected by a wide variety of 

factors, many beyond the providers’ 

control, and that measuring speed will 

be ‘‘almost impossible.’’ We seek 

comment on whether the Commission 

should collect data on contention ratios 

or some other measure of network 

congestion. We further seek comment 

on whether the Commission should 

continue to collect data only on 

advertised speeds, or whether, for 

example, providers should provide 

information about actual speeds by 

geographic area, or speeds that extend 

beyond the access network (e.g., end-toend speeds that reflect an end user’s 

typical Internet performance). We also 

seek comment on how to best measure 

the actual speeds of services that can be 

provided over a network. The 

Commission has undertaken a program 

to measure such speeds directly for a 

sample of end users of fixed broadband, 

and is considering a similar program for 

mobile broadband. We seek comment on 

whether an approach like this one, a 

similar approach with more 

measurements, or some other method is 

appropriate. Comments on 

measurements of actual speed should 

identify the part or parts of the network 

where speed should be measured. What 

starting and ending points are most 

relevant for consumers, providers, and 

the Commission? 

60. The Commission currently 

collects speed data in eight tiers of 

advertised download speeds and nine 

tiers of advertised upload speeds, 

leading to 72 possible combinations. 

The SBDD established nine tiers of 

advertised download speeds and 11 

tiers of advertised upload speeds, for 99 

possible combinations. We seek 

comment on whether the FCC and NTIA 

should conform their speed tiers. 

Further, while there is value in having 

speed data broken out at a granular 

level, relevant speeds are likely to 

evolve over time, and having 72 or 99 

speed-tier combinations may be 

unnecessarily complex. However, we 

note that there are benefits to 

maintaining some continuity in this area 

to enable tracking data on particular 

speed-tier combinations over time. 

Further, measuring the same speed tiers 

for both business and residential 

customers may not be appropriate, as 

they often have different needs for 

speed. When collecting speed data, 

should the Commission reduce the 

number of speed tiers reported by 

providers? Should we add a tier 

specifically tied to any speed 

benchmark that may be required to 

receive USF or Connect America Fund 

(CAF) funding? Should any future 

increase in that potential benchmark 

result in the addition of a speed tier for 

that new speed? An alternative 

approach would be to define tiers by 

pairs of upstream and downstream 

speeds. Such an approach would greatly 

reduce the number of tiers but would 

lock-in pairings of downstream and 

upstream speeds. We seek comment on 

these approaches, including comment 

on the number of speed tiers and 

breakpoints. 

61. Mobile Issues. Mobile broadband 

presents additional challenges with 

respect to geography. We seek comment 

on whether a mobile service should be 

treated differently from a fixed service 

for reporting purposes. For mobile 

service, a billing address can provide a 

subscriber’s home location but does not 

reflect the entire coverage area where a 

mobile broadband network is available; 

nor would a billing address necessarily 

be reflective of the primary usage area 

of the subscriber, particularly in the 

case of family plans and for businesses. 

As discussed above, American Roamer 

produces mobile voice and broadband 

coverage maps, which the Commission 

has used to estimate mobile broadband 

deployment at the census block level. 

However, these coverage maps have 

certain drawbacks, including that the 

data do not account for factors such as 

signal strength variations. Should the 

Commission collect some measure of 

signal strength beyond a simple ‘‘signal/ 

no signal’’ flag? For example, would a 

‘‘good/better/best’’ measure for each 

geographic area be appropriate, or 

would reported advertised speeds 

accurately reflect the impact of signal 

strength? How should reporting account 

for the variability of signal strength and 

capacity in a network that includes 

mobile users? We seek comment on 

whether billing address, census blocks, 

or another geographic area should be 

used to collect data on mobile 

broadband network coverage areas, 

separate from the maps obtained from 

American Roamer. In addition, Sprint 

has stated it has maps that would allow 

for the identification of service 

availability at the street address level, 

and has suggested that the Commission 

request such data on a trial basis from 

providers that currently produce such 

maps. We seek comment on conducting 

such a trial. 

62. One carrier argues that mobile 

wireless providers should not be 

required to report speed data because of 

the difficulty of measuring factors that 

can affect mobile data transfer rates. We 

seek comment on whether we should 

collect data on mobile connection 

speed, and whether fixed and mobile 

services should be treated differently 

when reporting speed data. In addition 

we seek comment on the extent to 

which data from the Commission’s 

mobile broadband speed test could be 

meaningful in evaluating mobile data 

transfer rates. 

63. Spectrum Issues. We seek 

comment throughout this NPRM on 

several issues concerning spectrum 

usage data, which would help the 

Commission to fulfill its spectrum 

management responsibilities under Title 

III of the Act. How can the Commission 

best collect such information? Possible 

methods include requiring providers to 

indicate the band, radio service code, or 

call sign used to provide service. 

64. Satellite Issues. We seek comment 

on how best to collect deployment data 

about satellite-based services. At least 

one satellite provider has pointed out 

the near-ubiquity of satellite signals. 

Should the Commission exempt satellite 

broadband providers from reporting 

deployment information, or require only 

that satellite providers report areas 

where terrain or other impediments are 

likely to block line of sight to the 

satellite? 

65. Anchor Institutions. Anchor 

institutions such as schools, libraries, or 


srobinson on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 39 / Monday, February 28, 2011 / Proposed Rules 10837 

hospitals often require broadband 

offerings with quality of service 

guarantees not required by at least some 

retail customers, and Section 254 of the 

Act places particular emphasis on 

educational providers, libraries, and 

health care providers for rural areas. We 

seek comment on whether to treat 

anchor institutions like other businesses 

or whether they should be treated as a 

different category for the purposes of 

measuring deployment. 

2. Price 

66. We seek comment on whether 

price data are necessary to fulfill several 

of the purposes discussed above, 

including ensuring universal service by 

determining whether rural consumers 

are paying affordable and reasonably 

comparable rates to those in urban 

areas; monitoring telephone and 

broadband competition (e.g., in 

forbearance proceedings) by providing 

data regarding the effect, if any, of 

competition on pricing or by 

determining whether nominally 

competitive providers in fact have 

comparable offerings in the market; 

reporting a comparison of U.S. and 

international prices for broadband 

service capability; and promoting 

broadband deployment and availability. 

67. The Commission previously has 

considered whether to use Form 477 to 

collect price information. In the 1999 

First Section 706 Report, for example, 

the Commission sought suggestions on 

how to measure market demand through 

‘‘indicia [such] as prices [and] 

willingness to pay.’’ In the 2008 

Broadband Data Gathering Order and 

Further NPRM, 73 FR 37911, July 2, 

2008, the Commission sought comment 

on whether to require providers to 

report the monthly price charged for 

stand-alone broadband service. 

68. Some commenters have argued 

that broadband providers should not be 

required to submit price information 

because prices are competitive; bundled 

offerings, temporary discounts, different 

pricing plans, and other service 

attributes make comparing pricing 

complex; the production of pricing data 

is too burdensome; and requiring the 

production of price data would impose 

Title II burdens on broadband providers. 

69. Others, however, have urged the 

Commission to require broadband and 

voice providers to report price 

information to assess competition, 

determine whether prices are reasonably 

comparable in different demographic 

areas, inform our USF distribution 

mechanism, and to assess why 

consumers may not be purchasing 

broadband where it is available. Such 

commenters have emphasized the need 

for the Commission to collect the actual 

price of broadband services to, for 

example, allow consumers to compare 

service prices. Proposals on how to 

collect price data have varied widely, 

however, in substance and level of 

detail. For example, some State 

regulators have urged the Commission 

to collect price information for standalone and bundled services, and not to 

consider promotional prices or short 

term deals. Some have urged the 

Commission to collect a measure of 

‘‘price per megabit per second.’’ Others 

have urged the Commission to collect 

‘‘information from commercial carriers 

regarding their tier pricing, credit and 

deposit requirements across various 

communities.’’ Commenters also have 

proposed a variety of geographic areas 

for reporting price, and a variety of 

reporting periods. 

70. We seek comment on the 

Commission’s legal authority to collect 

price data, whether we should use Form 

477 to collect price data, and if so, how 

we should collect and analyze such 

data. We acknowledge that there are a 

number of challenges associated with 

any approach to collecting price 

information. We therefore seek detailed 

comment on the strengths and 

weaknesses of the approaches we 

describe below, and on other possible 

approaches. 

71. Price data can be collected in 

many different ways. For example, the 

Commission could collect retail prices 

charged by providers for basic voice and 

broadband offerings. Given the 

complexity and variety of bundles and 

discounts, the Commission could 

instead define a basket of services and 

collect, or require providers to post 

publicly, the price of that basket. 

Alternatively, the Commission could 

collect information about all available 

prices and packages, or seek to 

determine effective prices that end users 

pay. 

72. Another approach would be to 

have providers report the total revenue 

associated with all offerings (including 

voice, video (i.e., pay television), and 

broadband Internet access services), and 

identify the attributes associated with 

that revenue, such as the types of 

services provided (e.g., voice, video, and 

broadband) and key descriptors of those 

services (e.g., basic video, extended 

video, very high speed Internet access). 

The Commission could then determine 

the average effective price for each 

attribute in a given area by performing 

statistical analysis on aggregate revenue 

and attribute data across areas large 

enough to generate a significant number 

of measurements. We seek comment on 

whether such an approach would yield 

meaningful results for the purposes 

outlined above. We also seek comment 

on how this approach might be 

specified. For example, how many and 

what attributes would be needed to 

support a useful analysis? Given that 

resolving the price for more attributes 

will require more measurements of total 

revenue, how should the number and 

selection of attributes be balanced 

against the geographic size of the 

measurement, given that a sufficiently 

large sample size for a larger number of 

attributes will require more 

measurements and a larger geographic 

area? Should revenue be inclusive or 

exclusive of taxes and fees? Should 

revenue be reported separately for 

business and residential customers? 

73. We note that the Commission has 

sought comment on the need for price 

data to set benchmarks in the context of 

our intercarrier compensation and 

universal service proceedings. Would 

any of these approaches provide data 

suitable for the establishment of such 

benchmarks, or are more appropriate 

data available from other sources? 

74. If the Commission collects price 

data, over what geographic area should 

prices be collected? As discussed in 

Section V.C below, ECPA may limit the 

Commission’s ability to require 

providers to report price data from 

service providers at the household or 

address level. Should the Commission 

collect price data at the census block 

level? Could the Commission collect 

data using, for example, street segments 

as the collection geographic area? If so, 

would it need to guard against 

collecting single home street segments? 

How could it do so? What impact would 

different geographic-level collections 

have on the value of the data produced? 

Would collecting data at a more 

granular level that is consistent with the 

restrictions imposed by ECPA (e.g., at 

the street-segment level) materially 

improve the quality of the analysis and 

justify the added complexity of the 

collection? 

75. Were we to collect pricing data for 

mobile services, how should prices for 

mobile services be assigned to a 

geographic area? Assigning a fixed 

service subscriber to a single census 

block is a relatively simple process that 

providers currently use to provide 

subscribership data at the census-tract 

level. Assigning price data for mobile 

services to a geographic area, however, 

is less straightforward, particularly in 

light of the billing address issues related 

to mobile addressed above. Should 

providers of mobile services use the 

billing address as the customer’s 

location, and report data for that 

customer in the corresponding census 


srobinson on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with PROPOSALS
10838 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 39 / Monday, February 28, 2011 / Proposed Rules 

block? For those that suggest mobile 

services do not have any inherent 

location, how should the Commission 

evaluate substitution of fixed service by 

mobile? How should the Commission 

account for various types of pre-paid 

and family plans that are common in 

mobile services? 

76. The impact of a given price will 

be very different for consumers, 

businesses, and anchor institutions. The 

impact of those prices could vary 

significantly within those groups as 

well. For example, schools and libraries 

may seek a broadband service similar to 

a community hospital, but may have 

less funding. Should the Commission 

specify narrower customer classes (e.g., 

small, medium, and large business) 

when collecting price data? How would 

any such customer classes be defined? 

3. Subscription 

77. We seek comment on whether 

subscription data, which the 

Commission currently collects, are 

necessary to fulfill several of the 

purposes discussed above: monitoring 

telephone and broadband competition 

by providing a measure of competition’s 

outcome: how many customers 

subscribe to different providers’ services 

in each area; promoting broadband 

deployment and availability; ensuring 

public safety by providing a measure of 

what networks and providers are relied 

on by how many customers in each area; 

monitoring the effects of PSTN-to-IP 

conversion by providing insight into 

how many customers are reliant on each 

type of network technology in each area; 

and ensuring that affordable voice and 

broadband services are available to all 

Americans. 

78. No commenter has asked the 

Commission to cease collecting 

subscription data for wireline services. 

Are there types of subscription data the 

Commission need not continue to 

collect? For example, should the 

Commission continue to require 

providers to report the percentage of 

their local exchange telephone service 

lines for which they are the 

presubscribed interstate long distance 

carrier or that are provided over UNE– 

Platform? One provider has urged the 

Commission to cease collecting 

subscription data from wireless service 

providers, and instead to ‘‘seek 

broadband and telephony data based on 

coverage areas’’ like those provided by 

American Roamer, because coverage 

areas more accurately indicate where 

mobile subscribers have access to 

wireless service than do subscriber 

billing addresses or area codes. We seek 

comment on this proposal. Would data 

collected by coverage area be sufficient 

to achieve the outcomes discussed in 

Section III above? 

a. Issues Applicable to Both Voice and 

Broadband Subscription 

79. Mobile issues. Should the 

Commission modify its data collection 

practices with respect to mobile voice or 

mobile broadband subscribers? For 

example, if most providers treat each 

line, telephone number, or device as a 

separate subscription, to what extent 

does over-counting result from 

individuals owning or using more than 

one device? We also ask that providers 

comment on the way in which family 

plans are counted. Is one family plan a 

subscription, or is each line within the 

plan counted as a separate subscriber? 

In addition, certain challenges can arise 

in collecting data on prepaid 

subscribers, particularly subscribers to 

traditional pay-as-you-go prepaid plans. 

For instance, the address or location of 

such subscribers is typically unknown, 

and these subscribers may frequently 

stop using one device and start using 

another without the first device being 

counted as a disconnect. We seek 

comment on the best way to account for 

pre-paid plan subscribers given these 

challenges. In addition, should we 

collect data on the number of mobile 

voice and mobile broadband 

subscriptions by spectrum band, by 

customer class (i.e., residential and 

business), and by technology? Should 

we require that mobile voice and mobile 

broadband providers distinguish which 

subscribers are voice-only, broadbandonly, or both voice and broadband? How 

should we account for mobile data 

services for non-traditional devices, 

such as data-only e-readers, machine-tomachine communications, telemetry 

systems, and others? Are there other 

ways for the Commission to access this 

information? How would any proposed 

changes help us to produce our annual 

report on mobile wireless competition? 

80. Geographic Area. Form 477 

currently collects voice telephony 

subscription data at the State level and 

broadband subscription data at the 

census tract level. We seek comment on 

whether voice and broadband 

subscription data should be collected at 

the same level of geographic specificity. 

Are there differences in the need for 

such data that would justify continuing 

to use different levels of specificity? We 

also seek comment on whether the 

Commission should require entities to 

report deployment and subscription 

levels at the same level of geographic 

specificity. 

81. As discussed above, commenters 

in prior proceedings have advocated 

more granular subscribership data for 

broadband services. Commenters have 

also suggested that policymakers need 

more granular data about voice services, 

particularly in order to address 

competition issues. Should voice and 

broadband subscription data be reported 

at the address level, the census block 

level or some other level? Is it important 

for voice and broadband subscription 

data to be reported at the same 

geographic level, regardless of which 

one? As discussed below, the Electronic 

Communications Privacy Act may be 

implicated should the Commission 

collect address-level subscription data 

from service providers. However, some 

smaller providers have specifically 

requested that the Commission allow 

them to provide address-level data 

because that ‘‘would reduce reporting 

burdens on small businesses serving 

high-cost rural areas.’’ Therefore, we 

seek comment on the propriety of 

allowing production of such data at the 

request of a provider, the benefits and 

drawbacks to having some, but not all 

subscribership data at that level of 

granularity, and whether such 

collections would violate ECPA. 

82. Data on mobile wireless 

broadband subscribers are currently 

collected at the State level, while mobile 

broadband availability is reported at the 

census tract level. We seek comment on 

whether we should treat fixed and 

mobile services differently. How should 

we account for users of resold or 

prepaid mobile broadband services, 

where the address of the end user may 

be unknown? 

83. Residential and Business 

Subscription Breakdown. Form 477 

currently requires that providers report 

subscriptions separately for residential 

and business customers. We recognize 

that this distinction may be imprecise, 

particularly for mobile plans where 

lines used primarily for business may be 

paid for by an individual, or vice versa. 

We seek comment on whether there are 

better ways to distinguish residential 

and business customer classes, for data 

and voice services. For example, should 

we require providers to treat all fixed 

broadband connections with a servicelevel agreement as ‘‘business’’ and all 

those without one as ‘‘residential?’’ 

b. Voice Subscription Data 

84. To the extent the Commission 

continues to collect subscription data, 

we seek comment on whether we 

should modify the way in which we 

collect that data. 

85. Fixed. Should the Commission 

modify its data collection practices with 

respect to fixed voice services? For 

example, should the Commission 

distinguish among services sold as 


srobinson on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 39 / Monday, February 28, 2011 / Proposed Rules 10839 

stand-alone offerings and services that 

are bundled with a subscription to 

broadband, video, or mobile services? 

The Commission currently collects data 

on the proportion of subscribers that 

have the filing carrier as their 

presubscribed interexchange carrier 

(PIC). Should the Commission collect 

information on what type of 

interexchange service plans these 

subscribers purchase (e.g., per minute, 

bundles of minutes, or unlimited local 

and long distance)? 

86. Form 477 currently collects 

limited data on the extent of facilitiesbased competition for fixed voice 

services. Should the Commission 

distinguish among the types of loops 

provided under unbundled network 

element (UNE) arrangements? For 

example, should the Commission collect 

data on the number of DS0, DS1, and 

DS3 loops provided to unaffiliated 

telecommunications carriers under a 

UNE loop arrangement? The 

Commission does not currently collect 

information for voice services that are 

provided using special access or other 

high capacity services/facilities that 

have not been channelized. Should the 

Commission collect information on 

voice services provided in this manner? 

87. Interconnected VoIP. Should the 

Commission modify its requirements 

concerning interconnected VoIP? For 

example, should the Commission 

distinguish among stand-alone, 

facilities-based interconnected VoIP; 

stand-alone over-the-top interconnected 

VoIP; and interconnected VoIP that is 

bundled with a broadband subscription? 

Should Form 477 distinguish ‘‘nomadic’’ 

from ‘‘fixed’’ interconnected VoIP (i.e., 

distinguish whether an interconnected 

VoIP service can be used from one or 

multiple fixed locations)? Should the 

Commission begin collecting data on 

VoIP services that do not meet the 

definition of interconnected VoIP (e.g., 

services that can make calls to or receive 

calls from the PSTN)? 

c. Broadband Subscription Data 

88. Currently, Form 477 collects data 

on broadband subscribership at 72 

speed tiers for each census tract in the 

nation. As with deployment data, we 

seek comment on whether we should 

reduce the number of speed tiers at 

which providers report. Should the 

speed tiers used for deployment and 

subscription data be the same? Should 

providers of fixed and mobile 

broadband services provide the number 

of subscribers by technology? We also 

seek comment on whether wireless 

broadband providers should include 

information about the spectrum band(s) 

they use to provide service. 

4. Service Quality and Customer 

Satisfaction 

89. We seek comment on whether 

service quality and customer 

satisfaction data are necessary to fulfill 

several of the purposes discussed above: 

reducing waste, fraud, and abuse and 

increasing accountability in our 

universal service programs by ensuring 

that recipients of government support 

provide services to their customers that 

are reliable and of comparable quality to 

those not provided with government 

support; ensuring public safety by 

ensuring that networks remain a reliable 

means of contacting public safety 

organizations; monitoring telephone and 

broadband competition by ensuring that 

service providers with overlapping 

footprints provide comparable levels of 

service; promoting broadband 

deployment and availability; protecting 

consumers by ensuring that end users 

have information about network 

performance; and tracking the effects of 

the conversion from PSTN to IP services 

by providing insight into the 

performance levels of both networks. 

a. Issues Applicable to Both Voice and 

Broadband 

90. Who Should Report. The 

Commission previously has collected 

voice service quality and customer 

satisfaction data from a small subset of 

the total number of carriers. We seek 

comment on whether and how such 

data should be collected from a larger 

universe of voice and broadband 

providers. 

91. What Data Should Be Collected. If 

we do collect such data, we seek 

comment on what aspects of service 

quality and customer satisfaction are 

relevant to the purposes described 

above or otherwise identified by 

commenters. The Commission could 

collect, for example, data regarding the 

number of trouble reports or complaints 

that customers make regarding network 

performance or degradation; complaints 

regarding service provider customer 

care and billing; installation and repair 

intervals; and general customer 

satisfaction. The Commission has 

conducted surveys that include 

questions on customer satisfaction. To 

what extent could data from these 

surveys and others like it be used to 

address concerns about service quality, 

particularly with respect to individual 

carriers in particular geographic areas? 

In addition, the Commission could 

collect direct measures of network 

performance, such as network 

downtime and number of customers 

affected; call blocking; prevalence of 

dropped calls; and speed, latency, and 

jitter. 

92. To what extent should the 

Commission specify common metrics 

for voice and broadband services. For 

example, should the Commission collect 

data on gross churn as a measure of 

customer dissatisfaction? Should the 

Commission collect data from all 

providers on the number of complaints 

made to providers and to State public 

utility commissions? Should data for 

residential customers include the time 

interval for installation and service 

commitments, the percent of time those 

commitments are met, and the out-ofservice repair interval? How could the 

Commission ensure that such metrics 

were comparable for all reporting 

entities? 

93. Geographic Area. We seek 

comment on over what geographic areas 

would be appropriate to collect service 

quality and customer satisfaction data. 

Given the role States play in regulating 

some voice services, we seek comment 

on whether collecting data by provider 

by State is appropriate. However, some 

provider networks may cross State 

boundaries, suggesting that market- or 

carrier-level information would be more 

appropriate. It may also be the case that 

different aspects of the proposed service 

quality collection will be most 

meaningful when measured in different 

geographic areas (e.g., wireline voice by 

State; but cable information by system), 

which suggests that the collection 

should be made over a smaller 

geographic area to allow for different 

levels of aggregation. To the extent 

commenters suggest the Commission 

collect data, we ask that they specify the 

appropriate geographic area for these 

data, and the relative burden that 

reporting for different geographic areas 

might impose. 

b. Voice 

94. The Commission in 1990 

established ARMIS Reports 43–05 and 

43–06 in order to monitor whether the 

implementation of price caps would 

lead to carriers lowering service quality. 

In 2008, the Commission granted certain 

incumbent LECs conditional 

forbearance from ‘‘the current partial 

and uneven’’ collection of those reports. 

The Commission noted, however, ‘‘the 

possibility that service quality and 

customer satisfaction data * * * might 

be useful to consumers to help them 

make informed choices in a competitive 

market, but only if available from the 

entire relevant industry,’’ and tentatively 

concluded that the Commission should 

collect this type of information from 

‘‘facilities-based providers of broadband 

and/or telecommunications.’’ Some urge 


srobinson on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with PROPOSALS
10840 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 39 / Monday, February 28, 2011 / Proposed Rules 

the Commission to adopt this tentative 

conclusion, while others object, arguing 

that forbearance was justified and the 

metrics set forth in those reports are 

irrelevant and outdated. 

95. CWA proposes that the 

Commission require all providers of 

voice telecommunications services to 

file all of the data previously submitted 

on ARMIS Reports 43–05 and 43–06, 

and to expand service quality 

measurements to include answer times 

for live representatives responding to 

customer inquiries. We note, however, 

that all parts of the ARMIS 43–05 and 

43–06 collections may not be helpful to 

fulfillment of the policy objectives 

discussed in Section III. For example, 

the California PUC offers a more limited 

proposal, that the Commission collect 

data formerly reported on four of the six 

tables of ARMIS Report 43–05. 

96. We seek comment on whether the 

Commission should use Form 477 to 

collect service quality and customer 

satisfaction data for voice networks. 

Should the Commission collect some or 

all of the service quality metrics 

formerly collected through ARMIS, or 

other measures of voice quality? Should 

we collect metrics from switched and 

interconnected VoIP providers, over 

both fixed and mobile networks? Are 

there other metrics for service quality 

and customer satisfaction that would be 

more appropriate and less burdensome 

for reporting entities? Should metrics 

vary depending on the technology over 

which service is provided? 

c. Broadband 

97. Several commenters have 

suggested that the Commission collect 

service quality and customer service 

data from broadband providers. In 

contrast, most broadband providers that 

commented objected to adopting any 

service quality data requirements. We 

seek comment on whether Form 477 

should be revised to collect service 

quality and customer satisfaction data 

from broadband providers, and the 

authority under which such a collection 

would be conducted. 

98. The metrics set forth in ARMIS 

Reports 43–05 and 43–06 were not 

designed with broadband networks in 

mind, and therefore might not be the 

best tools for collecting relevant data. To 

the extent that the Commission decides 

to extend customer service 

measurement to broadband services, we 

seek comment on what metrics should 

be used to assess broadband network 

service quality and customer 

satisfaction. How would the 

Commission measure network 

downtime? Should downtime reports 

include specific locations of outages and 

the number of customer-hours relating 

to the outage? Should the Commission 

collect packet loss, latency, and jitter 

data? How can it do so in a meaningful 

way; and over what geographic area 

would such a collection have meaning? 

Should the Commission collect data on 

mobile and fixed traffic volume and 

network congestion, and if so, how 

should those metrics be specified? Over 

what geographic area is such a 

collection meaningful, and what 

measure of traffic is most meaningful? 

99. We note that the recently adopted 

Open Internet Order requires broadband 

providers to publicly disclose the 

network management practices and 

performance characteristics of their 

broadband Internet access services. Are 

these disclosures adequate to satisfy any 

need the Commission may have for 

service quality data? If Form 477 were 

used to collect information regarding 

network management practices or 

performance characteristics, would the 

benefits outweigh the burdens? 

5. Ownership and Contact Information 

100. We seek comment on whether 

ownership and contact information are 

necessary to fulfill one or more of the 

purposes discussed above, including 

reducing waste, fraud, and abuse and 

increasing accountability in our 

universal service programs by 

simplifying the process of determining 

the total amount of public support 

received by each recipient regardless of 

corporate structure; ensuring public 

safety by providing a means for 

Commission staff to contact network 

operations centers rapidly in the event 

of an emergency; and monitoring 

telephone and broadband competition 

by revealing whether service providers 

with overlapping service footprints are 

in fact under common ownership or 

control. 

101. Currently, we permit Form 477 

filers to consolidate data for multiple 

operations within a State on a single 

submission. We also permit filers to 

determine the organizational level at 

which they submit their filings. For 

example, a parent or holding company 

may file on behalf of its subsidiaries or 

the subsidiaries may file their own Form 

477. This provides filers with significant 

flexibility in how they submit data on 

Form 477, but may not provide the 

Commission with a sufficiently detailed 

picture of the markets for which data are 

reported. 

102. We seek comment on whether we 

should revise the Form 477 to collect 

additional ownership information and 

related data. Would additional 

ownership information help inform the 

Commission’s overall understanding of 

the broadband ecosystem? In particular, 

would additional or different ownership 

data help us understand the 

interrelationships among the data on 

services and thereby improve our ability 

to evaluate markets and report to the 

public? Given the importance of 

broadband competition, would the 

benefit to the Commission of 

understanding the relationships 

between companies that appear to be 

providing competitive services in a 

particular area outweigh any burden of 

producing such information? 

103. We also seek comment on the 

most effective and least burdensome 

means of collecting additional 

ownership data. One option could be to 

require filers to report data such as that 

collected on FCC Form 602 for wireless 

carriers, which collects all of a filer’s 

‘‘disclosable interest holders.’’ Would 

such an approach be necessary to enable 

us to evaluate ultimate ownership of, 

and common control among, filers, or 

would a more limited dataset be 

sufficient? Should we require the 

submission of data on any branding 

used in the marketing or provision of 

service? If we require the submission of 

additional ownership information, 

should we also collect other reporting 

identifiers the filers use in making 

submissions to the Commission, such as 

the Physical System ID (PSID) used by 

the Media Bureau for cable systems? 

These and other measures might allow 

the Commission more easily to evaluate 

the actual number of providers offering 

services in a given area and to report 

non-confidential information about 

carriers by the names by which most 

consumers know them. Are there are 

ancillary data that would be helpful to 

include on consumer-facing resources, 

such as the national broadband 

inventory map? Would it be useful, for 

example, to make available a provider’s 

Web site address and other nonconfidential data? Should entities that 

file report their FCC Registration 

Number (FRN) and Universal Service 

Administrative Company Study Area 

Code (SAC)? 

104. We also seek comment on 

revising Form 477 to collect contact 

information for use in emergency 

situations. The Commission maintains a 

voluntary reporting system, the Disaster 

Information Reporting System (DIRS) 

that facilitates contact with carriers in 

emergencies. The Commission also 

maintains a number of databases that 

include contact information for other 

purposes. There is, however, no 

structured, mandatory collection of 

contact information in place specifically 

for use in emergencies affecting 

telephone or broadband networks. As a 


srobinson on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 39 / Monday, February 28, 2011 / Proposed Rules 10841 

mandatory, recurring filing by providers 

of telephone and broadband service, 

Form 477 may be a particularly effective 

vehicle for collecting emergencycontacts data that are comprehensive 

and current, with a relatively small 

burden on filers. We seek comment on 

whether we should revise Form 477 to 

collect data of this type and, if so, what 

data would best facilitate emergency 

communications with providers. Would 

a telephone number and e-mail address 

for each provider’s Network Operations 

Center or equivalent be sufficient? 

Would the current six-month cycle for 

filing Form 477 be frequent enough to 

ensure that information was current? 

Are there any additional steps the 

Commission should take to collect data 

of this type? 

6. Other Data 

105. Stakeholders have periodically 

suggested that the Commission collect 

other types of data via Form 477. 

MMTC, for example, suggests that the 

Commission collect via Form 477 

‘‘socioeconomic data,’’ ‘‘social metrics,’’ 

data to assess socially and economically 

disadvantaged businesses and minority 

or woman-owned business entities, and 

data on hardware and software 

availability in underserved areas. What 

other data should the Commission 

collect via Form 477 in support of the 

purposes identified in Section III above? 

Commenters should explain the purpose 

for which the Commission would 

collect such data, the legal authority for 

the collection, and the extent to which 

the benefits outweigh the burdens of 

collecting it. 

106. We also note that there are some 

alternate geographic areas relevant to 

Commission analysis that cannot be recreated by aggregating even the smallest 

census geographies. Such alternate areas 

include, for example, wire centers or 

study areas. Information about what 

alternate areas are associated with each 

reported geography (i.e., the geography 

reported with one or more of the 

possible collections described above) 

would assist in any analysis related to 

those areas. We seek comment on the 

burden to provide information about 

these alternate geographic areas on 

those reporting data. 

V. Legal Issues 

A. Authority 

107. The Commission has previously 

noted it must collect data on the 

provision of voice and broadband 

services to fulfill numerous statutory 

obligations. For example, the 

Telecommunications Act of 1996 

required the Commission to open all 

telecommunications markets to 

competition, and to assess the 

availability of broadband services. The 

Form 477 program collects data that are 

‘‘a critical precursor’’ to the 

Commission’s ability to fulfill these 

directives. Form 477 also enables us to 

fulfill our obligation to reduce 

government regulation wherever 

possible, by providing ‘‘a factual basis to 

evaluate the nature and impact of our 

existing regulation and, in particular, to 

identify areas where competition has 

developed sufficiently to justify 

deregulation.’’ Many other statutory 

obligations cannot be implemented 

without the collection of data about the 

deployment and adoption of 

communications technologies and the 

state of relevant marketplaces. For 

example, the BDIA requires the 

Commission to collect comparative data 

reflecting the extent of broadband 

service capability in other countries, 

and data for the United States, to inform 

its annual consideration of whether 

broadband is being deployed to all 

Americans on a reasonable and timely 

basis. We believe our authority to 

collect the proposed additional data 

derives from these statutory obligations, 

as well as additional grants of authority 

in the Act, including those in Sections 

4(i), 4(k), 218 and 403. We invite 

comment on this conclusion. 

B. Disclosure 

108. The Commission has always 

recognized that the Form 477 broadband 

and local telephone service data it 

collects can be of significant value not 

only to the Commission, but also to the 

States and to the public. In establishing 

and administering the Form 477 

collection, however, the Commission 

has also been cognizant of the potential 

sensitivity of the data collected and has 

limited their disclosure. 

109. We note that the Commission is 

reviewing its data dissemination 

practices in connection with the Data 

Innovation Initiative. How can we best 

provide stakeholders with useful data 

while protecting filers’ legitimate 

confidentiality interests? Should the 

Commission retain the simple check box 

on the FCC Form 477 that filers can use 

to request confidential treatment for all 

data submitted on that form? Are there 

classes of information that should 

always be considered public, and, 

therefore, not be granted confidential 

treatment? For example, given that 

SBDD data will be public, are there any 

reasons to accord confidential treatment 

to deployment data collected by the 

Commission? Are there circumstances 

where data submitted to the 

Commission should be held 

confidential, but aggregations of those 

data be made public, as is currently the 

case with subscription information? 

Once deemed confidential, should data 

always be confidential, or does the 

passage of time diminish the 

commercial sensitivity of certain types 

of data? When data are given 

confidential treatment, should the 

Commission establish a program to 

allow researchers access to those data 

under certain conditions? How would 

such a program be administered? 

C. Privacy 

110. We seek comment on any privacy 

concerns that may arise from the 

reporting of address-level data. We note 

that the privacy-based limitations on the 

government’s access to customer 

information in Title II of ECPA, and the 

privacy provisions of the Cable Act, may 

be implicated by collection of addresslevel subscribership data. We therefore 

seek comment on ways the Commission 

could alleviate any privacy concerns 

while complying with all applicable 

laws. 

111. We also seek comment on 

whether the Commission could 

establish a registry or database through 

which consumers could themselves 

share data with the Commission or 

choose to have their providers share 

data with the Commission. What would 

be the benefits and drawbacks of such 

a registry, and how could it be set up 

both to get useful data and to minimize 

the burden on consumers and reporting 

entities? Should consumers provide 

information directly to the Commission, 

or through reporting entities that must 

gain consumer consent? If the latter, 

what steps could the Commission take 

to ensure that consumers have provided 

consent? How could the Commission 

address any other privacy issues, and 

any other legal impediments to the 

creation and maintenance of such a 

registry? 

112. We note that the presence or 

absence of a network at a particular 

address does not provide any 

subscriber-specific information. We seek 

comment, however, on whether any 

privacy concerns would arise if 

providers were required to report 

deployment data at the address level. 

VI. Other Issues 

A. Tribal Lands 

113. The National Broadband Plan 

identifies the importance of improving 

data on Tribal lands, and recommends 

that the Commission ‘‘identify methods 

for collecting and reporting broadband 

information that is specific to Tribal 

lands, working with Tribes to ensure 


srobinson on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with PROPOSALS
10842 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 39 / Monday, February 28, 2011 / Proposed Rules 

that any information collected is 

accurate and useful.’’ The Commission’s 

rules identify Federally recognized 

Tribal lands and define them for 

particular purposes, such as the 

eligibility and delivery requirements for 

universal service support programs. The 

Commission’s definition of Tribal lands 

identifies the boundaries of land 

holdings of Federally recognized 

American Indian Tribal and Alaska 

Native Village government entities. We 

acknowledge that American Indian and 

Alaska Native areas defined as ‘‘Native 

Home Lands’’ by the U.S. Census Bureau 

for census taking purposes encompass 

areas both within and beyond areas 

defined as Tribal Lands in the 

Commission’s rules. Tribal leaders have 

asked that we consider disaggregating 

our analysis of the Census Bureau’s 

‘‘Native Home Land’’ areas, in part to 

allow for a more accurate assessment of 

broadband deployment in the Tribal 

Lands areas defined under the 

Commission’s rules. In the Seventh 

Broadband Deployment NOI, we sought 

comment on how to more accurately 

report data concerning the lands of 

Federally recognized American Indians 

Tribes and Alaska Native Villages, as 

well as Native Hawaiian Home Lands. 

Native Hawaiian Home Lands may also 

be able to be more accurately analyzed, 

as they are located exclusively within 

the State of Hawaii. 

114. We seek comment on our 

analysis of broadband deployment and 

availability on Federally recognized 

Tribal lands and how we could improve 

and refine this analysis. We also seek 

comment on analysis of broadband 

deployment and availability on Native 

Hawaiian Home Lands. We note that 

sources of such data may presently exist 

within the U.S. Department of 

Commerce, U.S. Department of the 

Interior, and from Tribal Government 

entities. We seek comment on whether 

there are other sources of data that 

would help the Commission better 

understand and analyze the nature of 

broadband deployment and availability 

on Tribal Lands and Native Hawaiian 

Home Lands. 

B. International Data 

115. As discussed above, the BDIA 

requires the Commission to include an 

international comparison in its annual 

broadband deployment report. The 

International Bureau has released its 

first International Broadband Data 

Report, which presented data and 

information on international broadband 

service capability, advertised prices or 

broadband services, community-level 

data, and information about the 

broadband market and broadband 

regulations in various nations. 

116. To conduct a rigorous 

comparison of the factors that affect 

broadband deployment in the U.S. and 

abroad, it is necessary to have 

comparable, detailed, and 

geographically disaggregated data. We 

therefore seek comment on how and 

whether revisions to the Form 477 

program would facilitate comparing the 

U.S. broadband market to other 

countries. To what extent would 

revisions facilitate comparisons between 

the U.S. and other countries on the basis 

of a population’s income (and variations 

in income), education (and variations in 

education), computer literacy, 

residential computer ownership, 

household size, and other factors? 

Should the Form 477 program be 

modified to collect data on the costs of 

deploying broadband, including as a 

function of population density at a 

geographically disaggregated level? 

Should the program be modified to 

collect data on alternative broadband 

technologies more prevalent in other 

countries? Should the program allow for 

or enable an assessment of the number 

of providers that offer alternative forms 

of broadband and the advertised and 

actual speeds that providers offer in 

local geographic areas? Are there 

modifications to the subscription data 

we currently collect that would make 

those data more suitable for 

international comparisons? Where U.S. 

providers offer multiple service 

packages, should the Commission 

collect data about the speeds and other 

service characteristics of these 

packages? Would information on actual 

data usage be useful, as well as data on 

the applications that residential 

consumers use, such as VoIP services? 

Finally, would the collection of pricing 

data facilitate comparisons with 

offerings in other countries? 

VII. Procedural Matters 

A. Ex Parte Presentations 

117. This proceeding shall be treated 

as a ‘‘permit-but-disclose’’ proceeding in 

accordance with the Commission’s ex 

parte rules. 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. Other requirements pertaining 

to oral and written presentations are set 

forth in § 1.1206(b) of the Commission’s 

rules. 

B. Comment Filing Procedures 

118. Pursuant to §§ 1.415 and 1.419 of 

the Commission’s rules, interested 

parties may file comments and reply 

comments regarding the NPRM on or 

before the dates indicated on the first 

page of this document. All filings 

should refer to WC Docket No. 10–191. 

Comments may be filed using: (1) The 

Commission’s Electronic Comment 

Filing System (ECFS); (2) the Federal 

Government’s e-Rulemaking Portal; or 

(3) by filing paper copies. 

119. Electronic Filers: Comments may 

be filed electronically using the Internet 

by accessing the ECFS: http:// 

fjallfoss.fcc.gov/ecfs/ or the Federal eRulemaking Portal: http:// 

www.regulations.gov. 

120. 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. 

121. Filings can be sent by hand or 

messenger delivery, by commercial 

overnight courier, or by first-class or 

overnight U.S. Postal Service mail. All 

filings must be addressed to the 

Commission’s Secretary, Office of the 

Secretary, Federal Communications 

Commission. 

122. Effective December 28, 2009, all 

hand-delivered or messenger-delivered 

paper filings for the Commission’s 

Secretary must be delivered to FCC 

Headquarters at 445 12th St., SW., Room 

TW–A325, Washington, DC 20554. All 

hand deliveries must be held together 

with rubber bands or fasteners. Any 

envelopes must be disposed of before 

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 must be addressed to 445 

12th Street, SW., Washington, DC 

20554. 

123. People with Disabilities: 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 

and Governmental Affairs Bureau at 

202–418–0530 (voice), 202–418–0432 

(tty). 

124. For further information about 

this rulemaking proceeding, please 

contact Jeremy Miller, Industry Analysis 

and Technology Division, Wireline 

Competition Bureau at (202) 418–0940. 

125. Documents in WC Docket No. 

11–10 will be available for public 


srobinson on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 39 / Monday, February 28, 2011 / Proposed Rules 10843 

inspection and copying during business 

hours at the FCC Reference Information 

Center, Portals II, 445 12th Street, 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. 

VIII. Ordering Clauses 

126. Accordingly, it is ordered that, 

pursuant to Sections 1–5, 10, 11, 201– 

205, 211, 214, 215, 218–220, 251–271, 

301, 303, 304, 307, 309, 316, 332, 403, 

409, 502, and 503 of the 

Communications Act of 1934, as 

amended, 47 U.S.C. 151–155, 161, 201– 

205, 211, 214, 215, 218–220, 251–271, 

301, 303, 304, 307, 309, 316, 332, 403, 

409, 502, and 503, Section 706 of the 

Telecommunications Act of 1996, as 

amended, 47 U.S.C. 1302, and Section 

102 of the Broadband Data Improvement 

Act, 47 U.S.C. 1303, this Notice, with all 

attachments, is adopted. 

127. It is further ordered that the 

Commission’s Consumer and 

Governmental Affairs Bureau, Reference 

Information Center, shall send a copy of 

this NPRM, including the Initial 

Regulatory Flexibility Analysis, to the 

Chief Counsel for Advocacy of the Small 

Business Administration. 

Initial Regulatory Flexibility Analysis 

128. As required by the Regulatory 

Flexibility Act of 1980, as amended 

(RFA), the Commission has prepared 

this Initial Regulatory Flexibility 

Analysis (IRFA) of the possible 

significant economic impact on a 

substantial number of small entities 

from the policies and rules proposed in 

this Notice of Proposed Rulemaking 

(NPRM). The Commission requests 

written public comment 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 on the first page of the 

NPRM. The Commission will send a 

copy of the NPRM, including this IRFA, 

to the Chief Counsel for Advocacy of the 

Small Business Administration (SBA). 

In addition, the NPRM and IRFA (or 

summaries thereof) will be published in 

the Federal Register. 

A. Need for, and Objectives of, the 

Proposed Rules 

129. In the Notice of Proposed 

Rulemaking, the Commission considers 

whether and how to reform the Form 

477 data program, which serves as the 

Commission’s primary tool for 

collecting broadband and local 

telephone data. After more than a 

decade of rapid innovation in the 

market for broadband and telephone 

services, the Commission believes it is 

time to consider whether modifying 

Form 477 will better serve the current 

and future needs of the Commission, 

Congress, consumers, and other 

stakeholders. Such reform seeks to 

improve the Commission’s ability to 

carry out its duties under the 

Communications Act of 1934, as 

amended (the Act), and is an important 

part of the Commission’s larger 

initiative to modernize and streamline 

how the Commission collects, uses, and 

disseminates data. Specifically, the 

Commission seeks comment on five 

categories of data that may be necessary 

to collect: (1) Deployment, (2) 

subscription, (3) price, (4) service 

quality, and (5) ownership and contact 

information. The Commission also seeks 

comment on whether there are other 

types of data necessary for the 

Commission to complete its mandates. 

130. For these categories of data, the 

Commission identifies the purposes for 

which data may be needed, and seeks 

comment on the specifics of certain 

approaches to collecting data. For 

example, the Commission seeks 

comment on whether the Commission 

should use Form 477 to collect price 

data, which could help accomplish 

several purposes, including 

modernizing the universal service 

program to support broadband. 

131. In addition, the Commission also 

seeks comment on whether service 

quality and customer satisfaction data 

may be necessary for several purposes, 

including increasing accountability in 

the Commission’s universal service 

programs, ensuring public safety, 

promoting broadband deployment, and 

protecting consumers. The Commission 

then identifies certain metrics that 

could be collected, such as data 

regarding the number of trouble reports 

that customers make regarding network 

performance, and seeks comment. 

132. The Commission also seeks 

comment on collecting ownership and 

contact information in order to reduce 

waste, fraud, and abuse in universal 

service programs and for other 

purposes. 

133. The Commission also seeks 

comment on the extent to which 

technological tools and use of 

commercial and publicly available data 

can reduce the burden of producing 

information. The Commission also seeks 

comment on how to streamline the 

process in collecting the data it needs to 

inform its policymaking processes while 

minimizing the production burden on 

providers and the processing burden on 

the Commission. 

B. Legal Basis 

134. The legal basis for any action that 

may be taken pursuant to the Notice of 

Proposed Rulemaking is contained in 

Sections 1–5, 10, 11, 201–205, 211, 214, 

215, 218–220, 251–271, 301, 303, 304, 

307, 309, 316, 332, 403, 409, 502, and 

503 of the Communications Act of 1934, 

as amended, 47 U.S.C. 151–155, 161, 

201–205, 211, 214, 215, 218–220, 251– 

271, 301, 303, 304, 307, 309, 316, 332, 

403, 409, 502, and 503, Section 706 of 

the Telecommunications Act of 1996, as 

amended, 47 U.S.C. 1302, and Section 

102 of the Broadband Data Improvement 

Act, 47 U.S.C. 1303. 

C. Description and Estimate of the 

Number of Small Entities to Which the 

Rules Will Apply 

135. The RFA directs agencies to 

provide a description of, and, where 

feasible, an estimate of, the number of 

small entities that may be affected by 

the rules adopted herein. The RFA 

generally defines the term ‘‘small entity’’ 

as having the same meaning as the terms 

‘‘small business,’’ ‘‘small organization,’’ 

and ‘‘small governmental jurisdiction.’’ 

In addition, the term ‘‘small business’’ 

has the same meaning as the term ‘‘small 

business concern’’ under the Small 

Business Act. A ‘‘small business 

concern’’ is one which: (1) Is 

independently owned and operated; (2) 

is not dominant in its field of operation; 

and (3) satisfies any additional criteria 

established by the Small Business 

Administration (SBA). 

1. Wireline Providers 

136. Incumbent Local Exchange 

Carriers (Incumbent LECs). Neither the 

Commission nor the SBA has developed 

a small business size standard 

specifically for incumbent local 

exchange services. The appropriate size 

standard under SBA rules is for the 

category Wired Telecommunications 

Carriers. Under that size standard, such 

a business is small if it has 1,500 or 

fewer employees. Census Bureau data 

for 2007, which now supersede data 

from the 2002 Census, show that there 

were 3,188 firms in this category that 

operated for the entire year. Of this 

total, 3,144 had employment of 999 or 

fewer, and 44 firms had had 

employment of 1,000 or more. 

According to Commission data, 1,307 

carriers reported that they were 

incumbent local exchange service 

providers. Of these 1,307 carriers, an 

estimated 1,006 have 1,500 or fewer 

employees and 301 have more than 

1,500 employees. Consequently, the 

Commission estimates that most 

providers of local exchange service are 


srobinson on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with PROPOSALS
10844 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 39 / Monday, February 28, 2011 / Proposed Rules 

small entities that may be affected by 

the rules and policies proposed in the 

NPRM. Thus under this category and 

the associated small business size 

standard, the majority of these 

incumbent local exchange service 

providers can be considered small 

providers. 

137. Competitive Local Exchange 

Carriers (Competitive LECs), 

Competitive Access Providers (CAPs), 

Shared-Tenant Service Providers, and 

Other Local Service Providers. Neither 

the Commission nor the SBA has 

developed a small business size 

standard specifically for these service 

providers. The appropriate size standard 

under SBA rules is for the category 

Wired Telecommunications Carriers. 

Under that size standard, such a 

business is small if it has 1,500 or fewer 

employees. Census Bureau data for 

2007, which now supersede data from 

the 2002 Census, show that there were 

3,188 firms in this category that 

operated for the entire year. Of this 

total, 3,144 had employment of 999 or 

fewer, and 44 firms had had 

employment of 1,000 employees or 

more. Thus under this category and the 

associated small business size standard, 

the majority of these Competitive LECs, 

CAPs, Shared-Tenant Service Providers, 

and Other Local Service Providers can 

be considered small entities. According 

to Commission data, 1,442 carriers 

reported that they were engaged in the 

provision of either competitive local 

exchange services or competitive access 

provider services. Of these 1,442 

carriers, an estimated 1,256 have 1,500 

or fewer employees and 186 have more 

than 1,500 employees. In addition, 17 

carriers have reported that they are 

Shared-Tenant Service Providers, and 

all 17 are estimated to have 1,500 or 

fewer employees. In addition, 72 

carriers have reported that they are 

Other Local Service Providers. Of the 

72, seventy have 1,500 or fewer 

employees and two have 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 rules 

adopted pursuant to the NPRM. 

138. Interexchange Carriers. 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. Census Bureau data 

for 2007, which now supersede data 

from the 2002 Census, show that there 

were 3,188 firms in this category that 

operated for the entire year. Of this 

total, 3,144 had employment of 999 or 

fewer, and 44 firms had had 

employment of 1,000 employees or 

more. Thus under this category and the 

associated small business size standard, 

the majority of these Interexchange 

carriers can be considered small 

entities. According to Commission data, 

359 companies reported that their 

primary telecommunications service 

activity was the provision of 

interexchange services. Of these 359 

companies, an estimated 317 have 1,500 

or fewer employees and 42 have more 

than 1,500 employees. Consequently, 

the Commission estimates that the 

majority of interexchange service 

providers are small entities that may be 

affected by rules adopted pursuant to 

the NPRM. 

139. 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. Under that size 

standard, such a business is small if it 

has 1,500 or fewer employees a Census 

Bureau data for 2007, which now 

supersede data from the 2002 Census, 

show that there were 3,188 firms in this 

category that operated for the entire 

year. Of this total, 3,144 had 

employment of 999 or fewer, and 44 

firms had had employment of 1,000 

employees or more. Thus under this 

category and the associated small 

business size standard, the majority of 

these Interexchange carriers can be 

considered small entities. According to 

Commission data, 33 carriers have 

reported that they are engaged in the 

provision of operator services. Of these, 

an estimated 31 have 1,500 or fewer 

employees and 2 have more than 1,500 

employees. Consequently, the 

Commission estimates that the majority 

of OSPs are small entities that may be 

affected by our proposed action. 

140. 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. 

Census data for 2007 show that 1,523 

firms provided resale services during 

that year. Of that number, 1,522 

operated with fewer than 1,000 

employees and one operated with more 

than 1,000. Thus under this category 

and the associated small business size 

standard, the majority of these local 

resellers can be considered small 

entities. According to Commission data, 

213 carriers have reported that they are 

engaged in the provision of local resale 

services. Of these, an estimated 211 

have 1,500 or fewer employees and two 

have more than 1,500 employees. 

Consequently, the Commission 

estimates that the majority of local 

resellers are small entities that may be 

affected by rules adopted pursuant to 

the Notice. 

141. 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. 

Census data for 2007 show that 1,523 

firms provided resale services during 

that year. Of that number, 1,522 

operated with fewer than 1,000 

employees and one operated with more 

than 1,000. Thus under this category 

and the associated small business size 

standard, the majority of these resellers 

can be considered small entities. 

According to Commission data, 881 

carriers have reported that they are 

engaged in the provision of toll resale 

services. Of these, an estimated 857 

have 1,500 or fewer employees and 24 

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. 

142. 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. Census Bureau data 

for 2007, which now supersede data 

from the 2002 Census, show that there 

were 3,188 firms in this category that 

operated for the entire year. Of this 

total, 3,144 had employment of 999 or 

fewer, and 44 firms had had 

employment of 1,000 employees or 

more. Thus under this category and the 

associated small business size standard, 

the majority of these PSPs can be 

considered small entities. According to 

Commission data, 657 carriers have 

reported that they are engaged in the 

provision of payphone services. Of 

these, an estimated 653 have 1,500 or 

fewer employees and four have more 

than 1,500 employees. Consequently, 

the Commission estimates that the 

majority of payphone service providers 


srobinson on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 39 / Monday, February 28, 2011 / Proposed Rules 10845 

are small entities that may be affected 

by our action. 

143. 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. Census data for 2007 show 

that 1,523 firms provided resale services 

during that year. Of that number, 1,522 

operated with fewer than 1,000 

employees and one operated with more 

than 1,000. Thus under this category 

and the associated small business size 

standard, the majority of these prepaid 

calling card providers can be considered 

small entities. According to Commission 

data, 193 carriers have reported that 

they are engaged in the provision of 

prepaid calling cards. Of these, an 

estimated all 193 have 1,500 or fewer 

employees and none have more than 

1,500 employees. Consequently, the 

Commission estimates that the majority 

of prepaid calling card providers are 

small entities that may be affected by 

rules adopted pursuant to the Notice. 

144. 800 and 800-Like Service 

Subscribers. 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. Census data for 2007 show 

that 1,523 firms provided resale services 

during that year. Of that number, 1,522 

operated with fewer than 1,000 

employees and one operated with more 

than 1,000. Thus under this category 

and the associated small business size 

standard, the majority of resellers in this 

classification can be considered small 

entities. To focus specifically on the 

number of subscribers than on those 

firms which make subscription service 

available, the most reliable source of 

information regarding the number of 

these service subscribers appears to be 

data the Commission collects on the 

800, 888, 877, and 866 numbers in use. 

According to our data, at of September 

2009, the number of 800 numbers 

assigned was 7,860,000; the number of 

888 numbers assigned was 5,888,687; 

the number of 877 numbers assigned 

was 4,721,866; and the number of 866 

numbers assigned was 7,867,736. The 

Commission does 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, the Commission 

estimates that there are 7,860.000 or 

fewer small entity 800 subscribers; 

5,888,687 or fewer small entity 888 

subscribers; 4,721,866 or fewer small 

entity 877 subscribers; and 7,867,736 or 

fewer small entity 866 subscribers. 

2. Wireless Carriers and Service 

Providers 

145. Below, for those services subject 

to auctions, the Commission notes that, 

as a general matter, the number of 

winning bidders that qualify as small 

businesses at the close of an auction 

does not necessarily represent the 

number of small businesses currently in 

service. Also, the Commission does not 

generally track subsequent business size 

unless, in the context of assignments or 

transfers, unjust enrichment issues are 

implicated. 

146. Wireless Telecommunications 

Carriers (except Satellite). Since 2007, 

the Census Bureau has placed wireless 

firms within this new, broad, economic 

census category. Prior to that time, such 

firms were within the now-superseded 

categories of ‘‘Paging’’ and ‘‘Cellular and 

Other Wireless Telecommunications.’’ 

Under the present and prior categories, 

the SBA has deemed a wireless business 

to be small if it has 1,500 or fewer 

employees. For the category of Wireless 

Telecommunications Carriers (except 

Satellite), Census data for 2007, which 

supersede data contained in the 2002 

Census, show that there were 1,383 

firms that operated that year. Of those 

1,383, 1,368 had fewer than 100 

employees, and 15 firms had more than 

100 employees. Thus under this 

category and the associated small 

business size standard, the majority of 

firms can be considered small. 

Similarly, according to Commission 

data, 413 carriers reported that they 

were engaged in the provision of 

wireless telephony, including cellular 

service, Personal Communications 

Service (PCS), and Specialized Mobile 

Radio (SMR) Telephony services. Of 

these, an estimated 261 have 1,500 or 

fewer employees and 152 have more 

than 1,500 employees. Consequently, 

the Commission estimates that 

approximately half or more of these 

firms can be considered small. Thus, 

using available data, we estimate that 

the majority of wireless firms can be 

considered small. 

147. Wireless Communications 

Services. This service can be used for 

fixed, mobile, radiolocation, and digital 

audio broadcasting satellite uses. The 

Commission defined ‘‘small business’’ 

for the wireless communications 

services (WCS) auction as an entity with 

average gross revenues of $40 million 

for each of the three preceding years, 

and a ‘‘very small business’’ as an entity 

with average gross revenues of $15 

million for each of the three preceding 

years. The SBA has approved these 

definitions. The Commission auctioned 

geographic area licenses in the WCS 

service. In the auction, which 

commenced on April 15, 1997 and 

closed on April 25, 1997, seven bidders 

won 31 licenses that qualified as very 

small business entities, and one bidder 

won one license that qualified as a small 

business entity. 

148. Common Carrier Paging. The 

SBA considers paging to be a wireless 

telecommunications service and 

classifies it under the industry 

classification Wireless 

Telecommunications Carriers (except 

satellite). Under that classification, the 

applicable size standard is that a 

business is small if it has 1,500 or fewer 

employees. For the general category of 

Wireless Telecommunications Carriers 

(except Satellite), Census data for 2007, 

which supersede data contained in the 

2002 Census, show that there were 

1,383 firms that operated that year. Of 

those 1,383, 1,368 had fewer than 100 

employees, and 15 firms had more than 

100 employees. Thus under this 

category and the associated small 

business size standard, the majority of 

firms can be considered small. The 2007 

census also contains data for the 

specific category of ‘‘Paging’’ ‘‘that is 

classified under the seven-number 

NAICs code 5172101. According to 

Commission data, 291 carriers have 

reported that they are engaged in Paging 

or Messaging Service. Of these, an 

estimated 289 have 1,500 or fewer 

employees, and 2 have more than 1,500 

employees. Consequently, the 

Commission estimates that the majority 

of paging providers are small entities 

that may be affected by our action. In 

addition, in the Paging Third Report and 

Order, the Commission 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. 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 


srobinson on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with PROPOSALS
10846 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 39 / Monday, February 28, 2011 / Proposed Rules 

gross revenues that are not more than $3 

million for the preceding three years. 

The SBA has approved these small 

business size standards. An auction of 

Metropolitan Economic Area licenses 

commenced on February 24, 2000, and 

closed on March 2, 2000. Of the 985 

licenses auctioned, 440 were sold. Fiftyseven companies claiming small 

business status won. 

149. Wireless Telephony. Wireless 

telephony includes cellular, personal 

communications services, and 

specialized mobile radio telephony 

carriers. As noted, the SBA has 

developed a small business size 

standard for Wireless 

Telecommunications Carriers (except 

Satellite). Under the SBA small business 

size standard, a business is small if it 

has 1,500 or fewer employees. Census 

data for 2007, which supersede data 

contained in the 2002 Census, show that 

there were 1,383 firms that operated that 

year. Of those 1,383, 1,368 had fewer 

than 100 employees, and 15 firms had 

more than 100 employees. Thus under 

this category and the associated small 

business size standard, the majority of 

firms can be considered small 

According to Trends in Telephone 

Service data, 434 carriers reported that 

they were engaged in wireless 

telephony. Of these, an estimated 222 

have 1,500 or fewer employees and 212 

have more than 1,500 employees. 

Therefore, approximately half of these 

entities can be considered small. 

Similarly, according to Commission 

data, 413 carriers reported that they 

were engaged in the provision of 

wireless telephony, including cellular 

service, Personal Communications 

Service (PCS), and Specialized Mobile 

Radio (SMR) Telephony services. Of 

these, an estimated 261 have 1,500 or 

fewer employees and 152 have more 

than 1,500 employees. Consequently, 

the Commission estimates that 

approximately half or more of these 

firms can be considered small. Thus, 

using available data, we estimate that 

the majority of wireless firms can be 

considered small. 

150. Broadband Personal 

Communications Service. The 

broadband personal communications 

services (PCS) spectrum is divided into 

six frequency blocks designated A 

through F, and the Commission has held 

auctions for each block. The 

Commission initially defined a ‘‘small 

business’’ for C- and F-Block licenses as 

an entity that has average gross revenues 

of $40 million or less in the three 

previous calendar years. For F-Block 

licenses, an additional small business 

size standard 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. These small business 

size standards, in the context of 

broadband PCS auctions, have been 

approved by the SBA. 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 claimed small business status in the 

first two C-Block auctions. A total of 93 

bidders that claimed small business 

status won approximately 40 percent of 

the 1,479 licenses in the first auction for 

the D, E, and F Blocks. On April 15, 

1999, the Commission completed the 

reauction of 347 C-, D-, E-, and F-Block 

licenses in Auction No. 22. Of the 57 

winning bidders in that auction, 48 

claimed small business status and won 

277 licenses. 

151. On January 26, 2001, the 

Commission completed the auction of 

422 C and F Block Broadband PCS 

licenses in Auction No. 35. Of the 35 

winning bidders in that auction, 29 

claimed small business status. 

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. On February 15, 2005, the 

Commission completed an auction of 

242 C-, D-, E-, and F-Block licenses in 

Auction No. 58. Of the 24 winning 

bidders in that auction, 16 claimed 

small business status and won 156 

licenses. On May 21, 2007, the 

Commission completed an auction of 33 

licenses in the A, C, and F Blocks in 

Auction No. 71. Of the 12 winning 

bidders in that auction, five claimed 

small business status and won 18 

licenses. On August 20, 2008, the 

Commission completed the auction of 

20 C-, D-, E-, and F-Block Broadband 

PCS licenses in Auction No. 78. Of the 

eight winning bidders for Broadband 

PCS licenses in that auction, six claimed 

small business status and won 14 

licenses. 

152. 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. 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. 

153. 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, the Commission applies the 

small business size standard under the 

SBA rules applicable. The SBA has 

deemed a wireless business to be small 

if it has 1,500 or fewer employees. For 

this service, the SBA uses the category 

of Wireless Telecommunications 

Carriers (except Satellite). Census data 

for 2007, which supersede data 

contained in the 2002 Census, show that 

there were 1,383 firms that operated that 

year. Of those 1,383, 1,368 had fewer 

than 100 employees, and 15 firms had 

more than 100 employees. Thus under 

this category and the associated small 

business size standard, the majority of 

firms can be considered small. 

154. 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, the Commission 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. 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. 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. 


srobinson on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 39 / Monday, February 28, 2011 / Proposed Rules 10847 

Auctions of Phase II licenses 

commenced on September 15, 1998, and 

closed on October 22, 1998. 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. 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. 

155. 800 MHz and 900 MHz 

Specialized Mobile Radio Licenses. The 

Commission awards small business 

bidding credits in auctions for 

Specialized Mobile Radio (‘‘SMR’’) 

geographic area licenses in the 800 MHz 

and 900 MHz bands to entities that had 

revenues of no more than $15 million in 

each of the three previous calendar 

years. The Commission awards very 

small business bidding credits to 

entities that had revenues of no more 

than $3 million in each of the three 

previous calendar years. The SBA has 

approved these small business size 

standards for the 800 MHz and 900 MHz 

SMR Services. The Commission has 

held auctions for geographic area 

licenses in the 800 MHz and 900 MHz 

bands. The 900 MHz SMR auction was 

completed in 1996. Sixty bidders 

claiming that they qualified as small 

businesses under the $15 million size 

standard won 263 geographic area 

licenses in the 900 MHz SMR band. The 

800 MHz SMR auction for the upper 200 

channels was conducted in 1997. Ten 

bidders claiming that they qualified as 

small businesses under the $15 million 

size standard won 38 geographic area 

licenses for the upper 200 channels in 

the 800 MHz SMR band. A second 

auction for the 800 MHz band was 

conducted in 2002 and included 23 BEA 

licenses. One bidder claiming small 

business status won five licenses. 

156. The auction of the 1,053 800 

MHz SMR geographic area licenses for 

the General Category channels was 

conducted in 2000. Eleven bidders won 

108 geographic area licenses for the 

General Category channels in the 800 

MHz SMR band qualified as small 

businesses under the $15 million size 

standard. In an auction completed in 

2000, a total of 2,800 Economic Area 

licenses in the lower 80 channels of the 

800 MHz SMR service were awarded. Of 

the 22 winning bidders, 19 claimed 

small business status and won 129 

licenses. Thus, combining all three 

auctions, 40 winning bidders for 

geographic licenses in the 800 MHz 

SMR band claimed status as small 

business. 

157. In addition, there are numerous 

incumbent site-by-site SMR licensees 

and licensees with extended 

implementation authorizations in the 

800 and 900 MHz bands. We do not 

know how many firms provide 800 MHz 

or 900 MHz geographic area SMR 

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. In 

addition, we do not know how many of 

these firms have 1,500 or fewer 

employees. We assume, for purposes of 

this analysis, that all of the remaining 

existing extended implementation 

authorizations are held by small 

entities, as that small business size 

standard is approved by the SBA. 

158. 700 MHz Guard Band Licensees. 

In 2000, in the 700 MHz Guard Band 

Order, the Commission adopted size 

standards for ‘‘small businesses’’ and 

‘‘very small businesses’’ for purposes of 

determining their eligibility for special 

provisions such as bidding credits and 

installment payments. A small business 

in this service is an entity that, together 

with its affiliates and controlling 

principals, has average gross revenues 

not exceeding $40 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 $15 

million for the preceding three years. 

SBA approval of these definitions is not 

required. An auction of 52 Major 

Economic Area licenses commenced on 

September 6, 2000, and closed on 

September 21, 2000. 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. 

159. Air-Ground Radiotelephone 

Service. The Commission has previously 

used the SBA’s small business size 

standard applicable to Wireless 

Telecommunications Carriers (except 

Satellite), i.e., an entity employing no 

more than 1,500 persons. There are 

approximately 100 licensees in the AirGround Radiotelephone Service, and 

under that definition, the Commission 

estimates that almost all of them qualify 

as small entities under the SBA 

definition. For purposes of assigning 

Air-Ground Radiotelephone Service 

licenses through competitive bidding, 

the Commission has defined ‘‘small 

business’’ as an entity that, together with 

controlling interests and affiliates, has 

average annual gross revenues for the 

preceding three years not exceeding $40 

million. A ‘‘very small business’’ is 

defined as an entity that, together with 

controlling interests and affiliates, has 

average annual gross revenues for the 

preceding three years not exceeding $15 

million. These definitions were 

approved by the SBA. In May 2006, the 

Commission completed an auction of 

nationwide commercial Air-Ground 

Radiotelephone Service licenses in the 

800 MHz band (Auction No. 65). On 

June 2, 2006, the auction closed with 

two winning bidders winning two AirGround Radiotelephone Services 

licenses. Neither of the winning bidders 

claimed small business status. 

160. Rural Radiotelephone Service. 

The Commission has not adopted a size 

standard for small businesses specific to 

the Rural Radiotelephone Service. A 

significant subset of the Rural 

Radiotelephone Service is the Basic 

Exchange Telephone Radio System 

(BETRS). 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. 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. 

161. 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 Wireless Telecommunications 

Carriers (except satellite),’’ which is 

1,500 or fewer employees. Census data 

for 2007, which supersede data 

contained in the 2002 Census, show that 

there were 1,383 firms that operated that 

year. Of those 1,383, 1,368 had fewer 

than 100 employees, and 15 firms had 

more than 100 employees. Thus under 

this category and the associated small 

business size standard, the majority of 

firms can be considered small. 

Additionally, the Commission notes that 

most applicants for recreational licenses 


srobinson on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with PROPOSALS
10848 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 39 / Monday, February 28, 2011 / Proposed Rules 

in this category of wireless service 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, the 

Commission estimates 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. 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. 

162. Fixed Microwave Services. 

Microwave services include common 

carrier, private-operational fixed, and 

broadcast auxiliary radio services. They 

also include the Local Multipoint 

Distribution Service (LMDS), the Digital 

Electronic Message Service (DEMS), and 

the 24 GHz Service, where licensees can 

choose between common carrier and 

non-common carrier status. The 

Commission has not yet defined a small 

business with respect to microwave 

services. For purposes of the IRFA, the 

Commission will use the SBA’s 

definition applicable to Wireless 

Telecommunications Carriers (except 

satellite)—i.e., an entity with no more 

than 1,500 persons is considered small. 

For the category of Wireless 

Telecommunications Carriers (except 

Satellite), Census data for 2007, which 

supersede data contained in the 2002 

Census, show that there were 1,383 

firms that operated that year. Of those 

1,383, 1,368 had fewer than 100 

employees, and 15 firms had more than 

100 employees. Thus under this 

category and the associated small 

business size standard, the majority of 

firms can be considered small. The 

Commission notes that the number of 

firms does not necessarily track the 

number of licensees. The Commission 

estimates that virtually all of the Fixed 

Microwave licensees (excluding 

broadcast auxiliary licensees) would 

qualify as small entities under the SBA 

definition. 

163. 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. There are presently 

approximately 55 licensees in this 

service. The Commission is unable to 

estimate at this time the number of 

licensees that would qualify as small 

under the SBA’s small business size 

standard for the category of Wireless 

Telecommunications Carriers (except 

Satellite). Under that standard. Under 

that SBA small business size standard, 

a business is small if it has 1,500 or 

fewer employees. Census data for 2007, 

which supersede data contained in the 

2002 Census, show that there were 

1,383 firms that operated that year. Of 

those 1,383, 1,368 had fewer than 100 

employees, and 15 firms had more than 

100 employees. Thus under this 

category and the associated small 

business size standard, the majority of 

firms can be considered small. 

164. 32.39 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. 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. 

The SBA has approved these small 

business size standards. 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 our action. 

165. Wireless Cable Systems. 

Broadband Radio Service and 

Educational Broadband Service. 

Broadband Radio Service systems, 

previously referred to as Multipoint 

Distribution Service (MDS) and 

Multichannel Multipoint Distribution 

Service (MMDS) systems, and ‘‘wireless 

cable,’’ transmit video programming to 

subscribers and provide two-way high 

speed data operations using the 

microwave frequencies of the 

Broadband Radio Service (BRS) and 

Educational Broadband Service (EBS) 

(previously referred to as the 

Instructional Television Fixed Service 

(ITFS)). In connection with the 1996 

BRS auction, the Commission 

established a small business size 

standard as an entity that had annual 

average gross revenues of no more than 

$40 million in the previous three 

calendar years. The BRS 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. BRS also 

includes licensees of stations authorized 

prior to the auction. At this time, we 

estimate that of the 61 small business 

BRS auction winners, 48 remain small 

business licensees. In addition to the 48 

small businesses that hold BTA 

authorizations, there are approximately 

392 incumbent BRS licensees that are 

considered small entities. After adding 

the number of small business auction 

licensees to the number of incumbent 

licensees not already counted, we find 

that there are currently approximately 

440 BRS licensees that are defined as 

small businesses under either the SBA 

or the Commission’s rules. In 2009, the 

Commission conducted Auction 86, the 

sale of 78 licenses in the BRS areas. The 

Commission offered three levels of 

bidding credits: (i) A bidder with 

attributed average annual gross revenues 

that exceed $15 million and do not 

exceed $40 million for the preceding 

three years (small business) will receive 

a 15 percent discount on its winning 

bid; (ii) a bidder with attributed average 

annual gross revenues that exceed $3 

million and do not exceed $15 million 

for the preceding three years (very small 

business) will receive a 25 percent 

discount on its winning bid; and (iii) a 

bidder with attributed average annual 

gross revenues that do not exceed $3 

million for the preceding three years 

(entrepreneur) will receive a 35 percent 

discount on its winning bid. Auction 86 

concluded in 2009 with the sale of 61 

licenses. Of the ten winning bidders, 

two bidders that claimed small business 

status won 4 licenses; one bidder that 

claimed very small business status won 

three licenses; and two bidders that 

claimed entrepreneur status won six 

licenses. 

166. In addition, the SBA’s Cable 

Television Distribution Services small 

business size standard is applicable to 

EBS. There are presently 2,032 EBS 

licensees. All but 100 of these licenses 

are held by educational institutions. 

Educational institutions are included in 

this analysis as small entities. Thus, we 

estimate that at least 1,932 licensees are 

small businesses. Since 2007, Cable 

Television Distribution Services have 

been defined within the broad economic 

census category of Wired 


srobinson on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 39 / Monday, February 28, 2011 / Proposed Rules 10849 

Telecommunications Carriers; that 

category is defined as follows: ‘‘This 

industry comprises establishments 

primarily engaged in operating and/or 

providing access to transmission 

facilities and infrastructure that they 

own and/or lease for the transmission of 

voice, data, text, sound, and video using 

wired telecommunications networks. 

Transmission facilities may be based on 

a single technology or a combination of 

technologies.’’ For these services, the 

Commission uses the SBA small 

business size standard for the category 

‘‘Wireless Telecommunications Carriers 

(except satellite),’’ which is 1,500 or 

fewer employees. To gauge small 

business prevalence for these cable 

services we must, however, use the most 

current census data. Census data for 

2007, which supersede data contained 

in the 2002 Census, show that there 

were 1,383 firms that operated that year. 

Of those 1,383, 1,368 had fewer than 

100 employees, and 15 firms had more 

than 100 employees. Thus under this 

category and the associated small 

business size standard, the majority of 

firms can be considered small. The 

Commission notes that the Census’ use 

the classifications ‘‘firms’’ does not track 

the number of ‘‘licenses.’’ 

167. In the 1998 and 1999 LMDS 

auctions, the Commission defined a 

small business as an entity that has 

annual average gross revenues of less 

than $40 million in the previous three 

calendar years. Moreover, the 

Commission added an additional 

classification for a ‘‘very small 

business,’’ which was defined as an 

entity that had annual average gross 

revenues of less than $15 million in the 

previous three calendar years. These 

definitions of ‘‘small business’’ and ‘‘very 

small business’’ in the context of the 

LMDS auctions have been approved by 

the SBA. In the first LMDS auction, 104 

bidders won 864 licenses. Of the 104 

auction winners, 93 claimed status as 

small or very small businesses. In the 

LMDS re-auction, 40 bidders won 161 

licenses. Based on this information, the 

Commission believes that the number of 

small LMDS licenses will include the 93 

winning bidders in the first auction and 

the 40 winning bidders in the reauction, for a total of 133 small entity 

LMDS providers as defined by the SBA 

and the Commission’s auction rules. 

168. 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. In 

the 218–219 MHz Report and Order and 

Memorandum Opinion and Order, the 

Commission 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. 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. 

These size standards will be used in 

future auctions of 218–219 MHz 

spectrum. 

169. 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. For this service, the 

Commission uses the SBA small 

business size standard for the category 

‘‘Wireless Telecommunications Carriers 

(except satellite),’’ which is 1,500 or 

fewer employees. To gauge small 

business prevalence for these cable 

services we must, however, use the most 

current census data. Census data for 

2007, which supersede data contained 

in the 2002 Census, show that there 

were 1,383 firms that operated that year. 

Of those 1,383, 1,368 had fewer than 

100 employees, and 15 firms had more 

than 100 employees. Thus under this 

category and the associated small 

business size standard, the majority of 

firms can be considered small. The 

Commission notes that the Census’ use 

of the classifications’’ firms’’ does not 

track the number of ‘‘licenses’’. The 

Commission believes that there are only 

two licensees in the 24 GHz band that 

were relocated from the 18 GHz band, 

Teligent 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. 

170. 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. ‘‘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. The SBA has 

approved these small business size 

standards. These size standards will 

apply to the future auction, if held. 

3. Satellite Service Providers 

171. Satellite Telecommunications 

Providers. Two economic census 

categories address the satellite industry. 

The first category has a small business 

size standard of $15 million or less in 

average annual receipts, under SBA 

rules. The second has a size standard of 

$25 million or less in annual receipts. 

172. The category of Satellite 

Telecommunications ‘‘comprises 

establishments primarily engaged in 

providing telecommunications services 

to other establishments in the 

telecommunications and broadcasting 

industries by forwarding and receiving 

communications signals via a system of 

satellites or reselling satellite 

telecommunications.’’ Census Bureau 

data for 2007 show that 512 Satellite 

Telecommunications firms that operated 

for that entire year. Of this total, 464 

firms had annual receipts of under $10 

million, and 18 firms had receipts of 

$10 million to $24,999,999. 

Consequently, the Commission 

estimates that the majority of Satellite 

Telecommunications firms are small 

entities that might be affected by our 

action. 

173. The second category, i.e. ‘‘All 

Other Telecommunications’’ comprises 

‘‘establishments primarily engaged in 

providing specialized 

telecommunications services, such as 

satellite tracking, communications 

telemetry, and radar station operation. 

This industry also includes 

establishments primarily engaged in 

providing satellite terminal stations and 

associated facilities connected with one 

or more terrestrial systems and capable 

of transmitting telecommunications to, 

and receiving telecommunications from, 

satellite systems. Establishments 

providing Internet services or voice over 

Internet protocol (VoIP) services via 

client-supplied telecommunications 

connections are also included in this 

industry.’’ For this category, Census 

Bureau data for 2007 show that there 

were a total of 2,383 firms that operated 

for the entire year. Of this total, 2,347 

firms had annual receipts of under $25 

million and 12 firms had annual 

receipts of $25 million to $49,999,999. 

Consequently, the Commission 

estimates that the majority of All Other 

Telecommunications firms are small 


srobinson on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with PROPOSALS
10850 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 39 / Monday, February 28, 2011 / Proposed Rules 

entities that might be affected by our 

action. 

4. Cable and OVS Operators 

174. Because Section 706 requires us 

to monitor the deployment of broadband 

regardless of technology or transmission 

media employed, the Commission 

anticipates that some broadband service 

providers may not provide telephone 

service. Accordingly, the Commission 

describes below other types of firms that 

may provide broadband services, 

including cable companies, MDS 

providers, and utilities, among others. 

175. Cable and Other Program 

Distributors. Since 2007, these services 

have been defined within the broad 

economic census category of Wired 

Telecommunications Carriers; that 

category is defined as follows: ‘‘This 

industry comprises establishments 

primarily engaged in operating and/or 

providing access to transmission 

facilities and infrastructure that they 

own and/or lease for the transmission of 

voice, data, text, sound, and video using 

wired telecommunications networks. 

Transmission facilities may be based on 

a single technology or a combination of 

technologies.’’ The SBA has developed a 

small business size standard for this 

category, which is: All such firms 

having 1,500 or fewer employees. 

Census data for 2007, which supersede 

data contained in the 2002 Census, 

show that there were 1,383 firms that 

operated that year. Of those 1,383, 1,368 

had fewer than 100 employees, and 15 

firms had more than 100 employees. 

Thus under this category and the 

associated small business size standard, 

the majority of such firms can be 

considered small. 

176. Cable Companies and Systems. 

The Commission has also developed its 

own small business size standards, for 

the purpose of cable rate regulation. 

Under the Commission’s rules, a ‘‘small 

cable company’’ is one serving 400,000 

or fewer subscribers, nationwide. 

Industry data indicate that, of 1,076 

cable operators nationwide, all but 

eleven are small under this size 

standard. In addition, under the 

Commission’s rules, a ‘‘small system’’ is 

a cable system serving 15,000 or fewer 

subscribers. Industry data indicate that, 

of 7,208 systems nationwide, 6,139 

systems have under 10,000 subscribers, 

and an additional 379 systems have 

10,000–19,999 subscribers. Thus, under 

this second size standard, most cable 

systems are small. 

177. Cable System Operators. The 

Communications Act of 1934, as 

amended, also contains a size standard 

for small cable system operators, which 

is ‘‘a cable operator that, directly or 

through an affiliate, serves in the 

aggregate fewer than 1 percent of all 

subscribers in the United States and is 

not affiliated with any entity or entities 

whose gross annual revenues in the 

aggregate exceed $250,000,000.’’ The 

Commission has determined that an 

operator serving fewer than 677,000 

subscribers shall be deemed a small 

operator, if its annual revenues, when 

combined with the total annual 

revenues of all its affiliates, do not 

exceed $250 million in the aggregate. 

Industry data indicate that, of 1,076 

cable operators nationwide, all but ten 

are small under this size standard. We 

note that the Commission neither 

requests nor collects information on 

whether cable system operators are 

affiliated with entities whose gross 

annual revenues exceed $250 million, 

and therefore we are unable to estimate 

more accurately the number of cable 

system operators that would qualify as 

small under this size standard. 

178. Open Video Services. Open 

Video Service (OVS) systems provide 

subscription services. The open video 

system (‘‘OVS’’) framework was 

established in 1996, and is one of four 

statutorily recognized options for the 

provision of video programming 

services by local exchange carriers. The 

OVS framework provides opportunities 

for the distribution of video 

programming other than through cable 

systems. Because OVS operators provide 

subscription services, OVS falls within 

the SBA small business size standard 

covering cable services, which is ‘‘Wired 

Telecommunications Carriers.’’ The SBA 

has developed a small business size 

standard for this category, which is: all 

such firms having 1,500 or fewer 

employees. To gauge small business 

prevalence for the OVS service, the 

Commission relies on data currently 

available from the U.S. Census for the 

year 2007. According to that source, 

there were 3,188 firms that in 2007 were 

Wired Telecommunications Carriers. Of 

these, 3,144 operated with less than 

1,000 employees, and 44 operated with 

more than 1,000 employees. However, 

as to the latter 44 there is no data 

available that shows how many 

operated with more than 1,500 

employees. Based on this data, the 

majority of these firms can be 

considered small. In addition, we note 

that the Commission has certified some 

OVS operators, with some now 

providing service. Broadband service 

providers (‘‘BSPs’’) are currently the 

only significant holders of OVS 

certifications or local OVS franchises. 

The Commission does not have 

financial or employment information 

regarding the entities authorized to 

provide OVS, some of which may not 

yet be operational. Thus, at least some 

of the OVS operators may qualify as 

small entities. The Commission further 

notes that it has certified approximately 

45 OVS operators to serve 75 areas, and 

some of these are currently providing 

service. Affiliates of Residential 

Communications Network, Inc. (RCN) 

received approval to operate OVS 

systems in New York City, Boston, 

Washington, DC, 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 44 

OVS operators (those remaining) might 

qualify as small businesses that may be 

affected by the rules and policies 

adopted herein. 

5. Electric Power Generation, 

Transmission and Distribution 

179. Electric Power Generators, 

Transmitters, and Distributors. The 

Census Bureau defines an industry 

group comprised of ‘‘establishments, 

primarily engaged in generating, 

transmitting, and/or distributing electric 

power. Establishments in this industry 

group may perform one or more of the 

following activities: (1) Operate 

generation facilities that produce 

electric energy; (2) operate transmission 

systems that convey the electricity from 

the generation facility to the distribution 

system; and (3) operate distribution 

systems that convey electric power 

received from the generation facility or 

the transmission system to the final 

consumer.’’ The SBA has developed a 

small business size standard for firms in 

this category: ‘‘A firm is small if, 

including its affiliates, it is primarily 

engaged in the generation, transmission, 

and/or distribution of electric energy for 

sale and its total electric output for the 

preceding fiscal year did not exceed 4 

million megawatt hours.’’ According to 

Census Bureau data for 2007, there were 

1,525 firms in this category that 

operated for the entire year. Census data 

do not track electric output and we have 

not determined how many of these firms 

fit the SBA size standard for small, with 

no more than 4 million megawatt hours 

of electric output. Consequently, we 

estimate that 1,525 or fewer firms may 

be considered small under the SBA 

small business size standard. 


srobinson on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 39 / Monday, February 28, 2011 / Proposed Rules 10851 

6. Internet Service Providers, Web 

Portals and Other Information Services 

180. In 2007, the SBA recognized two 

new small business, economic census 

categories. They are (1) Internet 

Publishing and Broadcasting and Web 

Search Portals, and (2) All Other 

Information Services. 

181. Internet Service Providers. The 

2007 Economic Census places these 

firms, whose services might include 

voice over Internet protocol (VoIP), in 

either of two categories, depending on 

whether the service is provided over the 

provider’s own telecommunications 

facilities (e.g., cable and DSL ISPs), or 

over client-supplied 

telecommunications connections (e.g., 

dial-up ISPs). The former are within the 

category of Wired Telecommunications 

Carriers, which has an SBA small 

business size standard of 1,500 or fewer 

employees. These are also labeled 

‘‘broadband.’’ The latter are within the 

category of All Other 

Telecommunications, which has a size 

standard of annual receipts of $25 

million or less. These are labeled nonbroadband. 

182. The most current Economic 

Census data for all such firms are 2007 

data, which are detailed specifically for 

ISPs within the categories above. For the 

first category, the data show that 396 

firms operated for the entire year, of 

which 159 had nine or fewer employees. 

For the second category, the data show 

that 1,682 firms operated for the entire 

year. Of those, 1,675 had annual 

receipts below $25 million per year, and 

an additional two had receipts of 

between $25 million and $49,999,999. 

Consequently, we estimate that the 

majority of ISP firms are small entities. 

183. Internet Publishing and 

Broadcasting and Web Search Portals. 

This industry comprises establishments 

primarily engaged in (1) publishing and/ 

or broadcasting content on the Internet 

exclusively or (2) operating Web sites 

that use a search engine to generate and 

maintain extensive databases of Internet 

addresses and content in an easily 

searchable format (and known as Web 

search portals). The publishing and 

broadcasting establishments in this 

industry do not provide traditional 

(non-Internet) versions of the content 

that they publish or broadcast. They 

provide textual, audio, and/or video 

content of general or specific interest on 

the Internet exclusively. Establishments 

known as 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. The SBA has 

developed a small business size 

standard for this category; that size 

standard is 500 employees. Less than 

500 employees is considered small. 

According to Census Bureau data for 

2007, there were 2,705 firms that 

provided one or more of these services 

for that entire year. Of these, 2,682 

operated with less than 500 employees 

and 13 operated with 500 to 999 

employees. Consequently, we estimate 

that the majority of these firms are small 

entities that may be affected by our 

action. 

184. Data Processing, Hosting, and 

Related Services. This industry 

comprises establishments primarily 

engaged in providing infrastructure for 

hosting or data processing services. 

These establishments may provide 

specialized hosting activities, such as 

Web hosting, streaming services or 

application hosting; provide application 

service provisioning; or may provide 

general time-share mainframe facilities 

to clients. Data processing 

establishments provide complete 

processing and specialized reports from 

data supplied by clients or provide 

automated data processing and data 

entry services. The SBA has developed 

a small business size standard for this 

category; that size standard is $25 

million or less in average annual 

receipts. According to Census Bureau 

data for 2007, there were 8,060 firms in 

this category that operated for the entire 

year. Of these, 6,726 had annual receipts 

of under $25 million, and 155 had 

receipts between $25 million and 

$49,999,999 million. Consequently, we 

estimate that the majority of these firms 

are small entities that may be affected 

by our action. 

185. All Other Information Services. 

‘‘This industry comprises establishments 

primarily engaged in providing other 

information services (except new 

syndicates and libraries and archives).’’ 

Our action pertains to interconnected 

VoIP services, which could be provided 

by entities that provide other services 

such as e-mail, 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 $7.0 

million or less in average annual 

receipts. According to Census Bureau 

data for 2007, there were 367 firms in 

this category that operated for the entire 

year. Of these, 334 had annual receipts 

of under $5 million, and an additional 

11 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. 

D. Description of Projected Reporting, 

Recordkeeping, and Other Compliance 

Requirements for Small Entities 

186. In the Notice, the Commission 

proposes additional or modified 

information collections that would 

impose further reporting and 

recordkeeping requirements on current 

Form 477 filers, including small 

entities. Specifically, the NPRM invites 

comment on whether and how the 

Commission could collect data on the 

following additional or modified 

categories of data: (1) Deployment, 

(2) subscription, (3) price, (4) service 

quality, and (5) ownership and contact 

information. The Commission also seeks 

comment on whether to collect ‘‘other 

data’’ such as socioeconomic and social 

metrics data to assess socially and 

economically disadvantaged parties. 

The Commission seeks further comment 

on the extent to which technological 

tools and use of commercial and 

publicly available data can reduce the 

burden of producing information. The 

Commission also seeks comment on 

how to streamline the process in 

collecting the data the Commission 

needs to inform its policymaking 

processes while minimizing the 

production burden on providers and the 

processing burden on the Commission. 

The Commission invites comments on 

the merits and methodologies of such 

data collections to include suggestions 

and discussions of other alternatives not 

specifically discussed in the NPRM that 

would meet the objectives of the NPRM 

but would impose lesser burdens on 

smaller entities. 

187. Based on these questions, the 

Commission anticipates that a record 

will be developed concerning actual 

burden and alternative ways in which 

the Commission could lessen the 

burden on small entities of obtaining 

improved data about broadband 

deployment and availability throughout 

the nation. 

E. Steps Taken To Minimize the 

Significant Economic Impact on Small 

Entities, and Significant Alternatives 

Considered 

188. 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 


srobinson on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with PROPOSALS
10852 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 39 / Monday, February 28, 2011 / Proposed Rules 

use of performance, rather than design, 

standards; and (4) an exemption from 

coverage of the rule, or any part thereof, 

for small entities. 

189. In particular, the Commission 

seeks comment on whether it would be 

less burdensome for providers to submit 

address-level data with respect to the 

deployment and availability of services. 

The Commission also seeks comment on 

other ways that the Commission can 

ease the burden on small- and mediumsized providers. 

190. Based on these questions, and 

the alternatives the Commission has 

discussed, the Commission anticipates 

that the record will be developed 

concerning alternative ways in which 

the Commission could lessen the 

burden on small entities of obtaining 

improved data about broadband. The 

Commission welcomes proposals of 

alternatives from any of the approaches 

as described in Section A, supra. 

F. Federal Rules That May Duplicate, 

Overlap, or Conflict With the Proposed 

Rules 

191. None. 

Federal Communications Commission. 

Marlene H. Dortch, 

Secretary. 

[FR Doc. 2011–4393 Filed 2–25–11; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6712–01–P 

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE 

National Oceanic and Atmospheric 

Administration 

50 CFR Part 648 

[Docket No. 110201085–1087–01] 

RIN 0648–XY55 

Magnuson-Stevens Act Provisions; 

Fisheries of the Northeastern United 

States; Northeast Multispecies 

Fishery; 2011 Sector Operations Plans 

and Contracts, and Allocation of 

Northeast Multispecies Annual Catch 

Entitlements 

AGENCY: National Marine Fisheries 

Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and 

Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), 

Commerce. 

ACTION: Proposed rule; request for 

comments. 

SUMMARY: As part of the process for the 

NMFS Northeast Regional 

Administrator approval of proposed 

sector operations established under 

Amendment 16 to the Northeast (NE) 

Multispecies Fishery Management Plan 

(FMP), sectors are required to submit 

operations plans and sector contracts, 

and request an allocation of stocks 

regulated under the FMP for each 

fishing year (FY). This action is to 

provide interested parties an 

opportunity to comment on 19 FY 2011 

proposed sector operations plans and 

contracts. Although NMFS received 22 

proposed sector operations plans and 

contracts for approval, only 19 of the 22 

sector operations plans and contracts 

are being considered for approval 

because 3 sectors, the Massachusetts 

Permit Bank Sector, the New Hampshire 

Permit Bank Sector, and the Rhode 

Island Permit Bank Sector, were unable 

to fulfill the roster requirements, and, 

therefore, were excluded from 

consideration. 

DATES: Written comments must be 

received on or before March 15, 2011. 

ADDRESSES: You may submit comments, 

identified by 0648–XY55, by any one of 

the following methods: 

• Electronic Submissions: Submit all 

electronic public comments via the 

Federal eRulemaking Portal: http:// 

www.regulations.gov. 

• Fax: (978) 281–9135, Attn: Allison 

Murphy. 

• Mail: Paper, disk, or CD–ROM 

comments should be sent to Patricia A. 

Kurkul, Regional Administrator, 

National Marine Fisheries Service, 55 

Great Republic Drive, Gloucester, MA 

01930. Mark the outside of the 

envelope: ‘‘Comments on 2011 Sector 

Operations Plans and Contracts.’’ 

Instructions: All comments received 

are part of the public record and will 

generally be posted to http:// 

www.regulations.gov without change. 

All Personal Identifying Information (for 

example, name, address, etc.) 

voluntarily submitted by the commenter 

may be publicly accessible. Do not 

submit Confidential Business 

Information or otherwise sensitive or 

protected information. NMFS will 

accept anonymous comments (enter 

N/A in the required fields, if you wish 

to remain anonymous). You may submit 

attachments to electronic comments in 

Microsoft Word, Microsoft Excel, 

WordPerfect, or Adobe PDF file formats 

only. 

Copies of the sector operations plans 

and contracts and the environmental 

assessment (EA) are available at http:// 

www.regulations.gov and from the 

NMFS NE Regional Office at the mailing 

address specified above. An Initial 

Regulatory Flexibility Analysis (IRFA) 

was prepared for this proposed rule and 

is comprised of the EA, and the 

preamble and the Classification sections 

of this proposed rule. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Allison Murphy, Sector Policy Analyst, 

phone (978) 281–9122, fax (978) 281– 

9135. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: NMFS 

announces that the Administrator, NE 

Region, NMFS (Regional Administrator), 

has made a preliminary determination 

that 19 sector operations plans and 

contracts, which were initially 

submitted to NMFS on or before 

September 1, 2010, and sector rosters, 

submitted on or before September 10, 

2010, are: (1) Consistent with the goals 

of the FMP, as described in Amendment 

16 Final Environmental Impact 

Statement (FEIS) and other applicable 

laws, (2) in compliance with the 

measures that govern the development 

and operation of a sector as specified in 

Section 4.2.3 of the Amendment 16 

FEIS, and (3) have met administrative 

deadlines, including roster deadlines, 

for being proposed as a sector 

operations plan for FY 2011. This 

proposed rule summarizes many of the 

sector requirements as implemented by 

Amendment 16 and the requirements 

proposed for modification in 

Framework Adjustment 45 (FW 45), and 

solicits comments on the regulatory 

exemptions requested by sectors as well 

as the applicable environmental 

analyses. 

As stated in Amendment 16, the 

deadline to submit operations plans and 

signed contracts was September 1, 2010. 

However, because NE multispecies 

permit holders were notified of their 

preliminary FY 2011 Potential Sector 

Contribution (PSC) in mid-August, 

2010, NMFS extended the deadline to 

submit signed contracts from September 

1, 2010, to September 10, 2010, to allow 

vessel owners adequate time to make a 

decision to join a sector for FY 2011 or 

to fish in the common pool. Based upon 

industry request, this deadline was 

further extended to December 1, 2010, 

to provide additional flexibility. 

Background 

The final rule implementing 

Amendment 13 to the NE Multispecies 

FMP (69 FR 22906; April 27, 2004) 

specified a process for forming sectors 

within the NE multispecies fishery, 

implemented restrictions applicable to 

all sectors, and authorized allocation of 

a total allowable catch (TAC) for 

specific groundfish species to a sector. 

As approved in Amendment 13, sector 

operations plans and contracts must 

contain certain elements, including a 

contract signed by all sector participants 

and an operations plan containing rules 

that sector members agree to abide by to 

avoid exceeding their sector TAC. An 

EA, or other appropriate analysis, must 

be prepared for the sectors that analyzes 


srobinson on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with PROPOSALS