[Federal Register Volume 82, Number 163 (Thursday, August 24, 2017)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 40118-40129]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2017-17901]


=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION

47 CFR Parts 1, 20 and 43

[WC Docket No. 11-10; FCC 17-103]


Modernizing the FCC Form 477 Data Program

AGENCY: Federal Communications Commission.

ACTION: Proposed rule.

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

SUMMARY: In this document, the Federal Communications Commission 
(Commission) seeks comment on how to revise the current FCC Form 477 
collection of voice and broadband subscription and deployment data to 
increase its usefulness to the Commission, Congress, the industry, and 
the public.

DATES: Comments are due on or before September 25, 2017 and reply 
comments are due on or before October 10, 2017. If you anticipate that 
you will be submitting comments, but find it difficult to do so within 
the period of time allowed by this document, you should advise the 
contact listed below as soon as possible.

ADDRESSES: You may submit comments, identified by WC Docket No. 11-10, 
by any of the following methods:
    <bullet> Federal eRulemaking Portal: http://www.regulations.gov. 
Follow the instructions for submitting comments.
    <bullet> Federal Communications Commission's Web site: http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/ecfs2/. Electronic Filers: Comments may be filed 
electronically using the Internet by accessing the ECFS: http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/ecfs2/.
    [ssquf] Paper Filers: Parties who choose to file by paper must file 
an original and one copy of each filing.
    <bullet> Filings can be sent by hand or messenger delivery, by 
commercial overnight courier, or by first-class or overnight U.S. 
Postal Service mail. All filings must be addressed to the Commission's 
Secretary, Office of the Secretary, Federal Communications Commission.

[[Page 40119]]

    [cir] All hand-delivered or messenger-delivered paper filings for 
the Commission's Secretary must be delivered to FCC Headquarters at 445 
12th St. SW., Room TW-A325, Washington, DC 20554. The filing hours are 
8:00 a.m. to 7:00 p.m. All hand deliveries must be held together with 
rubber bands or fasteners. Any envelopes and boxes must be disposed of 
before entering the building.
    [ssquf] Commercial overnight mail (other than U.S. Postal Service 
Express Mail and Priority Mail) must be sent to 9300 East Hampton 
Drive, Capitol Heights, MD 20743.
    [ssquf] U.S. Postal Service first-class, Express, and Priority mail 
must be addressed to 445 12th St. SW., Washington, DC 20554.
    <bullet> People With Disabilities: Contact the FCC to request 
reasonable accommodations (accessible format documents, sign language 
interpreters, CART, etc.) by email: <a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#30767373050004705653531e575f46"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="490f0a0a7c797d092f2a2a672e263f">[email protected]</span></a> or phone: (202) 418-
0530 or TTY: (202) 418-0432.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Thomas Parisi, Wireline Competition 
Bureau, (202) 418-1356 or TTY: (202) 418-0484.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: This is a synopsis of the Commission's 
Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (FNPRM or Further Notice) in WC 
Docket No. 11-10; FCC 17-103, adopted on August 3, 2017 and released on 
August 4, 2017. 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 St. SW., Washington, DC 20554 or at the 
following Internet address: https://www.fcc.gov/document/fcc-proposes-improvements-broadbandvoice-services-data-collection.

I. Introduction

    1. The Commission initiates a further proceeding to take a focused 
look at the Commission's Form 477--the principal tool used by the 
Commission to gather data on communications services, including 
broadband services, to help inform policymaking. The Commission's goal 
in this Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking is two-pronged: To 
examine its experience based its current data collection in order to 
collect better and more accurate information on Form 477; and, to 
explore how the Commission can revise other aspects of the data 
collection to increase its usefulness to the Commission, Congress, the 
industry, and the public. These steps continue the Commission's efforts 
to improve the value of the data the Commission continues to collect, 
while also identifying and eliminating unnecessary or overly burdensome 
filing requirements.

II. Discussion

    2. Accurate and reliable data on fixed and mobile broadband and 
voice services are critical to the Commission's ability to meet its 
goal of decision-making based on sound and rigorous data analysis. 
Others, including Congressional and state and Tribal policymakers, 
researchers, and consumers, also rely on the data the Commission 
collects for a variety of purposes. In support of these efforts, the 
Commission seeks comment first on ways in which it might change aspects 
of the Form 477 to increase the quality and accuracy of the information 
the Commission will continue to collect. The Commission also seeks 
comment on ways in which the Commission might streamline its current 
Form 477 requirements and thereby reduce the burdens on filers. The 
Commission begins below with its proposals for improving and 
streamlining the Form 477 data collection for mobile services, before 
turning to a discussion of fixed services.
    3. In undertaking this examination of the Form 477 data collection, 
one of the primary objectives is to ensure that the data the Commission 
collects are closely aligned with the uses to which they will be put, 
both by the Commission and by outside stakeholders. As a preliminary 
issue, the Commission seeks comment on those uses to inform its 
analysis. For each of the issues considered below, the Commission asks 
for comment on the relationship between potential changes to the 
collection and the current or expected need for, and use of, the data. 
Specifically, the Commission asks for comment on whether and how 
revisions to the collection would better support an existing or 
expected use of data. In addition to the Commission's many uses for the 
data, the Commission understands that external stakeholder uses of the 
data include state public utility commission regulatory and program 
analysis, academic research, and state and local broadband deployment 
and adoption analysis. Are there other external uses of the data for 
which the Commission should account if the Commission makes changes to 
the collection? Is the existing data collection well designed for 
Commission and stakeholder use? Will the revisions under consideration 
in the FNPRM better align the data the Commission collects with the use 
of those data? Are there elements of the collection not discussed below 
that should be considered for elimination because of redundancy or 
insufficient usefulness?
    4. Having accurate and reliable mobile broadband deployment data is 
critical to policymakers as well as to consumers. However, obtaining 
meaningful data in the mobile context is challenging. A user's mobile 
service experience is inherently variable and is affected by various 
factors, such as terrain, location (e.g., whether the user is indoors 
or outdoors or distance from a tower), weather, congestion, and the 
type of connected device. In this Further Notice, the Commission seeks 
comment on the tradeoffs among the following possible approaches for 
improving the mobile broadband deployment data the Commission collects. 
The Commission also seeks input on whether the characteristics or 
properties of next generation mobile technologies such as 5G may 
require modifications to the current Form 477 requirements.
    5. The current Form 477 data on deployment of mobile broadband 
services represents a significant improvement over the data that were 
previously available from earlier data sources. The 2013 Form 477 
Order, 78 FR 49126, August 13, 2013, which provides the framework for 
the current collection, required for the first time that facilities-
based mobile broadband providers directly submit deployment data, 
representing nationwide coverage areas, as well as required minimum 
advertised or expected speeds for those coverage areas. Coverage areas 
are broken down by technology and spectrum band. The current data 
collection is intended to represent where consumers should expect to 
receive mobile broadband services at the minimum speeds set by the 
providers in their marketplace, and it was designed to minimize burdens 
and allow flexibility for providers. Providers, and not the Commission, 
decide the speeds of service they offer and may choose among different 
reasonable bases for substantiating their Form 477 filings.
    6. The Commission experience in analyzing and working with the Form 
477 data has shown, however, that the Form 477 data could be improved 
further to better understand the mobile broadband service that 
consumers actually experience. As noted above, service providers are 
required to file, and certify the accuracy of, shapefiles representing 
those areas where, for a specified technology, ``users should expect 
the minimum advertised upload and download data speeds associated with 
that network technology.'' Questions have arisen in various

[[Page 40120]]

contexts regarding the bases for certain filings and the extent to 
which those filings reflect actual user experience. The Commission to 
date has not systematically examined the precise underlying 
methodologies that are used by service providers in generating their 
data nor has it investigated whether actual consumer experience has 
diverged substantially from the Form 477 filings. Moreover, providers' 
minimum advertised or expected speeds have, to date, been treated as 
confidential, limiting the ability of policymakers and consumers to 
compare offerings among service providers from this data collection. 
Also, because service providers select their own methodologies for 
determining the coverage and speeds provided, these methodologies tend 
to vary among providers. These varying methodologies make it difficult 
for the Commission to compare coverage areas and minimum reported 
speeds, as the underlying meanings of what the coverage and speed 
information depict may differ among service providers. Also, current 
Form 477 filings typically do not include meaningful information about 
the methodologies by which service providers are generating their 
coverage contours.
    7. Enhancing the Current Data Collection. The Commission seeks 
comment on the most appropriate way to retain the benefits of the 
current Form 477 data collection while introducing certain 
improvements. Is there a way by which the Commission can improve its 
current data collection to better understand and evaluate the actual 
consumer experience? As part of this approach, the Commission proposes 
to make service providers' minimum advertised or expected speeds 
publicly available (as described below in Section II.C.1.a.). Should 
the Commission require that filers submit their mobile deployment files 
as rasters (raster datasets ``are commonly used for representing and 
managing imagery, digital elevation models,'' or ``as a way to 
represent point, line, and polygon features.''), as well as, or instead 
of, shapefiles? Would the publication of the minimum advertised speed 
plus a more meaningful disclosure of the methodologies used by 
individual service providers allow a better reflection of actual 
consumer experience, and enhance the ability of policymakers and 
consumers to compare across service providers?
    8. Standardized Predictive Propagation Model. In addition, the 
Commission seeks comment on requiring the submission of standardized 
propagation models for 4G LTE and later-generational technologies. 
Should the Commission require filers to use predictive propagation 
models to prepare their Form 477 deployment filings? If so, the 
Commission seeks comment on the extent to which it should take 
additional steps to specify possible eligible models for this purpose, 
and to standardize to some extent the output of those models as well as 
certain input parameters, with the goal of allowing more meaningful 
comparisons among service providers' mobile broadband deployment. For 
instance, should the Commission require that deployment shapefiles 
represent coverage at median speeds as well as speeds at the cell edge? 
If so, how should the Commission decide the specified speeds? Or, for 
instance, the Commission could specify a median download speed of 10 
Mbps with an edge speed of 3 Mbps. Would this be appropriate, and if 
not, why not? Should the Commission also consider setting a cell edge 
upload speed such as a voice-over-LTE (VoLTE) requirement or an upload 
speed of 1 Mbps, or would an upload speed lower than 1 Mbps be 
appropriate, and if so, why?
    9. What input parameters would the Commission need to standardize 
to allow for meaningful comparison among providers' LTE data 
submissions? As examples, should the Commission standardize, or specify 
reasonable ranges for, any of the following parameters, and, if so, 
why: (1) Location of cells in decimal latitude and longitude; (2) 
channel bandwidth in MHz; (3) signal strength; (4) signal quality with 
signal to noise ratio; (5) cell loading factors; or (6) terrain 
provided at a minimum resolution of three arc-seconds? What is the 
minimum set of parameters the Commission would need to standardize to 
allow for meaningful comparisons among service providers? To what 
extent should the providers be free to determine their speeds? To what 
extent would these predictive models provide the most accurate 
predictions of actual consumer experience? Would submissions of 
standardized predictive propagation models with prescribed parameters 
be too burdensome on smaller service providers? If so, how could the 
Commission ensure it receives standardized submissions from all 
providers without unduly burdening small service providers?
    10. Supplement Data Collections with On-The-Ground Data. To better 
evaluate the actual consumer experience under the approaches above, the 
Commission also seeks comment on whether the Commission should require 
some ``on-the-ground'' data as part of any Form 477 data collection. 
The previously discussed data collections would be based on the 
coverage and speeds that theoretically should be achieved based on the 
service provider's decision on its own submitted propagation model, or 
some other reasonable methodology of its choosing, or a propagation 
model with standardized parameters as specified by the Commission. The 
collection of on-the-ground data would supplement the model-based data, 
improving the understanding of how the theoretical data relates to 
actual consumer experience. For instance, comparing results of 
theoretical propagation models and actual speed test data from Ookla 
indicate that propagation model parameters such as signal strength and 
speed may not be as closely correlated to the theoretical prediction 
when analyzing actual on-the-ground data in a particular geographic 
area. To more accurately reflect consumer experience, should some 
actual speed test data, aggregated up to a certain geographic level, be 
required? How could the Commission impose such a requirement without 
being unduly burdensome? Are there data of this kind that service 
providers already generate during the ordinary course of business which 
would be less burdensome to collect?
    11. Incorporation of New Mobile Wireless Technologies. The 2013 
Form 477 Order provided for reporting by various existing technologies 
but did not provide for the reporting of data for new wireless 
technologies, such as 5G. Should the Commission require separate 
reporting of 5G mobile broadband deployment? Are there any aspects of 
5G mobile broadband services that would suggest a need to represent 
deployment on Form 477 differently from 4G LTE and other mobile 
technologies? For instance, what are the specific use cases for mobile 
5G service that the Commission should consider when collecting data to 
accurately represent 5G services being deployed to consumers? Should 
the Commission define 5G for the purposes of the Form 477 data 
collection, and, if so, how? Further, the Commission seeks comment on 
whether and, if so, in what circumstances, should the Form 477 take 
into account the deployment of facilities used in non-traditional ways 
in offering wireless services to consumers? For example, while Wi-Fi 
facilities traditionally have provided consumers with portable, not 
mobile, wireless connectivity, should the Form 477 track deployment of 
such facilities when offered to consumers in conjunction with resold 
mobile service? Might there develop other wireless services based

[[Page 40121]]

exclusively on the integration of numerous unlicensed facilities, such 
as Wi-Fi routers, that might warrant tracking in Form 477? If so, under 
what circumstances, and how should any such facilities deployment be 
reported?
    12. Mobile Satellite Broadband Service. Satellite operators today 
may provide both fixed and mobile broadband service in the same 
spectrum. Considering the small but growing market for satellite mobile 
broadband, would it be appropriate to make additional modifications to 
Form 477 to include satellite broadband data in the mobile broadband 
data collection, and, if so, how?
    13. The 2013 Form 477 Order, while modernizing the data collection 
generally, also ensured that, for the first time, the Form 477 data 
collection would require the submission of mobile broadband deployment 
data. Specifically, the 2013 Form 477 Order required that filers submit 
their mobile broadband deployment data by unique combinations of 
technology, spectrum band utilized, and minimum advertised or expected 
speed.
    14. Under the current Form 477 reporting framework, facilities-
based providers of mobile wireless broadband service are required to 
submit shapefiles depicting their broadband network coverage areas for 
each transmission technology deployed in each frequency band. Although 
the Commission in the 2013 Form 477 Order concluded that collecting 
deployment information by spectrum band would enable it ``to analyze 
deployment in different spectrum bands'' and ``facilitate the 
formulation of sound and informed spectrum policies,'' to date the 
Commission has not used the spectrum band information from Form 477 in 
its mobile broadband coverage analysis.
    15. The Commission proposes to eliminate the requirement that 
mobile broadband providers submit their broadband deployment data by 
spectrum band. The Commission anticipates that eliminating the 
requirement to provide spectrum band information would greatly 
streamline and reduce the burdens on providers by reducing the number 
of shapefiles (and the amount of the associated underlying data 
processing) they are required to submit. For example, a provider 
currently providing LTE in four spectrum bands would only have to 
submit one shapefile representing its coverage rather than four 
shapefiles. Moreover, currently the Commission is not aware of any 
significant purpose for which these data might be used, although the 
Commission seeks comment on whether to continue to collect these data 
as they might be helpful for analysis in future proceedings. The 
Commission also seeks comment on any alternative approaches it should 
consider in lieu of adopting the streamlining proposal. For example, 
should the Commission consider adopting an alternative process under 
which providers might provide a list of bands and the associated amount 
of spectrum used to provision various mobile technologies by some 
geography, such as the CMA? Would this approach be less burdensome than 
the requirement to submit shapefiles for each spectrum band, 
particularly for smaller providers? Would this approach be beneficial 
by providing data that would allow the Commission to track more easily 
new spectrum deployments? Would it, for instance, provide a valuable 
source of information regarding the timing and provision of LTE on 3.5 
GHz spectrum as well as the deployment of 5G services in the various 
low, mid, and high spectrum bands?
    16. Additionally, the Commission seeks comment about whether to 
eliminate or modify the requirement that mobile broadband providers 
report coverage information for each technology deployed in their 
networks. The Commission seeks comment on whether the Commission should 
simplify the filing process by requiring that coverage maps be provided 
for four categories of technology--3G, 4G non-LTE, 4G LTE, and 5G--
rather than by each specific broadband technology, and how these 
categories should be defined. Are these categories defined and distinct 
enough to ensure accurate and meaningful reporting? Are the 
distinctions between categories, such as 4G versus 5G, clear enough for 
the data to be meaningful and for respondents to accurately submit 
data? Will the Commission need to specify which technologies correspond 
to which category? Currently, the Form 477 instructions set out 
specific technology codes for nine different mobile technologies. In 
the Commission's experience, the separate reporting of coverage 
information by every one of these nine specific mobile technologies has 
not added useful information for the purposes of Commission decision-
making, and such information is not currently used in its analysis of 
the data received. The Commission seeks comment on whether eliminating 
the requirement or modifying the information required to be reported in 
this manner would be a significant reduction in the filing burden.
    17. The Commission turns next to its consideration of mobile 
broadband service availability data. Currently, mobile broadband 
providers are required to submit data where their service is 
``available.'' To comply with this requirement, mobile broadband 
providers must submit a comma separated values (CSV) file of all census 
tracts where the provider's mobile wireless broadband service is 
advertised and available to actual and potential subscribers. This 
requirement was designed to identify those geographic areas where a 
service provider has coverage but is not affirmatively offering service 
to subscribers through a local retail presence.
    18. The Commission's experience with the collection of this 
information, however, has shown that the mobile broadband service 
availability data that providers submit generally do not reflect their 
local retail presence. Instead, the Commission has found that filers 
claim that their service is available beyond where they may have a 
local retail presence. In view of its experience with these data, the 
Commission seeks comment about the continued significance of local 
retail presence information. The Commission proposes eliminating the 
requirement to submit mobile broadband service availability data, as it 
is not producing accurate information about where services are 
affirmatively available to American consumers.
    19. Next, the Commission seeks comment about how the Commission 
might revise its data collection on the deployment of mobile voice 
services. The 2013 Form 477 Order required filers to submit the voice 
coverage boundaries ``where providers expect to be able to make, 
maintain, and receive voice calls.'' The Order also required that 
providers submit voice deployment shapefiles representing geographic 
coverage nationwide for each technology and frequency band. The 
Commission seeks comment about whether to revise these requirements.
    20. The Commission continues to view the collection of mobile voice 
deployment data as important for tracking changes in the mobile 
landscape and informing the Commission's analysis of mobile voice 
services that are available to consumers. The Commission seeks comment, 
however, on whether there are ways that it may refine its collection of 
this information to reduce burdens for providers. Specifically, the 
Commission seeks comment on whether to eliminate the requirement to 
submit voice coverage data by technology and spectrum band. Does the 
Commission still need these data to accurately evaluate the mobile 
voice services that

[[Page 40122]]

are available to subscribers? Is the distinction between voice and 
broadband coverage significant, or do providers most often include 
mobile voice coverage wherever they have some form of broadband 
coverage? If providers include mobile voice coverage wherever they have 
broadband coverage, should the Commission revise its requirements to 
allow providers to simply check a box indicating that they provide 
voice coverage wherever they have a particular mobile broadband 
technology? How would the Commission account for areas in which a 
provider provides only mobile voice services?
    21. To the extent that the collection of mobile voice deployment 
data by technology is still necessary, should the Commission continue 
to collect GSM, CDMA and Analog voice data separately? Should the 
Commission collect separate voice deployment data for VoLTE and mobile 
switched voice? The Commission anticipates that revising the data 
collection in this manner would help the Commission assess where 
providers claim to have VoLTE coverage and assist efforts in the areas 
of emergency response. The Commission seeks comment on the importance 
of collecting information about VoLTE coverage.
    22. The Commission seeks comment on how it can improve the data 
collected on mobile broadband and voice subscription. Form 477 
currently requires that mobile voice and broadband subscriber 
information be submitted at the state level. Given the aggregate nature 
of the current data collection, the Commission currently uses telephone 
number-based Number Resource Utilization/Forecast (NRUF) data for its 
subscriber and market share analysis in secondary market transaction 
review and other proceedings. The NRUF data, however, have certain 
limitations; for example, NRUF data are more a measure of the number of 
mobile wireless connections than subscribers. It is increasingly more 
difficult to determine the number of mobile subscribers through the use 
of NRUF data because consumers are more likely to use more than one 
mobile device that have been assigned telephone numbers--particularly 
non-voice devices, such as Internet access devices (e.g., wireless 
modem cards and mobile Wi-Fi hotspots), e-readers, tablets, and 
telematics systems. Also, predicting the number of devices using this 
dataset is difficult as some mobile devices do not have telephone 
numbers assigned to them. Moreover, because a subscriber can move and 
retain the same mobile number, subscribers may not be attributed to the 
state in which the subscriber receives or pays for service in some 
cases (someone with an 812 Southern Indiana area code may live in 
California, for example, but is attributed to Indiana for NRUF 
purposes.).
    23. With respect to the existing Form 477 subscription data, 
because subscriber data are collected at the state level, they are not 
sufficiently granular for meaningful evaluation of mobile service 
subscribership, as noted. Subscription data at a more disaggregated 
geographic level would significantly improve the Commission's ability 
to provide more accurate mobile competition analyses, particularly in 
the secondary market transactions review.
    24. While the Commission's 2011 Form 477 NPRM, 76 FR 10827, 
February 28, 2011, raised the issue of requiring mobile subscribership 
reporting at a more granular level, the 2013 Form 477 Order did not 
change the state-level reporting requirement. In this FNPRM, the 
Commission proposes requiring mobile providers to aggregate their 
subscribership data to the census tract level, based on each 
subscriber's billing address. This information would be collected as 
CSV files and would provide a more granular understanding of where 
consumers are subscribing to service.
    25. Would collecting subscribership data at the census-tract level 
be sufficient to improve the quality of the Commission's data on 
subscribership? Are subscribers' billing addresses sufficiently 
correlated with the areas in which subscribers use their mobile 
wireless devices to be meaningful in the Commission's competitive 
analyses, and if not, what else should the Commission consider? Does 
the answer differ for residential and business accounts? Should the 
Commission consider requiring subscribership data for a different 
geographic area? For example, while reporting subscribership at the 
census-tract level would parallel the requirement for fixed service, 
what are the costs and benefits of reporting at a different geographic 
level? Whatever the geographic level adopted, the Commission seeks 
comment on whether using the billing address to assign subscribers to a 
census tract would be appropriate or, in the alternative, whether using 
the customer place of primary use address would be preferable as it may 
be less burdensome for providers. How should filers assign resold lines 
and broadband-only lines to the more granular geographic level? How 
should the Commission consider subscribership with respect to 5G 
services and the IoT? What metrics might the Commission consider in 
measuring subscribership?
    26. For each census block in which providers submit fixed broadband 
deployment data, providers must report whether they deploy ``mass 
market/consumer'' service and/or ``business/enterprise/government'' 
service. All facilities-based fixed broadband providers, including 
cable operators, must report the census blocks where they make fixed 
broadband services available to residential and business customers at 
bandwidths exceeding 200 kbps in at least one direction. The Commission 
currently requires providers offering business/enterprise/government 
services to report the maximum downstream and upstream contractual or 
guaranteed data throughput rate (committed information rate (CIR)) 
available in each reported census block. If, in a particular block, 
providers offer business/enterprise/government services that do not 
have a contractual or guaranteed data throughput rate (i.e., they are 
``best efforts'' services), then the maximum downstream and upstream 
contractual or guaranteed data throughput rates should be reported as 
``zero.''
    27. The Commission seeks comment on whether to eliminate the 
separate reporting of available contractual or guaranteed data 
throughput rates for business/enterprise/government services, while 
maintaining separate indicators for mass market/consumer service and/or 
business/enterprise/government deployment. The Commission uses the Form 
477 data in connection with many of its proceedings and programs, 
including the Broadband Progress Report, Universal Service Fund 
proceedings, the 2017 BDS Order, 82 FR 25660, June 2, 2017, as well as 
mergers and other transactions. In the Commission's experience, the 
information collected for consumer/residential/mass market data already 
provides the necessary bandwidth data in each of these cases. The added 
CIR data for business/enterprise/government services do not appear to 
provide additional useful insight, while collecting these data as a 
separate category imposes an additional burden on filers. The 
Commission therefore proposes to discontinue the collection of CIR data 
and seeks comment on this proposal. The Commission also seeks comment 
on the best way to collect data reflecting the speeds offered to 
business/enterprise/government end-users in the absence of CIR data. 
Will the maximum advertised down- and upload speeds used for mass-
market work for business best-efforts data collection? How can the

[[Page 40123]]

Commission capture speeds for business/enterprise/government end-users 
that are not best-efforts?
    28. In interactions with filers, staff also have found that filers 
may be reporting CIR data incorrectly in some cases. It is not unusual 
for filers to report speeds as contractually guaranteed, when in fact 
they are best-efforts services. As the technology for providing 
business/enterprise/government services continues to evolve, along with 
the demand for them, providers increasingly use a variety of 
technologies in addition to TDM and fiber to serve customers, including 
mass market service, HFC, UNEs, and Dark Fiber--with and without 
contractual service level guarantees. If commenters believe that the 
Commission should continue to separately collect bandwidth information 
specific to contractually guaranteed business/enterprise/government 
services, how can the Commission ensure that providers accurately 
characterize their offerings? Should the Commission require filers to 
report the maximum bandwidths of business service offered in a given 
census block and indicate whether the service is best efforts and/or 
contractually guaranteed? Alternatively, should the Commission require 
fixed broadband providers to continue to report whether they offer 
business/enterprise/government services, but no longer report any speed 
data associated with such services? The Commission notes that this 
approach would lessen the burden on filers, but would it also help 
ensure more accurate reporting? Would information about business/
enterprise/government services still be valuable in the absence of 
speed data, or would it be better to remove the requirement to report 
these data altogether?
    29. Facilities-based providers of fixed broadband must provide in 
their Form 477 submissions a list of all census blocks where they make 
broadband connections available to end-user premises, along with the 
last-mile technology or technologies used. These deployment data 
represent the areas where a provider does, or could, without an 
extraordinary commitment of resources, provide service. Thus, the 
meaning of ``availability'' in each listed census block can be 
multifaceted, even within the data of a single filer. In a particular 
listed block, the provider may have subscribers or it may not. At the 
same time, the provider may be able to take on additional subscribers 
or it may not. The various combinations have varying implications that 
make it difficult to understand availability. Specifically, if a block 
was listed by a provider, it is impossible to tell whether residents of 
that block seeking service could turn to that provider for service or 
whether the provider would be unable or unwilling to take on additional 
subscribers. This may limit the value of these data to inform policy-
making and as a tool for consumers and businesses to determine the 
universe of potential Internet service providers at their location.
    30. The Commission seeks comment on whether to require fixed 
broadband providers to indicate whether total customers served on a 
particular technology could be increased in each census block listed 
when they report deployment data. It seeks comment on whether all fixed 
broadband providers should be required to identify on Form 477 three 
categories of service areas for each technology code: (1) Areas where 
there are both existing customers served by a particular last-mile 
technology, and total number of customers using that technology can, 
and would, be readily increased within a standard interval upon 
request; (2) areas where existing customers are served but no net-
additional customers using that technology will be accommodated; and 
(3) areas where there are no existing customers for a particular 
technology but new customers will be added within a standard interval 
upon request. If it determines to add such a requirement, the 
Commission seeks comment on how providers would identify the relevant 
geographic units. For example, if a satellite provider could not 
increase the total number of new subscribers in a spot beam, would they 
be able to indicate the speed and/or the capacity to increase the total 
number of subscribers at various locations in the beam at the block or 
sub-block level? Would this modification to the current requirements 
elicit data that are more accurate and useful to the Commission, other 
policymakers, and the public than the deployment data currently 
collected? These distinctions could help policymakers understand which 
areas may be limited for service expansion using specific technologies 
and which areas may be capable of increasing the total number of 
subscribers using specific technologies. Doing so would offer the 
Commission, as well as other users of these data, a more nuanced 
picture of deployment. It would be possible to see, for example, where 
providers are building capacity, using which technologies, and 
similarly where they are not.
    31. The Commission seeks comment on the specific costs for fixed 
broadband providers to report such data, and how to ensure that 
reporting the data would be as minimally burdensome on filers as 
possible. Is it reasonable, for example, to assume that fixed broadband 
providers are aware of whether they have the capacity in place to make 
their service available and add new subscribers in a particular 
location? Do providers routinely maintain information about their 
service areas that would enable them to provide this information 
readily, or would this proposal require them to develop new 
information? The Commission seeks comment on the estimated time 
required to produce the data and ask commenters to provide the 
incremental costs of any new software development in addition to the 
average wage rate estimate. Commenters should also address whether 
technical or other features of particular transmission technologies 
would raise issues that would make this information more or less 
difficult to report.
    32. As previously stated, Form 477 collects fixed broadband 
deployment data on the census-block level. In the 2013 Form 477 Order, 
the Commission considered and rejected collecting the data on a more 
granular level. Although recognizing that more granularity may be 
beneficial in the context of many of its proceedings, the Commission 
concluded at that time that the administrative and data-quality 
challenges to collecting data below the census-block level likely would 
make such an endeavor impractical.
    33. More recently, the Commission has requested that specific 
providers involved in certain of its proceedings provide fixed 
broadband deployment data on a more granular basis than by census 
block. For example, the Commission currently collects location-level 
data from recipients of USF funding to assess whether they are meeting 
their buildout requirements. The Commission has found this more 
granular data to be extremely useful in understanding issues 
surrounding fixed broadband deployment in these contexts and believes 
that it could be useful if residential deployment data in particular 
were more generally available to the Commission. The Commission notes 
that stakeholders have recommended collecting and reporting deployment 
data at various sub-census block geographies, including at the street-
address or parcel level.
    34. The Commission seeks comment on giving fixed-broadband 
providers the option of reporting their deployment data by filing 
geospatial data showing coverage areas (i.e., polygons of coverage 
filed via shapefiles or rasters) as providers of mobile broadband and 
voice service currently are required to do--instead of reporting a list 
of census

[[Page 40124]]

blocks. This could reduce the burden on filers. Since the current Form 
477 interface can accept geospatial data, accepting similar data from 
fixed broadband providers should not present a significant technical 
burden for the Commission. The Commission seeks comment on whether 
providers of wired, fixed-terrestrial or fixed-satellite broadband 
routinely store their broadband footprints as geospatial coverage data. 
To the extent providers do not routinely store data in such a format, 
or to ensure comparability among different providers' data, the 
Commission also seeks comment on how to specify a single methodology 
for determining the coverage area of a network. What burdens would be 
associated with creating such geospatial data? In addition, since the 
Commission lacks the locations of individual homes (or businesses), 
knowing the areas served does not provide information about the 
location or number of homes that have or lack service (i.e., it 
provides information on the areas that have or lack service, not the 
homes that lack service). Should the Commission assume that all homes 
within a block have service even if only a fraction of a block's area 
has service? Should the Commission assume that the fraction of a 
partially served block with the service correlates with a fraction of 
homes within that block that have service? This would mean determining 
what fraction of people or homes (e.g., tenths or hundredths) have had 
broadband deployed. Over larger areas, such fractional people or homes 
would likely tend to reflect overall coverage; but over smaller areas 
would reflect a probabilistic estimate of coverage rather than an 
accurate count of people or homes lacking coverage. The Commission 
seeks comment about how it could make the best use of such geospatial 
data to find the number and location of the unserved, and the value of 
such data compared to the burden of such a filing.
    35. The Commission also seeks comment on collecting data at a sub-
census-block level. While collection of data by street address, for 
example, could increase the complexity and burden of the collection for 
both the Commission and the filers, the Commission seeks comment on the 
scope of this burden and potential corresponding benefits. For example, 
having national, granular broadband deployment data could greatly 
assist with any future disbursement of high-cost funds or universal 
service reverse auctions, assist consumers with locating broadband 
competition in their area, and with other broad public policy goals. 
With more than 130 million housing units in the country, an address-
level dataset could have as many as roughly 750 million records for 
each filing; based on the scale of this dataset, a household-level 
collection could require significant additional time and other 
resources to establish and carry out. The Commission also seeks comment 
on whether there is a publicly available, nationwide data set 
containing the address and location (latitude and longitude; and for 
Multiple Dwelling Units (MDUs), possibly altitude information to 
distinguish data about units on different floors) for each housing unit 
in the country, such that filers, or the Commission could geocode 
street addresses. And, given that the number of housing units changes 
each year, the Commission is similarly unaware of a means to update 
such a data set or of publicly available and annually updated source of 
housing units or population counts in each block that is publicly 
available and updated annually. The Commission additionally seeks 
comment on whether the Commission should require providers to submit 
the service address for every housing unit at which service is 
available. While this approach would require the Commission to take on 
the cost of geocoding all the filings, it would potentially relieve 
burden on the industry. If the Commission requires service address 
reporting, the Commission seeks comment on ways it could make the 
reporting less burdensome on providers and the Commission. For example, 
should the Commission require specific formatting for submission of 
address-level data? In addition, how could Commission staff find 
latitude and longitude for addresses that do not provide a full match 
from a geocoding service?
    36. As an alternative, the Commission seeks comment on whether it 
should require providers to geocode all the addresses at which service 
is available. The Commission seeks comment on the costs and benefits 
associated with this approach, and on ways that the Commission could 
ease the burden on filers. For example, should the Commission specify a 
single geocoding methodology to be used by all providers (e.g., require 
all providers to use a single geocoding service, and specify how to 
handle any geocoding partial matches or failures), or require that 
providers file a latitude and longitude measured in the field? If the 
Commission accepts multiple geocoding methodologies, or a mix of 
geocoding and field geolocating, can Commission staff determine when 
two points filed by different providers represent the same location? Do 
providers typically know every address to which they could provision 
service? Are there ways that the Commission could improve its 
submission portal to make filing this kind of data less burdensome on 
providers?
    37. The Commission also seeks comment on other sub-census block 
alternatives, such as collecting data about what street segments 
providers cover. This approach could avoid some of the problems with 
address-level collections--providers would not need to know every 
address they cover, only the geographic areas; and there would be no 
need for geocoding. Such a collection would provide an indication of 
the road segments where service is available (or, perhaps, road 
segments along which facilities run), and by extension, road segments 
along which there is no service or facilities. However, without a data 
set of housing-unit locations, this method would not yield information 
on how many homes are along road segments with service and how many are 
along road segments that lack service. Service might be concentrated in 
areas where people live in some blocks but not available to all homes 
in other blocks. A street-segment data collection would not allow the 
Commission to differentiate those two very different possibilities. In 
short, lacking a data set with the location of each housing unit, this 
approach would provide a map of roads that lack fixed-broadband service 
or facilities, not an indication of the number or location of homes or 
people that lack service. The Commission seeks comment on these 
conclusions, and on suggestions for resolving these concerns. What are 
the costs and benefits of adopting a street segment approach for data 
collection?
    38. The Commission notes that NTIA collected sub-block level data 
for blocks larger than two square miles for the National Broadband Map, 
but also that such data did not provide an indication of where homes 
lacked broadband availability. For such large blocks, some providers 
filed data indicating road lengths along which they stated their 
service was available, others provided points where service was 
available, and fixed wireless providers supplied geospatial data 
indicating their coverage areas. However, because no database indicated 
where the housing units were actually located within these large 
blocks, the number of housing units that could actually receive service 
could not be determined. In other words, while the data indicated what 
areas did not have service available, the data did not provide 
information on whether any

[[Page 40125]]

homes or people in the areas lacked service, or whether the parts of 
the census blocks with service available included all homes. The 
National Broadband Map took different approaches to dealing with this 
uncertainty over time, for example, treating partially served blocks as 
being half served plus-or-minus half (i.e., indicating a literal 
uncertainty); or creating a random distribution of housing units within 
a block and determining the fraction of those random points that were 
covered by the reported service (i.e., creating pseudo-data to fill in 
for what was not known). In short, the sub-block level data provided a 
statistical estimate, at best, of coverage.
    39. Another approach to understanding sub-block coverage would be 
to require broadband providers to identify blocks that they can fully 
serve. Under this approach, in addition to filing data on technology 
and download and upload speed, providers would submit data indicating, 
for each block, whether they can make service available to all 
locations (residential and business) within the block. The Commission 
seeks comment on whether fixed broadband providers, particularly 
providers of wired broadband services, know whether any locations 
within each block are beyond the reach of their facilities, such that 
they could not make service available within a typical service 
interval. How burdensome would it be for providers to make such a 
determination for each block in their footprint? Would such data be 
more useful to the Commission than the fixed deployment data currently 
collected? If the Commission had information about fully covered 
blocks, it would also know, for each provider, which blocks are not 
fully covered. Should the Commission collect geocoded deployment data 
for blocks that are less-than-fully covered from each provider? 
Collecting sub-block geocoded data for only a subset of blocks would 
address some of the challenges outlined above simply by reducing the 
amount of data to be collected and filed, but would not address other 
challenges, such as the accuracy of geocoding, or the challenge of 
determining where locations lie along road segments. The Commission 
seeks comment on how to overcome the challenges identified in 
collecting sub-block data, as well as the benefits and burdens of 
seeking more granular data for a subset of blocks.
    40. In sum, the Commission seeks comment on whether it should move 
to a more granular basis for reporting deployment data and, if so, what 
basis would be appropriate. For each basis they support, commenters 
should explain in detail the methodology or approach they propose for 
capturing the data in a sufficiently uniform format to facilitate 
processing (e.g., geocoding, latitude/longitude, address). Commenters 
also should address the expected burden to filers and to the 
Commission. Commenters should also articulate the relative benefits of 
each approach. For example, do filers routinely maintain the data 
needed to comply with the reporting requirements and, if not, what 
costs will be associated with obtaining them, both at the outset and on 
an ongoing basis? Are there other methodologies for collecting fixed 
broadband deployment data that have lower associated costs relative to 
the expected benefit?
    41. The Commission also seeks comment on whether the Commission 
should modify the Form 477 requirements relating to satellite broadband 
deployment data to address issues unique to satellite broadband 
service. Since satellite providers initially reported that they could 
provide service to millions of census blocks, the Form 477 Instructions 
were amended to reduce burden on such filers by giving them the 
opportunity to streamline their data under certain circumstances. 
Specifically, the Form 477 Instructions state that ``[s]atellite 
providers that believe their deployment footprint can be best 
represented by every block in a particular state or set of states may 
abbreviate their upload file by submitting only one block-level record 
for each state included in the footprint and providing a note in the 
Explanations and Comments section.'' Through the use of that method, 
one or more satellite providers have indicated on Form 477 that they 
deploy satellite broadband at certain speeds ubiquitously across the 
United States. The Commission seeks comment on how to minimize burdens 
for providers with large footprints to report while maintaining 
variation in the data.
    42. The Commission seeks comment specifically on eliminating the 
option to file abbreviated fixed broadband deployment data for each 
state. Will removing the option of filing abbreviated fixed broadband 
deployment data improve the accuracy of the data? Should satellite 
broadband providers instead report a list of all census blocks, similar 
to other fixed broadband providers? What if any incremental burden on 
satellite providers is likely to result from eliminating the 
abbreviated option? Are there any other options for satellite broadband 
providers?
    43. The Commission notes that satellite-based broadband networks, 
like all fixed-broadband networks, have capacity limits in some parts 
of the network, and that networks are not generally capable of serving 
all potential customers across a large footprint (such as the 
continental United States) at once. The Commission seeks comment on 
whether satellite's unique characteristics (e.g., the relatively large 
area over which satellite providers state they provide coverage, the 
inherent flexibility of wide-area beams and spot beams, or the 
difficulty of adding new satellite capacity beyond current space 
station limits) make satellite coverage, in particular, more difficult 
for providers to characterize at the census block level. Would revising 
deployment reporting for all fixed providers, as discussed above, 
address issues that may affect the accuracy of satellite reporting? If 
the Commission determines not to revise the deployment reporting 
obligations for all fixed broadband providers, are there steps it 
should take to address specific issues relating to satellite 
deployment, such as capacity constraints in areas in which service is 
currently reported as ``available''? If satellite does face unique 
challenges, how can the Commission change the data collection to 
improve data for satellite while maintaining comparability to other 
fixed-broadband data? In the future, the Commission will also need to 
account for large Non-Geostationary Orbit (NGSO) satellite 
constellations that plan to provide broadband services. The Commission 
seeks comment on what steps it can take to achieve this.
    44. The Commission also seeks comment on whether, if it does not 
revise deployment reporting requirements to allow all providers of 
fixed broadband service to file shapefiles or rasters in lieu of census 
blocks, it should allow satellite providers to do so. Would satellite 
providers face lower burdens and/or would the data quality improve if 
the Commission accepted geospatial data rather than block-level data 
from satellite providers? The Commission notes, as discussed in the 
2013 Form 477 Order, that satellite broadband providers already submit 
coverage-area information as part of a satellite application or letter 
of intent. While information submitted at the application phase is 
extremely useful to that process, the Commission continues to believe 
that it is essential to gather data regularly via Form 477 to reflect 
as-built, rather than as-planned, network deployment. Given satellite 
providers'

[[Page 40126]]

experience in developing geospatial data, the Commission seeks comment 
on whether requiring satellite deployment data to be filed in that 
format would significantly reduce filer burden.
    45. Are there other issues unique to satellite that affect the 
accuracy or utility of the data the Commission collects and, if so, 
what approaches could it take to address them? What are the costs and 
benefits of these approaches?
    46. Rate-of-return carriers currently submit their fixed voice 
subscription (FVS) counts by study area to USAC on an annual basis, and 
the FCC publishes those data. The Commission believes these data 
provide useful information to the public about the extent of voice 
subscriptions in each carrier's study area. However, under a rule 
recently adopted in the CAF proceeding, rate-of-return carriers 
switching to the Alternative Connect America Cost Model and Alaska Plan 
carriers may no longer report such data to USAC for their legacy study 
area boundaries. In order to maintain the reporting of this 
information, the Commission proposes to use the Form 477 FVS data, in 
conjunction with Study Area Boundary data, to develop and publish 
aggregated voice line counts for every study area, to mirror the 
approach used to collect these data from price-cap carriers. The 
Commission seeks comment on this proposal and on the methodology for 
generating this metric. While the Commission has generally determined 
not to routinely release filer-specific data collected on Form 477, in 
this case, the information, collected via another source, has been 
routinely publicized. Accordingly, the Commission believes that the 
value of using the Form 477 data for this purpose outweighs any 
associated confidentiality interest in the confidentiality of the data. 
The Commission seeks comment on this and on whether the use of Form 477 
data is the most efficient and effective means for collecting data.
    47. The Commission proposes that certain collected data that are 
currently treated as confidential be made public. First, the Commission 
proposes that minimum advertised or expected speed data for mobile 
broadband services should not be treated as confidential and it 
proposes releasing such data for all subsequent Form 477 filings going 
forward. The Commission notes that, in the context of the Mobility Fund 
II proceeding, several parties have expressed opposition to a proposal 
to release minimum advertised or expected 4G LTE speed data. Currently, 
the providers' Form 477 minimum advertised speeds have been treated as 
confidential and consumers and policy makers have been limited in their 
ability to compare offerings from this collection. This information, 
however, is already available from other sources. For example, 
providers routinely make available on their Web sites information about 
the typical upload and download speeds their network offers in 
particular geographic areas. Because speed data information is publicly 
available, the Commission believes that it is not commercially 
sensitive, and its release will not cause competitive harm. In 
addition, the Commission expects that dissemination of minimum 
advertised or expected speed data to the public would promote a more 
informed, efficient market by providing information that can aid in 
independent analyses. Making such data available to the public provides 
consumers, states, and experts the opportunity to review the data to 
ensure the accuracy of the information. The Commission seeks comment on 
this proposal. To the extent the Commission collects any other speed 
data that are currently treated as confidential, it seeks comment on 
whether such data should also be made available to the public, again to 
promote a more informed, efficient market and aid in independent 
competitive analyses.
    48. Similarly, the Commission proposes that, if detailed 
propagation model parameters are submitted in the Form 477 filings, 
some of these parameters should be treated as public information, as 
the Commission believes that such parameters are not competitively 
sensitive. For example, terrain resolution, signal strength, and the 
loading factor are higher-level aggregate parameters and should not be 
treated as confidential. The Commission seeks comment on this proposal. 
If filers believe that certain propagation model parameters should be 
treated as confidential for competitive reasons, then they should 
provide a list of those parameters, and explain the underlying reasons 
why.
    49. National-Level, Fixed Broadband Subscriber Counts. The 
Commission has historically determined not to make filer-specific 
broadband subscription data collected on Form 477 routinely available 
to the public. Consistent with this determination, the Commission has 
redacted and aggregated data as necessary to prevent indirect 
disclosure of filer-specific data. The Commission has noted, however, 
that increased public access to disaggregated subscription data could 
have significant benefits. The Commission believes that these benefits 
may outweigh any confidentiality interests for some disaggregated 
subscription data. In particular, the Commission believes that making 
public the number of subscribers at each reported speed on a national 
level would provide a meaningful metric of the state of broadband 
adoption in the U.S. Although this change would not involve expressly 
identifying the specific filers submitting the information, it might be 
possible to infer with reasonable certainty the provider or providers 
reporting subscribers at higher speeds, for which fewer providers offer 
service. The Commission believes however, that any competitive harm to 
the affected providers is likely to be slight, because the numbers 
would be aggregated to the national level and similar information is 
routinely made public by these entities through the Securities and 
Exchange Commission (SEC) and other disclosures. The Commission seeks 
comment on whether disclosure of this information would be beneficial 
and, if so, whether any measures are necessary to ensure that the 
interests of the filers are protected.
    50. Release of Disaggregated Subscriber Data. As another avenue for 
realizing the potential benefits of greater public access to 
subscription data, the Commission seeks comment on whether certain 
types of disaggregated subscriber data should be made public after a 
certain period of time has passed. The Commission believes that, over 
time, the potential for competitive harm from the release of filer-
specific subscription data likely diminishes. The Commission seeks 
comment on whether this is the case in connection with specific types 
of subscriber information collected on Form 477 and, if so, what period 
of time provides adequate protection from harm for each. What factors 
should be weighed in determining which categories of raw data files to 
release? What would be the public interest and legal justifications for 
releasing or not releasing different types of raw data files?
    51. Other Data. The Commission also seeks comment on whether there 
are other Form 477 data that the Commission should consider making 
public. While the Commission understands confidentiality concerns 
associated with making aspects of these data public, there are also 
significant potential benefits to consumers and public policy. The 
Commission invites comment on what data should be made publicly 
available, and how to mitigate competitive and other concerns.
    52. Form 477 is currently a semi-annual collection. In the 2011 
Form 477 NPRM, the Commission sought comment on other time frames, and 
on

[[Page 40127]]

different time frames for providers based upon size, but did not 
address those issues in the 2013 Report and Order. The Commission seeks 
to refresh the record on whether to shift to an annual collection for 
all filers, for certain filers (such as smaller filers), or for certain 
parts of the form. Are there some types of data (e.g., the speed of 
fixed-broadband-deployment subscriptions, or the coverage of mobile 
broadband deployment) that change so quickly that an annual filing 
would obscure significant developments that should be captured by the 
Commission's reports? The Commission specifically seeks comment on the 
potential impacts of switching to annual, instead of semi-annual, 
reporting for all Form 477 filers, both in terms of the utility of the 
data collected and the burden on filers. While the overall burden 
associated with Form 477 likely would decrease by switching to annual 
filing, the Commission seeks comment on whether the per-round burden on 
an annual basis would increase to some degree and whether this would be 
manageable. The Commission seeks comment on whether it is more 
efficient for a filer's employees to undertake this collection once a 
year given employee turnover and the greater amount of change to the 
data on an annual basis compared to a more routine semi-annual filing 
with a smaller amount of change to the data.
    53. The Commission also seeks comment on whether collecting on a 
twelve-month cycle would render the data less useful for its purposes, 
given the rate of broadband deployment and uptake, particularly at 
higher speeds, industrywide. For example, how would an annual 
collection affect Commission policymaking? Would it be more difficult 
to analyze industry trends--such as competition, entry/expansion, 
adoption of newer technologies and faster speeds--with only annual 
data? On a one-year cycle, the most recently filed data available for 
analysis may be up to six months older than it is now. Would the lack 
of more recent data unduly impair the Commission's ability to carry out 
transaction review effectively or generate comprehensive and up-to-date 
Broadband Progress reports?
    54. As part of its examination of the Form 477 collection, the 
Commission also seeks input on how it make the Form 477 data available 
to the public and stakeholders. How would the proposals described in 
this FNPRM affect the Commission's ability to process the data and make 
them available? Given current data and the proposals above, what 
approach should the Commission take with regard to the National 
Broadband Map (NBM) (www.broadbandmap.gov)? The Commission currently 
maintains access to the NBM, which relies on data collected by the 
National Telecommunications and Information Administration via the 
State Broadband Initiative (SBI) for data as of June, 2014. In 
addition, the Commission makes a number of maps available to help 
visualize more recent Form 477 data and makes Form 477 data available 
for download in various formats. The Commission believes that a 
searchable national map of the most recently available Form 477 
broadband deployment data can have significant value for the public, 
industry, researchers and others. Such a map could also provide 
significant support for the Commission's own efforts in tracking 
broadband. The Commission therefore seeks input on whether, and how, it 
can use the Form 477 data most effectively to update the NBM.

III. Procedural Matters

    55. Initial Regulatory Flexibility Analysis. As required by the 
Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980 (RFA), the Commission has prepared 
an Initial Regulatory Flexibility Analysis (IRFA) for this Notice of 
Proposed Rulemaking, of the possible significant economic impact on 
small entities of the policies and rules addressed in this document. 
Written public comments are requested on this IRFA. Comments must be 
identified as responses to the IRFA and must be filed on or before the 
dates identified above. The Commission's Consumer and Governmental 
Affairs Bureau, Reference Information Center, will send a copy of this 
FNPRM, including the IRFA, to the Chief Counsel for Advocacy of the 
Small Business Administration (SBA).
    56. With this FNPRM, the Commission initiates a further proceeding 
to examine the effectiveness of the Commission's Form 477--the 
principal tool used by the Commission to gather data on communications 
services, including broadband services, to help inform policymaking. In 
establishing Form 477, the Commission envisioned that the data 
collected would help it better assess the availability of broadband 
services, such as high-speed Internet access service, and the 
development of competition for local telephone service, materially 
improving its policymaking in those areas. From the outset, the 
Commission sought to minimize the burden the collection requirements 
would impose on filers. The Commission's goal in this FNPRM is to 
eliminate the collection of certain information on Form 477 that the 
Commission believes is not sufficiently useful when compared with the 
burden imposed on filers in providing it and to explore how the 
Commission can revise other aspects of the data collection to increase 
its usefulness to the Commission, Congress, the industry, and the 
public. These steps continue the Commission's efforts since the 
creation of Form 477 to identify and eliminate unnecessary or overly-
burdensome filing requirements while improving the value of the data 
the Commission continues to collect. This FNPRM proposes several ways 
to streamline the information collected in Form 477 as well as suggests 
ways to ensure Form 477 data are as accurate and reliable as possible.
    57. The legal basis for any action that may be taken pursuant to 
the FNPRM is contained in sections 3, 10, 201(b), 230, 254(e), 303(r), 
and 332 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended 47 U.S.C. 153, 
160, 201(b), 254(e), 303(r), 332.
    58. 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 SBA.
    59. Small Businesses, Small Organizations, Small Governmental 
Jurisdictions. The Commission's actions, over time, may affect small 
entities that are not easily categorized at present. The Commission 
therefore describes here, at the outset, three comprehensive small 
entity size standards 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% of all businesses in the United States 
which translates to 28.8 million businesses. 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.''

[[Page 40128]]

Nationwide, as of 2007, there were approximately 1,621,215 small 
organizations. Finally, the small entity described as a ``small 
governmental jurisdiction'' is defined generally as ``governments of 
cities, towns, townships, villages, school districts, or special 
districts, with a population of less than fifty thousand.'' U.S. Census 
Bureau data published in 2012 indicate that there were 89,476 local 
governmental jurisdictions in the United States. The Commission 
estimates that, of this total, as many as 88,761 entities may qualify 
as ``small governmental jurisdictions.'' Thus, the Commission estimates 
that most governmental jurisdictions are small.
    60. The potential modifications proposed in this FNPRM if adopted, 
could, at least initially, impose some new reporting, recordkeeping, or 
other compliance requirements on some small entities. In order to 
evaluate any new or modified reporting, recordkeeping, or other 
compliance requirements that may result from the actions proposed in 
this FNPRM, the Commission has sought input from the parties on various 
matters. As indicated above, the FNPRM seeks comment on modifications 
to the Commission's existing Form 477 to minimize burdens on carriers 
while enhancing the utility of the data the Commission collects. The 
proposals include removing some previous Form 477 reporting 
requirements, altering some existing requirements, and supplementing 
the Form 477 collection with some additional, directed proposals to 
improve the data collected. For example, the Commission proposes to 
remove some requirements that do not appear to provide salient data, 
but the Commission also proposes collecting new or different data to 
ensure the data capture the most relevant new advances in service 
offerings and availability. Nevertheless, the Commission anticipates 
that the removal or modification of some Form 477 reporting 
requirements will lead to a long-term reduction in reporting, 
recordkeeping, or other compliance requirements on some small entities.
    61. 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.
    62. To evaluate options and alternatives should there be a 
significant economic impact on small entities as a result of actions 
that have been proposed in this FNPRM, the Commission has sought 
comment from the parties. The FNPRM seeks comment on ways in which the 
Commission might streamline its current requirements and thereby reduce 
the burdens on small providers and other filers. The Commission also 
seeks comment on ways in which the Commission might improve the 
usefulness of other aspects of the Form 477 to maximize the utility of 
the information the Commission continues to collect. For example, the 
Commission asks whether the Commission needs to collect mobile voice 
deployment data by technology and spectrum band, and whether the 
Commission should revise mobile voice deployment reporting requirements 
to allow a simple check instead of detailed information for some 
existing voice deployment reporting requirements. Steps such as these 
seek to reduce the types and amount of information the Commission 
collects, which results in more useful information, and also reduces 
burdens placed on small entities and others. In addition, other 
proposals the Commission outlines could, for example, limit the number 
of shapefiles (and the amount of the associated underlying data 
processing) providers are required to submit.
    63. The Commission expects to more fully consider the economic 
impact on small entities following its review of comments filed in 
response to the FNPRM and this IRFA. In particular, the Commission 
seeks comment herein on the effect the various proposals described in 
the FNPRM, and summarized above, will have on small entities, and on 
what effect alternative Form 477 reporting requirements would have on 
those entities. The Commission also seeks comment from interested 
parties on any potential additional methods of reducing compliance 
burdens for small providers and ensuring the most useful information 
based on the Form 477 collection. The Commission's evaluation of the 
comments filed on these topics as well as on other proposals and 
questions in the FNPRM that seek to reduce the burdens placed on small 
providers in both the mobile and fixed contexts will shape the final 
conclusions the Commission reaches, the final significant alternatives 
the Commission considers, and the actions the Commission ultimately 
takes in this proceeding to minimize any significant economic impact 
that may occur on small entities.
    64. This document contains proposed modified information collection 
requirements. The Commission, as part of its continuing effort to 
reduce paperwork burdens, invites the general public and the Office of 
Management and Budget (OMB) to comment on the information collection 
requirements contained in this document, as required by the Paperwork 
Reduction Act of 1995, Public Law 104-13. In addition, pursuant to the 
Small Business Paperwork Relief Act of 2002, Public Law 107-198, see 44 
U.S.C. 3506(c)(4), the Commission seeks specific comment on how it 
might further reduce the information collection burden for small 
business concerns with fewer than 25 employees.
    65. Permit-But-Disclose. The proceeding this FNPRM initiates shall 
be treated as a ``permit-but-disclose'' proceeding in accordance with 
the Commission's ex parte rules. Persons making ex parte presentations 
must file a copy of any written presentation or a memorandum 
summarizing any oral presentation within two business days after the 
presentation (unless a different deadline applicable to the Sunshine 
period applies). Persons making oral ex parte presentations are 
reminded that memoranda summarizing the presentation must (1) list all 
persons attending or otherwise participating in the meeting at which 
the ex parte presentation was made, and (2) summarize all data 
presented and arguments made during the presentation. If the 
presentation consisted in whole or in part of the presentation of data 
or arguments already reflected in the presenter's written comments, 
memoranda or other filings in the proceeding, the presenter may provide 
citations to such data or arguments in his or her prior comments, 
memoranda, or other filings (specifying the relevant page and/or 
paragraph numbers where such data or arguments can be found) in lieu of 
summarizing them in the memorandum. Documents shown or given to 
Commission staff during ex parte meetings are deemed to be written ex 
parte presentations and must be filed consistent with rule 1.1206(b). 
In proceedings governed by rule 1.49(f) or for which the Commission has 
made available a method of electronic filing, written ex parte 
presentations and memoranda summarizing oral ex parte presentations, 
and all attachments thereto, must be filed through the electronic 
comment filing system

[[Page 40129]]

available for that proceeding, and must be filed in their native format 
(e.g., .doc, .xml, .ppt, searchable .pdf). Participants in this 
proceeding should familiarize themselves with the Commission's ex parte 
rules.

IV. Ordering Clauses

    66. Accordingly, it is ordered, pursuant to sections 4(i), 201(b), 
214, 218-220, 251-252, 254, 303(r), 310, 332, 403, and 706 of the 
Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. 154(i), 201(b), 214, 
218-220, 251-252, 254, 303(r), 310, 332, 403, and 1302 this Further 
Notice of Proposed Rulemaking is adopted.


Federal Communications Commission.
Katura Jackson,
Federal Register Liaison Officer, Office of the Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2017-17901 Filed 8-23-17; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 6712-01-P


</pre><script data-cfasync="false" src="/cdn-cgi/scripts/5c5dd728/cloudflare-static/email-decode.min.js"></script></body>
</html>