42052 Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 161 / Monday, August 20, 2018 / Rules and Regulations 

‘‘Final Rules’’ section below, and that 

this amendment shall be effective 30 

days after publication of this Report and 

Order in the Federal Register. 

31. It is further ordered that the 

Commission’s Consumer & 

Governmental Affairs Bureau, Reference 

Information Center, shall send a copy of 

this Report and Order to Congress and 

the Government Accountability Office 

pursuant to the Congressional Review 

Act, see 5 U.S.C. 801(a)(1)(A). 

List of Subjects in 47 CFR Parts 51 and 

52 

Communications common carriers, 

Telecommunications, Telephone. 

Federal Communications Commission. 

Katura Jackson, 

Federal Register Liaison Officer, Office of the 

Secretary. 

Final Rules 

For the reasons discussed in the 

preamble, the Federal Communications 

Commission amends 47 CFR parts 51 

and 52 as follows: 

PART 51—INTERCONNECTION 

■ 1. The authority citation for part 51 is 

revised to read as follows: 

Authority: 47 U.S.C. 151–55, 201–05, 207– 

09, 218, 225–27, 251–52, 271, 332 unless 

otherwise noted. 

■ 2. Revise § 51.205 to read as follows: 

§ 51.205 Dialing parity: General. 

A local exchange carrier (LEC) shall 

provide local dialing parity to 

competing providers of telephone 

exchange service, with no unreasonable 

dialing delays. Dialing parity shall be 

provided for originating 

telecommunications services that 

require dialing to route a call. 

§ 51.209 [Removed] 

■ 3. Remove § 51.209. 

§ 51.213 [Removed] 

■ 4. Remove § 51.213. 

§ 51.215 [Removed] 

■ 5. Remove § 51.215. 

PART 52—NUMBERING 

■ 6. The authority citation for part 52 is 

revised to read as follows: 

Authority: 47 U.S.C. 151–55, 201–05, 207– 

09, 218, 225–27, 251–54, 271, 303(r), 332, 

1302. 

■ 7. Amend § 52.26 by: 

■ a. Revising paragraph (a); 

■ b. Redesignating paragraphs (b)(1) 

through (3) as paragraphs (b)(2) through 

(4); 

■ c. Adding a new paragraph (b)(1); and 

■ d. Revising paragraph (c). 

The revisions and addition read as 

follows: 

§ 52.26 NANC Recommendations on Local 

Number Portability Administration. 

(a) Local number portability 

administration shall comply with the 

recommendations of the North 

American Numbering Council (NANC) 

as set forth in the report to the 

Commission prepared by the NANC’s 

Local Number Portability 

Administration Selection Working 

Group, dated April 25, 1997 (Working 

Group Report) and its appendices, 

which are incorporated by reference 

pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 552(a) and 1 CFR 

part 51. Except that: Sections 7.8 and 

7.10 of Appendix D and the following 

portions of Appendix E: Section 7, Issue 

Statement I of Appendix A, and 

Appendix B in the Working Group 

Report are not incorporated herein. 

(b) * * * 

(1) Each designated N–1 carrier (as 

described in the Working Group Report) 

is responsible for ensuring number 

portability queries are performed on a 

N–1 basis where ‘‘N’’ is the entity 

terminating the call to the end user, or 

a network provider contracted by the 

entity to provide tandem access, unless 

another carrier has already performed 

the query; 

* * * * * 

(c) The Director of the Federal 

Register approves this incorporation by 

reference in accordance with 5 U.S.C. 

552(a) and 1 CFR part 51. Copies of the 

Working Group Report and its 

appendices can be inspected during 

normal business hours at the following 

locations: FCC Reference Information 

Center, 445 12th Street SW, Room 

CY–A257, Washington, DC 20554 or at 

the National Archives and Records 

Administration (NARA). For 

information on the availability of this 

material at NARA, call (202) 741–6030, 

or go to: https://www.archives.gov/ 

federal-register/cfr/ibr-locations.html. 

The Working Group Report and its 

appendices are also available on the 

internet at https://docs.fcc.gov/public/ 

attachments/DOC-341177A1.pdf. 

[FR Doc. 2018–17843 Filed 8–17–18; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6712–01–P 

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 


daltland on DSKBBV9HB2PROD with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 161 / Monday, August 20, 2018 / Rules and Regulations 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 selftesting 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: 

• 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. 

• 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-theshelf testing—to implement 

performance testing. 

• 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 FCCdesignated metropolitan area (FCCdesignated 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 providerdeveloped 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 highcost 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 


daltland on DSKBBV9HB2PROD with RULES
42054 Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 161 / Monday, August 20, 2018 / Rules and Regulations 

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 FCCdesignated 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 FCCdesignated 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 FCCdesignated 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 noncontiguous 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-andretry 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. 


daltland on DSKBBV9HB2PROD with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 161 / Monday, August 20, 2018 / Rules and Regulations 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 highdefinition movies. The small amount of 

data should have no noticeable effect on 

network congestion. Upload test datausage 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 CAFrequired 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 and service tier combination Number of test locations 

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 

±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 


daltland on DSKBBV9HB2PROD with RULES
42056 Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 161 / Monday, August 20, 2018 / Rules and Regulations 

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 percentagebased 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: 

• 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. 

• 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. 

• 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 nonCAF-supported locations receiving 10/1 

Mbps service in the same state. 

• 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 CAFsupported 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 highlatency 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 highquality 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 conversationopinion test, two participants actively 

participate in a conversation. The backand-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 conversationalopinion 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 nonperson-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 CAFsupported 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. 


daltland on DSKBBV9HB2PROD with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 161 / Monday, August 20, 2018 / Rules and Regulations 42057 

REQUIRED TEST LOCATIONS FOR MOS 

TESTING

Number of subscribers at CAF-supported locations nationally 

Number of 

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 highlatency 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 CAFrequired 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-costsupported 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 


daltland on DSKBBV9HB2PROD with RULES
42058 Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 161 / Monday, August 20, 2018 / Rules and Regulations 

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 CAFsupported 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 noncompliant 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

Qualifying compliance percentage x 

Required 

quarterly 

reporting 

Monthly support 

withheld 

(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 noncompliance 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-CAFsupported active subscriber locations to 

the extent necessary. Because those 

carriers’ test results would not solely 

reflect the performance of CAFsupported locations, any such carriers 

not fully complying with the Bureaus 


daltland on DSKBBV9HB2PROD with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 161 / Monday, August 20, 2018 / Rules and Regulations 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 stateby-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 highcost 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 smallbusiness 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). 


daltland on DSKBBV9HB2PROD with RULES
42060 Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 161 / Monday, August 20, 2018 / Rules and Regulations 

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, 


daltland on DSKBBV9HB2PROD with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 161 / Monday, August 20, 2018 / Rules and Regulations 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, §§ 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 


daltland on DSKBBV9HB2PROD with RULES