Development of Nationwide Broadband Data To Evaluate Reasonable and Timely Deployment of Advanced Services to All Americans, Improvement of Wireless Broadband Subscribership Data, and Development of Data on Interconnected Voice Over Internet Protocol (VoIP) Subscribership, 27519-27535 [E7-9300]

Agencies

• FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION

[Federal Register Volume 72, Number 94 (Wednesday, May 16, 2007)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 27519-27535]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E7-9300]


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

FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION

47 CFR Parts 1, 20, and 43

[WC Docket No. 07-38; FCC 07-17]


Development of Nationwide Broadband Data To Evaluate Reasonable 
and Timely Deployment of Advanced Services to All Americans, 
Improvement of Wireless Broadband Subscribership Data, and Development 
of Data on Interconnected Voice Over Internet Protocol (VoIP) 
Subscribership

AGENCY: Federal Communications Commission.

ACTION: Proposed rule.

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

SUMMARY: In this document, the Commission requests comment about how it 
can continue to acquire the information it needs to develop and 
maintain appropriate broadband policies. In particular, it seeks 
comment on: How best to ensure that it receives sufficient information 
about the availability and deployment of broadband services nationwide, 
particularly in rural and other hard-to-serve areas; how it can improve 
the data about wireless broadband Internet access services that it 
currently collects on FCC Form 477; and whether it should modify the 
speed-tier information it currently collects. It also requests comment 
on how it can best collect information about subscribership to 
interconnected voice over Internet Protocol service, or VoIP.

DATES: Comments must be filed on or before June 15, 2007, and reply 
comments must be filed on or before July 16, 2007.

ADDRESSES: You may submit comments, identified by WC Docket No. 07-38, 
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.
     People with Disabilities: Contact the FCC to request 
reasonable accommodations (accessible format documents, sign language 
interpreters, CART, etc.) by e-mail: fcc504@fcc.gov, 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.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Alan Feldman or Ellen Burton, Wireline 
Competition Bureau, Industry Analysis and Technology Division, 202-418-
0940.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: This is a summary of the Commission's Notice 
of Proposed Rulemaking (NPRM) in WC Docket No. 07-38, released April 
16, 2007. The complete text of this document, including attachments, is 
available for inspection and copying during normal business hours in 
the FCC Reference Center (Room CY-A257), 445 12th Street, SW., 
Washington, DC 20554. It is available on the Commission's Web site: 
https://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-07-17A1.pdf, 
https://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-07-17A1.doc, and 
https://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-07-17A1.txt. The 
complete text may be purchased from the Commission's copy contractor, 
Best Copy and Printing, Inc., 445 12th Street, SW., Room, CY-B402, 
Washington, DC 20554, via Web site: https://www.bcpiweb.com or phone: 
800-378-3160. When ordering documents from BCPI please provide the 
appropriate FCC document number (in this case: FCC 07-17).
    Pursuant to Sections 1.415 and 1.419 of the Commission's rules, 47 
CFR 1.415, 1.419, interested parties may file comments on or before 
June 15, 2007 and reply comments on or before July 16, 2007. 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 website 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 (in this case: 07-38). 
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 may 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). Paper filings must be addressed to: Marlene H. 
Dortch, 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 must 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).
    Comments filed in WC Docket No. 07-38 will be available for public 
inspection and copying during business hours at the FCC Reference 
Information Center (Room CY-A257), 445 12th Street, SW., Washington, DC 
20554. They will also be available via the

[[Page 27520]]

Commission's ECFS: https://www.fcc.gov/cgb/ecfs/.

Initial Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 Analysis

    This document does not contain proposed information collection(s) 
subject to the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (PRA), Public Law 104-
13. In addition, therefore, it does not contain any new or modified 
``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).

Summary of the Notice of Proposed Rulemaking

I. Introduction

    1. In this NPRM, the Commission seeks comment about how it can 
continue to acquire the information it needs to develop and maintain 
appropriate broadband policies. First, the NPRM seeks comment about how 
the Commission can best ensure that it receives sufficient information 
about the availability and deployment of broadband services nationwide, 
particularly in rural and other hard-to-serve areas, including tribal 
lands. Second, it seeks comment about how the Commission can improve 
the data about wireless broadband Internet access services that it 
currently collects on FCC Form 477. Third, it asks whether the 
Commission should modify the speed-tier information it currently 
collects. Fourth and finally, it seeks comment about how the Commission 
can best collect information about subscribership to interconnected 
voice over Internet Protocol (interconnected VoIP) service.
    2. The NPRM specifically solicits comment about the balance between 
the burden of additional data collection and the benefits such 
information provides.

II. Background

    3. To date, the Commission has based its analysis of nationwide 
broadband deployment on three sources of information: data submitted on 
FCC Form 477; public comment submitted in response to inquiries 
undertaken pursuant to Section 706(b) of the Telecommunications Act of 
1996, Public Law 104-104; and ancillary information gathered by 
Commission staff from publicly available sources. The Commission 
adopted the Form 477 program in 2000, after concluding that the 
collected information would materially improve its ability to develop, 
evaluate, and revise policy regarding broadband deployment and local 
telephone service competition, and provide valuable benchmarks for 
Congress, the Commission, other policy makers, and consumers. Pursuant 
to the broadband portions of the Form 477, facilities-based providers 
of broadband connections list, by state, those Zip Codes in which they 
have at least one broadband subscriber. Reporting entities include 
incumbent and competitive local exchange carriers (LECs), cable 
companies, operators of terrestrial and satellite wireless facilities, 
municipalities, and any other facilities-based provider of broadband 
connections to end users.
    4. The Commission significantly improved the Form 477 in 2004 by 
extending the data collection program for five years beyond its 
original sunset; eliminating reporting thresholds which effectively 
exempted small entities from reporting requirements; requiring more 
granular reporting of broadband data, e.g., about services offered at 
speeds in excess of 200 kbps, about symmetric xDSL connections as 
distinguished from T-1/DS1 and other ``traditional wireline'' 
connections, and about power line connections; requiring technology-
specific lists of Zip Codes; requiring cable companies to report, by 
state, the extent to which cable modem service is available to the 
households to whom they can provide cable TV service, and requiring 
incumbent LECs to report comparable information about their DSL 
connections; and adopting various other modifications. The Commission 
acknowledged that mobile broadband services differ in particular 
respects from fixed broadband services--noting that the end user of a 
mobile wireless broadband service must be within a mobile wireless 
broadband service coverage area to make use of the service, but may 
move around within and among coverage areas--and made provisions for 
such differences in the data collection. The Commission rejected 
suggestions to add to the Form 477 questions specifically about VoIP 
service, noting that only a very small portion of local telephone 
service was being provided by entities exclusively utilizing VoIP and 
that LECs may already include information about VoIP subscribers in 
their Form 477 filings.
    5. Based in large part on analysis of Form 477 data, the 
Commission's various reports have demonstrated significant and steady 
progress in broadband deployment and availability nationwide. 
Reflecting such robust deployment statistics, the Commission's Section 
706 reports have consistently concluded that broadband is being 
deployed nationwide in a reasonable and timely fashion.
    6. A report issued by the United States Government Accountability 
Office (GAO), Broadband Deployment Is Extensive throughout the United 
States, but It Is Difficult to Assess the Extent of Deployment Gaps in 
Rural Areas (May 2006), reviews the strengths and weaknesses of 
available data about broadband availability, including FCC Form 477 
data. The report concludes that, while broadband deployment is 
extensive nationwide, it remains very difficult to assess the extent of 
deployment gaps in rural areas. It recommends that, in order to develop 
a better understanding of the dynamics of broadband deployment and 
availability in rural areas particularly, the Commission should 
``develop information regarding the degree of cost and burden that 
would be associated with various options for improving the information 
about broadband deployment.''
    7. Mobile wireless services have developed rapidly since the 
Commission revised the Form 477 program in 2004, as nationwide mobile 
telephone operators Verizon Wireless, Sprint Nextel, and Cingular, and 
some regional wireless carriers such as Alltel, have expanded or 
initiated their deployment of Third Generation (or ``3G'') wireless 
networks based on the EV-DO and WCDMA/HSDPA standards.
    8. Interconnected VoIP subscribership in the United States also 
appears to have grown rapidly. In a separate proceeding, the Commission 
has explained that the growth of interconnected VoIP services is one of 
the changing market conditions that are placing under significant 
strain the existing system to preserve and advance universal service, 
which is a fundamental goal of communications policy in the United 
States.

III. Discussion

    9. Notwithstanding the robust statistics and the more granular 
broadband data that have been reported on FCC Form 477 beginning 
September 1, 2005, the Commission continues to consider the need to 
improve its data collection, particularly regarding data reflecting 
broadband deployment and availability in rural and other hard-to-serve 
areas, and also regarding subscribership to new broadband-enabled 
services such as interconnected VoIP service.
    10. Broadband Deployment Data. In rural and other hard-to-serve 
areas, the Commission questions whether submission of simple Zip Code 
information such as that currently required by the Form 477 is 
sufficient to provide a truly accurate picture of the state of 
broadband deployment.

[[Page 27521]]

Wireline broadband service providers filing Form 477 are currently 
required to list those Zip Codes where they have at least one broadband 
subscriber. In sparsely populated rural Zip Codes this could mean that 
a given provider has just one broadband subscriber who is located in a 
small town or at some other location convenient to telephone or cable 
facilities. Broadband ``availability'' could be non-existent for that 
carrier's other customers located a few blocks or many miles away from 
that single customer. Ideally, information would be available about the 
choices that a customer faces on a house-by-house and business-by-
business basis. The NPRM discusses several options that might move the 
Commission closer to that ideal.
    11. Wireless Broadband Data. The Commission believes it should 
modify the Form 477 reporting instructions for wireless broadband 
providers in certain respects and seeks comment on how best to do so.
    12. First, the Commission believes that it should modify the 
reporting instructions for terrestrial mobile wireless providers to 
solicit data that will enable the Commission to distinguish among the 
numbers of subscribers to month-to-month or longer term broadband 
Internet access packages and casual users. In the current Form 477, 
information about numbers and types of broadband connections is 
collected in Part I.A, where filers are directed to ``[c]omplete Part 
I.A if you provide one or more lines or wireless channels in the state 
that connect end users to the Internet [at broadband speed].'' However, 
the detailed reporting instructions for terrestrial mobile wireless 
providers are to ``[r]eport the number of subscribers to broadband 
services provided over terrestrial mobile wireless facilities * * * .'' 
More specifically, the instructions are to ``report the number of end 
users whose mobile device, such as wireless modem laptop cards, 
smartphones, or handsets, are capable of sending or receiving data at 
speeds in excess of 200 kbps * * *.'' The Commission finds that it is 
currently unable to determine from the reported data the number of 
subscribers who make regular use of a broadband Internet access service 
as part of their mobile service package. Moreover, the Commission 
believes the current instructions make it likely that more and more 
mobile voice service subscribers will be reported as mobile broadband 
subscribers merely by virtue of purchasing a broadband-capable handset, 
rather than a specific Internet plan.
    13. The Commission has observed that many mobile data services are 
marketed primarily as an add-on to mobile voice service. These services 
include mobile data services that enable subscribers to send text and 
multimedia messages, download ringtones and games, and access other 
content on handsets, as well as mobile data services that enable 
subscribers to browse web sites customized for handsets. The Commission 
has discussed how mobile service subscribers who wish to browse web 
sites customized for handsets generally may choose a month-to-month 
plan that includes such browsing, and that some carriers also offer a 
casual usage plan. And the Commission has observed that, aside from 
handset-based applications, mobile wireless carriers offer month-to-
month Internet access packages for data users who access the Internet 
through laptop computers or certain Personal Digital Assistants 
(``PDAs''), including mobile wireless Internet access packages for 
wireless broadband networks.
    14. Based on these observations about various mobile wireless data 
services, the NPRM seeks comment on whether the Commission should 
revise the Form 477 instructions to require mobile wireless providers 
to report, separately, the number of month-to-month (or longer term) 
subscriptions to broadband Internet access service designed for 
wireless devices that have their own browsers (``full Internet 
browsing'' for purposes of this NPRM), such as laptop computers and 
PDAs. The NPRM also asks whether the Commission should require mobile 
wireless providers to report, separately, the number of month-to-month 
(or longer term) subscriptions for broadband-speed browsing of 
customized-for-mobile web sites (``mobile web browsing'' for purposes 
of this NPRM). Further, the NPRM seeks comment on whether the 
Commission should require mobile wireless providers to report, 
separately, the number of unique mobile voice service subscribers who 
are not month-to-month (or longer term) subscribers to an Internet 
access service, as discussed above, but who nevertheless made any news, 
music, video, or other entertainment downloads to the subscriber's 
handset at broadband speed during the month preceding the Form 477 
reporting date (i.e., during June, or during December). The NPRM seeks 
specific comment on whether the above-described delineations among 
types and levels of service are appropriate in light of market and 
technological factors. Commenters should explain how an alternative 
approach would ensure that mobile voice service subscribers will not be 
reported as mobile broadband subscribers merely by virtue of purchasing 
a broadband-capable handset, rather than a specific Internet plan.
    15. The NPRM also seeks comment about whether the Commission should 
modify any other parts of the Form 477 instructions for mobile wireless 
broadband providers. The current instructions direct these providers to 
include in their subscriber counts those end users ``whose billing 
addresses are within the areas of terrestrial mobile wireless broadband 
availability * * *.'' The idea behind this instruction is that end 
users should not be reported as broadband subscribers if they are not 
generally present in an area where mobile broadband service is 
available. While this may become less likely as wireless broadband 
networks are more extensively deployed, it appears that some voice 
service subscribers are reported as mobile broadband subscribers only 
because they have broadband-capable handsets and that this may include 
persons who do not reside (or work) where mobile broadband is 
available. However, the billing address for some business end users may 
not indicate where the broadband Internet access service is primarily 
used, i.e., if a single corporate address is the billing address for 
subscriptions used by employees working in various areas. Therefore, 
the NPRM invites comments on how this particular instruction might be 
improved, while keeping in mind that the Commission does not want to 
count, as broadband subscribers, mobile voice service subscribers who 
have purchased a broadband-capable handset but not an Internet plan.
    16. The NPRM also seeks comment about how the Commission could 
improve the Form 477 instructions for reporting the percentage of 
mobile wireless broadband subscribers who are residential end users. 
Experience with the current Form 477 suggests that mobile wireless 
broadband providers are not using comparable methodologies to estimate 
the residential percentage. In the latest aggregated Form 477 data, 
about 11 percent of mobile wireless broadband subscribers are reported 
as residential. This percentage may be low, since broadband-capable 
handsets are widely available and appear to be an increasingly popular 
consumer product. Therefore, the NPRM seeks comment on whether the 
Commission should modify the instructions for mobile wireless broadband 
providers to require that they report, as residential subscribers, all 
subscriptions that are not billed to a

[[Page 27522]]

corporate customer account, to a non-corporate business customer 
account, or to a government or institutional account. Would this 
modification result in more accurate estimates of residential end users 
than the Commission currently receives? Are there different 
modifications to the current reporting instructions that would yield 
even better estimates? Or, instead, should the Commission explicitly 
require providers to undertake special studies for this purpose?
    17. Regarding wireless broadband Internet access services more 
generally, the NPRM invites comment in three areas. First, it asks 
whether, and how, the Commission could modify our Form 477 instructions 
to collect useful information about households and businesses who 
subscribe to commercially deployed community Wi-Fi broadband Internet 
access service, for primary use at the subscriber's residence or 
business location. Second, it specifically invites comment on whether 
the Commission should add a terrestrial portable (or nomadic) wireless 
broadband technology category to the Form 477. Adding this technology 
category could provide the Commission with an improved ability to 
monitor the development of terrestrial wireless broadband services, 
including services over WiMax infrastructures, which need not be used 
on a fixed basis but cannot be used while traveling at high speeds with 
signal handoff. Third, it seeks comment on whether the Commission needs 
to clarify how the Form 477 instructions apply to satellite broadband 
capabilities provided by carriers to enterprise customers who operate 
their own corporate networks.
    18. Speed Tiers. The NPRM seeks comment on whether the Commission 
should refine the speed-tier information currently collected on Form 
477 by splitting into two tiers the speed tier defined by information 
transfer rates greater than 200 kbps and less than 2.5 mbps. 
Specifically, would be appropriate to define the lower of the resulting 
two tiers by information transfer rates greater than 200 kbps and less 
than 1.0 mbps?
    19. The NPRM asks whether the Commission should develop a higher or 
more varied measurement of broadband speed in the Form 477 program. Do 
the current speed-tier definitions enable the Commission to understand 
the evolving dynamics of the broadband marketplace as providers offer 
faster and faster connections? Would the Commission's understanding of 
the rapidly evolving broadband marketplace be enhanced if it raised the 
current minimum threshold for reporting the speed-tier information 
specified on Form 477 (i.e., greater than 200 kbps in both directions)? 
More generally, should the Commission's definition of broadband allow 
different upstream and downstream speeds? The NPRM also asks if the 
Commission should raise the current minimum threshold for reporting any 
connections on the Form 477 (i.e., greater than 200 kbps in at least 
one direction, which is generally ``downstream'' to the end user)? Do 
services with downstream connection speeds only slightly greater than 
200 kbps continue to be an important stepping stone for broadband 
adoption by households, including households in rural and other hard-
to-serve areas?
    20. The NPRM seeks comment on whether and how the Commission could 
establish a system whereby the Form 477 speed tiers would be 
automatically adjusted upwards over time to reflect technological 
advances. What information would the Commission need to design a 
meaningful system? Would the bandwidth requirements of particular 
services and applications provide useful guidance? The NPRM 
specifically invites comment on the extent to which there is general 
industry agreement on the bandwidth requirements of such regularly 
cited applications as distance learning, telemedicine, downloading of 
movies, latency-sensitive video services, and high definition TV. How 
should the Commission account for differences in the bandwidth 
requirements of particular applications across different delivery 
platforms (e.g., high definition TV requires about half of a 6 MHz 
channel on a cable system using 264 QAM modulation and MPEG-2 
compression encoding, but about half that bandwidth when MPEG-4 
encoding is used)?
    21. The NPRM asks whether broadband providers are placing their 
reported broadband connections into speed tiers in a consistent manner. 
It seeks comment on industry practices for matching advertised ``up 
to'' speeds with probable customer experience. The Commission also 
wishes to refresh the record on whether the Commission effectively 
could modify the Form 477 reporting instructions to require filers to 
categorize broadband connections by the download and upload speeds 
experienced by actual customers rather than the theoretical maximum 
that a given network can support or the particular service 
configuration allow. Are there existing, administratively workable 
industry standards or practices for measuring typical or actual speeds 
delivered to end users?
    22. Interconnected VoIP Subscribership Data. At present, only some 
LECs include interconnected VoIP subscribers in the local telephone 
service information they report on Form 477. Interconnected VoIP 
service providers who are not LECs are not required to file Form 477. 
Therefore, the NPRM invites comment on how the Commission could modify 
the Form 477 to collect useful information about the number of 
interconnected VoIP service subscribers in service in the least 
burdensome manner. It specifically invites comment on whether 
collecting the following state-level information, from all retail and 
wholesale providers of interconnected VoIP service, would yield 
sufficient information for us to track deployment and adoption of VoIP 
service across the nation. The NPRM proposes requiring all retailers of 
interconnected VoIP service to report: (1) The number of interconnected 
VoIP subscribers in service for whom the filer is the service retailer, 
(2) the percentage of retail interconnected VoIP subscribers who are 
residential, as opposed to business, end users, and (3) the percentage 
of retail interconnected VoIP subscribers who receive that service over 
a broadband connection provided by the filer (or by the filer's 
affiliate). The NPRM also proposes requiring wholesalers of 
interconnected service to report the number of interconnected VoIP 
service subscribers the filer serves on a wholesale basis.
    23. Proposals for Refining Commission Analysis of Broadband 
Deployment and Availability. The NPRM discusses several possible 
methods for increasing the Commission's understanding of broadband 
deployment and availability. Some approaches for increasing our 
understanding of broadband deployment place little or no additional 
burdens on data filers but may yield commensurately modest analytic 
benefits. Other approaches could yield a more detailed and dynamic 
understanding of broadband deployment, some of which could prove to be 
costly to data reporters or impractical. The NPRM seeks comment about 
whether, and how, data filers should be required to report information 
about the prices at which they offer broadband services. It seeks 
comment about the technical feasibility, costs and benefits of each of 
the approaches discussed below. In order to appropriately analyze the 
costs and benefits of each approach/proposal, the Commission seeks 
evidence that quantifies the costs of each alternative, including 
initial set up costs, recurring

[[Page 27523]]

direct costs and reasonably attributable indirect costs. Commenters 
should identify all costs with as much precision as they can and should 
identify and analyze the potential benefits that each approach yields. 
The Commission also invites commenters to suggest and to explain in 
detail alternative methods of data collection beyond those identified 
herein.
    24. The Commission concluded in 2004 that the benefits to the 
policymaking process that derive from requiring all filers--including 
smaller entities that serve sparse populations over wide geographical 
areas--to report the same data outweigh the reporting burdens on new 
Form 477 filers (i.e., entities required to file Form 477 once 
mandatory reporting thresholds were eliminated). The Commission 
recognized, however, the particular concerns about the reporting 
burdens of some smaller carriers, and consequently decided not to 
pursue at that time certain options similar to options about which this 
NPRM seeks comment. Therefore, this NPRM seeks comment on whether, if 
the Commission requires the submission of additional information, it 
should require all filers to report those data. The NPRM also invites 
comment on ways to mitigate the burden on smaller filers short of 
implementing reporting thresholds or other exemptions.
    25. Additional Analysis of Current Broadband Subscribership Data. 
The NPRM first asks whether the Commission could more closely analyze 
the broadband subscribership data it currently collects to identify 
more precisely the areas where broadband is not available, particularly 
to households. For example, currently available data suggest that about 
12 percent of 5-digit geographical Zip Codes have no providers of 
primarily residential, wired high-speed Internet access services 
delivered over ``last mile'' facilities the provider primarily owns. 
These Zip Codes contain about 2 percent of the U.S. population. Should 
the Commission simply identify such areas for further, individual 
study? For these identified areas, should it analyze the full range of 
competitive choices including deployed broadband infrastructure, 
service offerings in the marketplace, and service offering prices? How 
should the Commission conduct such studies? Do existing data sources 
available to the Commission, including the Form 477 data, allow it to 
study the needs of discrete communities of users, for example, Native 
Americans on tribal lands? Are there better and more fruitful ways to 
frame questions about Form 477 data in the context of particular 
technologies utilized by broadband providers, for example, providers 
using satellite technology?
    26. As the Commission considers the possible need for additional 
data, it remains vigilant for ways to use the data it has currently as 
effectively as possible. GAO worked with a state broadband alliance 
(ConnectKentucky) to use their data to troubleshoot Form 477 data 
regarding broadband availability in Kentucky. Based on its comparison 
analysis, GAO concluded that the Form 477 data ``may overstate the 
availability and competitive deployment of nonsatellite broadband.'' 
Should the Commission explore collaborations, such as the one between 
GAO and ConnectKentucky, to troubleshoot its own data or to prepare 
discrete state or region-specific reports? How feasible is this given 
related costs and company concerns about sharing confidential 
information with private/commercial third parties? Would information 
developed by collaboration with various third parties be consistent? 
Which states have public-private economic development or other 
initiatives that have developed comprehensive localized information 
about broadband availability? Where such information exists, can it be 
shared with the Commission? Where such information does not exist, are 
there plans to develop it? For example, might the ConnectKentucky 
approach be readily adaptable in other states? In sum, the NPRM invites 
comment regarding methods of analyzing currently available data that 
could provide better or more focused insights into the dynamics of 
broadband deployment and availability nationwide or in particular 
geographic regions, in connection with specific technologies, or with 
regards to the needs of discrete communities of users.
    27. The NPRM seeks comment on ways to better utilize Zip Code data 
currently submitted by Form 477 filers. Would requiring filers to 
submit customer counts along with Zip Code lists facilitate better 
analysis of broadband availability/deployment in specific Zip Codes? 
The Commission is skeptical that analysis of customer totals submitted 
at the 5-digit level of aggregation could significantly increase our 
understanding of the dynamics of broadband availability and deployment, 
i.e., because any methodology based on a 5-digit Zip Code aggregation 
will continue to yield results that do not accurately depict broadband 
availability in particular, localized areas within a Zip Code. 
Nevertheless, the NPRM seeks comment on whether such an approach could 
be fruitful. In particular, the Commission seeks detailed comment 
regarding the costs as well as the benefits of such an approach. It 
asks commenting providers to provide projected costs and related 
analysis at a level of detail sufficient to support their assertions, 
as well as other relevant information. For example, what steps would 
providers have to implement to furnish this information per available 
network/system technology and personnel and other resources? Do the 
characteristics of particular technologies make counting subscribers by 
Zip Code problematic and, if so, are there useful substitute approaches 
for those technologies? The NPRM asks commenters to estimate separately 
the cost for an initial collection, which would presumably entail 
certain start-up costs, and the cost of subsequent collections, which 
might be able to realize certain efficiencies.
    28. The NPRM invites comment on whether the Commission should 
require all broadband providers to report the number of residential 
customers served (in place of the current requirement to report the 
percentage of total broadband connections in service that are 
residential connections) and also the number of homes ``passed'' by 
their broadband-enabled infrastructure. Collecting both the number of 
residential customers served and the number of homes passed by each 
Form 477 filer's broadband-enabled infrastructure could enable the 
Commission to calculate and compare consumer broadband uptake figures 
(i.e., the ratio between adoption and availability). The NPRM seeks 
specific comment on how ``passing'' should be defined for this purpose, 
for each of the broadband technologies specified in the current Form 
477, to enable us meaningfully to compare consumer uptake figures.
    29. The NPRM asks generally whether there are other ways in which 
the Commission could make better use of the broadband data it currently 
collects on Form 477. For example, the semiannual report based on the 
Form 477 data includes tables showing how broadband Internet 
subscribership varies among 5-digit geographical Zip Codes based on 
population density and household incomes. The Commission is able to 
develop these tables because a commercial vendor has translated Census 
Bureau data (which is not collected by Zip Code) into Zip Code-level 
data for those particular variables (i.e., population density and 
income). The NPRM invites commenters to identify, with specificity, 
comparable commercial products that translate, to the Zip Code level, 
Census Bureau

[[Page 27524]]

information about household education, race (including tribal lands), 
or disability status, so that the Commission might include in its 
semiannual report tables showing how broadband Internet subscribership 
varies among Zip Codes based on these demographic variables.
    30. The NPRM also invites comment on whether the Commission's 
semiannual report should include figures about international broadband 
adoption, prices, or other measures that are developed by the 
Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD) or the 
International Telecommunications Union (ITU). It asks for comment about 
which such figures the Commission should include. Ideally, any such 
figures will be published regularly and will be based on comparable 
definitions, measurement standards, and reporting practices. The NPRM 
asks, in particular, if a regularly published, reliably comparable 
figure is available on the cost per bit in leading industrial nations 
(for both residential and business customers). More generally, how 
could the Commission conduct a regular analysis of broadband policies 
in other nations and how their regulatory policies have played out? The 
NPRM seeks specific comment on whether and how the Commission should 
present such an analysis, e.g., either in its semiannual report or the 
less frequent Section 706 report.
    31. Subscribers per 9-digit Zip Code. The NPRM seeks comment about 
whether the Commission should require Form 477 data filers to submit 9-
digit Zip Codes and associated customer counts. A 9-digit level of 
geographic aggregation coupled with such customer information could 
provide more granular information about deployment than 5-digit 
information. Nevertheless, associated costs could be greater. The NPRM 
asks, specifically, whether current Form 477 filers, including any of 
their affiliates, or their marketing partners or agents maintain 
information about the end-user termination locations (e.g., service 
addresses) of wired and fixed wireless broadband connections that 
includes the 9-digit Zip Codes of those locations--particularly 
information about residential end-user termination locations. If not, 
do Form 477 filers maintain billing address information at the 9-digit 
Zip Code level, and would such data be a sufficiently accurate proxy 
for service location? Do Form 477 filers typically maintain any other 
types of information that could be used to identify the 9-digit Zip 
Codes of end-user termination locations? The NPRM asks commenters to 
undertake the same kind of cost/benefit analysis regarding 9-digit Zip 
Code data as discussed in the previous paragraphs, i.e., by discussing 
costs associated with implementation and associated potential benefits. 
It also seeks comment about whether there is significant value 
associated with simply requiring data filers to report lists of 9-digit 
Zip Codes where they have at least one customer, but without requiring 
associated customer counts by Zip Code.
    32. Purchase of Commercial Databases or Services. The NPRM seeks 
specific comment regarding the availability of commercial sources of 
broadband deployment data or data-processing programs that could 
augment or otherwise add value to the Commission's use of Form 477 
data, or reduce the associated costs and other burdens imposed on 
reporting providers. What existing databases could the Commission 
combine productively with the current Form 477 data? Are such databases 
accurate, current, and national in scope? The NPRM asks, specifically, 
whether the online-search software, and associated databases, that many 
broadband providers have developed to allow households to check whether 
broadband service is available at their home telephone number, street 
address, or Zip Code can readily be adapted to provide localized 
broadband deployment information. Do data-processing or consulting 
companies exist whose operations or services could add value, or 
diminish associated collection burdens? For example, if (as discussed 
below) the Commission decides to require additional Zip Code 
information (9-digit codes) or subscriber information per Zip Code in 
connection with the current Form 477 program, would it be feasible and/
or desirable for a data-processing company, rather than the provider 
itself, to add 5-digit or 9-digit Zip Codes to subscriber lists, and to 
identify the number of subscribers per Zip Code? Would there be 
economies of scope and scale to a region- or nationwide contract that 
would make such private assistance affordable to providers? Would such 
an approach raise special concerns about confidentially-submitted 
company information or consumer privacy, and how could such concerns be 
addressed? As the Commission seeks to understand more clearly the cost 
to providers of gathering and reporting additional broadband data, 
should it also explore engaging commercial data processors to conduct 
sample surveys and report sample information? Commenters are encouraged 
to carefully consider such approaches to current data augmentation as 
well as ways to reduce associated burdens.
    33. Geocoded Information about Subscriber Locations. The NPRM also 
seeks comment about non-Zip Code based approaches to using subscriber-
based information to more precisely identify the geographic areas where 
broadband is deployed, such as requiring providers to report geocoded 
information (e.g., latitude and longitude) for the premises of their 
subscribers. Requiring subscriber counts by Zip Code could prove to be 
the least costly and most feasible change to our Form 477 data 
collection, i.e., to most efficiently produce additional information 
that would materially advance the Commission's understanding of 
broadband availability. Are there other, more exact and accurate means 
of attaining that goal? How would such a method of data collection 
operate? The NPRM encourages suggestions from commenters that envision 
a non-Zip Code based approach to data collection, particularly 
alternatives that would yield data that is at least as granular as 9-
digit Zip Code data augmented with customer counts by Zip Code.
    34. Develop Automated System of Voluntary Reporting by Non-served 
Households. The NPRM also seeks comment about the feasibility and value 
of implementing a voluntary self-reporting system by non-served 
households, patterned after the National Do-Not-Call Registry. Under 
this proposal, non-served households could identify themselves at a 
Commission-maintained electronic bulletin board (web page address) and/
or telephone number call-in address where they would provide the 
limited information, e.g., home address with (preferably 9-digit) Zip 
Code, and the wired or fixed wireless telephone number at that 
particular location, that is needed to identify the particular non-
served location. Would such a system be an effective and efficient way 
to identify localized areas where broadband services are not available? 
Would the reported information be accurate or, for example, might 
potential subscribers not be aware of all broadband options available 
to them? Would such a system in fact enable the Commission and other 
governmental entities to focus (limited) government resources to 
encourage broadband availability more efficiently, i.e., by targeting 
areas where there is evidence of actual demand for broadband services? 
The NPRM seeks comment on the costs and potential benefits of such a 
proposal.

[[Page 27525]]

    35. Broadband-enabled Service Territory Report by Provider. Each of 
the previously discussed approaches relies on broadband subscription as 
a proxy for broadband availability. The approaches assume that, in Zip 
Codes where none or very few of the residents subscribe to broadband 
services, such services are unavailable, and vice versa. As GAO has 
found, while broadband infrastructure deployment is extensive, 
information about where subscribers are served may not depict with a 
high degree of accuracy the local deployment of broadband, especially 
in rural areas. Alternatively, the Commission could require data filers 
to report information about their customers and the broadband-enabled 
service territory--i.e., the specific geographic area, which might 
include only parts of particular Zip Codes--where they offer and/or 
currently deploy broadband services, particularly residential services. 
By collecting and studying such data comparatively, the Commission 
could arrive at a far clearer understanding of the actual dynamics of 
broadband availability in discrete geographic areas and to different 
communities of users. The NPRM seeks comment about the need for and 
feasibility of requiring broadband providers to report information that 
delineates in detail the boundaries of their broadband-enabled service 
territories. What methodologies are available for developing such 
information? What requirements would the Commission need to specify to 
ensure that providers apply a methodology with enough uniformity to 
yield useful information? Terrestrial mobile wireless broadband service 
providers are currently required to report Zip Codes that best 
represent their coverage areas. Does this standard yield a sufficient 
level of detail about the deployment of those services? Are there 
alternate or additional reporting requirements that would provide more 
useful data on mobile wireless broadband deployment without imposing an 
undue burden on the providers? The NPRM asks commenters to undertake 
the same kind of cost/benefit analysis discussed earlier with respect 
to 5-digit and/or 9-digit Zip Code information, i.e., by discussing 
costs associated with implementation and associated potential benefits.
    36. While, at present, precise information about the boundaries of 
the localized areas where broadband is generally available might be 
difficult for certain broadband providers to gauge, results achieved by 
broadband mapping initiatives such as those in Kentucky and Wyoming 
suggest that the difficulties are not insurmountable. For example, 
municipal cable systems and the Kentucky Cable Telecommunications 
Association (KCTA) are working with ConnectKentucky to map in fine 
detail (e.g., street-by-street, and sometimes block-by-block) the 
boundaries of the areas where cable modem broadband is available. The 
Kentucky mapping initiative has identified localized areas of DSL 
broadband availability by obtaining, from at least some carriers, 
detailed location information (i.e., latitude and longitude) for the 
carrier's DSL-enabled wire centers and remote terminals, and assuming 
that DSL service is available within a 13,200-foot (2.5-mile) radius 
around the DSL-enabled equipment. The Kentucky initiative has also 
collected detailed facilities information (e.g., latitude and longitude 
of towers, type of antenna technology, whether coverage is omni-
directional or partial) from at least some commercial providers of 
wireless broadband service. Therefore, the Kentucky experience suggests 
that providers can delineate their areas of broadband deployment at 
much finer levels of detail than the Zip Code based data now collected 
on Form 477. The Commission is also aware that, in localized areas 
where broadband is generally available, site-specific factors may 
impede availability to individual households. What steps, if any, 
should the Commission take to enable providers to report broadband 
availability, not by subscriber proxy but by actual territory served 
(e.g., a data collection or mapping system)?
    37. The NPRM invites comment on whether this approach is feasible 
for tribal lands and how it could most effectively be implemented on 
tribal lands. As GAO found in its report Challenges to Assessing and 
Improving Telecommunications for Native Americans on Tribal Lands 
(January 2006), subscribership to Internet-access services (of any 
speed) by Native American households on tribal lands is unknown because 
no federal survey has been designed to track this information. As GAO 
also found, the Commission's Form 477 data cannot be used to determine 
the number of residential Internet subscribers on tribal lands. The 
NPRM seeks specific comment on how the Commission can best measure 
broadband deployment/availability and adoption on tribal lands.
    38. Other Alternatives. The NPRM asks whether there are other 
alternatives the Commission can explore to better identify the extent 
of broadband deployment in rural areas and tribal lands across the 
nation.
    39. Extrapolating Nationwide Competitive Conditions from Conditions 
in Representative Areas. The NPRM invites comment on whether, even if 
more granular data cannot reasonably be collected across the entire 
country, it would be appropriate and feasible for the Commission to 
develop more accurate estimates of the competitive choices in 
representative urban, metropolitan, exurban, low-income, tribal, and 
rural areas and then use weighted extrapolation techniques to get a 
picture of nationwide competitive conditions. It asks whether detailed 
infrastructure deployment maps for representative areas could be 
developed, based on the location of municipal cable-system facilities 
and local exchange carrier DSLAMs, which would give a house-by-house 
picture of where those broadband infrastructures are deployed.
    40. The NPRM seeks comment on whether the Commission should collect 
key demographic information (e.g., income, education, race (including 
tribal status), and disability status) about households located in 
those parts of the representative areas in which cable modem or DSL 
infrastructures have been deployed, to illustrate the relationship 
between these factors and broadband adoption. Which demographic 
variables should the Commission measure? Does conducting meaningful 
analysis require demographic information about individual households? 
If it does, could the cable system and/or DSL service provider in the 
representative area provide that information? Alternatively, could the 
Commission effectively use publicly available Census Bureau detailed 
demographic information (which would not identify individual 
households)? In general, are there public sources of detailed 
demographic information for representative areas? Commenters who are 
aware of such sources should identify them with specificity and explain 
why they are appropriate to use.
    41. The NPRM asks if the Commission should also collect income, 
education, and other demographic information about households located 
in the parts of the representative areas where broadband 
infrastructures have not been deployed, to illustrate the relationship 
between these factors and broadband deployment. Which demographic 
variables should the Commission measure? Could the cable system and DSL 
service provider (or the local exchange carrier, if DSL infrastructure 
has not been deployed) provide that information? Would it be more cost 
effective or appropriate to use

[[Page 27526]]

demographic information that is publicly available from the Census 
Bureau (which does not identify individual households)? Are there 
publicly available commercial sources of geographically detailed 
demographic data that the Commission could use? The NPRM asks 
commenters to identify such sources with specificity and to explain why 
they are appropriate to use.
    42. The NPRM asks whether collecting detailed information about 
deployment of two broadband technologies (i.e., cable modem and DSL) 
would be sufficient to inform broadband policy making. Are there any 
other broadband technologies for which it is feasible to develop a 
house-by-house picture of infrastructure deployment and key household 
demographic variables (e.g., income, education, race (including tribal 
status), and disability status) in representative areas?
    43. The NPRM invites specific comment on how the Commission should 
identify particular areas as representative areas, to ensure that 
weighted extrapolation techniques will provide a statistically accurate 
picture of nationwide competitive conditions. Is there at this time a 
known set of such representative areas? If not, what is the Census 
Bureau or other source of data that can be used to select specific 
areas to represent urban, metropolitan, exurban, low-income, tribal, 
and rural areas, respectively? The NPRM asks commenters to identify 
that data source, or sources, with specificity and to explain why the 
source is appropriate to use. Should the extent of broadband deployment 
in an area be taken into account in selecting the representative areas? 
If so, how should it be taken into account? As noted above, there is a 
detailed broadband deployment mapping initiative underway in Kentucky. 
While there are no tribal lands in Kentucky, would it be appropriate 
for the Commission to select Kentucky areas to represent each of the 
other types of areas (i.e., urban, metropolitan, exurban, low-income, 
and rural)?
    44. The NPRM asks for comment about how to select a representative 
area for tribal lands, in particular. As GAO has found, tribal lands 
vary dramatically in size, demographics, and location. GAO conducted 
interviews with 26 tribes and 12 Alaska regional native nonprofit 
organizations and visited 6 of the tribes that have taken action to 
improve their telecommunications. The NPRM seeks comment on whether, 
and why, a particular one of the six tribes would be an appropriate 
choice for the representative tribal lands area.
    45. Price, Broadband Availability, and Consumer Uptake. The NPRM 
seeks comment on whether and how the Commission could collect price 
information that depicts competitive choice in representative areas. 
Would it be sufficient to collect price information only for cable 
modem and DSL service options? If so, should the Commission collect 
price information for the full range of cable modem and DSL service 
options in the representative areas? How should it treat the prices of 
introductory offers and bundled services? Should it calculate separate 
representative prices for residential and non-residential service 
offerings? How should it treat service offerings that appear both in 
advertisements for residential services and in advertisements for 
business services?
    46. The NPRM also asks whether the Commission should modify Form 
477 to collect price information from all entities that report 
broadband connections. What price information should it collect? Should 
it collect the price information at the Zip Code, state, regional, or 
national level? What would be an appropriate way to define a region for 
this purpose? Should the Commission require filers to estimate and 
report the cost of residential broadband services measured as price per 
bit?
    47. The NPRM seeks specific comment on whether and how the 
Commission could provide a deeper understanding of the market for 
broadband services by collecting price information and comparing it to 
consumer uptake of broadband (i.e., the ratio between adoption and 
deployment). Commenters should address how non-price variables found to 
be correlated with consumer broadband uptake (e.g., income, education, 
race (including tribal lands), and disability status) should be 
incorporated into the comparison.

Procedural Matters

    Ex Parte Rules. This matter shall be treated as a ``permit-but-
disclose'' proceeding in accordance with the Commission's ex parte 
rules. 47 CFR 1.1200 et seq. Persons making oral ex parte presentations 
are reminded that memoranda summarizing the presentations must contain 
summaries of the substance of the presentations and not merely a 
listing of the subjects discussed. More than a one- or two-sentence 
description of the views and arguments presented generally is required. 
47 CFR 1.1206(b)(2). Other requirements pertaining to oral and written 
presentations are set forth in Section 1.1206(b) of the Commission's 
rules. 47 CFR 1.1206(b).

Initial Regulatory Flexibility Analysis

    1. As required by the Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980, as 
amended (RFA), the Commission has prepared the present Initial 
Regulatory Flexibility Analysis (IRFA) of the possible significant 
economic impact on small entities that might result from today's 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 above. The Commission will send a 
copy of the NPRM, including this IRFA, to the Chief Counsel for 
Advocacy of the Small Business Administration. In addition, the NPRM 
and IRFA (or summaries thereof) will be published in the Federal 
Register.

A. Need for, and Objectives of, the Proposed Rules

    2. In the NPRM, the Commission seeks comment on various proposals 
that would deepen and refine its current understanding of broadband 
availability and deployment and its understanding of end user adoption 
of relatively new broadband-enabled services such as interconnected 
VoIP service. The Commission believes that a better understanding would 
assist it to adopt policies to promote the deployment of broadband 
services. At the same time, it recognizes that certain methods of 
collecting more precise data might impose burdens on small entities, 
and invites comment on ways to mitigate burdens on smaller entities. In 
this regard, the NPRM proposes many methods for collecting further data 
and analyzing current data that would impose little or no burden on 
small entities whatsoever.

B. Legal Basis

    3. The legal basis for any action that may be taken pursuant to the 
NPRM is contained in Sections 1-5, 10, 11, 201-205, 215, 218-220, 251-
271, 303(r), 332, 403, 502, and 503 of the Communications Act of 1934, 
as amended, 47 U.S.C. 151-155, 160, 161, 201-205, 215, 218-220, 251-
271, 303(r), 332, 403, 502, and 503, and Section 706 of the 
Telecommunications Act of 1996, 47 U.S.C. 157 nt.

C. Description and Estimate of the Number of Small Entities to Which 
the Proposed Rules May Apply

    4. 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

[[Page 27527]]

the proposed rules. The RFA generally defines the term ``small entity'' 
as having the same meaning as the terms ``small business,'' ``small 
organization,'' and ``small governmental jurisdiction.'' In addition, 
the term ``small business'' has the same meaning as the term ``small 
business concern'' under the Small Business Act. A ``small business 
concern'' is one which: (1) Is independently owned and operated; (2) is 
not dominant in its field of operation; and (3) satisfies any 
additional criteria established by the Small Business Administration 
(SBA). As discussed in sections D and E below, many of the proposals 
contained in the NPRM would not impose any burden whatsoever on small 
entities. However, to the extent that other proposals contained in the 
NPRM might impact small entities, those possible entities are listed 
below. The Commission has perhaps been overbroad in the list of 
entities directly affected, below, in an effort to encourage comment.
    5. As noted above, in addition to covering small businesses, the 
RFA covers small organizations. A ``small organization'' is generally 
``any not-for-profit enterprise which is independently owned and 
operated and is not dominant in its field.'' Nationwide, as of 2002, 
there were approximately 1.6 million small organizations. The term 
``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.'' 
Census Bureau data for 2002 indicate that there were 87,525 local 
governmental jurisdictions in the United States. We estimate that, of 
this total, 84,377 entities were ``small governmental jurisdictions.'' 
Thus, we estimate that most governmental jurisdictions are small.
    6. The most reliable source of information regarding the total 
numbers of certain common carrier and related providers nationwide, as 
well as the number of commercial wireless entities, is the data that 
the Commission publishes in its Trends in Telephone Service report. The 
SBA has developed small business size standards for wireline and 
wireless small businesses within the three commercial census categories 
of Wired Telecommunications Carriers, Paging, and Cellular and Other 
Wireless Telecommunications. Under these categories, a business is 
small if it has 1,500 or fewer employees. Below, using the above size 
standards and others, we discuss the total estimated numbers of small 
businesses that might be affected by our actions.
    7. We have included small incumbent local exchange carriers (LECs) 
in this present RFA analysis. As noted above, a ``small business'' 
under the RFA is one that, inter alia, meets the pertinent small 
business size standard (e.g., a telephone communications business 
having 1,500 or fewer employees), and ``is not dominant in its field of 
operation.'' The SBA's Office of Advocacy contends that, for RFA 
purposes, small incumbent LECs are not dominant in their field of 
operation because any such dominance is not ``national'' in scope. We 
have therefore included small incumbent LECs in this RFA analysis, 
although we emphasize that this RFA action has no effect on Commission 
analyses and determinations in other, non-RFA contexts.
    8. Wireline Carriers and Service Providers. We have included small 
incumbent local exchange carriers in this present RFA analysis. As 
noted above, a ``small business'' under the RFA is one that, inter 
alia, meets the pertinent small business size standard (e.g., a 
telephone communications business having 1,500 or fewer employees), and 
``is not dominant in its field of operation.'' The SBA's Office of 
Advocacy contends that, for RFA purposes, small incumbent local 
exchange carriers are not dominant in their field of operation because 
any such dominance is not ``national'' in scope. We have therefore 
included small incumbent local exchange carriers in this RFA analysis, 
although we emphasize that this RFA action has no effect on Commission 
analyses and determinations in other, non-RFA contexts.
    9. Incumbent Local Exchange Carriers (ILECs). Neither the 
Commission nor the SBA has developed a size standard for small 
businesses specifically applicable to incumbent local exchange 
services. The closest applicable size standard under SBA rules is for 
Wired Telecommunications Carriers. Under that size standard, such a 
business is small if it has 1,500 or fewer employees. According to 
Commission data, 1,307 carriers reported that they were engaged in the 
provision of local exchange services. Of these 1,307 carriers, an 
estimated 1,019 have 1,500 or fewer employees and 288 have more than 
1,500 employees. Consequently, the Commission estimates that most 
providers of incumbent local exchange service are small businesses that 
may be affected by our action.
    10. Competitive Local Exchange Carriers (CLECs), Competitive Access 
Providers (CAPs), ``Shared-Tenant Service Providers,'' and ``Other 
Local Service Providers.'' Neither the Commission nor the SBA has 
developed a small business size standard specifically for these service 
providers. The appropriate size standard under SBA rules is for the 
category Wired Telecommunications Carriers. Under that size standard,