Reexamination of Roaming Obligations of Commercial Mobile Radio Service Providers, 56612-56620 [05-19346]

Agencies

• FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION

[Federal Register Volume 70, Number 187 (Wednesday, September 28, 2005)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 56612-56620]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 05-19346]


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

FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION

47 CFR Part 20

[WT Docket No. 05-265, WT Docket No. 00-193; FCC 05-160]


Reexamination of Roaming Obligations of Commercial Mobile Radio 
Service Providers

AGENCY: Federal Communications Commission.

ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking.

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

SUMMARY: In this document, the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) 
initiated a new proceeding to examine whether its roaming requirements 
applicable to these CMRS providers should be modified, expanded, or 
eliminated given the current state of the CMRS market. In a related 
Memorandum Opinion and Order, the FCC terminated a pending proceeding 
without the adoption of rules concerning roaming requirements 
applicable to certain Commercial Mobile Radio Services (CMRS) providers 
because the record in that proceeding had become stale.

DATES: Comments due on or before November 28, 2005 and reply comments 
are due on or before December 27, 2005. Written comments on the 
Paperwork Reduction Act proposed information collection requirements 
must be submitted by the public, Office of Management and Budget (OMB), 
and other interested parties on or before November 28, 2005.

ADDRESSES: You may submit comments, identified by WT Docket No. 05-265, 
by any of the following methods:
     Federal eRulemaking Portal: https://www.regulations.gov. 
Follow the instructions for submitting comments.
     Federal Communications Commission's Web Site: https://
www.fcc.gov/cgb/ecfs/. Follow the instructions for submitting comments.
     E-mail: Include the docket number(s) in the subject line 
of the message.
     People with Disabilities: Contact the FCC to request 
reasonable accommodations (accessible format documents, sign language 
interpreters, CART, etc.) by e-mail: FCC504@fcc.gov or phone: (202) 
418-0530 or TTY: (202) 418-0432.
    For detailed instructions for submitting comments and additional 
information on the rulemaking process, see the SUPPLEMENTARY 
INFORMATION section of this document.
    In addition to filing comments with the Secretary, a copy of any 
comments on the Paperwork Reduction Act information collection 
requirements contained herein should be submitted to Judith B. Herman, 
Federal Communications Commission, Room 1-C804, 445 12th Street, SW., 
Washington, DC 20554, or via the Internet to Judith-B.Herman@fcc.gov, 
and to Kristy L. LaLonde, OMB Desk Officer, Room 10234 NEOB, 725 17th 
Street, NW., Washington, DC 20503, via the Internet to Kristy--L.-- 
LaLonde@omb.eop.gov, or via fax at 202-395-5167.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Eli Johnson at (202) 418-1395,

[[Page 56613]]

Eli.Johnson@fcc.gov, or Won Kim (202) 418-1368, Won.Kim@fcc.gov, 
Wireless Telecommunications Bureau, Spectrum and Competition Policy 
Division. For additional information concerning the Paperwork Reduction 
Act information collection requirements contained in this document, 
contact Judith B. Herman at (202) 418-0214, or via the Internet at 
Judith-B.Herman@fcc.gov.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: This is a summary of the Commission's Notice 
of Proposed Rulemaking, WT Docket No. 05-265, WT Docket No. 00-193, 
released August 31, 2005. The full text of the NPRM is available for 
public inspection on the Commission's Internet site at https://
www.fcc.gov. It is also available for inspection and copying during 
regular business hours in the FCC Reference Center (Room CY-A257), 445 
12th Street, SW., Washington, DC 20554. The full text of this document 
also may be purchased from the Commission's duplication contractor, 
Best Copy and Printing Inc., Portals II, 445 12th St., SW., Room CY-
B402, Washington, DC 20554; telephone (202) 488-5300; fax (202) 488-
5563; e-mail FCC@BCPIWEB.COM.
    Initial Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 Analysis: This document 
does not contain proposed information collection requirements subject 
to the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, Public Law 104-13. In addition, 
therefore, it does not contain any proposed information collection 
burden ``for small business concerns with fewer than 25 employees,'' 
pursuant to the Small Business Paperwork Relief Act of 2002, Public Law 
107-198, see 44 U.S.C. 3506(c)(4).

Synopsis

    1. In the Notice of Proposed Rule Making (NPRM), the FCC initiated 
a proceeding to examine whether its roaming requirements applicable to 
CMRS providers should be modified, expanded, or eliminated given the 
current state of the CMRS market.\1\ In a related Memorandum Opinion 
and Order (MO&O), the FCC also terminated an existing proceeding 
without the adoption of rules that addressed similar issues because the 
record had become stale.\2\ The FCC found that the tentative 
conclusions and proposed rules contained in the earlier item no longer 
reflect the current CMRS marketplace. Accordingly, the FCC terminated 
the earlier roaming proceeding in WT Docket No. 00-193.\3\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ See In the Matter of Reexamination of Roaming Obligations of 
Commercial Mobile Radio Service Providers; Automatic and Manual 
Roaming Obligations Pertaining to Commercial Mobile Radio Services, 
WT Docket No. 05-265, Memorandum Opinion and Order and Notice of 
Proposed Rulemaking, FCC 05-160 (rel. August 31, 2005) (NPRM).
    \2\ The terminated Notice of Proposed Rule Making was published 
in 65 FR 69891-01 (Nov. 21, 2000). See In the Matter of Automatic 
and Manual Roaming Obligations Pertaining to Commercial Mobile Radio 
Services, WT Docket No. 00-193, Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, FCC 
00-361, 65 FR 69891-01.
    \3\ See NPRM at para. 18.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    2. In the NPRM, the FCC seeks to develop a record with up-to-date 
information on the state of roaming in today's CMRS marketplace in 
order to determine what regulatory regime is currently appropriate for 
roaming services.\4\ Accordingly, the NPRM discusses and seeks comment 
on issues related to manual and automatic roaming, including issues 
concerning roaming negotiations, small and rural carrier concerns, and 
technical considerations.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ See NPRM at para. 20.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Manual Roaming

    3. The NPRM seeks up-to-date information on the practice of manual 
roaming and the continued utility of the manual roaming rule.\5\ 
Specifically, the FCC seeks comment on how often subscribers avail 
themselves of manual roaming.\6\ Given the evolution of the CMRS market 
and advancements in CMRS technologies, the NPRM asks, to what extent 
has manual roaming fallen into disuse or been replaced by automatic 
roaming? Further, given the role of manual roaming in today's 
marketplace, the FCC requests comment regarding whether the manual 
roaming rule should be eliminated, either in combination with the 
promulgation of an automatic roaming rule or without such a rule. 
Alternatively, should the manual roaming rule be kept as a fallback for 
consumers when automatic roaming is unavailable? \7\ In recent merger 
orders, the FCC imposed a condition prohibiting the merged company from 
blocking manual roaming.\8\ The FCC asks, therefore, to what extent is 
home carrier blocking of manual roaming a problem? \9\ Is a rule 
change--as opposed to merger conditions--an appropriate way to address 
this issue?
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ Id. at para. 22.
    \6\ Id. at para. 23.
    \7\ Id.
    \8\ See Application of AT&T Wireless Services, Inc. and Cingular 
Wireless Corporation, WT Docket No. 04-70, Memorandum Opinion and 
Order, 19 FCC Rcd 21522, 21592 para. 182 (2004); Application of 
Western Wireless Corporation and ALLTEL Corporation, WT Docket No. 
05-50, Memorandum Opinion and Order, FCC 05-138 at para. 108 (rel. 
July 19, 2005); Applications of Nextel Communications, Inc. and 
Sprint Corporation, WT Docket No. 05-63, Memorandum Opinion and 
Order, FCC 05-148 at para. 127 (rel. Aug. 8, 2005).
    \9\ See NPRM at para. 23.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    4. Further, the FCC seeks comment on whether any manual roaming 
requirement that it retains or adopts should be subject to a sunset 
provision and, if so, when such a sunset should occur.\10\ The FCC also 
asked whether any sunset of the manual roaming rule should be 
contingent upon adoption of an automatic roaming rule.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \10\ Id. at para. 24.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Automatic Roaming

    5. The NPRM seeks up-to-date information on automatic roaming that 
would enable the FCC to fully consider the question and reach an 
informed decision about whether to adopt an automatic roaming rule.\11\ 
The NPRM invites interested parties to discuss in detail whether, in 
the absence of an automatic roaming requirement, there have been any 
CMRS industry changes and trends that have positively or negatively 
affected the availability of roaming to consumers. The FCC is 
interested in the effects that the existing roaming environment has on 
U.S. consumers.\12\ For example, what effect has the existing roaming 
environment had on the availability, quality and price of services to 
consumers? Is there any disparate impact on consumers using services in 
rural areas? The FCC seeks comment on the availability of automatic 
roaming to consumers in the absence of an automatic roaming 
requirement. Are there instances in which providers refused to enter 
into automatic roaming agreements with other providers with compatible 
systems, or where they have discriminated with respect to the prices or 
other terms on which they make roaming agreements available to 
different carriers? The FCC also seeks comment on whether CMRS industry 
mergers could increase the incentive for large, nationwide carriers to 
deny automatic roaming agreements to their local or regional 
competitors. The NPRM seeks comment regarding evidence of 
discriminatory roaming practices on an industry-wide basis as well as 
on a market-specific basis. Commenters are invited to discuss the 
current availability of automatic roaming services in various regions 
with specific data, including the quality of services and the impact of 
roaming services on ``dead spots'' in many less populated areas.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \11\ Id. at para. 25.
    \12\ Id. at para. 27.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    6. The FCC requests that commenters address both the potential 
benefits of various regulatory options and the

[[Page 56614]]

potential costs.\13\ For example, would an automatic roaming rule 
create disincentives to the growth of facilities-based competition, or 
to the continued development of carriers with nationwide footprints? 
Would such a rule impede the development of new and improved roaming 
features? Are there new and improved roaming services that have 
developed over the past few years in the absence of an automatic 
roaming requirement? In addition, how would constraints imposed by any 
particular roaming rule affect the competitiveness of particular 
carriers? Would a nondiscrimination rule or any other automatic roaming 
rule thwart CMRS carriers' ability to compete vigorously on the basis 
of the particular roaming services provided, or otherwise impede 
carriers' ability to differentiate their roaming services? Would the 
costs of a rule impact small carriers disproportionately, such that 
some form of exemption for those carriers would be appropriate? The 
NPRM invites commenters to provide economic analysis and data regarding 
the potential benefits and costs of imposing an automatic roaming rule.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \13\ Id. at para. 28.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    7. The NPRM also seeks comment on any administrative costs that 
would arise from a non-discrimination requirement or other automatic 
roaming rule, were such a rule to be implemented.\14\ With respect to a 
potential non-discrimination requirement in particular, the FCC seeks 
comment on any burdens that would arise from the need to determine 
whether carriers seeking roaming agreements are ``similarly situated.''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \14\ Id. at para. 29.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    8. The FCC also seeks comment on how to assess technical 
compatibility in an automatic roaming environment.\15\ Under the 
existing manual roaming rule, the subscriber seeking to roam must first 
possess a handset that is technically capable of accessing the roamed-
on system. Similarly, the FCC believes that if an automatic roaming 
requirement were imposed, the carrier seeking to enable its subscribers 
to roam on another system should have the burden of developing and 
implementing any technology that is necessary to achieve that result. 
In addition, the FCC stated that any automatic roaming rule should be 
sufficiently flexible to permit a carrier to change its system for 
legitimate business reasons (e.g., increasing capacity, spectrum 
efficiency, fraud control, or deployment of enhanced features) without 
any obligation to make its system accessible to roamers. At the same 
time it may be necessary within such a framework to adopt certain 
safeguards to ensure that a carrier takes reasonable actions to 
facilitate another carrier's efforts to achieve the capability to 
access its system. The FCC asked commenters to address whether and to 
what extent a carrier should be obligated to facilitate another 
carrier's efforts to access its system and invited comment on the 
possible design of a rule to balance these considerations, as well as 
on any other possible approaches.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \15\ Id. at para. 30.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    9. In addition, the FCC seeks comment on whether carriers currently 
use any method to inform their subscribers about when they are roaming 
on another carrier's network and on whether the subscriber may incur 
additional charges as a result of such roaming.\16\ The FCC invites 
comment on industry practices relating to consumer education about 
roaming. Further, the FCC seeks comment on any other issue that a 
commenter believes is important for the Commission to consider as it 
determines whether it would be in the public interest to impose an 
automatic roaming requirement on CMRS providers, including, for 
example, any concerns regarding subscriber privacy or carriers' control 
over proprietary information and whether any automatic roaming 
requirement that we adopt in this proceeding should be subject to a 
sunset provision and, if so, when such a sunset should occur.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \16\ Id. at para. 31.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Roaming Agreements

    10. In the past, the FCC has suggested that one possible automatic 
roaming rule could require, as a condition of license, that covered 
providers that enter into roaming agreements with other such providers 
make like agreements available to similarly situated providers, where 
technically compatible handsets are being used, under non-
discriminatory rates, terms, and conditions.\17\ Such a rule could 
prevent established carriers from entering into favorable agreements 
with selected providers while unreasonably denying such agreements to 
similarly situated carriers. The FCC seeks comment on whether an anti-
discrimination approach to automatic roaming is appropriate in the 
current marketplace, or whether any other approaches should be 
considered.\18\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \17\ Id. at para. 33.
    \18\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    11. To the extent that a CMRS provider engages in unreasonable and 
discriminatory behavior by refusing to enter an automatic roaming 
agreement, the FCC also seeks comment on the adequacy of remedies under 
existing law, such as the means permitted under sections 201, 202, 208, 
251, and 332 of the Act.\19\ The FCC seeks general comment on whether 
the avenues of complaint and redress afforded by these sections provide 
sufficient and appropriate means of ensuring the development of 
automatic roaming services in a competitive CMRS market, or whether an 
automatic roaming requirement is necessary in order to serve the public 
interest.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \19\ Id. at para. 34.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    12. Assuming that adoption of additional protections against 
discrimination is needed, the FCC seeks comment on whether an anti-
discrimination approach to roaming should be examined on a nationwide 
or on a market-specific basis.\20\ Should any automatic roaming rule 
require a carrier to enter an automatic roaming arrangement on a 
nondiscriminatory basis with a facilities-based competitor in the same 
market (``in-market'' roaming)? For instance, do such agreements 
diminish carriers' incentives for building out their networks? The NPRM 
seeks comment on how an exception that permits carriers to deny roaming 
agreements to ``in-market'' competitors could be administered, given 
the different geographic scope of cellular, broadband PCS, and SMR 
licenses.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \20\ Id. at para. 35.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    13. Similarly, the FCC seeks comment on whether providers should be 
permitted to offer roaming agreements to affiliates on different terms 
and conditions than to non-affiliates, or whether, instead, agreements 
favorable to affiliates constitute unreasonable, discriminatory 
behavior.\21\ The FCC seeks comment on whether it would serve the 
public interest to require carriers to make roaming service available 
to other carriers in one-way agreements under the same terms and 
conditions as under reciprocal agreements. The FCC also requests 
comment on whether a carrier should be able to offer a lower rate to a 
geographically proximate carrier. In addition, the FCC requests comment 
as to what extent, if any, an automatic roaming rule should encompass 
requirements specifically affecting resellers, and on the costs and 
benefits of any such requirements. The NPRM invites commenters to 
provide economic analysis and data supporting their positions.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \21\ Id. at para. 36.

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

[[Page 56615]]

    14. Finally, in the FCC proceeding addressing the Sprint-Nextel 
merger, SouthernLINC Wireless contended that it has been unable to 
negotiate a satisfactory roaming agreement with Nextel because the 
agreement restricts its subscribers to basic interconnected voice 
roaming and denies them access to push-to-talk, dispatch, or data 
roaming services.\22\ The FCC seeks comment on whether such denial of 
access to roaming services harms competition or consumers and, if so, 
how any automatic roaming rule should be crafted to address the 
issue.\23\ For example, should an automatic roaming rule require 
carriers to permit roaming access to all technical features of their 
systems, and/or require carriers to make the same features accessible 
to all of their roaming partners on a non-discriminatory basis? The 
NPRM invites commenters to provide economic and technical analysis and 
data supporting their positions, including information on how common 
practices such as those alleged by SouthernLINC are within the 
industry.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \22\ See SouthernLINC Wireless Reply Comments, WT Docket No. 05-
63, at 5-6.
    \23\ See NPRM at para. 37.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Small and Rural Carrier Concerns

    15. In various Commission proceedings, small and rural wireless 
service providers have asserted that CMRS industry mergers have 
significantly reduced their nationwide roaming options.\24\ The FCC 
seeks comment on these concerns raised by small and rural carriers.\25\ 
The NPRM invites commenters to submit economic analysis and data 
regarding evidence of discriminatory or non-discriminatory roaming 
practices on an industry-wide basis, and the impact of such practices 
on consumers. If roaming rates are declining among carriers, is this 
due to a more robust CMRS market or, as small and rural carriers claim, 
from the dwindling number of nationwide carriers favoring one another 
in roaming agreements to the exclusion of other carriers? The FCC seeks 
specific evidence of wireless providers denying roaming agreements to 
other providers in a manner that harms consumers. The FCC also seeks 
comment on and evidence of whether large, nationwide carriers are 
preferring one another over other carriers in roaming agreements, and 
whether such a preference is a violation of Section 202 of the 
Communications Act.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \24\ Id. at paras. 38-40.
    \25\ Id. at para. 41.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    16. In addition, the FCC seeks comment on whether large, nationwide 
carriers are engaging in the practice of barring their subscribers' 
access to networks operated by other carriers.\26\ If so, does this 
type of practice violate the spirit of the Commission's rule requiring 
carriers to provide roaming access by preventing subscribers from 
utilizing such a service? The NPRM invites comment on the assertion by 
small and rural carriers that large carriers are using their market 
power to develop one-sided roaming agreements, at terms more favorable 
to themselves. Should the FCC require nondiscriminatory, rather than 
one-sided, automatic roaming arrangements? In this regard, should large 
or nationwide carriers be required to make their networks available to 
all roaming partners on the same terms and conditions as they offer to 
their ``most-favored'' roaming partners. Finally, the FCC seeks comment 
on whether large, nationwide carriers control ``bottleneck'' facilities 
that impact the ability of customers to roam onto or off of small and 
rural wireless networks.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \26\ Id. at para. 42.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    17. The FCC also seeks comment on whether the concerns raised by 
small and rural carriers should be examined on a regional or local 
basis.\27\ The NPRM notes that RTG has proposed ``an automatic roaming 
mandate'' that would only be applicable to small and ``rural'' markets 
where roaming partner options are at a minimum.\28\ RTG has also 
suggested in ex parte presentation that the Commission consider a 
``Tier IV'' category of CMRS providers that would consist solely of 
CMRS carriers with 100,000 customers or less.\29\ Under this proposal, 
Tier IV providers would be entitled to automatic roaming in rural 
markets with large, nationwide carriers at reasonable symmetrical rates 
as a ``check'' against the abuse of market power by large carriers 
where they dominate the market.\30\ The FCC seeks comment on RTG's 
proposal.\31\ Should the FCC consider an automatic roaming requirement 
specifically targeted to rural markets? If so, how should we define 
``rural'' for this purpose? In the Rural Report and Order, the FCC 
established a baseline definition of ``rural area'' as ``those counties 
(or equivalent) with a population density of 100 persons per square 
mile or less, based upon the most recently available Census data * * 
*.'' \32\ The FCC seeks comment on whether the definition in the Rural 
Report and Order or any other definition would be appropriate for any 
automatic roaming obligations contemplated in this proceeding.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \27\ Id. at para. 43.
    \28\ RTG, WT Docket No. 00-193, Ex Parte, filed June 28, 2005, 
at 1.
    \29\ Id.
    \30\ Id.
    \31\ See NPRM at para. 43.
    \32\ See Facilitating the Provisions of Spectrum-Based Services 
to Rural Areas and Promoting Opportunities for Rural Telephone 
Companies to Provide Spectrum-Based Services, WT Docket No. 02-381, 
Report and Order and Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, FCC 04-
166, 19 FCC Rcd 19078, 19087 at para. 11 (2004), 69 FR 75144-01 
(Dec. 15, 2004), 69 FR 75174-01 (December 15, 2004).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Technical Considerations

    18. Roaming on Enhanced Digital Networks. Another consideration in 
determining the need for and design of any automatic roaming 
requirement is the recent development by carriers of enhanced digital 
networks.\33\ If the FCC were to apply some form of automatic roaming 
requirement to 2G systems, it seeks comment on whether it should also 
apply to upgraded 2.5G or 3G systems as well.\34\ In addition, the FCC 
seeks comment on what impact an automatic roaming requirement would 
have on the incentive of carriers to invest in such upgrades.\35\ The 
FCC also seeks comment on whether a carrier that has upgraded its 
system should be required to enter into roaming agreements only with 
other carriers that have similarly upgraded their systems, or whether, 
alternatively, the Commission should require a carrier with 2.5 and 3G 
capabilities to enter into automatic roaming agreements with all or 
some subset of carriers (e.g., rural carriers) that employ the same 
digital technology (e.g., GSM or CDMA), even if the other carriers have 
not upgraded their systems.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \33\ See NPRM at para. 44.
    \34\ Id. at para. 44.
    \35\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    19. The FCC also seeks comment on the effect that automatic roaming 
would have on the capacity of 2.5 and 3G networks and the ability of 
carriers to offer full access to their own customers.\36\ The 
Commission stated it would be concerned if requiring a carrier to offer 
roaming service on its enhanced network to the customers of other 
carriers resulted in the carrier facing capacity constraints that 
adversely affect its own customers. The FCC therefore asks whether a 
carrier should have the right to limit access to its network by 
roamers, and what parameters should be considered as justification for 
such limits. The NPRM invites commenters to suggest specific standards 
for determining when the requirement should or should not apply.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \36\ Id. at para. 46.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    20. Roaming with Multi-Mode Handsets. Another technical 
consideration in the context of roaming

[[Page 56616]]

is that, in order for roaming on digital networks to be successful, a 
customer must have a handset that employs the same digital standard 
(e.g., GSM or CDMA) as the carrier on whose network the customer is 
roaming.\37\ However, if, in the future, handsets become available that 
employ multiple digital technologies or software-defined radio 
capabilities, this may reduce or eliminate technical impediments to the 
subscribers of any carrier roaming on any other carrier's network. The 
FCC, therefore, seeks comment as to whether and how soon such 
technology developments may occur, and if so, what effect the 
availability of multi-technology handsets will have on carriers' 
roaming options (e.g., if multi-technology handsets were available, 
should we require carriers using CDMA technologies to enter into 
roaming agreements with GSM carriers)? \38\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \37\ Id. at para. 47.
    \38\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    21. Roaming on Analog Networks. In 2002, the Commission established 
February 18, 2008 as the sunset date for the requirement that cellular 
carriers provide analog service.\39\ In light of the pending sunset of 
the analog requirement, the FCC seeks comment on whether it is 
necessary to extend any automatic roaming obligation that the 
Commission might adopt to analog networks. The FCC seeks comment on the 
extent to which analog systems are used in roaming today and whether 
there is a need to adopt automatic roaming for analog.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \39\ Id. at para. 48.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    22. Also, in the past the FCC has considered the possible effect of 
mergers on the roaming market for those wireless telephony consumers 
who rely on analog service.\40\ The FCC seeks comment on the extent to 
which roaming options will be affected once the analog requirement no 
longer exists.\41\ This information is relevant to better assess the 
state of the CMRS market and whether analog sunset will affect the 
market conditions, in the near future, in a manner that would justify 
adoption of an automatic roaming rule for digital networks. The NPRM 
requests that parties comment on this change and other technical 
changes and their possible effects on the roaming markets.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \40\ Id. at para. 49.
    \41\ For example, a small cellular GSM carrier might now enter 
into a roaming agreement with a nationwide cellular CDMA carrier 
operating in its area because both provide analog service. However, 
when the analog requirement terminates, the nationwide carrier would 
only be able to enter into a roaming agreement with a small CDMA 
carrier in the area--if one exists--and the GSM carrier would only 
be able to have a roaming agreement with a nationwide GSM carrier--
if one exists in the area.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Ex Parte Rules

    23. This is a permit-but-disclose notice and comment rulemaking 
proceeding. Ex parte presentations are permitted, except during the 
Sunshine Agenda period, provided they are disclosed pursuant to the 
Commission's Rules. (See generally 47 CFR 1.1202, 1.1203, 1.1206.)

Comment Period and Procedures

    24. Pursuant to sections 1.415 and 1.419 of the Commission's rules, 
47 CFR 1.415, 1.419, interested parties may file comments and reply 
comments on or before the dates indicated on the first page of this 
document. Comments may be filed using: (1) The Commission's Electronic 
Comment Filing System (ECFS), (2) the Federal Government's eRulemaking 
Portal, or (3) by filing paper copies. See Electronic Filing of 
Documents in Rulemaking Proceedings, 63 FR 24121 (1998).
     Electronic Filers: Comments may be filed electronically 
using the Internet by accessing the ECFS: https://www.fcc.gov/cgb/ecfs/ or the Federal eRulemaking Portal: https://www.regulations.gov. Filers 
should follow the instructions provided on the Web site for submitting 
comments.
     For ECFS filers, if multiple docket or rulemaking numbers 
appear in the caption of this proceeding, filers must transmit one 
electronic copy of the comments for each docket or rulemaking number 
referenced in the caption. In completing the transmittal screen, filers 
should include their full name, U.S. Postal Service mailing address, 
and the applicable docket or rulemaking number. Parties may also submit 
an electronic comment by Internet e-mail. To get filing instructions, 
filers should send an e-mail to ecfs@fcc.gov, and include the following 
words in the body of the message, ``get form.'' A sample form and 
directions will be sent in response.
     Paper Filers: Parties who choose to file by paper must 
file an original and four copies of each filing. If more than one 
docket or rulemaking number appears in the caption of this proceeding, 
filers must submit two additional copies for each additional docket or 
rulemaking number.
    Filings can be sent by hand or messenger delivery, by commercial 
overnight courier, or by first-class or overnight U.S. Postal Service 
mail (although we continue to experience delays in receiving U.S. 
Postal Service mail). All filings must be addressed to the Commission's 
Secretary, Office of the Secretary, Federal Communications Commission.
     The Commission's contractor will receive hand-delivered or 
messenger-delivered paper filings for the Commission's Secretary at 236 
Massachusetts Avenue, NE., Suite 110, Washington, DC 20002. The filing 
hours at this location are 8 a.m. to 7 p.m. All hand deliveries must be 
held together with rubber bands or fasteners. Any envelopes must be 
disposed of before entering the building.
     Commercial overnight mail (other than U.S. Postal Service 
Express Mail and Priority Mail) must be sent to 9300 East Hampton 
Drive, Capitol Heights, MD 20743.
     U.S. Postal Service first-class, Express, and Priority 
mail should be addressed to 445 12th Street, SW., Washington, DC 20554.
    People with Disabilities: To request materials in accessible 
formats for people with disabilities (braille, large print, electronic 
files, audio format), send an e-mail to fcc504@fcc.gov or call the 
Consumer & Governmental Affairs Bureau at (202) 418-0530 (voice), (202) 
418-0432 (tty).

Initial Regulatory Flexibility Act Analysis

    25. As required by the Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980, as 
amended (RFA),\42\ the Commission has prepared this present Initial 
Regulatory Flexibility Analysis (IRFA) of the possible significant 
economic impact on a substantial number of small entities by the 
policies and rules proposed in this Notice of Proposed Rulemaking 
(NPRM). Written public comments are requested on this IRFA. Comments 
must be identified as responses to the IRFA and must be filed by the 
deadlines for comments on the NPRM provided in paragraph 53 of the 
item, and they must have a separate and distinct heading designating 
them as responses to the IRFA. The Commission will send a copy of the 
NPRM, including this IRFA, to the Chief Counsel for Advocacy of the 
Small Business Administration (SBA), in accordance with the RFA.\43\ In 
addition, the NPRM and IRFA (or summaries thereof) will be published in 
the Federal Register.\44\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \42\ See 5 U.S.C. 603. The RFA, see 5 U.S.C. 601-612, has been 
amended by the Contract With America Advancement Act of 1996, Pub. 
L. No. 1045-121, 110 Stat. 847 (1996) (CWAAA). Title II of the CWAAA 
is the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996 
(SBREFA).
    \43\ See 5 U.S.C. 603(a).
    \44\ Id.

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

[[Page 56617]]

Need for and Objectives of the Proposed Rules

    26. In the Memorandum Opinion and Order (MO&O) and NPRM, the 
Commission terminates the open proceeding relating to the automatic and 
manual roaming obligations of Commercial Mobile Radio Services (CMRS) 
providers in WT Docket No. 00-193, and initiates a new proceeding to 
examine whether its current rules regarding roaming requirements 
applicable to CMRS providers should be modified given the current state 
of the CMRS market. In the MO&O portion of the item, the Commission 
terminates its previous consideration of roaming issues in WT Docket 
No. 00-193, primarily on the basis that the comments filed and the 
matters at issue therein are now stale due to the passage of time and 
other regulatory and industry changes that have occurred since its 
commencement. As a result, the Commission decides to terminate the 
proceeding without the adoption of rules. The Commission also decides 
to initiate a NPRM in a new proceeding to examine CMRS roaming in a 
manner that takes into account current technological and market 
conditions. The Commission's decision will allow it to develop a record 
with up-to-date information regarding the state of today's CMRS 
marketplace in an effort to determine whether there is a need for a 
regulatory regime for roaming services.
    27. Specifically, in the NPRM, the Commission seeks to establish a 
record on the current state of manual roaming and whether there is a 
continuing need for a manual roaming rule. The Commission also seeks 
comment on whether carriers should be required to enter into agreements 
to allow automatic roaming on their networks and, if so, how such a 
rule should be designed, to whom should it apply, and for what period 
of time. Furthermore, the Commission requests comment on whether 
national carriers are negotiating roaming agreements with small or 
rural carriers in an anti-competitive manner or are simply avoiding 
their networks altogether and, if so, whether the Commission should 
establish an automatic roaming rule that applies to a specific market 
or type of carrier and for what period of time. Finally, the Commission 
seeks to establish a record on whether digital network and handset 
technology has advanced enough that there are no longer technical 
limitations affecting the likely provision of roaming.

Legal Basis

    28. The potential actions on which comment is sought in this NPRM 
would be authorized under sections 1, 4(i), 201(b), 251(a), 253, 
303(r), and 332(c)(1)(B) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 
47 U.S.C. 151, 154(i), 201(b), 251(a), 253, 303(r), and 332(c)(1)(B).

Description and Estimate of the Small Entities Subject to the Rules

    29. The RFA requires that an initial regulatory flexibility 
analysis be prepared for notice-and-comment rulemaking proceedings, 
unless the agency certifies that ``the rule will not, if promulgated, 
have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small 
entities.'' \45\ The RFA generally defines ``small entity'' as having 
the same meaning as the terms ``small business,'' ``small 
organization,'' and ``small governmental jurisdiction.'' \46\ In 
addition, the term ``small business'' has the same meaning as the term 
``small business concern'' under the Small Business Act.\47\ A small 
business concern is one which: (1) Is independently owned and operated; 
(2) is not dominant in its field of operation; and (3) satisfies any 
additional criteria established by the Small Business Administration 
(SBA).\48\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \45\ 5 U.S.C. 605(b).
    \46\ 5 U.S.C. 601(6).
    \47\ 5 U.S.C. 601(3) (incorporating by reference the definition 
of ``small business concern'' in Small Business Act, 15 U.S.C. 632). 
Pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 601(3), the statutory definition of a small 
business applies ``unless an agency, after consultation with the 
Office of Advocacy of the Small Business Administration and after 
opportunity for public comment, establishes one or more definitions 
of such term which are appropriate to the activities of the agency 
and publishes such definition(s) in the Federal Register.''
    \48\ Small Business Act, 15 U.S.C. 632.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    30. To assist the Commission in its analysis, commenters are 
requested to provide information regarding which CMRS entities would be 
affected by the regulations on which the Commission seeks comment in 
this NPRM. In particular, we seek estimates of how many small entities 
might be affected.
    31. The possible sunset of the existing ``manual'' roaming rule, if 
adopted, would eliminate the requirement that covered cellular, 
broadband PCS and SMR carriers make service available to individual 
users upon request, so long as the roamer's handset is technically 
capable of accessing their services. Sunsetting of this rule would be 
expected to reduce the existing regulatory burden, if any, on small 
businesses that must comply with the requirements of the ``manual'' 
roaming rule.
    32. The ``automatic'' roaming regulations on which the Commission 
seeks comment, if adopted, would apply to providers of cellular, 
broadband PCS, and SMR services that offer real-time, two-way switched 
voice or data service that is interconnected with the public switched 
network and utilizes an in-network switching facility that enables the 
provider to reuse frequencies and accomplish seamless hand-offs of 
subscriber calls.
    33. Estimate for Cellular Licensees. The SBA has developed a small 
business size standard for small businesses in the category ``Cellular 
and Other Wireless Telecommunications.'' \49\ Under that SBA category, 
a business is small if it has 1,500 or fewer employees.\50\ According 
to the Bureau of the Census, only twelve firms out of a total of 1,238 
cellular and other wireless telecommunications firms operating during 
1997 had 1,000 or more employees.\51\ Therefore, even if all 12 of 
these firms were cellular telephone companies, nearly all cellular 
carriers are small businesses under the SBA's definition.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \49\ 13 CFR 121.201, North American Industry Classification 
System (NAICS) code 517212.
    \50\ Id.
    \51\ U.S. Census Bureau, 1997 Economic Census, Information--
Subject Series, Establishment and Firm Size, Table 5 (Employment 
Size of Firms Subject to Federal Income Tax), NAICS code 517212 
(2002). The Census Bureau will be issuing 2002 Economic Census data 
relating to telecommunications entities in late 2004.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    34. In addition, we can assess data provided annually to the 
Commission by Telecommunications Relay Service (TRS) carriers. The TRS 
data compilation, published in the Commission's Trends in Telephone 
Service, groups together cellular, personal communications services, 
and specialized mobile radio telephony carriers into a single category 
called ``Wireless Telephony.'' As noted above, under the pertinent SBA 
small business size standard, a wireless business is small if it has 
1,500 or fewer employees.\52\ According to Trends in Telephone Service 
data, 447 carriers have reported that they provide Wireless 
Telephony.\53\ Of that total, an estimated 245 are small providers, 
under the SBA size standard. Thus, we can estimate that the majority of 
such businesses are small.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \52\ 13 CFR 121.201, NAICS code 517212.
    \53\ FCC, Wireline Competition Bureau, Industry Analysis and 
Technology Division, ``Trends in Telephone Service'' at Table 5.3, 
page 5-5 (May 2004). This source uses data that are current as of 
October 22, 2003.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    35. Additionally, any rules adopted pursuant to this rulemaking 
will apply to cellular licensees only if they offer

[[Page 56618]]

real-time, two-way switched voice or data service that is 
interconnected with the public switched network and that utilizes an 
in-network switching facility that enables the provider to reuse 
frequencies and accomplish seamless hand-offs of subscriber calls. 
Although the Commission does not have definitive information, we 
estimate that most or all small business cellular licensees offer 
services meeting this description.
    36. Estimate for Broadband PCS Licensees. The broadband PCS 
spectrum is divided into six frequency blocks designated A through F, 
and the Commission has held auctions for each block. The Commission has 
created a small business size standard for Blocks C and F as an entity 
that has average gross revenues of less than $40 million in the three 
previous calendar years.\54\ For Block F, an additional small business 
size standard for ``very small business'' was added and is defined as 
an entity that, together with its affiliates, has average gross 
revenues of not more than $15 million for the preceding three calendar 
years.\55\ These small business size standards, in the context of 
broadband PCS auctions, have been approved by the SBA.\56\ No small 
businesses within the SBA-approved small business size standards bid 
successfully for licenses in Blocks A and B. There were 90 winning 
bidders that qualified as small entities in the Block C auctions. A 
total of 93 ``small'' and ``very small'' business bidders won 
approximately 40 percent of the 1,479 licenses for Blocks D, E, and 
F.\57\ On March 23, 1999, the Commission reauctioned 155 C, D, E, and F 
Block licenses; there were 113 small business winning bidders.\58\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \54\ See Amendment of Parts 20 and 24 of the Commission's 
Rules--Broadband PCS Competitive Bidding and the Commercial Mobile 
Radio Service Spectrum Cap, WT Docket No. 96-59, FCC 96-278, Report 
and Order, 11 FCC Rcd 7824, 7850-7852 paras. 57-60 (1996), 61 FR 
33859 (July 1, 1996); see also 47 CFR 24.720(b).
    \55\ See Amendment of Parts 20 and 24 of the Commission's 
Rules--Broadband PCS Competitive Bidding and the Commercial Mobile 
Radio Service Spectrum Cap, Report and Order, 11 FCC Rcd 7824, 7852 
para. 60.
    \56\ See Letter to Amy Zoslov, Chief, Auctions and Industry 
Analysis Division, Wireless Telecommunications Bureau, Federal 
Communications Commission, from Aida Alvarez, Administrator, Small 
Business Administration, dated December 2, 1998.
    \57\ FCC News, ``Broadband PCS, D, E and F Block Auction 
Closes,'' No. 71744 (rel. January 14, 1997).
    \58\ See ``C, D, E, and F Block Broadband PCS Auction Closes,'' 
Public Notice, 14 FCC Rcd 6688 (WTB 1999).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    37. Any rule modifications that will be made pursuant to this 
proceeding will apply to broadband PCS licensees only if they offer 
real-time, two-way switched voice or data service that is 
interconnected with the public switched network and that utilizes an 
in-network switching facility that enables the provider to reuse 
frequencies and accomplish seamless hand-offs of subscriber calls. 
Although the Commission does not have definitive information, we 
estimate that most or all small business broadband PCS licensees offer 
services meeting this description.
    38. Estimate for SMR Licensees. The Commission awards ``small 
entity'' bidding credits in auctions for SMR geographic area licenses 
in the 800 MHz and 900 MHz bands to firms that had revenues of no more 
than $15 million in each of the three previous calendar years.\59\ The 
Commission awards ``very small entity'' bidding credits to firms that 
had revenues of no more than $3 million in each of the three previous 
calendar years.\60\ The Commission has held auctions for geographic 
area licenses in the 800 MHz and 900 MHz bands. The 900 MHz SMR auction 
began on December 5, 1995, and closed on April 15, 1996. Sixty bidders 
claiming that they qualified as small businesses under the $15 million 
size standard won 263 geographic area licenses in the 900 MHz SMR band. 
The 800 MHz SMR auction for the upper 200 channels began on October 28, 
1997, and was completed on December 8, 1997. Ten bidders claiming that 
they qualified as small businesses under the $15 million size standard 
won 38 geographic area licenses for the upper 200 channels in the 800 
MHz SMR band.\61\ A second auction for the 800 MHz band was held on 
January 10, 2002 and closed on January 17, 2002 and included 23 BEA 
licenses. One bidder claiming small business status won five 
licenses.\62\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \59\ 47 CFR 90.814(b)(1).
    \60\ Id.
    \61\ See ``Correction to Public Notice DA 96-586 `FCC Announces 
Winning Bidders in the Auction of 1020 Licenses to Provide 900 MHz 
SMR in Major Trading Areas,' '' Public Notice, 18 FCC Rcd 18367 (WTB 
1996).
    \62\ See ``Multi-Radio Service Auction Closes,'' Public Notice, 
17 FCC Rcd 1446 (WTB 2002).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    39. The auction of the 1,050 800 MHz SMR geographic area licenses 
for the General Category channels began on August 16, 2000, and was 
completed on September 1, 2000. Eleven bidders won 108 geographic area 
licenses for the General Category channels in the 800 MHz SMR band 
qualified as small businesses under the $15 million size standard. In 
an auction completed on December 5, 2000, a total of 2,800 Economic 
Area licenses in the lower 80 channels of the 800 MHz SMR service were 
sold. Of the 22 winning bidders, 19 claimed ``small business'' status 
and won 129 licenses. Thus, combining all three auctions, 40 winning 
bidders for geographic licenses in the 800 MHz SMR band claimed status 
as small businesses.
    40. In addition, there are numerous incumbent site-by-site SMR 
licensees and licensees with extended implementation authorizations in 
the 800 and 900 MHz bands. We do not know how many firms provide 800 
MHz or 900 MHz geographic area SMR pursuant to extended implementation 
authorizations, nor how many of these providers have annual revenues of 
no more than $15 million.\63\ One firm has over $15 million in 
revenues. We assume, for purposes of this analysis, that all of the 
remaining existing extended implementation authorizations are held by 
small entities, as that small business size standard is established by 
the SBA.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \63\ These incumbent entities, which were not subject to 
auctions, may also be assessed under the SBA's generic small 
business size standard for this category which is 1,500 or few 
employees.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    41. Additionally, any rules adopted pursuant to this rulemaking 
will apply to SMR licensees only if they offer real-time, two-way 
switched voice or data service that is interconnected with the public 
switched network and that utilizes an in-network switching facility 
that enables the provider to reuse frequencies and accomplish seamless 
hand-offs of subscriber calls. Although the Commission does not have 
definitive information, we estimate that many small business SMR 
licensees do not offer services meeting this description. Nonetheless, 
in the absence of definitive information, we assume that all of the 
Commission's SMR licensees that are small businesses may be subject to 
any rules that may be adopted in this proceeding.

Reporting, Recordkeeping, and Other Compliance Requirements

    42. The Commission anticipates that any rules that may be adopted 
pursuant to this Notice will impose at most only limited reporting or 
recordkeeping requirements. The only compliance costs likely to be 
incurred are administrative costs to ensure that an entity's practices 
are in compliance with the rule. The only compliance requirement of any 
possible new rules is that licensees subject to any automatic roaming 
requirement (i.e., cellular licenses, broadband PCS licensees, and 
geographic area 800 MHz and 900 MHz SMR licensees that offer real-time, 
two-way, interconnected switched voice and data service) will need to 
provide non-discriminatory access to their wireless

[[Page 56619]]

systems via automatic roaming once they reach an agreement with any 
carrier to permit automatic roaming. As noted above in this IRFA and in 
the text of the NPRM, the Commission seeks comment on the potential 
costs of implementing an automatic roaming requirement in this context, 
including such potential costs on small business.\64\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \64\ See NPRM at paras. 28, 38-43.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Steps Taken To Minimize Significant Economic Impact on Small Entities, 
and Significant Alternatives Considered

    43. The RFA requires an agency to describe any significant 
alternatives that it has considered in reaching its proposed approach, 
which may include the following four alternatives (among others): (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.\65\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \65\ 5 U.S.C. 603(c).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    44. As noted, the possible sunset of the manual roaming rule, if 
adopted, would be expected to reduce any existing economic impact on 
small business. Therefore, the only possible negative economic impacts 
that might arise from this NPRM are those what would be associated with 
an ``automatic'' roaming rule.
    45. However, as discussed in the NPRM, small and rural wireless 
service providers have requested that the Commission adopt an automatic 
roaming rule in some form. Small and rural service providers assert 
that CMRS industry mergers have significantly reduced their nationwide 
roaming options. With a reduced number of nationwide roaming partners 
available, small and rural carriers are concerned that the remaining 
nationwide carriers will be able to use increased market power to 
adversely affect roaming negotiations in the future. These carriers 
contend that the large nationwide service providers are able to 
exercise market power through an advantageous bargaining position that 
affects not just the ability of small and rural carriers to enter into 
roaming agreements, but the terms of such agreements. Small and rural 
carriers also claim that numerous incompatible technologies further 
reduce their bargaining power.
    46. Additionally, small and rural carriers assert that the amount 
of roaming traffic they exchange with other carriers has been 
significantly reduced as the large carriers enter into roaming 
agreements with other larger carriers and avoid roaming on smaller 
carriers' networks. These small carriers believe such behavior is 
indicative of a larger industry trend where the larger carriers have 
begun to favor each other to the exclusion of smaller competitors, 
ignoring high cost rural areas. These carriers state that a substantial 
portion of their revenue comes from roaming revenue and the loss of 
such revenue makes it difficult for them to remain viable. They assert 
that favorable deals between large carriers eliminate a vital source of 
revenue for small and rural carriers. Furthermore, small carriers 
contend that the large carriers' practice of negotiating favorable 
roaming deals with one another constitutes unreasonable discrimination 
in violation of section 202 of the Communications Act.
    47. Small and rural carriers also assert that with industry 
consolidation, large carriers behave in an anti-competitive manner with 
respect to roaming. They contend that consolidation has allowed large, 
nationwide CMRS carriers to use their increased market power to demand 
asymmetrical roaming rates from small, rural carriers. In certain 
cases, they assert, rural carriers must pay over five times as much to 
allow their customers to roam on nationwide carrier networks as the 
nationwide carriers pay for their customers to roam on rural networks. 
They argue that these asymmetrical roaming rates harm rural consumers 
and prevent small and rural carriers from offering their rural 
subscribers viable nationwide service plans that would allow rural 
subscribers to roam on nationwide carriers' networks.
    48. As a result of these assertions, the Commission seeks comment 
in the NPRM on the concerns raised by small and rural carriers. The 
Commission asks commenters to submit economic analysis and data 
regarding evidence of discriminatory or non-discriminatory roaming 
practices on an industry-wide basis, and the impact of such practices 
on consumers. The Commission requests information on whether roaming 
rates are declining among carriers, and, if so, whether this is due to 
a more robust CMRS market or, as small and rural carriers claim, from 
the dwindling number of nationwide carriers favoring one another in 
roaming agreements to the exclusion of other carriers. The Commission 
seeks specific evidence of wireless providers denying roaming 
agreements to other providers in a manner that harms the providers or 
consumers. The NPRM also seeks comment on and evidence of whether 
large, nationwide carriers are preferring one another over other 
carriers in roaming agreements, and whether such a preference is a 
violation of section 202 of the Communications Act.
    49. In addition, the Commission seeks comment on whether large, 
nationwide carriers are engaging in the practice of barring their 
subscribers' access to networks operated by other carriers. If so, the 
Commission asks, does this type of practice violate the spirit of its 
rule requiring carriers to provide roaming access by preventing 
subscribers from utilizing such a service? The Commission seeks comment 
on the assertion by small and rural carriers that large carriers are 
using their market power to develop one-sided roaming agreements, at 
terms more favorable to themselves. The NPRM asks whether the 
Commission should require nondiscriminatory, rather than one-sided, 
automatic roaming arrangements. In this regard, the NPRM asks whether 
large or nationwide carriers should be required to make their networks 
available to all roaming partners on the same terms and conditions as 
they offer to their ``most-favored'' roaming partners. Moreover, the 
Commission seeks comment on whether large, nationwide carriers control 
``bottleneck'' facilities that impact the ability of customers to roam 
onto or off of small and rural wireless networks. Finally, the 
Commission also seeks comment on whether the concerns raised by small 
and rural carriers should be examined on a regional or local basis.
    50. The Commission will draw on the information gained from 
comments filed in response to the NPRM when considering whether an 
automatic roaming rule should be promulgated, and if so, how it can 
best be drafted to minimize any costs placed on small businesses. For 
instance, the Commission asks whether the alternative of an exemption 
tailored for small business would be appropriate given the possible 
costs of an automatic roaming rule.\66\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \66\ See NPRM at para. 28.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Federal Rules That May Duplicate, Overlap, or Conflict With the 
Proposed Rules

    51. None.

Ordering Clauses

    52. Pursuant to sections 1, 4(i), 201(b), 251(a), 253, 303(r), and 
332(c)(1)(B) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. 
151, 154(i), 201(b), 251(a), 253, 303(r), and 332(c)(1)(B), and 
sections 1.411 and 1.412 of the

[[Page 56620]]

Commission's rules, 47 CFR 1.411 and 1.412, the Memorandum Opinion & 
Order and Notice of Proposed Rulemaking is adopted.
    53. Pursuant to sections 4(i), 201(b), 251(a), 253, 303(r) and 
332(c)(1)(B) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. 
154(i), 251(a), 253, 303(r) and 332(c)(1)(B), and sections 1.411 and 
1.412 of the Commission's rules, 47 CFR 1.411 and 1.412, the automatic 
and manual roaming rulemaking proceeding in WT Docket No. 00-193 is 
terminated.
    54. The Petition for Commission Action filed by the Rural 
Telecommunications Group, Inc. on November 1, 2004 is granted, to the 
extent described in the Notice of Proposed Rulemaking.
    55. Notice is given of the proposed regulatory changes described in 
this Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, and comment is sought on these 
proposals.
    56. The Commission's Consumer and Governmental Affairs Bureau, 
Reference Information Center, shall send a copy of this Notice of 
Proposed Rulemaking, including the Initial Regulatory Flexibility 
Analysis, to the Chief Counsel for Advocacy of the Small Business 
Administration.

Federal Communications Commission.
Marlene H. Dortch,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 05-19346 Filed 9-27-05; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6712-01-P