[Federal Register Volume 83, Number 161 (Monday, August 20, 2018)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 42052-42061]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2018-17338]


-----------------------------------------------------------------------

FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION

47 CFR Part 54

[WC Docket No. 10-90; DA 18-710]


Connect America Fund

AGENCY: Federal Communications Commission.

ACTION: Final action.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

SUMMARY: In this document, the Wireline Competition Bureau (WCB), the 
Wireless Telecommunications Bureau (WTB) (jointly referred to herein as 
the Bureaus), and the Office of Engineering and Technology (OET) adopt 
requirements promoting greater accountability for certain recipients of 
Connect America Fund (CAF) high-cost universal service support, 
including price cap carriers, rate-of-return carriers, rural broadband 
experiment (RBE) support recipients, Alaska Plan carriers, and CAF 
Phase II auction winners. Specifically, the Bureaus and OET establish a 
uniform framework for measuring the speed and latency performance for 
recipients of high-cost universal service support to serve fixed 
locations.

DATES: This final action is effective September 19, 2018.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Suzanne Yelen, Wireline Competition 
Bureau, (202) 418-7400 or TTY: (202) 418-0484.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: This is a summary of the Commission's Order 
in WC Docket No. 10-90; DA 18-710, adopted on July 6, 2018 and released 
on July 6, 2018. The full text of this document is available for public 
inspection during regular business hours in the FCC Reference Center, 
Room CY-A257, 445 12th Street SW, Washington, DC 20554 or at the 
following internet address: https://docs.fcc.gov/public/attachments/DA-18-710A1.pdf.

I. Introduction

    1. In the Order, the Bureaus and OET adopt requirements promoting 
greater accountability for certain recipients of CAF high-cost 
universal service support, including price cap carriers, rate-of-return 
carriers, RBE support recipients, Alaska Plan carriers, and CAF Phase 
II auction winners. Specifically, the Bureaus and OET establish a 
uniform framework for measuring the speed and latency performance for 
recipients of high-cost universal service support to serve fixed 
locations.
    2. The Bureaus and OET also require providers to submit testing 
results as

[[Page 42053]]

part of their annual compliance certification. Carriers that do not 
comply with the Bureaus and OET's speed and latency requirements will 
be subject to a reduction in support, commensurate with their level of 
noncompliance. In addition, providers will be subject to audit of all 
testing data. With this testing and compliance framework, the Bureaus 
and OET aim to maximize the benefits consumers reap from its high-cost 
universal service programs in even the hardest-to-reach areas, thus 
making the best use of its Universal Service Fund (USF) dollars and 
further closing the digital divide.

II. Choice of Testing Method

    3. The Bureaus and OET provide high-cost support recipients that 
serve fixed locations three options to afford flexibility in choosing 
solutions to conduct required performance testing. Specifically, the 
Bureaus and OET conclude that eligible telecommunications carriers 
(ETCs) subject to fixed broadband performance obligations may conduct 
required testing by employing either (1) Measuring Broadband America 
(MBA) testing infrastructure (MBA testing), (2) existing network 
management systems and tools (off-the-shelf testing), or (3) provider-
developed self-testing configurations (provider-developed self-testing 
or self-testing). Providers may employ any of these three options as 
long as the provider's implementation meets the testing requirements 
established in this Order. The Bureaus and OET define the three options 
as follows:
    <bullet> First, a high-cost support recipient may use MBA testing 
by arranging with entities that manage and perform testing for the MBA 
program to implement performance testing, as required, for CAF. The 
provider is responsible for all costs required to implement testing of 
its network, including any costs associated with obtaining and 
maintaining Whiteboxes, to the extent that any additional Whiteboxes 
are employed as part of the MBA testing. The Bureaus and OET note that 
the MBA testing must occur in areas and for the locations supported by 
CAF, e.g., in CAF Phase II eligible areas for price cap carriers and 
for specific built-out locations for RBE, Alternative Connect America 
Cost Model (A-CAM), and legacy rate-of-return support recipients.
    <bullet> Second, a high-cost support recipient may elect to use 
existing network management systems and tools, ping tests, and other 
commonly available performance measurement and network management 
tools--off-the-shelf testing--to implement performance testing.
    <bullet> Third, a high-cost support recipient may implement a 
provider-developed self-testing configuration using software installed 
on residential gateways or in equipment attached to residential 
gateways to regularly initiate speed and latency tests. Providers that 
implement self-testing of their own networks may make network 
performance testing services available to other providers. The Bureaus 
and OET continue to consider whether the Universal Service 
Administrative Company (USAC) may have a role in offering server 
capacity at an internet Exchange Point in an FCC-designated 
metropolitan area (FCC-designated IXP), without any oversight role in 
conducting tests, to mitigate smaller providers' costs.
    4. By providing these three options, the Bureaus and OET ensure 
that there is a cost-effective method for conducting testing for 
providers of different sizes and technological sophistication. The 
Bureaus and OET do not require that providers invest in and implement 
new internal systems; instead, providers may perform speed and latency 
tests with readily-available, off-the-shelf solutions or existing MBA 
infrastructure. On the other hand, some providers may prefer 
implementing their own self-testing systems, especially if such testing 
features are already built into CPE for the carrier's own network 
management purposes. These three options allow the provider to align 
required performance testing with their established network management 
systems and operations, making it as easy as possible for carriers to 
implement the required testing while establishing rigorous testing 
parameters and standards, based on real-world data.
    5. The Bureaus and OET recognize that self-testing using provider-
developed software may create opportunities for ``manipulation or 
gaming'' by CAF recipients. However, the Bureaus and OET believe that 
the testing and compliance requirements they adopt will minimize the 
possibility of such behavior. First, as explained in more detail in the 
following, the Bureaus and OET will be requiring providers to submit 
and certify testing data annually. Second, USAC will be verifying 
provider compliance and auditing performance testing results.
    6. The Bureaus and OET reject Alaska Communications' proposal that 
high-cost support recipients may submit radio frequency propagation 
maps in lieu of conducting speed tests to demonstrate compliance with 
speed obligations. Such maps are only illustrative of planned, 
``theoretical'' coverage and do not provide actual data on what 
consumers experience. The Bureaus and OET therefore require providers 
to conduct the required testing using one of the three options 
identified in this document.

III. General Testing Parameters

    7. All ETCs subject to fixed broadband performance obligations must 
conduct the required speed and latency testing using the parameters in 
this Order, regardless of which of the three testing options the 
carrier selects. The Bureaus and OET first define ``test'' and the 
associated span of measurement, in the context of these performance 
measurements. Next, the Bureaus and OET adopt requirements regarding 
when tests must begin and when exactly carriers may perform the tests, 
and they set the number of active subscriber locations carriers must 
test, with variations depending on the size of the carrier. Finally, 
the Bureaus and OET address how high-latency bidders in the CAF Phase 
II auction must conduct required voice testing.
    8. To maintain a stringent performance compliance regime while 
avoiding unnecessary burdens on smaller carriers, the Bureaus and OET 
allow flexibility concerning the specific testing approach so that 
carriers can select, consistent with its adopted framework, the best 
and most efficient testing methods for their particular circumstances. 
The Bureaus and OET encourage the use of industry testing standards, 
such as the TR-143 Standard, for conducting self-testing.
    9. For reasons similar to those outlined in the CAF Phase II Price 
Cap Service Obligation Order, 78 FR 70881, November 27, 2013, the 
Bureaus and OET require that high-cost support recipients serving fixed 
locations perform these tests over the measurement span already 
applicable to price cap carriers receiving CAF Phase II model-based 
support. ETCs must test speed and latency from the customer premises of 
an active subscriber to a remote test server located at or reached by 
passing through an FCC-designated IXP. Accordingly, a speed test is a 
single measurement of download or upload speed of 10 to 15 seconds 
duration between a specific consumer location and a specific remote 
server location. Similarly, a latency test is a single measurement of 
latency, often performed using a single User Datagram Protocol (UDP) 
packet or a group of three internet Control Message Protocol (ICMP) or 
UDP packets sent at essentially the same time, as is common with ping 
tests.
    10. Large and small ETCs alike commit to providing a certain level 
of

[[Page 42054]]

service when accepting high-cost support to deploy broadband. ``Testing 
. . . on only a portion of the network connecting a consumer to the 
internet core will not show whether that customer is able to enjoy 
high-quality real-time applications because it is network performance 
from the customer's location to the destination that determines the 
quality of the service from the customer's perspective.'' Although the 
measurement span the Bureaus and OET adopt may include transport (e.g., 
backhaul or transit) that a provider does not control, the carrier can 
influence the quality of transport purchased and can negotiate with the 
transport provider for a level of service that will enable it to meet 
the Commission's performance requirements. This is true for both price 
cap carriers and smaller carriers. The Bureaus and OET therefore 
disagree with suggestions that testing should only occur within a 
provider's own network because providers do not always control the 
portion of the network reaching the nearest FCC-designated IXP.
    11. Previously, the Bureaus and OET designated the following ten 
locations as FCC-designated IXPs: New York City, NY; Washington, DC; 
Atlanta, GA; Miami, FL; Chicago, IL; Dallas-Fort Worth, TX; Los 
Angeles, CA; San Francisco, CA; Seattle, WA; and Denver, CO. All of 
these areas, except Denver, are locations used by the MBA program, 
which selected these locations because they are geographically 
distributed major U.S. Internet peering locations. Denver was added to 
the list so that all contiguous areas in the United States are within 
700 miles of an FCC-designated IXP. Because the Bureaus and OET are 
expanding testing to additional CAF recipients, they add the following 
six metropolitan areas as additional FCC-designated IXPs: Salt Lake 
City, UT; St. Paul, MN; Helena, MT; Kansas City, MO; Phoenix, AZ; and 
Boston, MA. This expanded list ensures that most mainland U.S. 
locations are within 300 air miles of an FCC-designated IXP, and all 
are within approximately 500 air miles of one. Further, the Bureaus and 
OET find that there is no reason to limit testing to the provider's 
nearest IXP; rather, providers can use any FCC-designated IXP for 
testing purposes.
    12. Still, the Bureaus and OET recognize that non-contiguous 
providers face unique challenges in providing service outside the 
continental U.S. The distance between a carrier and its nearest IXP 
affects latency and may affect speed as well. At this time, the Bureaus 
and OET do not have sufficient data to determine the extent of the 
effect of distance on speed performance testing. Therefore, similar to 
the existing exception for non-contiguous price cap carriers accepting 
model-based CAF Phase II support, the Bureaus and OET permit all 
providers serving non-contiguous areas greater than 500 air miles from 
an FCC-designated IXP to conduct all required latency and speed testing 
between the customer premises and the point at which traffic is 
aggregated for transport to the continental U.S. The Bureaus and OET 
have identified a sufficient number of IXPs so that no point in the 
continental U.S. is more than approximately 500 miles from an FCC-
designated IXP. Therefore, allowing non-contiguous providers located 
more than 500 miles from an FCC-designated IXP to test to the point in 
the non-contiguous area where traffic is aggregated for transport to 
the mainland will prevent these providers from being unfairly penalized 
for failing to meet their performance obligations solely because of the 
location of the areas being served. However, as the Commission gains 
additional MBA and other data on speed and latency from non-contiguous 
areas, the Bureaus and OET may revisit this conclusion.
    13. First, the Bureaus and OET establish the specific test 
intervals within the daily test period. For latency, the Bureaus and 
OET require a minimum of one discrete test per minute, i.e., 60 tests 
per hour, for each of the testing hours, at each subscriber test 
location, with the results of each discrete test recorded separately. 
The Bureaus and OET note that intensive consumer use of the network 
(such as streaming video) during testing, referred to as cross-talk, 
can influence both consumer service and testing results. The data usage 
load for latency testing is minimal; sending 60 UDP packets of 64 bytes 
each in one hour is approximately 4,000 bytes in total. However, to 
prevent cross-talk from negatively affecting both the consumer 
experience and test results, the Bureaus and OET adopt consumer load 
thresholds--i.e., cross-talk thresholds--similar to those used by the 
MBA program. Accordingly, for latency testing, if the consumer load 
exceeds 64 Kbps downstream, the provider may cancel the test and 
reevaluate whether the consumer load exceeds 64 Kbps downstream before 
retrying the test in the next minute. Providers who elect to do more 
than the minimum required number of latency tests at subscriber test 
locations must include the results from all tests performed during 
testing periods in their compliance calculations.
    14. For speed, the Bureaus and OET require a minimum of one 
download test and one upload test per testing hour at each subscriber 
test location. The Bureaus and OET note that speed testing has greater 
network impact than latency testing. For speed testing, the Bureaus and 
OET require providers to start separate download and upload speed tests 
at the beginning of each test hour window. As with latency, the Bureaus 
and OET adopt cross-talk thresholds similar to those used in the MBA 
program. If the consumer load is greater than 64 Kbps downstream for 
download tests or 32 Kbps upstream for upload tests, the provider may 
defer the affected download or upload test for one minute and 
reevaluate whether the consumer load exceeds the relevant 64 Kbps or 32 
Kbps threshold before retrying the test. This load check-and-retry must 
continue at one-minute intervals until the speed test can be run or the 
one-hour test window ends and the test for that hour is canceled. Also 
as with latency, providers who elect to do more than the minimum 
required number of speed tests at subscriber test locations must 
include the results from all tests performed during testing periods for 
compliance calculations.
    15. Second, to capture any seasonal effects on a carrier's 
broadband performance, the Bureaus and OET require that carriers 
subject to the latency and speed testing requirements conduct one week 
of testing in each quarter of the calendar year. Specifically, carriers 
must conduct one week of testing in each of the following quarters: 
January through March, April through June, July through September, and 
October through December. By requiring measurements quarterly, rather 
than in four consecutive weeks, the Bureaus and OET expect test results 
to reflect a carrier's performance throughout the year, including 
during times of the year in which there is a seasonal increase or 
decrease in network usage. Although previously WCB required price cap 
carriers receiving CAF Phase II support to test latency for two weeks 
each quarter, the Bureaus and OET find that requiring testing one week 
each quarter strikes a better balance of accounting for seasonal 
changes in broadband usage and minimizing the burden on consumers who 
may participate in testing.
    16. Third, in establishing the daily testing period, the Bureaus 
and OET slightly expand the test period and require that carriers 
conduct tests between 6:00 p.m. and 12:00 a.m. (testing hours), 
including on weekends.

[[Page 42055]]

The Bureaus and OET continue to find that MBA data supports its 
conclusion that there is a peak period of internet usage every evening. 
However, the Bureaus and OET intend to revisit this requirement 
periodically to determine whether peak internet usage times have 
changed substantially.
    17. The Bureaus and OET conclude that requiring measurements over 
an expanded period, by including one hour before the peak period and 
one hour after, will best ensure that carriers meet the speed and 
latency obligations associated with the high-cost support they receive. 
MBA data shows that broadband internet access service providers that 
perform well during the peak period tend to perform well consistently 
throughout the day. Further, the Bureaus and OET required schedule of 
testing is consistent with the specific, realistic standards they set 
forth which were developed using MBA peak-period data. Thus, the 
Bureaus and OET will be judging testing hours data based on a standard 
developed using MBA data from the same time period.
    18. Additionally, the Bureaus and OET disagree with assertions that 
requiring speed testing during the peak period will introduce 
problematic network congestion over the provider's core network. Based 
on MBA speed test data, a download service speed test for 10 Mbps 
requires approximately 624 MB combined downloaded data for 50 locations 
per hour. This is less traffic than what would be generated by 
streaming a little less than one-half of a high-definition movie. A 
download service speed test for 25 Mbps requires approximately 1,841 MB 
combined downloaded data for 50 locations, which is about the same 
amount of traffic as a little less than two high-definition movies. The 
small amount of data should have no noticeable effect on network 
congestion. Upload test data-usage is even lower. Based upon MBA speed 
test data, a one-hour upload service speed test for 1 Mbps and 3 Mbps 
for 50 locations will be approximately 57 MB and 120 MB, respectively. 
This testing will use bandwidth equivalent to uploading 12 photos to a 
social media website at 1 Mbps or 24 photos at 3 Mbps. To the extent 
that a carrier is concerned about possible impacts on the consumer 
experience, the Bureaus and OET permit carriers the flexibility to 
choose whether to stagger their tests, so long as they do not violate 
any other testing requirements, as they explain in their discussion of 
the testing intervals in the following.
    19. Fourth, testing for all locations in a single speed tier in a 
single state must be done during the same week. If a provider has more 
than one speed tier in a state, testing for each speed tier can be 
conducted during different weeks within the quarter. For a provider 
serving multiple states, testing of each service tier does not need to 
be done during the same week, i.e., a provider may test its 10/1 Mbps 
customers in New York one week and in Pennsylvania during a different 
week. The Bureaus and OET will generally consider requests for waiver 
or extension in cases where a major, disruptive event (e.g., a 
hurricane) negatively affects a provider's broadband performance. 
However, prior to requesting a waiver, providers should determine 
whether rescheduling testing within the 3-month test window will be 
sufficient to handle the disruptive event.
    20. The Bureaus and OET require that carriers test up to 50 
locations per CAF-required service tier offering per state, depending 
on the number of subscribers a carrier has in a state. The subscribers 
eligible for testing must be at locations that are reported in the HUBB 
where there is an active subscriber. The Bureaus and OET decline to 
adopt a simple percentage-based alternative but, instead, adopt the 
following scaled requirements for each state and service tier 
combination for a carrier:

                    Required Test Locations for Speed
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Number of subscribers at CAF-
supported locations per state           Number of test locations
 and service tier combination
------------------------------------------------------------------------
50 or fewer..................  5.
51-500.......................  10% of total subscribers.
Over 500.....................  50.
------------------------------------------------------------------------

The Bureaus and OET recognize that it is possible that a carrier 
serving 50 or fewer subscribers in a state and particular service tier 
cannot find the required number of five active subscribers for testing 
purposes. To the extent necessary, the Bureaus and OET permit such 
carriers to test existing, non-CAF-supported active subscriber 
locations within the same state and service tier to satisfy its 
requirement of testing five active subscriber locations. Carriers may 
voluntarily test the speed and/or latency of additional randomly 
selected CAF-supported subscribers over the minimum number of required 
test locations as part of their quarterly testing. However, data for 
all tested locations must be submitted for inclusion in the compliance 
calculations, i.e., carriers must identify the set of testing locations 
at the beginning of the testing and cannot exclude some locations 
during or after the testing.
    21. Carriers must test an adequate number of subscriber locations 
to provide a clear picture of the carrier's performance and its 
customers' broadband experience across a state. The Bureaus and OET 
find that 50 test locations, per speed tier per state, remains a good 
indicator as to whether providers are fulfilling their obligations. A 
sample size of 50 test locations out of 2,500 or more subscribers 
provides a picture of carriers' performance with a <plus-minus>11.5 
percent margin of error and 90 percent confidence level. Testing 50 
locations out of more than 500 subscribers yields a comparable picture 
of carriers' performance. The Bureaus and OET acknowledge, however, 
that smaller carriers may find testing 50 locations burdensome. Below 
2,500 CAF-supported subscribers, greater percentages of subscribers are 
necessary to achieve the same margin of error and confidence level, but 
below 500 subscribers the necessary percentage rises quickly above 10 
percent. Carriers serving fewer subscribers would thus be unable to 
provide test results achieving the same margin of error and confidence 
level without testing a more proportionately burdensome percentage of 
their subscribers.
    22. The Bureaus and OET also now find it preferable to use the 
number of subscribers in a state and service tier, rather than the 
number of lines for which a provider is receiving support, to determine 
the required number of test locations. A carrier receiving support for 
2,000 lines serving 100 subscribers would find it much more difficult 
to test 50 active subscriber locations, compared to a carrier receiving 
support for 2,000 lines but serving 1,500 subscribers, and commenters 
have noted that providers may find it difficult to find a sufficient

[[Page 42056]]

number of locations if they have relatively few subscribers. Basing the 
number of locations to be tested on the number of subscribers, rather 
than the number of lines, addresses this concern.
    23. The Bureaus and OET therefore require testing a specific number 
of subscribers for carriers serving more than 500 subscribers in a 
single service tier and state, but require carriers serving between 51 
and 500 subscribers in a single service tier and state to test a fixed 
percentage of subscribers. For carriers serving 50 or fewer subscribers 
in a state and service tier, a percentage-based alternative may be 
insufficient; in an extreme situation, data from a single subscriber 
cannot clearly demonstrate a carrier's speed and latency performance. 
Accordingly, the Bureaus and OET require those providers to test a 
specific number of active subscriber locations. The Bureaus and OET 
conclude that this scaled approach balances the need to test a 
reasonable number of subscriber locations within a state based on the 
total number of subscribers and performance tiers with minimizing the 
burden on smaller providers to find consumer locations to be tested. 
The Bureaus and OET note, also, that a carrier receiving different 
types of CAF funding in the same state should aggregate its customers 
in each speed tier for purposes of testing. The following examples 
illustrate how this scaled approach should be implemented:
    <bullet> A carrier with 2,300 customers subscribed to a single 
service tier of 10/1 Mbps in one state must test 50 locations in that 
state, while a carrier providing solely 25/3 Mbps service to over 2,500 
subscribers in each of three states must test 50 locations in each 
state.
    <bullet> A carrier providing 10/1 Mbps service and 25/3 Mbps 
service to 100 subscribers each in a single state must test 10 
locations for each of the two service tiers--20 locations in total.
    <bullet> A carrier providing solely 10/1 Mbps service to 30 
subscribers must test five locations, and if that carrier is only able 
to test three CAF-supported locations, that carrier must test two non-
CAF-supported locations receiving 10/1 Mbps service in the same state.
    <bullet> A carrier with 2,000 customers subscribed to 10/1 Mbps in 
one state through CAF Phase II funding and 500 RBE customers subscribed 
to 10/1 Mbps in the same state, and no other high-cost support with 
deployment obligations, must test a total of 50 locations in that state 
for the 10/1 Mbps service tier.
    24. Test subjects must be randomly selected every two years from 
among the provider's active subscribers in each service tier in each 
state. Subscribers for latency testing may be randomly selected from 
those subscribers being tested for speed at all speed tiers or randomly 
selected from all CAF-supported subscribers, every two years. Any 
sample location lacking an active subscriber 12 months after that 
location was selected must be replaced by an actively subscribed 
location, randomly selected. Random selection will ensure that 
providers cannot pick and choose amongst subscribers so that only those 
subscribers likely to have the best performance (e.g., those closest to 
a central office) are tested. Carriers may use inducements to encourage 
subscribers to participate in testing. This may be particularly useful 
in cases where support is tied to a particular performance level for 
the network but the provider does not have enough subscribers to higher 
performance service to test to comply with the testing sample sizes. 
However, to ensure that the selection remains random, carriers must 
offer the same inducement to all randomly-selected subscribers in the 
areas for which participating subscribers are required for the carrier 
to conduct testing. WCB will provide further guidance regarding random 
selection by public notice.
    25. The Bureaus and OET reiterate the Commission's requirement that 
high-latency providers subject to testing must demonstrate a Mean 
Opinion Score (MOS) of four or higher. The Bureaus and OET agree with 
ADTRAN, Inc. (ADTRAN) that listening-opinion tests would not suffice to 
demonstrate a high-quality consumer voice experience. Latency only 
minimally affects participants' experiences and evaluations in 
listening-opinion tests, which involve passive listening to audio 
samples. However, in the USF/ICC Transformation Order, 76 FR 73830, 
November 29, 2011, the Commission required ``ETCs to offer sufficiently 
low latency to enable use of real-time applications, such as VoIP.'' 
Unlike a listening-opinion test, in a conversation-opinion test, two 
participants actively participate in a conversation. The back-and-forth 
of conversations highlights delay, echo, and other issues caused by 
latency in a way that one-way, passive listening cannot. Therefore, the 
Bureaus and OET require that high-latency providers conduct an ITU-T 
Recommendation P.800 conversational-opinion test.
    26. Specifically, the Bureaus and OET require the use of the 
underlying conversational-opinion test requirements specified by the 
ITU-T Recommendation P.800, with testing conditions as described in the 
following. The Bureaus and OET believe that MOS testing under these 
conditions will ensure that the test results reflect the consumer 
experience as accurately as possible. First, high-latency providers 
must use operational network infrastructure, such as actual satellite 
links, for conducting MOS testing, not laboratory-based simulations 
intended to reproduce service conditions. Second, the tests must be 
implemented using equipment, systems, and processes that are used in 
provisioning service to locations funded by high-cost universal service 
support. Third, live interviews and surveys must be conducted by an 
independent agency or organization (Reviewer) to determine the MOS. 
Survey forms, mail-in documentation, automated phone calls, or other 
non-interactive and non-person-to-person interviews are not permitted. 
Any organization or laboratory with experience testing services for 
compliance with telecommunications industry-specified standards and, 
preferably, MOS testing experience, may be a Reviewer. Fourth, testing 
must be conducted over a ``single hop'' satellite connection with at 
least one endpoint at an active subscriber location using the 
subscriber's end-user equipment. Finally, the second endpoint may be a 
centralized location from which the Reviewer conducts live interviews 
with the subscriber to determine the subscriber's MOS evaluation.
    27. To reduce the burden of the MOS testing for high-latency 
bidders while still ensuring high-quality voice service, the Bureaus 
and OET adopt a separate scaled table for the number of locations that 
are subject to MOS testing. Specifically, the Bureaus and OET will 
determine the number of testing locations based upon the number of 
subscribers nationally for which CAF-supported service is provided. The 
Bureaus and OET recognize that the satellite infrastructures employed 
by many high-latency bidders have characteristics different from 
terrestrial networks that make testing of satellite service on a 
national, rather than state, basis appropriate. That is, middle-mile/
backhaul for satellite networks are the direct links from the consumer 
locations to the satellite and then from the satellite to selected 
downlink sites, so there is unlikely to be significant variability 
based on the state in which the subscriber is located. The consumers 
must be randomly selected from the total CAF-supported subscriber base 
in all applicable states to ensure that different types of geographic 
locations are tested.

[[Page 42057]]



                 Required Test Locations for MOS Testing
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                              Number of
Number of subscribers at CAF-supported locations nationally    MOS test
                                                              locations
------------------------------------------------------------------------
3500 or fewer..............................................          100
Over 3500..................................................          370
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    This scaled, nationwide testing requirement will reduce high-
latency bidders' testing burden while ensuring a sufficient testing 
sample to verify compliance with voice performance requirements.

IV. Compliance Framework

    28. The Bureaus and OET extend the existing standard for full 
compliance with high-cost support recipients' latency obligations and 
adopt a standard for full compliance with speed obligations. The 
Bureaus and OET also establish a compliance framework outlining 
specific actions for various degrees of compliance that fall short of 
those standards.
    29. The Bureaus and OET reaffirm the existing low-latency and high-
latency standards and establish a speed standard for full compliance. 
The data on round-trip latency in the United States has not markedly 
changed since the 2013 CAF Phase II Price Cap Service Obligation Order, 
and no party has challenged the Commission's reasoning for the existing 
100 ms latency standard. Accordingly, the Bureaus and OET conclude that 
all high-cost support recipients serving fixed locations, except those 
carriers submitting high-latency bids in the CAF Phase II auction, must 
certify that 95 percent or more of all testing hours measurements of 
network round-trip latency are at or below 100 ms. High-latency bidders 
must certify that 95 percent or more of all testing hours measurements 
are at or below 750 ms. Providers must record the observed latency for 
all latency test measurements, including all lost packet tests. Thus, 
providers may not discard lost-packet tests from their test results; 
these tests count as discrete tests not meeting the standard.
    30. For speed, the Bureaus and OET require that 80 percent of 
download and upload measurements be at or above 80 percent of the CAF-
required speed tier (i.e., an 80/80 standard). For example, if a 
carrier receives high-cost support for 10/1 Mbps service, 80 percent of 
the download speed measurements must be at or above 8 Mbps, while 80 
percent of the upload speed measurements must be at or above 0.8 Mbps. 
The Bureaus and OET require carriers to meet and test to their CAF 
obligation speed(s) regardless of whether their subscribers purchase 
internet service offerings with advertised speeds matching the CAF-
required speeds at CAF-eligible locations. Thus, carriers that have 
deployed a network with the requisite speeds must include all 
subscribers at that level in their testing, but may still find it 
necessary to upgrade individual subscriber locations, at least 
temporarily, to conduct speed testing. For example, a carrier may be 
required to deploy and offer 100/20 Mbps service, but only 5 of its 550 
subscribers at CAF-supported locations take 100/20 Mbps service, with 
the remainder taking 20/20 Mbps service. To satisfy its testing 
obligations, the carrier would be required to (1) test all 5 of the 
100/20 Mbps subscribers and (2) randomly select 45 of its other CAF-
supported subscribers, raise those subscribers' speed to 100/20 Mbps, 
at least temporarily, and test those 45 subscribers.
    31. The Bureaus and OET believe that this standard best meets its 
statutory requirement to ensure that high-cost-supported broadband 
deployments provide reasonably comparable service as those available in 
urban areas. The most recent MBA report cites the 80/80 standard as a 
``key measure'' of network consistency. MBA data show that all fixed 
terrestrial broadband technologies that are included in the MBA program 
can meet this standard. The Bureaus and OET are confident that high-
cost support recipients' newer fixed broadband deployments will benefit 
from more up-to-date technologies and network designs that should 
provide even better performance.
    32. Further, the Bureaus and OET expect that a realistic 80/80 
standard will provide a ``cushion'' to address certain testing issues. 
The Bureaus and OET noted in this document that some commenters 
expressed concern that they would be responsible for testing to an IXP 
even though that involved the use of backhaul that a provider may not 
control. The Bureaus and OET believe that the 80/80 standard allows 
sufficient leeway to providers so that they will meet performance 
standards as long as they have reasonable backhaul arrangements. In 
addition, commenters have raised a concern that speed testing could 
possibly show misleadingly low results if the subscriber being tested 
is using the connection at the time of the testing. However, the 
testing methodology addresses this concern. As with the MBA, the 
Bureaus and OET allow rescheduling of testing in instances where the 
customer usage exceeds MBA cross-talk thresholds. Thus, the Bureaus and 
OET do not anticipate that customer cross-talk will affect CAF 
performance data any more (or less) than the MBA program data on which 
its standard is based. Customer usage should not prevent carriers with 
appropriately constructed networks from meeting its requirements.
    33. The Bureaus and OET find that a speed standard similar to what 
they have adopted for latency to measure broadband speed performance, 
as proposed by ADTRAN, is not appropriate. Staff analysis has found 
that this standard would not ensure CAF-supported service that is 
comparable to that in urban areas. The 2016 MBA Report stated that 
``[c]onsistency of speed may be more important to customers who are 
heavy users of applications that are both high bandwidth and sensitive 
to short duration declines in actual speed, such as streaming video.'' 
A speed standard relying on an average or median value would not ensure 
consistency of speed because the distribution of values around the 
median may vary significantly. A carrier could meet such a standard by 
ensuring that the average or median speed test meets a target speed, 
while not providing sufficiently fast service nearly half the time or 
to nearly half its subscribers in locations supported by universal 
service. The Bureaus and OET therefore conclude that the 80/80 standard 
they adopt herein is a better measure of comparability and high-quality 
service.
    34. Finally, the Bureaus and OET recognize that, because of 
technical limitations, it is currently unrealistic to expect that 
providers obligated to provide gigabit service, i.e., speeds of 1,000 
Mbps, achieve actual speeds of 1,000 Mbps download at the customer 
premises. Typical customer premises equipment, including equipment for 
gigabit subscribers, permits a maximum throughput of 1 Gbps, and the 
overhead associated with gigabit internet traffic (whether in urban or 
rural areas) can reach up to 60 Mbps out of the theoretical 1 Gbps. 
Customer premises equipment with higher maximum throughput are 
generally more costly and not readily available. Thus, even if a 
gigabit provider were to ``overprovision'' its gigabit service, the 
subscriber would not experience speeds of 1,000 Mbps. The Bureaus and 
OET do not want to discourage carriers from bidding in the upcoming CAF 
auction to provide 1 Gbps service by requiring unachievable service 
levels. The Bureaus and OET note that the 80/80 standard they adopt 
requires gigabit carriers to demonstrate that 80 percent of their 
testing hours download speed tests are at or above 80 percent of 1,000 
Mbps, i.e., 800 Mbps. This standard

[[Page 42058]]

should not pose a barrier to carriers bidding to provide 1 Gbps 
service.
    35. Consistent with the Commission's universal service goals, the 
Bureaus and OET adopt a compliance framework that encourages ETCs to 
comply fully with their performance obligations and includes the 
potential for USAC to audit test results. The Bureaus and OET establish 
a four-level framework that sets forth particular obligations and 
automatic triggers based on an ETC's degree of compliance with its 
latency, speed, and, if applicable, MOS testing standards in each state 
and high-cost support program. The Bureaus and OET will determine a 
carrier's compliance for each standard separately. In each case, the 
Bureaus and OET will divide the percentage of its measurements meeting 
the relevant standard by the required percentage of measurements to be 
in full compliance.
    36. In other words, for latency, in each state in which the carrier 
has CAF-supported locations, the Bureaus and OET will calculate the 
percentage of compliance using the 95-percent standard, so they will 
divide the percentage of the carrier's testing hours' latency 
measurements at or below the required latency (i.e., 100 ms or 750 ms) 
by 95. As an example, if a low-latency provider observes that 90 
percent of all its testing hours measurements are at or below 100 ms, 
then that provider's latency compliance percentage would be 90/95 = 
94.7 percent in that state. For speed, for each speed tier and state 
the Bureaus and OET will calculate the percentage of compliance 
relative to the 80-percent-based standard, so they will divide the 
percentage of the carrier's testing hours speed measurements at or 
above 80 percent of the target speed by 80. Thus, if a provider 
observes that 65 percent of its testing hours speed measurements meet 
80 percent of the required speed, the provider's compliance percentage 
would be 65/80 = 81.25 percent for the relevant speed tier in that 
state. Carriers must include and submit the results from all tests and 
cannot exclude any tests conducted beyond the minimum numbers of tests, 
as outlined in this Order, for the calculation of latency and speed 
compliance percentages.
    37. For MOS testing, the high-latency bidder must demonstrate a MOS 
of 4 or higher, so a high-latency bidder would calculate its percentage 
of compliance relative to 4. Thus, a provider demonstrating a MOS of 3 
would have a compliance percentage of \3/4\ = 75 percent. For a high-
latency bidder conducting MOS testing across its entire network, rather 
than state-by-state, the Bureaus and OET will calculate the same MOS 
compliance percentage for each state that it serves with CAF Phase II 
support.
    38. To avoid penalizing a provider for failing to meet multiple 
standards for the same locations, the Bureaus and OET adopt a 
streamlined compliance framework in which the lowest of a carrier's 
separate latency, speed, and, if applicable, MOS compliance percentages 
(including percentages for each speed tier) determines its obligations. 
All carriers not fully compliant in a particular state must submit 
quarterly reports providing one week of testing hours test results, 
subject to the same requirements the Bureaus and OET establish in this 
Order, and describing steps taken to resolve the compliance gap, and 
USAC will withhold a percentage of a non-compliant carrier's monthly 
support. Whenever a carrier in Levels 1 through 3 comes into a higher 
level of compliance, that level's requirements will apply, and USAC 
will return the withheld support up to an amount reflecting the 
difference between the levels' required withholding but not including 
any support withheld by USAC for more than 12 months.
    39. The Bureaus and OET define Level 1 compliance to include 
carriers with compliance percentages at or above 85 but below 100 
percent, and they direct USAC to withhold 5 percent of a Level 1-
compliant carrier's monthly support. Level 2 compliance includes 
carriers with compliance percentages at or above 70 but below 85 
percent, and the Bureaus and OET direct USAC to withhold 10 percent of 
a Level 2-compliant carrier's monthly support. Level 3 compliance 
includes carriers with compliance percentages at or above 55 but below 
70 percent, and the Bureaus and OET direct USAC to withhold 15 percent 
of a Level 3-compliant carrier's monthly support. Level 4 compliance 
includes carriers with compliance percentages below 55 percent, and the 
Bureaus and OET direct USAC to withhold 25 percent of a Level 4-
compliant carrier's monthly support. The Bureaus and OET will also 
refer Level 4-compliant carriers to USAC for an investigation into the 
extent to which the carrier has actually deployed broadband in 
accordance with its deployment obligations. The following table 
provides a summary of the compliance framework, where x is the 
carrier's compliance percentage:

                                    Compliance Levels and Support Reductions
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                                 Monthly support
                                        Qualifying compliance     Required quarterly reporting      withheld
                                             percentage x                                           (percent)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Full Compliance....................  x >= 100%..................  No..........................               N/A
Level 1............................  85% <= x < 100%............  Yes.........................                 5
Level 2............................  70% <= x < 85%.............  Yes.........................                10
Level 3............................  55% <= x < 70%.............  Yes.........................                15
Level 4............................  x < 55%....................  Yes.........................                25
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    40. Similar to commenters' proposals, the framework the Bureaus and 
OET adopt resembles the non-compliance framework for interim deployment 
milestones in section 54.320(d) of the Commission's rules. The Bureaus 
and OET emphasize that the goal of this compliance framework is to 
provide incentives, rather than penalize. Balancing commenters' 
concerns regarding the severity or leniency of a such a framework, the 
Bureaus and OET conclude that its framework appropriately encourages 
carriers to come into full compliance and offer, in areas requiring 
high-cost support, broadband service meeting standards consistent with 
what consumers typically experience.
    41. Finally, the Bureaus and OET provide one exception to this non-
compliance framework. As discussed in this document, carriers that 
serve 50 or fewer subscribers in a state and particular service tier 
but cannot find five active subscribers for conducting the required 
testing may test non-CAF-supported active subscriber locations to the 
extent necessary. Because those carriers' test results would not solely 
reflect the performance of CAF-supported locations, any such carriers 
not fully complying with the Bureaus

[[Page 42059]]

and OET latency and speed standards will be referred to USAC for 
further investigation of the level of performance at the CAF-supported 
locations.
    42. The Commission requires that providers subject to these testing 
requirements annually certify and report the results to USAC, which may 
audit the test results. To facilitate compliance monitoring, the 
Bureaus and OET require providers to submit speed and latency test 
results, including the technologies used to provide broadband at the 
tested locations, for each state and speed tier combination in addition 
to an annual certification in a format to be determined by WCB; high-
latency bidders conducting MOS testing across their entire networks, 
rather than state-by-state, may submit and certify MOS test results on 
a nationwide basis. To minimize the burden on providers, USAC will 
calculate the compliance percentages required using the data submitted. 
By requiring carriers to submit test results annually, or quarterly if 
they are not fully in compliance with the Bureaus and OET standards, 
and having USAC perform the compliance calculations, the Bureaus and 
OET minimize the potential for any manipulation or gaming of the 
testing regime, as providers will be required to certify to a set of 
specific results rather than to a general level of compliance. Because 
of the need to develop a mechanism for collecting the testing data and 
obtain Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA) approval, carriers will be 
required to submit the first set of testing data and accompanying 
certification by July 1, 2020. This submission should include data for 
at least the third and fourth quarters of 2019. Subsequently, data and 
certifications will be due by July 1 of each year for the preceding 
calendar year. WCB will provide further guidance by public notice 
regarding how carriers will submit their testing data and 
certifications. Together with USAC audits and possible withholding of 
support, the Bureaus and OET believe these measures will provide ample 
incentives for carriers to comply with their obligations.

V. Procedural Matters

A. Paperwork Reduction Act

    43. This Order contains new or modified information collection 
requirements subject to the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (PRA), 
Public Law 104-13. It will be submitted to the Office of Management and 
Budget (OMB) for review under section 3507(d) of the PRA. OMB, the 
general public, and other Federal agencies will be invited to comment 
on the new or modified information collection requirements contained in 
this proceeding. In addition, the Commission notes that pursuant to the 
Small Business Paperwork Relief Act of 2002, Public Law 107-198, see 44 
U.S.C. 3506(c)(4), it previously sought specific comment on how the 
Commission might further reduce the information collection burden for 
small business concerns with fewer than 25 employees. In this present 
document, the Commission has assessed the effects of the new and 
modified rules that might impose information collection burdens on 
small business concerns, and find that they either will not have a 
significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities 
or will have a minimal economic impact on a substantial number of small 
entities.

B. Congressional Review Act

    44. The Commission will send a copy of this Order to Congress and 
the Government Accountability Office pursuant to the Congressional 
Review Act, see 5 U.S.C. 801(a)(1)(A).
    45. As required by the Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980 (RFA), as 
amended, an Initial Regulatory Flexibility Analysis (IRFA) was 
incorporated in the USF/ICC Transformation FNPRM, 76 FR 78384, December 
16, 2011. The Commission sought written public comment on the proposals 
in the USF/ICC Transformation FNPRM, including comment on the IRFA. The 
Commission did not receive any relevant comments on the USF/ICC 
Transformation FNPRM IRFA. This present Final Regulatory Flexibility 
Analysis (FRFA) conforms to the RFA.
    46. As a condition of receiving high-cost universal service 
support, eligible telecommunications carriers (ETCs) must offer 
broadband service in their supported areas that meets certain basic 
performance requirements. ETCs subject to broadband performance 
obligations must currently offer broadband with latency suitable for 
real-time applications, such as VoIP, and meet a minimum speed standard 
of 10 Mbps downstream and 1 Mbps upstream or greater. Recipients of 
high-cost support must also test their broadband networks for 
compliance with speed and latency metrics and certify and report the 
results to the Universal Service Administrative Company (USAC) and the 
relevant state or tribal government on an annual basis, with those 
results subject to audit.
    47. In the Order, the Bureaus and OET define how ETCs with Connect 
America Fund (CAF) Phase II, Alternative Connect America Cost Model (A-
CAM), rate-of-return mandatory buildout, rural broadband experiment 
(RBE), or Alaska Plan obligations must test speed and latency and 
certify and report the results. Specifically, the Bureaus and OET 
establish a uniform framework for measuring speed and latency 
performance. The Bureaus and OET permit three testing methods as 
options for ETCs to conduct the required speed and latency tests, and 
the Bureaus and OET provide a definition for a ``test'' in this context 
and specify the measurement span associated with these tests. The 
Bureaus and OET establish specific test parameters for latency and 
speed, including how often and how many tests must be conducted and the 
minimum test sample size. The Bureaus and OET also establish voice 
testing requirements for high-latency bidders in the CAF Phase II 
auction. Finally, the Bureaus and OET define compliance for latency and 
speed standards and establish the required certifications, as well as a 
compliance framework providing strong incentives for ETCs to meet its 
standards.
    48. With the testing framework the Bureaus and OET have adopted 
herein, they have provided maximum flexibility to reduce the burden on 
smaller entities, consistent with ensuring that these carriers are 
meeting their latency and speed requirements. Smaller entities required 
to do testing can choose from one of three methodologies to conduct the 
required testing. All entities providing broadband service should 
already use testing mechanisms for internal purposes, such as ensuring 
that customers are receiving the appropriate level of service and 
troubleshooting in response to customer complaints. In addition, the 
Bureaus and OET will be providing an online portal so entities can 
easily submit all of their test results electronically and USAC will do 
all of the necessary compliance calculations.
    49. The RFA directs agencies to provide a description of, and where 
feasible, an estimate of the number of small entities that may be 
affected by the proposed rules, if adopted. 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).

[[Page 42060]]

    50. The Bureaus and OET actions, over time, may affect small 
entities that are not easily categorized at present. The Bureaus and 
OET therefore describe here, at the outset, three broad groups of small 
entities that could be directly affected herein. First, while there are 
industry specific size standards for small businesses that are used in 
the regulatory flexibility analysis, according to data from the SBA's 
Office of Advocacy, in general a small business is an independent 
business having fewer than 500 employees. These types of small 
businesses represent 99.9 percent of all businesses in the United 
States which translates to 28.8 million businesses.
    51. Next, the type of small entity described as a ``small 
organization'' is generally ``any not-for-profit enterprise which is 
independently owned and operated and is not dominant in its field.'' 
Nationwide, as of August 2016, there were approximately 356,494 small 
organizations based on registration and tax data filed by nonprofits 
with the Internal Revenue Service (IRS).
    52. Finally, the small entity described as a ``small governmental 
jurisdiction'' is defined generally as ``governments of cities, 
counties, towns, townships, villages, school districts, or special 
districts, with a population of less than fifty thousand.'' U.S. Census 
Bureau data from the 2012 Census of Governments indicates that there 
were 90,056 local governmental jurisdictions consisting of general 
purpose governments and special purpose governments in the United 
States. Of this number there were 37,132 General purpose governments 
(county, municipal and town or township) with populations of less than 
50,000 and 12,184 Special purpose governments (independent school 
districts and special districts) with populations of less than 50,000. 
The 2012 U.S. Census Bureau data for most types of governments in the 
local government category shows that the majority of these governments 
have populations of less than 50,000. Based on this data the Bureaus 
and OET estimate that at least 49,316 local government jurisdictions 
fall in the category of ``small governmental jurisdictions.''
    53. In the Order, the Bureaus and OET establish for high-cost 
support recipients serving fixed locations a uniform framework for 
measuring speed and latency performance and define the requisite 
standards for full compliance with those providers' speed and latency 
obligations. The Commission's existing rules require that high-cost 
recipients report ``[t]he results of network performance tests pursuant 
to the methodology and in the format determined by the Wireline 
Competition Bureau, Wireless Telecommunications Bureau, and the Office 
of Engineering and Technology'' and that ETCs retain such records for 
at least ten years from the receipt of funding.
    54. The Bureaus and OET now provide some color to this requirement; 
they require providers to submit speed and latency test results, 
including the technologies used to provide broadband at the tested 
locations, for each state and speed tier combination in addition to an 
annual certification in a format to be determined by WCB. High-latency 
bidders conducting mean opinion score (MOS) testing across their entire 
networks, rather than state-by-state, may submit and certify MOS test 
results on a nationwide basis. To minimize the burden on providers, 
USAC will calculate the compliance percentages required using the data 
submitted. By requiring carriers to submit test results annually and 
having USAC perform the compliance calculations, the Bureaus and OET 
minimize the potential for any manipulation or gaming of the testing 
regime, as providers will be required to certify to a set of specific 
results rather than to a general level of compliance. However, 
providers that are not fully compliant with the speed and latency 
standards must submit quarterly reports including one week of test 
results and describing steps taken to resolve the compliance gap.
    55. The RFA requires an agency to describe any significant 
alternatives that it has considered in reaching its proposed approach, 
which may include (among others) the following four alternatives: (1) 
The establishment of differing compliance or reporting requirements or 
timetables that take into account the resources available to small 
entities; (2) the clarification, consolidation, or simplification of 
compliance or reporting requirements under the rule for small entities; 
(3) the use of performance, rather than design, standards; and (4) an 
exemption from coverage of the rule, or any part thereof, for small 
entities. The Bureaus and OET have considered all of these factors 
subsequent to receiving substantive comments from the public and 
potentially affected entities. The Wireline Competition Bureau, 
Wireless Telecommunications Bureau, and Office of Engineering and 
Technology have considered the economic impact on small entities, as 
identified in any comments filed in response to USF/ICC Transformation 
FNPRM and IRFA, in reaching its final conclusions and taking action in 
this proceeding.
    56. In the Order, the Bureaus and OET adopt a clear, uniform 
framework for high-cost support recipients serving fixed locations to 
test speed and latency to meet the obligations associated with the 
support they receive. The requirements the Bureaus and OET adopt 
provide flexibility for carriers to choose between different testing 
methods suitable for carriers of different sizes and technological 
sophistication. Instead of requiring providers to invest in and 
implement new internal systems, the Bureaus and OET permit providers to 
perform speed and latency tests with readily available off-the-shelf 
solutions or existing MBA infrastructure. The Bureaus and OET expect 
that carriers with testing features built into customer premises 
equipment for their own network management purposes may prefer using 
their own self-testing systems, which they also permit.
    57. The Bureaus and OET require that carriers, regardless of their 
preferred testing methods, conduct tests using the same parameters they 
establish. These parameters take into account smaller carriers' 
circumstances to avoid disproportionately burdening them. For example, 
the Bureaus and OET expand the list of locations to which carriers may 
conduct required tests--allowing smaller carriers that are farther from 
the largest metropolitan areas to test speed and latency over shorter 
distances. The Bureaus and OET also permit providers to conduct tests 
to the designated area of their choosing, rather than to the nearest 
designated metropolitan area. Further, carriers with fewer subscribers 
in a state and broadband service tier may test fewer locations. Greater 
percentages of subscribers are necessary to achieve the same margin of 
error and confidence level in smaller sample sizes, but the Bureaus and 
OET recognize that, below 450 subscribers, that necessary percentage 
rises quickly above 10 percent. Accordingly, in the Order, the Bureaus 
and OET allow providers with between 51 and 450 subscribers in a 
particular state and service tier combination to test 10 percent of 
total subscribers. The Bureaus and OET require providers with fewer 
than 50 subscribers in a particular state and service tier combination 
to test five locations, but, to the extent necessary, those carriers 
may test existing, non-CAF-supported active subscriber locations to 
satisfy that requirement.
    58. Finally, the Bureaus and OET provide clarity regarding the 
Commission's existing requirement that carriers must report the results 
of network performance tests. Carriers must annually (or, in some 
cases,

[[Page 42061]]

quarterly) submit detailed results of the required tests, conducted 
pursuant to the parameters the Bureaus and OET establish. The Bureaus 
and OET hold all carriers to the same speed and latency test standards, 
but they recognize that requiring carriers to take the additional step 
of using their test results to determine their level of compliance may 
entail unnecessary burdens. Although the Bureaus and OET anticipate 
that carriers will find the adopted compliance framework 
straightforward, they conclude that requiring submission of the actual 
test results and allowing USAC to calculate the compliance percentages 
lessens the burden on small entities even further.

VI. Ordering Clauses

    59. Accordingly, it is ordered that, pursuant to sections 1, 4(i), 
5(c), 201(b), 214, and 254 of the Communications Act of 1934, as 
amended, and section 706 of the Telecommunications Act of 1996, 47 
U.S.C. 151, 154(i), 155(c), 201(b), 214, 254, 1302, Sec. Sec.  0.91 and 
0.291 of the Commission's rules, 47 CFR 0.91, 0.291, and the 
delegations of authority in paragraph 170 of the USF/ICC Transformation 
Order, FCC 11-161, this Order is adopted, effective thirty (30) days 
after publication of the text or summary thereof in the Federal 
Register, except for the requirements in paragraphs 38 and 42 that are 
subject to the PRA, which will become effective upon announcement in 
the Federal Register of OMB approval of the subject information 
collection requirements.

Federal Communications Commission.
Kris A. Monteith,
Chief, Wireline Competition Bureau.
[FR Doc. 2018-17338 Filed 8-17-18; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6712-01-P