Local Number Portability Porting Interval and Validation Requirements; Telephone Number Portability, 35305-35315 [2010-15073]

Agencies

• FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION

[Federal Register Volume 75, Number 119 (Tuesday, June 22, 2010)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 35305-35315]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2010-15073]


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

FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION

47 CFR Part 52

[WC Docket No. 07-244; FCC 10-85]


Local Number Portability Porting Interval and Validation 
Requirements; Telephone Number Portability

AGENCY: Federal Communications Commission.

ACTION: Final rule.

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

SUMMARY: The Commission adopted standardized data fields for simple 
number porting to streamline the port process and enable service 
providers to accomplish simple wireline-to-wireline and intermodal 
ports within one business day. The Commission also adopted 
recommendations made by the North American Numbering Council addressing 
the simple port process.

DATES: Effective July 22, 2010, except for 47 CFR 52.36, which contains 
information collections requirements that are not effective until 
approved by the Office of Management and Budget. The FCC will publish a 
document in the Federal Register announcing the effective date for that 
section.

ADDRESSES: Federal Communications Commission, 445 12th Street, SW., 
Washington, DC, 20554. In addition to filing comments with the Office 
of the Secretary, a copy of any comments on the Paperwork Reduction Act 
information collections requirements contained herein should be 
submitted to Judith B. Herman, Federal Communications Commission, Room 
1-B441, 445 12th Street, SW., Washington, DC 20554, or via the Internet 
to PRA@fcc.gov.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Marilyn Jones, Wireline Competition 
Bureau, (202) 418-2357. For additional information concerning the 
Paperwork Reduction Act information collection requirements contained 
in this document, send an e-mail to PRA@fcc.gov or contact Judith B. 
Herman at 202-418-0214.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: On May 13, 2009, the Commission ordered 
telephone service providers to reduce the time they take to transfer, 
or port, a customer's telephone number to another provider from four 
business days to one, and set in motion a process to make that 
possible. 74 FR 31630 (July 2, 2009). This Report and Order (Order) 
completes the task of facilitating prompt transfers by standardizing 
the data to be exchanged when transferring a customer's telephone 
number between two wireline providers; a wireline and wireless 
provider; or an interconnected Voice over Internet Protocol (VoIP) 
provider and any other service provider. The Order also adopts 
recommendations made to the Commission by the North American Numbering 
Council (NANC). The deadline for implementing one-business day porting 
is August 2, 2010 for all but small providers, which must comply by 
February 2, 2011.

Synopsis of Report and Order

    1. Section 251(b)(2) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended 
(the Act), requires local exchange carriers (LECs) to ``provide, to the 
extent technically feasible, number portability in accordance with 
requirements prescribed by the Commission.'' The Act and the 
Commission's rules define number portability as ``the ability of users 
of telecommunications services to retain, at the same location, 
existing telecommunications numbers without impairment of quality, 
reliability, or convenience when switching from one telecommunications 
carrier to another.'' The Commission has interpreted this language to 
mean that consumers should be able to change providers while keeping 
their telephone number as easily as they may change providers without 
taking their telephone number with them.
    2. Section 251(e) of the Act gives the Commission plenary 
jurisdiction over the North American Numbering Plan (NANP) and related 
telephone numbering issues in the United States. To implement these 
congressional mandates in Sections 251(b)(2) and 251(e), the Commission 
required all carriers, including wireline carriers and covered 
commercial mobile radio service (CMRS) providers, to provide LNP 
according to a phased deployment schedule. The Commission found that 
LNP provided end users options when choosing among telecommunications 
service providers without having to change their telephone numbers, and 
established obligations for porting between wireline providers, porting 
between wireless providers, and intermodal porting (i.e., the porting 
of numbers from wireline providers to wireless providers, and vice 
versa). The Commission also directed the NANC, its advisory committee 
on numbering issues, to make recommendations regarding various LNP 
implementation issues.
    3. On May 13, 2009, the Commission adopted a Report and Order 
reducing the porting interval for simple wireline and simple intermodal 
port requests. Specifically, the Commission required all entities 
subject to its LNP rules to complete simple wireline-to-wireline and 
simple intermodal port requests within one business day. In adopting 
this new porting interval for simple wireline-to-wireline and simple 
intermodal ports, the Commission left it to the industry to work 
through the mechanics of the new interval, and directed the NANC to 
develop new LNP provisioning process flows that take into account this 
shortened porting interval. The Commission also directed the NANC, in 
developing these flows, to address how within one ``business day'' 
should be construed for purposes of the porting interval, and generally 
how the porting time should be measured. The Commission requested that 
the NANC submit its recommendations no later than 90 days after the 
effective date of the Porting Interval Order. Accordingly, the NANC 
submitted its recommendations to the Commission on November 2, 2009.
    4. In a Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (FNPRM), 74 FR 31667 
(July 2, 2009), accompanying the Porting Interval Order, the Commission 
sought comment on whether there were additional ways to streamline the 
number porting processes or improve efficiencies for simple and non-
simple

[[Page 35306]]

ports. Among other things, the Commission sought comment on whether 
different or additional information fields are necessary for completing 
simple ports. On November 2, 2009, the NANC's Local Number Portability 
Administration (LNPA) Working Group submitted a non-consensus 
recommendation (hereinafter ``Working Group Proposal'') for Standard 
Local Service Request Data Fields, to accompany the NANC's Recommended 
Plan for Implementation of FCC Order 09-41. The Working Group proposes 
a set of 14 standard fields that should be required to accomplish 
simple ports within the one-business day porting interval the 
Commission mandated for simple wireline-to-wireline and intermodal 
ports. On November 19, 2009, the National Cable & Telecommunication 
Association (NCTA), Cox Communications, and Comcast Corporation 
submitted an alternative proposal (hereinafter ``Cable Proposal'') of 
eight standard fields that should be required to accomplish simple 
ports within the one-business day porting interval. On December 8, 
2009, the Wireline Competition Bureau issued a public notice seeking 
comment on these two proposals and, specifically, what fields are 
necessary in order to complete simple ports--wireline-to-wireline and 
intermodal--within the one-business day interval.

Standardized Data Fields for Simple Port Ordering Process

    5. The Working Group proposes the following 14 required fields for 
simple ports:
     Customer Carrier Name Abbreviation--This three-letter code 
identifies the company that submitted the Local Service Request (LSR) 
and the company to whom response messages must be returned.
     Purchase Order Number --This field identifies the 
customer's unique purchase order or requisition number that authorizes 
issuance of the request or supplement. This field is required for 
carriers to track the ongoing progress of the port request and, 
according to the Working Group, enables a carrier to provide order 
status to the end user or to make changes to the original request.
     Account Number--This field identifies the account number 
assigned by the current service provider.
     Desired Due Date--This field identifies the customer's 
desired due date for the port and, according to the Working Group, is 
required to differentiate between simple and non-simple ports.
     Requisition Type and Status--This field specifies the type 
of order to be processed.
     Activity--This field identifies the activity involved in 
the service request.
     Company Code--This field identifies the exchange carrier 
initiating the transaction.
     New Network Service Provider--This field identifies the 
Number Portability Administration Center (NPAC) Service Provider 
Identifier (SPI) of the new network service provider.
     Agency Authority Status--This field indicates that the 
customer is acting as an end user's agent and has an authorization on 
file.
     Number Portability Direction Indicator--This field is used 
to let the new service provider direct the correct administration of E-
911 records.
     Telephone Number (Initiator)--This field provides the 
telephone number for the initiator of the port request.
     Zip Code--This field identifies the zip code of the end 
user's service address and is used to validate that the correct end 
user's telephone number has been sent on the port request.
     Ported Telephone Number--This field identifies the 
telephone number or consecutive range of telephone numbers residing in 
the same switch to be ported.
     Version--This field identifies the submitting service 
provider's order version number and enables service providers to track 
orders internally and make changes or modifications to the original 
port request. In combination with the Purchase Order Number field, this 
field is used by service providers to track the ongoing progress of the 
port request and to ensure the correct version of the order is being 
processed.
    6. The Cable Proposal includes the following eight fields: Purchase 
Order Number; Account Number; Desired Due Date; Company Code; New 
Network Service Provider; Zip Code; Ported Telephone Number; and 
Version. Therefore, the Cable Proposal includes eight of the same 
fields recommended by the Working Group, and excludes six of the 14 
fields proposed by the Working Group: Customer Carrier Name 
Abbreviation; Requisition Type and Status; Activity; Agency Authority 
Status; Number Portability Direction Indicator; and Telephone Number 
(Initiator).
    7. The Commission's purpose in mandating a one-business day porting 
interval was to ``ensure that consumers are able to port their 
telephone numbers efficiently and to enhance competition for all 
communications services.'' That remains our goal. However, the industry 
has expressed concern that meeting the Commission's one-business day 
porting interval for simple ports will be difficult without 
standardization of information fields for the simple port ordering 
process. We agree with the industry that there is a need for uniformity 
and standardization in the exchange of information fields. Too many 
information fields increase the opportunity for errors in the simple 
port ordering process, as do too few fields. Errors lead to delays, 
which harm consumers and thwart competition, as consumers may attribute 
delays to their new service providers.
    8. Timely implementation of the one-business day simple porting 
interval is crucial so that both consumers and service providers may 
begin to realize the benefits of the shortened porting interval. For 
the reasons below, at this time we conclude that 14 information fields 
are necessary to accomplish a simple port, and mandate that service 
providers use the 14 fields we describe in this Order--and only those 
14 fields--to accomplish a simple port. These 14 fields are: (1) Ported 
Telephone Number; (2) Account Number; (3) Zip Code; (4) Company Code; 
(5) New Network Service Provider; (6) Desired Due Date; (7) Purchase 
Order Number; (8) Version; (9) Number Portability Direction Indicator; 
(10) Customer Carrier Name Abbreviation; (11) Requisition Type and 
Status; (12) Activity; (13) Telephone Number (Initiator); and (14) 
Agency Authority Status. We note, however, that we permit the passcode 
field to be an additional required field only if the passcode is 
requested and assigned by an end user. In most cases, passcode would be 
an optional field. The Commission recognizes that some carriers can 
accomplish simple ports using fewer than 14 fields, while other 
carriers have built systems that require more than 14 fields. However, 
we believe, and the industry agrees, that standardization and 
uniformity are of greater importance than the precise number and 
substance of the fields. Further, we believe that the fields we have 
chosen strike the right balance between minimizing the number of simple 
ports that fall out of the porting process--or are not completed due to 
errors--and the burden on the industry, ensuring that consumers are 
able to reap the most benefit from the shortened one-business day 
porting interval.
    9. We have chosen as our 14 fields those recommended in the LNP 
Working Group Proposal. As discussed in more detail below, we find that 
the additional fields recommended by the LNP Working Group are 
necessary to help avoid port fallout, misdirected ports, delays, 
rejections, and loss of

[[Page 35307]]

automation, as well as to guard against inadvertent ports. As we have 
stated before, ``the porting-out provider may not require more 
information from the porting-in provider than is actually reasonable to 
validate the port request and accomplish the port.'' As we discuss 
further below, we find that it is reasonable to require all providers 
to use these 14 standardized fields to accomplish simple ports within 
one business day, and that doing so will minimize errors and port 
request fallout, streamline the simple port process, and maximize the 
benefits to consumers. We also select these 14 fields to ensure that 
the industry achieves timely implementation of the one-business day 
interval. We note that the LNP Working Group represented a diverse 
group of providers, including large and mid-sized incumbent LECs, 
wireless carriers, cable providers, competitive LECs, and VoIP 
providers.
    10. Consensus On Nine Fields. There is general agreement in the 
record and within the industry that at least nine of the proposed 
fields are necessary to accomplish a simple port within one business 
day: (1) Ported Telephone Number; (2) Account Number; (3) Zip Code; (4) 
Company Code; (5) New Network Service Provider; (6) Desired Due Date; 
(7) Purchase Order Number; (8) Version; and (9) Number Portability 
Direction Indicator. The first eight of these fields are common to both 
the Working Group Proposal and the Cable Proposal. Comcast and Cox, 
proponents of the Cable Proposal, initially objected to the ninth 
field, the Number Portability Direction Indicator field, but withdrew 
their objection to inclusion of this field. We agree with Comcast and 
Cox and recognize the ``critical importance of ensuring that all E-911 
information is transmitted in the most convenient and efficient manner 
in every instance, even if the field is only necessary for a small 
percentage of ports.'' We therefore conclude that, because the Number 
Portability Direction Indicator field may play an important public 
safety role, it should be included among the mandatory standardized 
fields for the simple port ordering process.
    11. Customer Carrier Name Abbreviation. Based on the record before 
us, we also include the Customer Carrier Name Abbreviation field among 
the standardized fields required to accomplish a simple port. We 
conclude that this field should be a standard field for accomplishing 
simple ports because its loss for certain segments of the industry 
could lead to widespread porting delays, frustrating the Commission's 
aim to shorten the porting interval for consumers. As a result of 
mergers and acquisitions in the communications industry, we understand 
that a service provider may have multiple Customer Carrier Name 
Abbreviations, and note that these codes may be used for more granular 
identification of the carrier requesting service, the product being 
ordered, and the state in which it is ordered, among other things. 
Commenters argue that loss of this field would cause LSRs to be 
misdirected and stop all automatic flow-through order processing for 
those companies that presently rely on this field, causing number 
porting delays. As some commenters note, and AT&T acknowledges, the 
Customer Carrier Name Abbreviation field represents the third time in 
14 fields that carrier identification information is provided. We 
appreciate this concern. However, we must balance that against the 
possibility of misdirected LSRs and porting delays for those companies 
that presently rely on this field to identify carriers involved in 
ports. Such a result would ultimately harm consumers and frustrate the 
Commission's efforts to shorten the interval for simple ports. 
Therefore, we include the Customer Carrier Name Abbreviation field 
among the required standard data fields for the simple port ordering 
process.
    12. Requisition Type and Status and Activity. Many service 
providers use the LSR to request a number of different types of 
services. Together, the Requisition Type and Status and Activity fields 
identify the type of service order to be processed. Based on the record 
before us, we agree that without the Requisition Type and Status and 
Activity fields, service providers that offer multiple products would 
be unable to determine whether an order received using an LSR form is 
for a simple port request or for another product. We are concerned 
about the potential for a high fallout rate for port requests if large 
numbers of service providers are unable to identify when they receive a 
port request. In addition, we believe that failure to include these 
fields may lead to delays in porting for consumers because, as one 
commenter stated, ``without this field, the existing use of LSR process 
automation could not be utilized and all simple ports would have to be 
processed manually, making compliance with the Commission's one day 
porting rule all but impossible.'' Therefore, because of the potential 
for port fallout and delay, we include the Requisition Type and Status 
and Activity fields among those required to accomplish a simple port.
    13. Telephone Number (Initiator). We also include the Telephone 
Number (Initiator) field in our list of required standardized fields 
for accomplishing simple port requests. As mentioned above, this field 
provides contact information for the new service provider initiating 
the port. Though not strictly required for accomplishing a port, the 
Commission believes on balance that the overall benefits to the 
consumer of including this field outweigh the arguments for excluding 
it from our list of standard fields. We agree with commenters that this 
field can help facilitate prompt resolution of issues, without which 
compliance with the one-business day porting interval could be 
jeopardized. Thus, because inclusion of this field may reduce the 
number of ports rejected and thus delayed for consumers, we include it 
among the 14 standard fields that service providers must exchange to 
accomplish a simple port. It is our expectation that current service 
providers will use this information to contact new service providers to 
resolve issues that arise with a port request rather than simply reject 
the request, and will make every effort to ensure that simple ports are 
completed within one business day.
    14. Agency Authority Status. Finally, we include the Agency 
Authority Status field among the standard fields for the simple port 
ordering process. We conclude that this field serves consumers by 
guarding against inadvertent ports in that it requires the new service 
provider to acknowledge that it is acting as the customer's agent and 
has an authorization on file. Moreover, the Agency Authority Status 
field is essentially a check box indicating the new service provider 
has authorization and amounts to one keystroke. Therefore, because this 
field may add benefits for consumers in the form of fewer inadvertent 
ports, and because the burden on the industry is minimal, we include 
the Agency Authority Status field as a mandatory standard field for the 
simple port ordering process.
    15. We agree with the NANC's recommendation that we consider the 
passcode field an optional field. The NANC recommends that a passcode 
not be required unless the passcode has been requested and assigned by 
the end user, rather than the service provider. CenturyLink, Iowa 
Telecommunications, and Windstream argue that this recommendation 
undercuts the protections and convenience offered by carriers that 
automatically generate passcodes for customers, but provide notice of 
and ready ability to obtain or change their passcodes at any time. We 
disagree with CenturyLink, Iowa

[[Page 35308]]

Telecommunications, and Windstream. Because customers may be unaware of 
carrier-initiated passcodes at the time they choose to port their 
number, we believe that making the passcode field mandatory for 
carrier-initiated passcodes would delay the porting process by 
requiring customers to contact their current service providers for this 
information. We are concerned that this additional step for the 
customer would also add a layer of frustration and complexity to the 
number porting process, with anticompetitive effects. For these 
reasons, we adopt the NANC's recommendation that we consider the 
passcode field optional unless it has been requested and assigned by 
the end user.
    16. We emphasize that we do not at this time adopt any particular 
form or format for the exchange of these 14 standard information fields 
for simple ports. Whether it is appropriate to standardize LSR forms 
and, if so, how that should be accomplished remains an open issue 
pending before the Commission. We also note that we do not adopt the 
full Working Group Proposal, but rather only find that the information 
fields we specify in this Order are mandatory standard fields for the 
simple port ordering process. This means, for example, that we do not 
adopt the Working Group's recommendation that ``Directory listings must 
be retained or deleted for orders involving directory listings in order 
to be considered for simple port processing. Orders involving change(s) 
to directory listing(s) will not be considered for simple port 
processing. The Directory Listing (DL) form is not permitted for a 
simple port.'' Whether the definition of what constitutes a simple port 
should be modified is currently pending before the Commission.

Adoption of Provisioning Process Flows

    17. We adopt the NANC's recommended provisioning flows in support 
of the porting process and require the industry to adhere to them. 
Specifically, the NANC recommends provisioning flows that consist of 
diagrams and accompanying narratives setting forth the processes to be 
used by service providers and database administrators in specific 
scenarios, including a new flow for determining the type of port at the 
beginning of the porting process. We conclude that the provisioning 
process flows recommended by the NANC are essential to the deployment 
of the one-business day porting interval for simple ports. As with 
previous flows, we find that the provisioning process flows recommended 
by the NANC will ensure that communications between service providers 
and database administrators proceed in a clear and orderly fashion so 
that porting requests can be handled in an efficient and timely manner.
    18. The NANC-recommended flows also address the time interval for 
the current service provider to return a Customer Service Record (CSR) 
to the new service provider, if requested. Specifically, the NANC 
recommends that the CSR be returned within 24 clock hours, unless 
otherwise negotiated, excluding weekends and current service provider 
holidays. The record reflects that the time interval for return of a 
CSR is often longer than the Commission's one-business day interval, 
which can make the overall time to port seem longer for a consumer. 
Thus, the Commission's efforts to streamline and make the porting 
process more efficient by reducing the porting interval may be 
frustrated by the CSR process, which is often a prelude to porting. We 
therefore adopt the NANC's recommendation, and find that it is 
consistent with the Commission's efforts to improve the effectiveness 
and efficiency of the porting process.
    19. In addition, the NANC's November 2 submission identifies 
``key'' recommendations contained in certain sections of the revised 
provisioning flows. Some commenters argue that portions of the ``key'' 
recommendations for the ``Port Type Determination'' process flow should 
be revised to address concerns regarding disclosure of sensitive 
customer information through CSRs released to a requesting carrier 
without validating that the carrier has permission from the customer. 
While we understand these commenters' concern regarding unauthorized 
disclosure of sensitive customer information, we disagree that the NANC 
recommendation needs to be revised. As the Commission has stated 
repeatedly, protection of customer information is of the utmost 
importance. Service providers have an obligation to protect sensitive 
customer and carrier information; our adoption of this recommendation 
does not alter the application or enforcement of the Commission's 
customer privacy rules. We remind carriers that they are obligated not 
only to protect their customers' sensitive information, but also to 
protect carriers' proprietary information. We also take this 
opportunity to remind carriers that in the number porting context, 
service providers may only request and provide CSRs for the purpose of 
transferring a number and not for the sole purpose of gaining customer 
or carrier information.
    20. The NANC recommendation does not address, nor do we address in 
this Order, what information the current service provider can require 
from a new service provider to verify the existence of a port request 
before it will disclose a CSR, although we note that carrier-assigned 
passcodes may not be required in order to obtain a CSR. However, as we 
have stated in the porting interval context, and find equally 
applicable here, ``limiting carriers to requiring a minimum but 
reasonable amount of information * * * will ensure that customers can 
port their numbers without impairment of the convenience of switching 
providers due to delays in the process that can result when additional 
information is required.'' If this issue becomes a concern after the 
one-business day porting interval is fully implemented, the Commission 
will review the NANC's ``key'' recommendations for the Port Type 
Determination process flow in a further action in the pending FNPRM. 
The Commission has a significant interest in making porting easy for 
consumers to enable them to react to competing providers' service 
offerings, while at the same time safeguarding the privacy of customer 
and carrier information and ensuring that consumers are protected from 
unauthorized ports.
    21. We recognize that ongoing changes to process flows will likely 
be warranted to meet the changing demands of the industry. Given the 
fundamental purpose of the NANC to advise the Commission on numbering 
issues and its experience with provisioning process flows, we conclude 
that the NANC is best situated to monitor the continued effectiveness 
of the provisioning process flows, and make recommendations when 
changes are needed. Thus, we clarify that these porting flows will 
remain in effect until the Commission approves, upon recommendation by 
the NANC, revised provisioning flows for the porting process. We hereby 
delegate authority to the Chief of the Wireline Competition Bureau to 
approve NANC recommendations for revised provisioning process flows, 
and direct the NANC to make any approved, revised porting provisioning 
flows available online to the public at www.nanc-chair.org. Revised 
provisioning flows that are approved by the Bureau and made available 
to the public through the NANC's Web site are binding on the industry.
    22. In the First Number Portability Order, the Commission directed 
the NANC to determine, among other

[[Page 35309]]

things, the technical and operational standards for local number 
portability. In response, on April 25, 1997, the NANC recommended a set 
of provisioning process flows to carry out operations needed to 
implement local number portability. On August 18, 1997, the Commission 
adopted and incorporated into its rules the NANC's recommendation for 
the provisioning process flows. The provisioning flows submitted by the 
NANC that we adopt in this Order supersede and replace those that the 
Commission incorporated by reference into Section 52.26(a) of its rules 
in 1997. As a result, we revise our rules accordingly to exclude the 
outdated provisioning flows.
    23. The Commission also adopted in 1997 the NANC's recommendation 
of a four-business day porting interval for wireline ports, which 
covered both simple and non-simple ports. As discussed above, the 
Commission's Porting Interval Order reduced the porting interval for 
simple wireline and simple intermodal port requests to one business 
day. As in the past, the provisioning process flows the NANC recommends 
today address the processes for both simple and non-simple ports. We 
agree that the NANC's recommended provisioning process flows should 
address both simple and non-simple ports as it would be impracticable 
to address one without the other. Thus, we clarify that the NANC's 
provisioning process flows we adopt today address both simple and non-
simple port processes. We further clarify that the porting interval for 
simple wireline-to-wireline and simple intermodal ports is one business 
day, while the porting interval for non-simple wireline-to-wireline and 
non-simple intermodal ports remains four business days.

The One Business Day Interval

    24. In order for simple ports to be completed within one business 
day, precision in explaining what constitutes a ``business day'' for 
purposes of the porting process is vital. At the Commission's 
direction, the NANC's recommended LNP provisioning process flows also 
address how a ``business day'' should be construed for the purposes of 
determining the appropriate porting interval and generally how the 
porting time should be measured. We adopt this recommendation, and we 
require the industry to adhere to it.
    25. Under the NANC rec om men da tion, the traditional work week of 
Monday through Friday represents mandatory business days and 8 a.m. to 
5 p.m. represents the minimum business hours, excluding the current 
service provider's company-defined holidays. An accurate and complete 
LSR must be received by the current service provider between 8 a.m. and 
1 p.m. local time for a simple port request to be eligible for 
activation at midnight on the same day. Local time is in the 
predominant time zone of the Number Portability Administration Center 
(NPAC) Region in which the telephone number is being ported. Any simple 
port LSRs received after this time will be considered received on the 
following business day. The response clock on the following business 
day would start at 8 a.m., local time and a response would be due no 
later than noon. We expect that compliance with these processes and the 
flows discussed above will enable providers to complete simple ports 
within one business day.
    26. The current service provider must respond within four hours 
with a Firm Order Confirmation (FOC) or a reject. In its recent filing, 
the National Telecommunications Cooperative Association (NTCA) requests 
that the Commission not adopt the four-hour LSR-to-FOC interval, or if 
it does, NTCA asks for an exception for rural carriers which would 
limit the number of port requests that must be completed in a business 
day to five total (both simple and non-simple ports). NTCA states that 
for many rural carriers a four-hour LSR-to-FOC interval is too 
burdensome because their process is manual. Nevertheless, NTCA admits 
that currently these carriers are not receiving many port requests, but 
is concerned about the possibility of enhanced competition in rural 
America. As the number of port requests today are not overly burdensome 
to rural carriers, we will adopt the four-hour LSR-to-FOC interval as 
recommended by the NANC, with the understanding that if the status quo 
for rural carriers changes, carriers may request waivers at that time.

Congressional Review Act

    27. The Commission will send a copy of this Report and Order in a 
report to be sent to Congress and the Government Accountability Office 
pursuant to the Congressional Review Act, see 5 U.S.C. 801(a)(1)(A).

Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 Analysis

    28. This document contains new information collection requirements. 
The Commission, as part of its continuing effort to reduce paperwork 
burdens, invites the general public to comment on the information 
collection requirements contained in this Report and Order as required 
by the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, Public Law 104-13. In addition, 
the Commission notes that pursuant to the Small Business Paperwork 
Relief Act of 2002, Public Law 107-198, see 44 U.S.C. 3506(c)(4), we 
previously sought specific comment on how the Commission might further 
reduce the information collection burden for small business concerns 
with fewer than 25 employees.
    29. In this present document, we have assessed the effects of 
imposing standardized data fields for the simple port ordering process, 
and find that the information collection burden of doing so in regards 
to small business concerns with fewer than 25 employees will be 
minimal, as small providers generally exchange this information 
already.

Final Regulation Flexibility Analysis

    1. As required by the Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980, as 
amended (RFA), an Initial Regulatory Flexibility Analysis (IFRA) was 
incorporated in the Porting Interval Order and Further Notice of 
Proposed Rulemaking in WC Docket No. 07-244. The Commission sought 
written public comment on the proposals in the FNPRM, including comment 
on the IRFA. We received comments on the Further Notice and also 
received comments directed toward the IRFA from two commenters in WC 
Docket No. 07-244. These comments are discussed below. This Final 
Regulatory Flexibility Analysis (FRFA) conforms to the RFA.

A. Need for, and Objective of, the Rules

    2. This Report and Order (Order) adopts standardized data fields 
for simple number porting to streamline the port process and enable 
service providers to accomplish simple wireline-to-wireline and 
intermodal ports within one business day. The Commission's purpose in 
mandating a one-business day porting interval was to ``ensure that 
consumers are able to port their telephone numbers efficiently and to 
enhance competition for all communications services.'' However, the 
industry has expressed concern that meeting the Commission's one-
business day porting interval for simple ports will be difficult 
without standardization of information fields for the simple port 
ordering process. There is a need for uniformity and standardization in 
the exchange of information fields. Too many information fields 
increase the opportunity for errors in the simple port ordering 
process, as do too few fields. Errors lead to delays, which harm 
consumers and thwart competition, as consumers may attribute delays to 
their new service providers.
    3. Timely implementation of the one-business day simple porting 
interval is

[[Page 35310]]

crucial so that both consumers and service providers may begin to 
realize the benefits of the shortened porting interval. The Commission 
concludes that 14 information fields are necessary to accomplish a 
simple port, and mandates that service providers use the 14 fields 
described in this Order--and only those 14 fields--to accomplish a 
simple port. The Commission recognizes that some carriers can 
accomplish simple ports using fewer than 14 fields, while other 
carriers have built systems that require more than 14 fields. However, 
the Commission believes, and the industry agrees, that standardization 
and uniformity are of greater importance than the precise number and 
substance of the fields. Further, the Commission believes that the 
fields it has chosen strike the right balance between minimizing the 
number of simple ports that fall out of the porting process and the 
burden on the industry, ensuring that consumers are able to reap the 
most benefit from the shortened one-business day porting interval. The 
Commission finds that it is reasonable to require all providers to use 
these 14 standardized fields to accomplish simple ports within one 
business day, and that doing so will minimize errors and port request 
fallout, streamline the simple port process, and maximize the benefits 
to consumers.
    4. In addition, the Order adopts recommendations submitted to the 
Commission by the North American Numbering Council (NANC) in response 
to the Commission's request in its May 13, 2009, Porting Interval Order 
and Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking. Specifically, the Commission 
adopts the NANC's recommendations for porting process provisioning 
flows. The Commission finds that the provisioning process flows 
recommended by the NANC are essential to the deployment of the one-
business day porting interval for simple ports because they will ensure 
that communications between service providers and database 
administrators proceed in a clear and orderly fashion so that porting 
requests can be handled in an efficient and timely manner.
    5. The Order also adopts as part of the NANC-recommended flows the 
recommendation that a current service provider return a Customer 
Service Record (CSR), if requested and available, to the new service 
provider within 24 clock hours, unless otherwise negotiated, excluding 
weekends and current service provider holidays. Because the time 
interval for return of a CSR is often longer than the Commission's one-
business day interval, the Commission's efforts to streamline and make 
the porting process more efficient by reducing the porting interval may 
be frustrated by the CSR process, which is often a prelude to porting. 
Therefore, the Commission adopts the NANC's recommendation, and finds 
it consistent with the Commission's efforts to improve the 
effectiveness and efficiency of the porting process.
    6. The Order also adopts the NANC's recommendation for counting a 
business day in the context of number porting, and adopts a rule to aid 
in implementing the one-business day simple porting interval. The Order 
finds that precision in explaining what constitutes a ``business day'' 
for purposes of the porting process is vital in order for simple ports 
to be completed within one business day.

B. Summary of Significant Issues Raised by Public Comments in Response 
to the IRFA

    7. In this section, we respond to comments filed in response to the 
IRFA. To the extent we received comments raising general small business 
concerns during this proceeding, those comments are discussed 
throughout the Report and Order.
    8. Sprint Nextel comments that many rural LECs resist number 
portability and standardization because of the rural LECs' costly 
manual processing, but contends that rural LECs would benefit from 
additional standardization of the port process. Sprint Nextel suggests 
that a trade association could develop a number portability 
communications package that each rural LEC could utilize, eliminating 
the current reliance on consultants for these functions and 
significantly reducing operational costs for the rural LECs. T-Mobile 
comments that new porting rules outweigh any potential burdens because 
an efficient porting process will ultimately lower all providers' 
costs, specifically mentioning the wireless-to-wireless process as an 
example.
    9. We agree with these assertions, and have considered the economic 
impact on small entities and what ways are feasible to minimize the 
burdens imposed on those entities. To the extent feasible, we have 
implemented those less burdensome alternatives, and we discuss these 
alternatives in Section E, infra.

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

    10. The RFA directs agencies to provide a description of and, where 
feasible, an estimate of the number of small entities that may be 
affected by the rules adopted herein. The RFA generally defines the 
term ``small entity'' as having the same meaning as the terms ``small 
business,'' ``small organization,'' and ``small governmental 
jurisdiction.'' In addition, the term ``small business'' has the same 
meaning as the term ``small business concern'' under the Small Business 
Act. A small business concern is one which: (1) Is independently owned 
and operated; (2) is not dominant in its field of operation; and (3) 
satisfies any additional criteria established by the SBA.
    11. Small Businesses. Nationwide, there are a total of 
approximately 29.6 million small businesses, according to the SBA.
    12. Small Organizations. Nationwide, there are approximately 1.6 
million 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.''
1. Telecommunications Service Entities
a. Wireline Carriers and Service Providers.
    13. 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.
    14. Incumbent LECs. Neither the Commission nor the SBA has 
developed a small business size standard specifically for incumbent 
local exchange services. The appropriate size standard under SBA rules 
is for the category Wired Telecommunications Carriers. Under that size 
standard, such a business is small if it has 1,500 or fewer employees. 
According to Commission data, 1,311 carriers have reported that they 
are engaged in the provision of incumbent local exchange services. Of 
these 1,311 carriers, an estimated 1,024 have 1,500 or fewer employees 
and 287 have more than 1,500 employees. Consequently, the Commission 
estimates that most

[[Page 35311]]

providers of incumbent local exchange service are small businesses that 
may be affected by our proposed action.
    15. Competitive LECs, 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, such a business 
is small if it has 1,500 or fewer employees. According to Commission 
data, 1005 carriers have reported that they are engaged in the 
provision of either competitive access provider services or competitive 
local exchange carrier services. Of these 1005 carriers, an estimated 
918 have 1,500 or fewer employees and 87 have more than 1,500 
employees. In addition, 16 carriers have reported that they are 
``Shared-Tenant Service Providers,'' and all 16 are estimated to have 
1,500 or fewer employees. In addition, 89 carriers have reported that 
they are ``Other Local Service Providers.'' Of the 89, all have 1,500 
or fewer employees. Consequently, the Commission estimates that most 
providers of competitive local exchange service, competitive access 
providers, ``Shared-Tenant Service Providers,'' and ``Other Local 
Service Providers'' are small entities that may be affected by our 
proposed action.
    16. Interexchange Carriers (IXCs). Neither the Commission nor the 
SBA has developed a small business size standard specifically for 
providers of interexchange services. The appropriate size standard 
under SBA rules is for the category Wired Telecommunications Carriers. 
Under that size standard, such a business is small if it has 1,500 or 
fewer employees. According to Commission data, 300 carriers have 
reported that they are engaged in the provision of interexchange 
service. Of these, an estimated 268 have 1,500 or fewer employees and 
32 have more than 1,500 employees. Consequently, the Commission 
estimates that the majority of IXCs are small entities that may be 
affected by our proposed action.
    17. Local Resellers. The SBA has developed a small business size 
standard for the category of Telecommunications Resellers. Under that 
size standard, such a business is small if it has 1,500 or fewer 
employees. According to Commission data, 151 carriers have reported 
that they are engaged in the provision of local resale services. Of 
these, an estimated 149 have 1,500 or fewer employees and two have more 
than 1,500 employees. Consequently, the Commission estimates that the 
majority of local resellers are small entities that may be affected by 
our proposed action.
    18. Toll Resellers. The SBA has developed a small business size 
standard for the category of Telecommunications Resellers. Under that 
size standard, such a business is small if it has 1,500 or fewer 
employees. According to Commission data, 815 carriers have reported 
that they are engaged in the provision of toll resale services. Of 
these, an estimated 787 have 1,500 or fewer employees and 28 have more 
than 1,500 employees. Consequently, the Commission estimates that the 
majority of toll resellers are small entities that may be affected by 
our proposed action.
    19. Operator Service Providers (OSPs). Neither the Commission nor 
the SBA has developed a small business size standard specifically for 
operator service providers. The appropriate size standard under SBA 
rules is for the category Wired Telecommunications Carriers. Under that 
size standard, such a business is small if it has 1,500 or fewer 
employees. According to Commission data, 28 carriers have reported that 
they are engaged in the provision of operator services. Of these, an 
estimated 27 have 1,500 or fewer employees and one has more than 1,500 
employees. Consequently, the Commission estimates that the majority of 
OSPs are small entities that may be affected by our proposed action.
    20. Prepaid Calling Card Providers. Neither the Commission nor the 
SBA has developed a small business size standard specifically for 
prepaid calling card providers. The appropriate size standard under SBA 
rules is for the category Telecommunications Resellers. Under that size 
standard, such a business is small if it has 1,500 or fewer employees. 
According to Commission data, 88 carriers have reported that they are 
engaged in the provision of prepaid calling cards. Of these, an 
estimated 85 have 1,500 or fewer employees and three have more than 
1,500 employees. Consequently, the Commission estimates that the 
majority of prepaid calling card providers are small entities that may 
be affected by our proposed action.
    21. 800 and 800-Like Service Subscribers. Neither the Commission 
nor the SBA has developed a small business size standard specifically 
for 800 and 800-like service (``toll free'') subscribers. The 
appropriate size standard under SBA rules is for the category 
Telecommunications Resellers. Under that size standard, such a business 
is small if it has 1,500 or fewer employees. The most reliable source 
of information regarding the number of these service subscribers 
appears to be data the Commission receives from Database Service 
Management on the 800, 866, 877, and 888 numbers in use. According to 
our data, at the end of December 2007, the number of 800 numbers 
assigned was 7,860,000; the number of 888 numbers assigned was 
5,210,184; the number of 877 numbers assigned was 4,388,682; and the 
number of 866 numbers assigned was 7,029,116. We do not have data 
specifying the number of these subscribers that are independently owned 
and operated or have 1,500 or fewer employees, and thus are unable at 
this time to estimate with greater precision the number of toll free 
subscribers that would qualify as small businesses under the SBA size 
standard. Consequently, we estimate that there are 7,860,000 or fewer 
small entity 800 subscribers; 5,210,184 or fewer small entity 888 
subscribers; 4,388,682 or fewer small entity 877 subscribers, and 
7,029,116 or fewer entity 866 subscribers.
b. International Service Providers.
    22. Satellite Telecommunications and All Other Telecommunications. 
These two economic census categories address the satellite industry. 
The first category has a small business size standard of $15 million or 
less in average annual receipts, under SBA rules. The second has a size 
standard of $25 million or less in annual receipts. The most current 
Census Bureau data in this context, however, are from the (last) 
economic census of 2002, and we will use those figures to gauge the 
prevalence of small businesses in these categories.
    23. The category of Satellite Telecommunications ``comprises 
establishments primarily engaged in providing telecommunications 
services to other establishments in the telecommunications and 
broadcasting industries by forwarding and receiving communications 
signals via a system of satellites or reselling satellite 
telecommunications.'' For this category, Census Bureau data for 2002 
show that there were a total of 371 firms that operated for the entire 
year. Of this total, 307 firms had annual receipts of under $10 
million, and 26 firms had receipts of $10 million to $24,999,999. 
Consequently, we estimate that the majority of Satellite 
Telecommunications firms are small entities that might be affected by 
our action.
    24. The second category of All Other Telecommunications comprises, 
inter alia, ``establishments primarily engaged

[[Page 35312]]

in providing specialized telecommunications services, such as satellite 
tracking, communications telemetry, and radar station operation. This 
industry also includes establishments primarily engaged in providing 
satellite terminal stations and associated facilities connected with 
one or more terrestrial systems and capable of transmitting 
telecommunications to, and receiving telecommunications from, satellite 
systems.'' For this category, Census Bureau data for 2002 show that 
there were a total of 332 firms that operated for the entire year. Of 
this total, 303 firms had annual receipts of under $10 million and 15 
firms had annual receipts of $10 million to $24,999,999. Consequently, 
we estimate that the majority of All Other Telecommunications firms are 
small entities that might be affected by our action.
c. Wireless Telecommunications Service Providers.
    25. Below, for those services subject to auctions, we note that, as 
a general matter, the number of winning bidders that qualify as small 
businesses at the close of an auction does not necessarily represent 
the number of small businesses currently in service. Also, the 
Commission does not generally track subsequent business size unless, in 
the context of assignments or transfers, unjust enrichment issues are 
implicated.
    26. Wireless Service Providers (Except Satellite). Since 2007, the 
Census Bureau has placed wireless firms within this new, broad, 
economic census category. Prior to that time, such firms were within 
the now-superseded categories of ``Paging'' and ``Cellular and Other 
Wireless Telecommunications.'' Under the present and prior categories, 
the SBA has deemed a wireless business to be small if it has 1,500 or 
fewer employees. Because Census Bureau data are not yet available for 
the new category, we will estimate small business prevalence using the 
prior categories and associated data. For the category of Paging, data 
for 2002 show that there were 807 firms that operated for the entire 
year. Of this total, 804 firms had employment of 999 or fewer 
employees, and three firms had employment of 1,000 employees or more. 
For the category of Cellular and Other Wireless Telecommunications, 
data for 2002 show that there were 1,397 firms that operated for the 
entire year. Of this total, 1,378 firms had employment of 999 or fewer 
employees, and 19 firms had employment of 1,000 employees or more. 
Thus, we estimate that the majority of wireless firms are small.
    27. Common Carrier Paging. As noted, the SBA has developed a small 
business size standard for Wireless Telecommunications Carriers (except 
Satellite) firms within the broad economic census categories of 
``Cellular and Other Wireless Telecommunications.'' Since 2007, the 
Census Bureau has placed wireless firms within this new, broad, 
economic census category. Prior to that time, such firms were within 
the now-superseded categories of ``Paging'' and ``Cellular and Other 
Wireless Telecommunications.'' Under the present and prior categories, 
the SBA has deemed a wireless business to be small if it has 1,500 or 
fewer employees. Because Census Bureau data are not yet available for 
the new category, we will estimate small business prevalence using the 
prior categories and associated data. For the category of Paging, data 
for 2002 show that there were 807 firms that operated for the entire 
year. Of this total, 804 firms had employment of 999 or fewer 
employees, and three firms had employment of 1,000 employees or more. 
For the category of Cellular and Other Wireless Telecommunications, 
data for 2002 show that there were 1,397 firms that operated for the 
entire year. Of this total, 1,378 firms had employment of 999 or fewer 
employees, and 19 firms had employment of 1,000 employees or more. 
Thus, we estimate that the majority of wireless firms are small.
    28. In addition, in the Paging Second Report and Order, the 
Commission adopted a size standard for ``small businesses'' for 
purposes of determining their eligibility for special provisions such 
as bidding credits and installment payments. A small business is an 
entity that, together with its affiliates and controlling principals, 
has average gross revenues not exceeding $15 million for the preceding 
three years. The SBA has approved this definition. An initial auction 
of Metropolitan Economic Area (``MEA'') licenses was conducted in the 
year 2000. Of the 2,499 licenses auctioned, 985 were sold. Fifty-seven 
companies claiming small business status won 440 licenses. A subsequent 
auction of MEA and Economic Area (``EA'') licenses was held in the year 
2001. Of the 15,514 licenses auctioned, 5,323 were sold. One hundred 
thirty-two companies claiming small business status purchased 3,724 
licenses. A third auction, consisting of 8,874 licenses in each of 175 
EAs and 1,328 licenses in all but three of the 51 MEAs, was held in 
2003. Seventy-seven bidders claiming small or very small business 
status won 2,093 licenses.
    29. Currently, there are approximately 74,000 Common Carrier Paging 
licenses. According to the most recent Trends in Telephone Service, 281 
carriers reported that they were engaged in the provision of ``paging 
and messaging'' services. Of these, an estimated 279 have 1,500 or 
fewer employees and two have more than 1,500 employees. We estimate 
that the majority of common carrier paging providers would qualify as 
small entities under the SBA definition.
    30. Wireless Telephony. Wireless telephony includes cellular, 
personal communications services, and specialized mobile radio 
telephony carriers. As noted, the SBA has developed a small business 
size standard for Wireless Telecommunications Carriers (except 
Satellite). Under the SBA small business size standard, a business is 
small if it has 1,500 or fewer employees. According to Trends in 
Telephone Service data, 434 carriers reported that they were engaged in 
wireless telephony. Of these, an estimated 222 have 1,500 or fewer 
employees and 212 have more than 1,500 employees. We have estimated 
that 222 of these are small under the SBA small business size standard.
    31. Broadband Personal Communications Service. The broadband 
personal communications services (``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. 
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. These small business 
size standards, in the context of broadband PCS auctions, have been 
approved by the SBA. 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. In 1999, the Commission reauctioned 155 C, D, E, 
and F Block licenses; there were 113 small business winning bidders.
    32. In 2001, the Commission completed the auction of 422 C and F 
Broadband PCS licenses in Auction 35.

[[Page 35313]]

Of the 35 winning bidders in this auction, 29 qualified as ``small'' or 
``very small'' businesses. Subsequent events, concerning Auction 35, 
including judicial and agency determinations, resulted in a total of 
163 C and F Block licenses being available for grant. In 2005, the 
Commission completed an auction of 188 C block licenses and 21 F block 
licenses in Auction 58. There were 24 winning bidders for 217 licenses. 
Of the 24 winning bidders, 16 claimed small business status and won 156 
licenses. In 2007, the Commission completed an auction of 33 licenses 
in the A, C, and F Blocks in Auction 71. Of the 14 winning bidders, six 
were designated entities. In 2008, the Commission completed an auction 
of 20 Broadband PCS licenses in the C, D, E and F block licenses in 
Auction
    33. Advanced Wireless Services. In 2008, the Commission conducted 
the auction of Advanced Wireless Services (``AWS'') licenses. This 
auction, which was designated as Auction 78, offered 35 licenses in the 
AWS 1710-1755 MHz and 2110-2155 MHz bands (``AWS-1''). The AWS-1 
licenses were licenses for which there were no winning bids in Auction 
66. That same year, the Commission completed Auction 78. A bidder with 
attributed average annual gross revenues that exceeded $15 million and 
did not exceed $40 million for the preceding three years (``small 
business'') received a 15 percent discount on its winning bid. A bidder 
with attributed average annual gross revenues that did not exceed $15 
million for the preceding three years (``very small business'') 
received a 25 percent discount on its winning bid. A bidder that had 
combined total assets of less than $500 million and combined gross 
revenues of less than $125 million in each of the last two years 
qualified for entrepreneur status. Four winning bidders that identified 
themselves as very small businesses won 17 licenses. Three of the 
winning bidders that identified themselves as a small business won five 
licenses. Additionally, one other winning bidder that qualified for 
entrepreneur status won 2 licenses.
2. Cable and OVS Operators
    34. Cable Television Distribution Services. Since 2007, these 
services have been defined within the broad economic census category of 
Wired Telecommunications Carriers; that category is defined as follows: 
``This industry comprises establishments primarily engaged in operating 
and/or providing access to transmission facilities and infrastructure 
that they own and/or lease for the transmission of voice, data, text, 
sound, and video using wired telecommunications networks. Transmission 
facilities may be based on a single technology or a combination of 
technologies.'' The SBA has developed a small business size standard 
for this category, which is: all such firms having 1,500 or fewer 
employees. To gauge small business prevalence for these cable services 
we must, however, use current census data that are based on the 
previous category of Cable and Other Program Distribution and its 
associated size standard; that size standard was: all such firms having 
$13.5 million or less in annual receipts. According to Census Bureau 
data for 2002, there were a total of 1,191 firms in this previous 
category that operated for the entire year. Of this total, 1,087 firms 
had annual receipts of under $10 million, and 43 firms had receipts of 
$10 million or more but less than $25 million. Thus, the majority of 
these firms can be considered small.
    35. Cable Companies and Systems. The Commission has also developed 
its own small business size standards, for the purpose of cable rate 
regulation. Under the Commission's rules, a ``small cable company'' is 
one serving 400,000 or fewer subscribers, nationwide. Industry data 
indicate that, of 1,076 cable operators nationwide, all but eleven are 
small under this size standard. In addition, under the Commission's 
rules, a ``small system'' is a cable system serving 15,000 or fewer 
subscribers. Industry data indicate that, of 6,635 systems nationwide, 
5,802 systems have under 10,000 subscribers, and an additional 302 
systems have 10,000-19,999 subscribers. Thus, under this second size 
standard, most cable systems are small.
    36. Cable System Operators. The Communications Act of 1934, as 
amended, also contains a size standard for small cable system 
operators, which is ``a cable operator that, directly or through an 
affiliate, serves in the aggregate fewer than 1 percent of all 
subscribers in the United States and is not affiliated with any entity 
or entities whose gross annual revenues in the aggregate exceed 
$250,000,000.'' The Commission has determined that an operator serving 
fewer than 677,000 subscribers shall be deemed a small operator, if its 
annual revenues, when combined with the total annual revenues of all 
its affiliates, do not exceed $250 million in the aggregate. Industry 
data indicate that, of 1,076 cable operators nationwide, all but ten 
are small under this size standard. We note that the Commission neither 
requests nor collects information on whether cable system operators are 
affiliated with entities whose gross annual revenues exceed $250 
million, and therefore we are unable to estimate more accurately the 
number of cable system operators that would qualify as small under this 
size standard.
    37. Open Video Systems (OVS). The open video system (``OVS'') 
framework was established in 1996, and is one of four statutorily 
recognized options for the provision of video programming services by 
local exchange carriers. The OVS framework provides opportunities for 
the distribution of video programming other than through cable systems. 
Because OVS operators provide subscription services, OVS falls within 
the SBA small business size standard covering cable services, which is 
``Wired Telecommunications Carriers.'' The SBA has developed a small 
business size standard for this category, which is: all such firms 
having 1,500 or fewer employees. To gauge small business prevalence for 
such services we must, however, use current census data that are based 
on the previous category of Cable and Other Program Dist