Universal Service Reform Mobility Fund, 67060-67077 [2010-27458]

Agencies

• FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION

[Federal Register Volume 75, Number 210 (Monday, November 1, 2010)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 67060-67077]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2010-27458]


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

FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION

47 CFR Part 1

[WT Docket No. 10-208; FCC 10-182]


Universal Service Reform Mobility Fund

AGENCY: Federal Communications Commission.

ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking.

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

SUMMARY: In this document, the Federal Communication Commission 
proposes the creation of a new Mobility Fund to make available one-time 
support to significantly improve coverage of current-generation or 
better mobile voice and Internet service for consumers in areas where 
such coverage is currently missing. The Commission seeks comment on 
creating the Mobility Fund using reserves accumulated in the Universal 
Service Fund and on the use of a reverse auction to make one-time 
support available to service providers to cost-effectively extend 
mobile coverage in specified unserved areas.

DATES: Comments are due on or before December 16, 2010; reply comments 
are due on or before January 18, 2011.

ADDRESSES: You may submit comments, identified by WT Docket No. 10-208, 
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://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/ecfs2/. Follow the instructions for submitting 
comments.
    Paper Filers: Parties who choose to file by paper must file an 
original and four copies of each filing. Filings can be sent by hand or 
messenger delivery, by commercial overnight courier, or by first-class 
or overnight U.S. Postal Service mail. All filings must be addressed to 
the Commission's Secretary, Office of the Secretary, Federal 
Communications Commission.
    All hand-delivered or messenger-delivered paper filings for the 
Commission's Secretary must be delivered to FCC Headquarters at 445 
12th St., SW., Room TW-A325, Washington, DC 20554. 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.
    People with Disabilities: Contact the FCC to request reasonable 
accommodations (accessible format documents, sign language 
interpreters, CART, etc.) by e-mail: FCC504@fcc.gov or telephone: 202-
418-0530 or TTY: 202-418-0432.
    In addition to filing comments with the Secretary, a copy of any 
PRA comments on the proposed collection requirements contained herein 
should be submitted to the Federal Communications Commission via e-mail 
to PRA@fcc.gov and to Nicholas A. Fraser, Office of Management and 
Budget, via e-mail to nfraser@omb.eop.gov or fax at 202-395-5167.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Wireless Telecommunications Bureau, 
Auctions and Spectrum Access Division: Scott Mackoul at (202) 418-0660. 
For additional information concerning the information collection 
requirements contained in this document, send and e-mail to PRA@fcc.gov 
or contact Judith B. Herman at 202-418-0214.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: This is a summary of the Commission's 
Mobility Fund Notice of Proposed Rulemaking in WT Docket No. 10-208, 
adopted October 14, 2010, and released on October 14, 2010. The 
complete text of the Mobility Fund Notice of Proposed Rulemaking is 
available for public inspection and copying from 8 a.m. to 4:30 p.m. ET 
Monday through Thursday or from 8 a.m. to 11:30 a.m. ET on Fridays in 
the FCC Reference Information Center, 445 12th Street SW., Room CY-
A257, Washington, DC 20554. The Mobility Fund Notice of Proposed 
Rulemaking may be purchased from the Commission's duplicating 
contractor, Best Copy and Printing, Inc. (BCPI), 445 12th Street, SW., 
Room CY-B402, Washington, DC 20554, telephone 202-488-5300, fax 202-
488-5563, or you may contact BCPI at its Web site: https://www.BCPIWEB.com. When ordering documents from BCPI, please provide the 
appropriate FCC document number, for example, FCC 10-182. The Mobility 
Fund Notice of Proposed Rulemaking is also available on the Internet at 
the Commission's Web site or by using the search function for WT Docket 
No. 10-208 on the ECFS Web page at https://www.fcc.gov/cgb/ecfs/.

Initial Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 Analysis

    This document contains proposed information collection 
requirements. The Commission, as part of its continuing effort to 
reduce paperwork burdens, invites the general public and the Office of 
Management and Budget to comment on the information collection 
requirements contained in the

[[Page 67061]]

document, as required by the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, Public 
Law 104-13. Comments should address: (a) Whether the proposed 
collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of 
the functions of the Commission, including whether the information 
shall have practical utility; (b) the accuracy of the Commission's 
burden estimates; (c) ways to enhance the quality, utility and clarity 
of the information collected, and (d) ways to minimize the burden of 
the collection of information on the respondents, including the use of 
automated collection techniques or other forms of information 
technology. In addition, pursuant to the Small Business Paperwork 
Relief Act of 2002, Public Law 107-198, 44 U.S.C. 3506(c)(4), the 
Commission seeks specific comment on how the Commission might further 
reduce the information collection burden for small business concerns 
with fewer than 25 employees.

I. Notice of Proposed Rulemaking

A. Introduction

    1. Millions of Americans live in communities where current-
generation mobile service is unavailable, and millions more work in or 
travel through such areas. To accelerate the Commission's nation's 
ongoing effort to close this mobility gap in a fiscally responsible 
manner, the Mobility Fund Notice of Proposed Rulemaking seeks comment 
on using reserves accumulated in the Universal Service Fund (USF) to 
create a new Mobility Fund. The purpose of the Mobility Fund is to 
significantly improve coverage of current-generation or better mobile 
voice and Internet service for consumers in areas where such coverage 
is currently missing, and to do so by supporting private investment. 
The Mobility Fund would use market mechanisms--specifically, a reverse 
auction--to make one-time support available to service providers to 
cost-effectively extend mobile coverage in specified unserved areas.
    2. In the three decades since the Commission issued the first 
cellular telephone licenses, the wireless industry has continually 
expanded and upgraded its networks to the point where third generation 
(called advanced or 3G) mobile wireless services are now widely 
available. Despite these advances, mobility gaps remain a problem for 
residents, public safety first responders, businesses, public 
institutions, and travelers, particularly in rural areas. Such gaps 
impose significant disadvantages on those who live, work, and travel in 
these areas. Moreover, without existing modern wireless infrastructure, 
they are at risk of much-delayed access to the coming generations of 
high-speed wireless broadband services. For this reason, the National 
Broadband Plan recommended providing universal service support to 
promote the national build-out of 3G services as part of a 
comprehensive set of recommendations to reform the universal service 
program. See Federal Communications Commission, Connecting America: The 
National Broadband Plan, 146-48 (rel. Mar. 16, 2010) (National 
Broadband Plan). The proposals in the Mobility Fund Notice of Proposed 
Rulemaking build on that recommendation. In the Mobility Fund Notice of 
Proposed Rulemaking, the Commission uses ``current generation,'' 
``3G,'' and ``advanced'' interchangeably to refer to mobile wireless 
services that include voice telecommunications service as well as email 
and Internet access.
    3. The Commission recently undertook steps for fiscally responsible 
USF reform when, in the Corr Wireless Order, the Commission provided 
instructions for implementing the commitments of both Verizon Wireless 
and Sprint Nextel to surrender their high-cost universal service 
support over five years. High-Cost Universal Service Support, Federal-
State Joint Board on Universal Service, Request for Review of Decision 
of Universal Service Administrator by Corr Wireless Communications, 
LLC, WC Docket No. 05-337, CC Docket No. 96-45, Order and Notice of 
Proposed Rulemaking, FCC 10-155 (rel. Aug. 31, 2010) (Corr Wireless 
Order). The Commission directed that the surrendered support be 
reserved as a potential down payment on proposed broadband universal 
service reforms as recommended by the National Broadband Plan, 
including creation of a Mobility Fund to provide wireless broadband 
service in areas that lack coverage. Thus, the Mobility Fund considered 
in the Mobility Fund Notice of Proposed Rulemaking is one of a set of 
initiatives to promote deployment of broadband and mobile services in 
the United States through a financially sensible transformation of USF, 
using market-based and incentive mechanisms.

B. Background

    4. The National Broadband Plan recommended a Mobility Fund in 
connection with broader reforms of the USF. The plan recommended 
providing targeted, one-time support for deployment of 3G 
infrastructure in order to bring all states to a minimum level of 
mobile service availability, without increasing the size of the USF. 
The National Broadband Plan observed that supporting 3G build-out in 
states with 3G coverage lagging the national average would enable those 
states to catch up with the rest of the nation and improve the business 
case for 4G rollout in harder-to-serve areas.

C. Overall Design of the Mobility Fund

    5. Drawing on some of the USF support voluntarily relinquished by 
Verizon Wireless and Sprint Nextel and reserved by the Commission, the 
Mobility Fund would make available non-recurring support to providers 
to deploy 3G or better networks where these services are not currently 
available. In order to maximize the reach of available funds, the 
Commission proposes to provide Mobility Fund support to at most one 
provider in any given unserved area. The Commission proposes to utilize 
a reverse auction mechanism to compare all offers to provide service 
across the unserved areas eligible for participation in the Mobility 
Fund program, which should give providers incentives to seek the least 
support needed and enable identification of the providers that will 
achieve the greatest additional coverage with the limited funding 
available. The Commission proposes to specify unserved areas eligible 
for support on a census block basis, using industry data compiled by 
American Roamer, and to conduct competitive bidding to offer support in 
unserved census blocks grouped by census tracts. The Commission noted 
that, because American Roamer reports advertised coverage as reported 
by many carriers who all use different definitions of coverage, the 
data from American Roamer may overstate the coverage actually 
experienced by consumers.
    6. The Commission also seeks comment in the Mobility Fund Notice of 
Proposed Rulemaking on a number of alternative methods the Commission 
could use to distribute Mobility Fund support, including distributing 
support to any of the identified census tracts nationwide or targeting 
it to those identified census tracts in any county nationwide or in 
states where 3G deployment most significantly lags behind the 
percentage of nationwide population with 3G access. The Commission 
proposes to support only wireless networks performing as well as or 
better than 3G networks currently operating in the United States, for 
example networks using HSPA or EV-DO. The Commission proposes that 
parties receiving support be required to demonstrate the deployment and 
offering of service in previously

[[Page 67062]]

uncovered areas within a specified period of time. The Commission seeks 
comment on ways to structure the program so that it directs funding to 
those places where deployment of advanced mobile wireless service is 
otherwise not likely to happen.
1. Legal Authority
    7. The Commission proposes to distribute Mobility Fund support 
through the universal service program. Accordingly, the Commission's 
legal authority to create the Mobility Fund is based upon and delimited 
by its legal authority to distribute universal service funds. The 
Commission has authority to use universal service funds to support an 
evolving level of telecommunications services, taking into account 
advances in telecommunications and information technologies and 
services. See 47 U.S.C. 254(c). In addition, various statutory and 
regulatory requirements apply to the use of these funds. See 47 U.S.C. 
214, 254; 47 CFR 54.101. The Commission requests comment on its 
authority to implement the proposals contained in the Mobility Fund 
Notice of Proposed Rulemaking. The Commission also seeks comment on 
whether these proposals require any revisions to its existing 
regulations or to its existing authority. The Commission further asks 
that commenters address, to whatever extent necessary, whether any 
alternative proposals that they suggest are within its current legal 
authority or require any expansion of that authority.
2. Size of the Mobility Fund
    8. The Commission proposes to use $100 million to $300 million in 
USF high-cost universal service support to fund, on a one-time basis, 
the expansion of current-generation mobile wireless services through a 
new Mobility Fund. Prior voluntary agreements by Verizon Wireless and 
Sprint Nextel to surrender USF high-cost support will likely make 
several hundred million dollars available annually that can be used for 
other USF purposes without increasing the overall size of the high-cost 
fund. The National Broadband Plan recommended using these foregone 
funds to implement its recommendations, including the creation of the 
Mobility Fund, and subsequently the Commission adopted the Corr 
Wireless Order implementing the voluntary commitments.
    9. The ultimate impact of any amount of support would depend upon a 
variety of factors, including the extent to which non-recurring funding 
makes it possible to offer service profitably in areas previously 
uneconomic to serve, what percentage of the support must fund new 
facilities as opposed to upgrades to pre-existing facilities, the 
percentage of total capital costs that support must provide, and the 
extent to which new customers adopt services newly made available. The 
Commission seeks comment on the level of support to be provided through 
the Mobility Fund. Specifically, the Commission asks commenters to 
consider whether there is an optimal size for the Mobility Fund. For 
instance, is there an amount that would exceed what is needed to target 
those areas where non-recurring support could be used most effectively 
to expand coverage within a relatively short timeframe? What amount 
would be too small to effectively jump-start deployment so as to 
provide service in the places where it might not otherwise become 
available?
3. One Provider per Area
    10. Given the Commission's objective of using the Mobility Fund to 
support the provision of expanded advanced mobile wireless services to 
as much of the currently unserved population in identified areas as 
possible, the Commission proposes that only one entity in a given 
geographic area receive Mobility Fund support. The Commission 
recognizes that mobile wireless providers have expressed competitive 
concerns, especially given that 3G services may use either CDMA or GSM 
technology, about the possibility of limiting support to one provider. 
In light of these concerns, the Commission proposes certain terms and 
conditions of support to encourage possibilities for competition. The 
Commission seeks comment on its proposal to make Mobility Fund support 
available to only one provider per area.
4. Auction To Determine Awards of Support
    11. The Commission proposes to use a competitive bidding mechanism 
to determine the entities that will receive support under the Mobility 
Fund and the amount of support they will receive--that is, the 
Commission proposes to award support based on the lowest bid amounts 
submitted in a reverse auction. Such a mechanism should allow the 
market to reveal the costs of providing expanded access to advanced 
mobile services in unserved areas. This should allow the Commission to 
select the providers that require the least support without requiring 
onerous cost showings by applicants and without guaranteeing that 
support payments will cover all, or any specific percentage of, the 
providers' actual costs.
    12. In this reverse auction, which the Commission proposes to 
conduct using a single round of bidding, applicants formulating their 
bids would have to evaluate carefully the amount of support they need 
to provide the required services. In general, bidders would not want to 
overstate the support they require since they would be competing 
against other providers for limited support funds and a higher bid 
would reduce their chances of winning. At the same time, they would not 
want to understate the support they require, since they might be 
awarded such support based on a bid amount that does not cover their 
costs and then be expected to provide services to meet the performance 
requirements. As a result, the submitted bids should present a good 
estimate of the actual costs to the bidders of providing advanced 
mobile services in the areas on which they bid to expand service. The 
Commission seeks comment generally on the use of a competitive bidding 
mechanism to determine recipients of Mobility Fund support and support 
amounts, and particularly, on the use of a single round reverse auction 
format.
    13. More specifically, the Commission proposes to determine winning 
bidders for Mobility Fund support based on the lowest per-unit bids, 
using the population of unserved areas (and perhaps other 
characteristics, such as road miles) as units and taking into account 
the requirement that there be no more than one Mobility Fund recipient 
in any particular area. The auction mechanism would compare all per-
unit bids across all areas (that is, compare all bids against all other 
bids, rather than compare all bids for a single area), and order all 
the submitted bids from lowest per-unit amount to highest. The bidder 
making the lowest per-unit bid would first be assigned support in an 
amount equal to the amount needed to cover the population (or units 
based on other characteristics) deemed unserved in the specific area at 
the per-unit rate that was bid. For example, if the lowest per-unit bid 
were $100 per person, the bidder placing that bid would be awarded 
support in the amount of $100 times the population of the area on which 
it bid. Support would continue to be assigned to the bidders with the 
next lowest per-unit bids in turn, as long as support had not already 
been assigned for that geographic area, until the running sum of 
support funds requested by the winning bidders was such that no further 
winning bids could be financed by the money available in the Mobility 
Fund.
    14. By awarding support to those bidders that are able to cover 
units in

[[Page 67063]]

unserved areas at the least cost to the Mobility Fund, the greatest 
amount of population in the identified unserved areas can be covered 
with the available funds. The Commission seeks comment on this method 
of determining recipients of Mobility Fund support. The Commission also 
seeks comment on determining payment amounts as proposed--by 
multiplying the winning per-unit bid amounts by the units deemed 
unserved.
5. Identifying Unserved Areas Eligible for Support
    15. The Commission proposes to identify unserved areas on a census 
block basis and, because individual census blocks are so small, the 
Commission proposes to conduct bidding to offer Mobility Fund support 
in unserved census blocks grouped by census tracts. The Commission 
further seeks comment on alternative ways to distribute support to 
these unserved areas.
a. Identifying Unserved Areas by Census Block
    16. As a first step in identifying those areas for which applicants 
can bid for Mobility Fund support, the Commission proposes to determine 
the availability of service at the census block level, using a widely 
available dataset. Census blocks are the smallest geographic unit for 
which the Census Bureau collects and tabulates decennial census data, 
so determining coverage by census block should provide a detailed 
picture of the availability of 3G mobile services. By the end of the 
first quarter of 2011, census data from the 2010 decennial census 
should be available on a census block level. The Commission proposes to 
use that data when it becomes available and seeks comment on the 
proposal. Until that data becomes available, the Commission will use in 
its discussion the projected census block data from Geolytics Block 
Estimates and Block Estimates Professional databases (2009).
    17. Specifically, the Commission proposes to use American Roamer 
data identifying the geographic coverage of networks using EV-DO, EV-DO 
Rev A, and UMTS/HSPA as a measure of availability of current-generation 
mobile wireless services. For each census block, the Commission would 
observe whether the data indicates that the geometric center of the 
block--referred to as the centroid--is covered by such mobile wireless 
services. If the data indicates that the centroid is not covered by 
such services, the Commission proposes to consider that census block as 
unserved. Alternatively, the Commission could use the data to obtain 
the geographic proportion of the block that is uncovered--the 
proportional method. The Commission could then consider unserved any 
census block where the data indicates that more than 50 percent of the 
area is unserved. Or, the Commission could consider unserved that 
fraction of the census block's population (or other units).
    18. The Commission seeks comment on its proposed use of American 
Roamer data to determine areas unserved by current-generation mobile 
wireless services. Are there distinctions in the way carriers report 
coverage to American Roamer that the Commission should consider when 
using the data? Are there alternative available datasets the Commission 
can use instead of, or in addition to, American Roamer data that would 
be more reliable or better suited for identifying unserved areas? The 
Commission seeks comment also on the proposed centroid method of 
determining unserved census blocks and on the proportional coverage 
alternative. Is the centroid method likely to identify areas that are 
good candidates for support consistent with the objectives of the 
Mobility Fund? Are there other transparent and workable methods for 
using the available data to define unserved areas? In addition, the 
Commission seeks comment on the extent to which the availability in 
unserved census blocks of other supported services using non-mobile 
wireless technologies should be a factor in determining whether those 
census blocks should be eligible for Mobility Fund support.
    19. The Commission recognizes that data on mobile services coverage 
may change over a relatively short timeframe. Therefore, the Commission 
proposes to delegate to the Wireless Telecommunications Bureau 
(Wireless Bureau) the authority to identify unserved census blocks 
prior to announcing a Mobility Fund auction, using the method the 
Commission adopts and the most recent data available for that purpose.
b. Offering Support by Census Tract
    20. While proposing to identify unserved areas at the census block 
level, the Commission proposes to group unserved census blocks by 
larger areas--census tracts--as a basis for competitive bidding, since 
individual census blocks may be too small to serve as a viable basis 
for providing support. More specifically, the Commission proposes to 
accept bids for support to expand coverage to all the unserved census 
blocks within a particular census tract.
    21. The Commission seeks comment on whether census tracts are the 
most appropriate basic geographic unit for providing support to expand 
coverage. Are there other geographic units by which the Commission 
might group unserved census blocks that might better balance the need 
to identify discrete unserved areas for which the Commission proposes 
to require coverage under the Mobility Fund with business plan 
requirements of wireless providers?
c. Establishing Unserved Units
    22. The Commission proposes at a minimum to establish the number of 
units in each unserved census block based on population. The Commission 
also seeks comment on whether it should take into account 
characteristics such as road miles, traffic density, and/or community 
anchor institutions in determining the number of units in each unserved 
census block to be used for assigning support under the Mobility Fund. 
For example, should the Commission utilize data compiled by the 
Department of Transportation (such as Traffic Analysis Zones) or data 
on community anchor institutions to establish the number of units in 
the census block that will be considered unserved? A traffic analysis 
zone (TAZ) is a special area delineated by state and/or local 
transportation officials for tabulating traffic-related data, 
especially journey-to-work and place-of-work statistics. Using such 
additional factors in determining the units in each unserved area may 
better represent the public benefits of providing new access to mobile 
services. Are there other factors that the Commission should take into 
account when assessing coverage of unserved areas, such as work or 
recreation sites; anchor institutions such as schools, libraries, and 
hospitals; or accessibility to a road system? The Commission asks that 
commenters address how it should measure the factors on which it seeks 
comment as well as any other factors they advocate, and how coverage 
for one type of unit, such as a work site, should compare with coverage 
for other units, such as resident population, or whether such 
comparisons would be appropriate.
d. Distributing Mobility Fund Support Among Unserved Areas
    23. The National Broadband Plan recommended creation of a Mobility 
Fund as a means of bringing all states to a minimum level of 3G (or 
better) mobile service availability. Here, the Commission seeks comment 
on various methods it could use to distribute Mobility Fund support 
among unserved

[[Page 67064]]

areas, including ways to target support to places that significantly 
lag behind the level of 3G coverage generally available nationwide.
    24. The Commission could make eligible for Mobility Fund support 
any area nationwide that the Commission deems to be unserved, including 
territories. Thus, the Commission seeks comment on whether, if it were 
to adopt its proposal for identifying census tracts with at least one 
unserved census block, the Commission should make available for bids 
all such identified census tracts across the country.
    25. The Commission also seeks comment on alternative ways of 
limiting Mobility Fund support to places that lag significantly behind 
the level of 3G coverage nationwide. Based on May 2010 American Roamer 
data and November 2009 population estimates, 98.5 percent of the 
population nationwide resides in areas with access to 3G services. The 
Commission notes that, as proposed, it would be using updated coverage 
and population data to determine areas unserved by 3G prior to any 
Mobility Fund auction, so it is possible that the level of nationwide 
coverage could change. Therefore, the Commission seeks comment on 
various ways to identify places that lag significantly behind that 
level of coverage based on more updated data.
    26. For instance, the Commission seeks comment on making Mobility 
Fund support available for unserved census blocks in census tracts in 
any county nationwide where the countywide percentage of population 
with access to 3G services is more than three percentage points below 
the level of 3G deployment nationwide, as determined prior to an 
auction based on updated data. The Commission also seeks comment on 
targeting Mobility Fund support to unserved blocks in census tracts in 
those states where the statewide percentage of population with access 
to 3G services is more than three percentage points less than the 
percentage of the national population with such access. Alternatively, 
the Commission seeks comment on whether it should target an expanded 
list of counties or states, for example, those with 3G coverage levels 
that are more than two percentage points below the nationwide level. 
The Commission also invites suggestions of other means for identifying 
the counties or states that the Mobility Fund should target.
    27. The Commission invites comment on all of the alternatives--
distributing support among unserved areas nationwide and various 
methods for targeting support to a subset of unserved areas. The 
Commission seeks comment on the relative merits and drawbacks of these 
alternative approaches. In particular, the Commission welcomes any 
insights commenters can provide regarding which of these alternatives 
would most effectively utilize Mobility Fund support to benefit 
consumers through expanded 3G coverage. The Commission also seeks 
commenters' views on which of these ways of distributing Mobility Fund 
support would best help ensure that places with the lowest levels of 3G 
coverage will not fall even farther behind as the industry begins to 
deploy the next generation of 4G mobile broadband service. Finally, the 
Commission notes that some areas that it identifies as lacking 3G 
coverage will have some level of mobile voice service, while other 
identified areas will have no mobile wireless service at all. The 
Commission seeks comment on whether and how the Commission might 
prioritize support toward unserved areas that currently lack any mobile 
wireless service.
e. Targeting Tribal Areas
    28. The Commission seeks comment on whether the Commission should 
reserve funds for developing a Mobility Fund support program targeted 
separately to Tribal lands that trail national 3G coverage rates. For 
these purposes, Tribal lands are defined as any federally recognized 
Indian tribes' reservation, pueblo or colony, including former 
reservations in Oklahoma, Alaska Native regions established pursuant to 
the Alaska Native Claims Settlements Act (85 Stat. 688), and Indian 
Allotments. 47 CFR 54.400(e). Communities on Tribal lands have 
historically had less access to telecommunications services than any 
other segment of the population. Available data illustrates that less 
than ten percent of residents on Tribal lands have access to broadband. 
Also, Tribal lands are often in rural, high-cost areas, and present 
distinct connectivity challenges. The National Broadband Plan observed 
that many Tribal communities face significant obstacles to the 
deployment of broadband infrastructure, including high build-out costs, 
limited financial resources that deter investment by commercial 
providers and a shortage of technically trained members who can 
undertake deployment and adoption planning. As a result, the National 
Broadband Plan noted that Tribes need substantially greater financial 
support than is presently available to them, and accelerating Tribal 
broadband will require increased funding. The Commission has recognized 
that Tribes are inherently sovereign governments that enjoy a unique 
relationship with the federal government. In turn, the Commission has 
reaffirmed its policy to promote a government-to-government 
relationship between the FCC and federally-recognized Indian tribes. 
Because this relationship warrants a tailored approach that takes into 
consideration the unique characteristics of Tribal lands, the 
Commission believes addressing Mobility Fund support for Tribal lands 
on a separate track will be beneficial in providing adequate time to 
coordinate with American Indian Tribes and Alaska Native Village 
governments and seeks their input.
6. Performance Requirements
a. Coverage Requirement
    29. The Commission proposes to establish a coverage requirement 
that will ensure that Mobility Fund support is put to the purpose for 
which it is intended--to expand coverage in unserved areas. The 
Commission seeks comment on the percentage of resident population in 
the census blocks deemed unserved the Commission should require be 
covered by any party receiving support for a particular census tract. 
Should the Commission require 100 percent coverage? Or would it be 
appropriate to require a level of coverage of between 95 and 100 
percent of the resident population of census blocks deemed unserved in 
order to balance its goal of expanding service with concern that 
excessively high costs to serve a few residents in an area might deter 
providers from bidding to cover areas otherwise well suited for 
Mobility Fund support? The Commission notes that should it decide to 
require less than 100 percent coverage, recipients would receive 
support based on the percentage of coverage actually achieved, provided 
that they cover at least the required percentage.
    30. Is a performance requirement appropriate, given the 
Commission's proposed method of determining unserved areas, its 
proposed use of per-unit bids to determine the set of winning bidders, 
and its proposal that the Commission will determine support amounts 
based on the units deemed unserved in the census blocks within the 
tract? The Commission asks commenters to consider how it should monitor 
compliance with any coverage requirement, and to address the ways in 
which monitoring may create incentives for support recipients to 
further the goals of the Mobility Fund program. The Commission invites 
commenters describing any alternatives to its proposal to explain with 
specificity why

[[Page 67065]]

such alternatives would be preferable. To ensure that the Mobility Fund 
supports service where it is actually needed, should the Commission 
require winning bidders to actively market their service in the area(s) 
for which they bid, and/or to provide service to a specified number or 
percentage of consumers in such areas by certain milestone dates?
    31. The Commission also makes proposals to encourage possibilities 
for competition in the market for 3G or better services in the 
geographic areas in which it provides support. First, the Commission 
proposes that any new tower constructed to satisfy Mobility Fund 
performance obligations provide the opportunity for collocation. The 
Commission seeks comment on this proposal. Should the Commission 
require any minimum number of spaces for collocation on any new towers 
and/or specify terms for collocation? In addition, the Commission 
proposes that the use of Mobility Fund support be conditioned on 
providing data roaming on reasonable and not unreasonably 
discriminatory terms and conditions on 3G and subsequent generations of 
mobile broadband networks that are built through Mobility Fund support. 
The Commission seeks comment on this proposal and asks that commenters 
provide specific information on the impact and/or the importance of 
such requirements in promoting the availability of advanced mobile 
services.
b. Service Quality and Rates
    32. The Commission proposes that Mobility Fund support be used to 
expand the availability of advanced mobile communications services 
comparable or superior to those provided by networks using HSPA or EV-
DO, which are commonly available 3G technologies. Universal service 
support may be provided for services based on widely available current 
generation technologies--or superior next generation technologies 
available at the same or lower costs--even though supported services 
could be based on earlier technologies. Technologies used to provide 
the services supported by universal service funds need not be 
technologies that are strictly limited to providing the particular 
services designated for support. As detailed in connection with proof 
of deployment requirements, supported networks would demonstrate their 
quality of service by proving that they have achieved particular data 
rates under particular conditions. The Commission proposes that these 
data rates be comparable to those provided by networks using the basic 
functionality of HSPA or EV-DO. The Commission would not, however, 
require that supported parties use any particular technology to provide 
service. Instead, the Commission proposes to use widely deployed 
technologies to define a baseline of performance that any supported 
network must meet or exceed. The Commission seeks comment on this 
proposal. Should supported networks be required to provide data rates 
comparable to 4G networks? Alternatively, should supported networks be 
required to present a path to 4G service?
    33. The Commission also seeks comment on how to implement, in the 
context of the Mobility Fund, the statutory principle that supported 
services should be made available to consumers in rural, insular, and 
high-cost areas at rates that are reasonably comparable to rates 
charged for similar services in urban areas. Given the absence of 
affirmative regulation of rates charged for commercial mobile services, 
as well as the rate practices and structures used by providers of such 
services, how can parties demonstrate that the rates they charge in 
areas where they receive support are reasonably comparable to rates 
charged in urban areas? What should the Commission use as a standard 
for reasonably comparable and urban areas in this context? What should 
be the consequence of failing to make the required showing?
c. Deployment Schedule
    34. The Commission proposes that recipients be required to meet 
certain milestones for the provision of service in each unserved census 
block in a tract in order to remain qualified for the full amount of 
any Mobility Fund award. For example, the Commission could require that 
recipients achieve fifty percent of the coverage requirement within one 
year after qualifying for support. The Commission seeks comment on this 
proposal and on appropriate coverage percentages and time periods for 
such a milestone. Are there critical factors that should be taken into 
account in establishing timetables for rollout in different areas, such 
as weather conditions or limited construction seasons? The Commission 
notes that service providers will have to comply with the Commission's 
rules implementing the National Environmental Policy Act and other 
federal environmental statutes, as well as all local requirements for 
construction. Are there areas where those requirements would make it 
appropriate to adopt alternative schedules?
d. Proof of Deployment
    35. Parties supported by the Mobility Fund must provide 3G or 
better mobile coverage in specific areas previously deemed unserved by 
3G. The Commission proposes that parties satisfy their performance 
requirement by proving that they have deployed a network covering the 
relevant area and capable of meeting certain minimum standards. The 
Commission proposes that data from the drive tests conducted after 
construction and optimization of the network be used to determine 
whether these requirements have been met. By drive tests, the 
Commission refers to tests service providers normally conduct to 
analyze network coverage for mobile services in a particular area, that 
is, measurements taken from vehicles traveling on roads in the area. 
More specifically, the Commission proposes that recipients of Mobility 
Fund support would provide data from their drive tests showing mobile 
transmissions to and from the network meeting or exceeding the 
following minimum standards: Outdoor minimum of 200 kbps uplink and 768 
kbps downlink to handheld mobile devices at vehicle speeds up to 70 
MPH. These data rates should be achieved with 90 percent coverage area 
probability at a sector loading of 70 percent. The transmissions would 
be required to support mobile voice and data. The Commission proposes 
that the drive test would be conducted over all Interstate, U.S., and 
State routes in the area, as well as any other roads that the 
applicable State Agency regulating the provision of telecommunications 
services deems essential to service. The Commission proposes that drive 
test data satisfying the foregoing requirements should be submitted 
within two months of a site providing service or two years of the date 
support is first provided, whichever comes earlier. The Commission 
seeks comment on these proposals.
    36. The Commission's proposal would not require that providers 
employ any particular type of technology in expanding coverage. 
Nevertheless, the Commission seeks comment on whether there are reasons 
to adopt technology-specific minimum standards. Is there any risk that 
providers will deploy particular technologies in inefficient ways or 
ways that limit their capacity for future growth in order to meet the 
minimum standards? Or should the Commission require superior 
performance from certain technologies that are capable of far exceeding 
the minimum requirements? For example, should the Commission require 
that 4G

[[Page 67066]]

technologies deployed with support satisfy minimum standards greater 
than 3G technologies deployed with support?
    37. The Commission seeks comment on how to determine the roads that 
must be included in any drive tests subject to review. Would it be 
sufficient to cover Interstates, U.S. Routes, and State Routes? Do 
circumstances vary sufficiently from state to state or region to region 
such that different approaches should be adopted for different states? 
What parties are likely to have the best available information 
regarding what roads are most important for mobile coverage? Should 
those parties be involved in the process of determining the roads that 
must be included in the drive tests?
    38. To demonstrate coverage of the population within an unserved 
area, the Commission proposes that bidders submit in electronic 
Shapefiles site coverage plots from a standard RF prediction tool that 
utilizes high resolution terrain data and has been calibrated to match 
the results of drive tests to the extent possible. The Environmental 
Systems Research Institute (ESRI) Shapefile format is a commonly used 
GIS (Geographic Information System) file format representing vector 
data. These plots would be submitted along with the drive test data, 
preferably on the same plot, and each will display the same coverage 
threshold parameter, with adjustments to account for drive test 
configuration specified as necessary. The coverage threshold selected 
would be one that is (a) sufficient to initiate and hold a voice call, 
and (b) is mathematically capable using standard link budget 
calculations of supporting the minimum data rate requirements. These 
link budget calculations showing derivation of the threshold would also 
be provided. The scale of the plots would be at least 1:240,000 such 
that reasonable coverage resolution is evident. In addition, the plots 
would be accompanied by all relevant site data, including site 
coordinates, antenna type(s), radiation centers (AGL), Effective 
Isotropic Radiated Powers (EIRPs), antenna azimuths, and antenna tilts. 
These plots would also include major roadways, census tract boundaries, 
and county (or its equivalent) and state boundaries, as well as the 
boundaries between served and unserved census blocks, as previously 
determined by the Commission, so that the site's coverage can easily be 
compared to areas previously deemed unserved. The specific census 
blocks may be identified on the plot or listed in accompanying data. 
Lastly, the plots would show the population previously deemed unserved 
of each block and the percentage of these that are now served.
    39. The Commission proposes that parties receiving support be 
required to file annual reports with the Commission demonstrating the 
coverage provided with support from the Mobility Fund for five years 
after qualifying for support. The Commission proposes that the reports 
include maps illustrating the scope of the area reached by new 
services, the population residing in those areas (based on Census 
Bureau data and estimates), and information regarding efforts to market 
the service to promote adoption among the population in those areas. In 
addition, the Commission proposes that each party receiving support be 
required to include in its annual reports all drive test data that the 
party receives or makes use of, whether the tests were conducted 
pursuant to Commission requirements or any other reason. The Commission 
seeks comment on this proposal and discussion of any alternatives 
regarding the collection of information about supported services newly 
offered in previously unserved areas.

D. Mobility Fund Eligibility Requirements

    40. In compliance with statutory requirements and to help ensure 
the commitment of applicants, the Commission proposes certain minimum 
requirements for those entities wishing to receive support from the 
Mobility Fund. Specifically, the Commission proposes that a provider be 
required to (1) Be designated (or have applied for designation) as a 
wireless Eligible Telecommunications Carrier (ETC) pursuant to 47 
U.S.C. 214(e), by the state public utilities commission (PUC) (or the 
Commission, where the state PUC does not designate ETCs) in any area 
that it seeks to serve; (2) have access to spectrum capable of 3G or 
better service in the geographic area to be served; and (3) certify 
that it is financially and technically capable of providing service 
within the specified timeframe. The Commission proposes to require 
that, subject to these requirements, applicants be eligible to submit 
bids seeking support to deploy service in multiple unserved areas. The 
Commission seeks comment on these minimum requirements, inquires 
whether other minimum standards are desirable, and solicits comment on 
other provider eligibility issues.
    41. The Commission proposes a two-stage application process similar 
to the one it uses in spectrum license auctions. Based on the 
eligibility requirements for Mobility Fund support, the Commission 
would require a pre-auction short-form application to establish 
eligibility to participate in the auction, relying primarily on 
disclosures as to identity and ownership and applicant certifications, 
and perform a more extensive, post-auction review of the winning 
bidders' qualifications based on required long-form applications. Such 
an approach should provide an appropriate screen to ensure serious 
participation without being unduly burdensome. This would allow the 
Commission to move forward quickly with the auction, which would speed 
the distribution of funding and ultimately the provision of advanced 
mobile wireless services to currently unserved areas. The Commission 
seeks comment on the use of this application process to ensure 
compliance with its eligibility requirements.
1. ETC Designation
    42. All USF recipients must be designated as ETCs by the relevant 
state (or by the Commission in cases of states that have determined 
they have no jurisdiction over a wireless ETC designation request) 
before receiving high-cost support pursuant to 47 U.S.C. 214 and 254. 
Therefore, the Commission proposes to require that applicants for 
Mobility Fund support be designated as wireless ETCs covering the 
relevant geographic area prior to participating in a Mobility Fund 
auction. The Commission seeks comment on the proposal.
    43. Alternatively, the Commission seeks comment on allowing 
entities that have applied for designation as ETCs in the relevant area 
to participate in a Mobility Fund auction. Pursuant to 47 U.S.C. 
214(e)(1) and 47 CFR 54.101(b), an ETC is obligated to provide all of 
the supported services defined in 47 CFR 54.101(a) throughout the area 
for which it has been designated an ETC. Therefore, an ETC must be 
designated (or have applied for designation) with respect to an area 
that includes area(s) on which it wishes to receive Mobility Fund 
support. Moreover, a recipient of Mobility Fund support will remain 
obligated to provide supported services throughout the area for which 
it is designated an ETC if that area is larger than the areas for which 
it receives Mobility Fund support. Commenting parties should discuss 
whether the potential gain by allowing a larger pool of applicants 
offsets any potential abuse and delay that could result if a non-ETC 
were to bid and win the auction, but then be deemed ineligible for 
support.
    44. In addition, the Commission seeks comment on the ETC 
designation requirements of 47 U.S.C. 214(e). For

[[Page 67067]]

example, ETCs must offer supported services throughout the service area 
for which the designation is received. The statute also provides that 
when states handle the ETC designation, the states also designate the 
service areas. Section 214 permits this Commission, with respect to 
interstate services, to designate ETCs and service areas if no common 
carrier will provide the services that are supported by Federal 
universal service support mechanisms under 47 U.S.C. 254(c) to an 
unserved community or any portion thereof that requests such service. 
The statute also provides that in states where the state commission 
lacks jurisdiction over the carrier seeking ETC status, which is 
sometimes the case for wireless carriers, this Commission designates 
the ETC and the service area. How can the Commission best interpret 
these and all the interrelated requirements of 47 U.S.C. 214(e) to 
achieve the purposes of the Mobility Fund?
2. Access to Spectrum To Provide Required Services
    45. In order to participate in a Mobility Fund auction and receive 
support, the Commission proposes that an entity be required to hold, or 
otherwise have access to, a Commission authorization to provide service 
in a frequency band that can support 3G or better services. The 
Commission seeks comment on both the access to, and the type of, 
spectrum required for Mobility Fund eligibility.
    46. As an initial matter, the Commission proposes that entities 
currently licensed to operate in identified unserved blocks should be 
deemed to meet this requirement. The Commission also seeks comment on 
whether entities other than current licensees should be eligible to 
participate if they have either applied for a Commission license or 
have entered into an agreement to acquire a license through an 
assignment or transfer of control. Therefore, the Commission seeks 
comment on whether a binding agreement to acquire the necessary 
authorization to use spectrum should be sufficient for Mobility Fund 
eligibility.
    47. The Commission also seeks comment on using leased spectrum to 
provide the service that would meet the parameters of the Mobility 
Fund. Commenters supporting Mobility Fund eligibility for entities 
using leased spectrum should indicate whether the Commission should 
impose requirements regarding the terms of spectrum leasing 
arrangements that will confer eligibility, such as the minimum duration 
of the arrangement, the amount of spectrum, etc. Moreover, the 
Commission asks whether the entity must currently be leasing the 
spectrum at the time of the Mobility Fund's short-form or long-form 
application deadline or whether a signed agreement is sufficient.
    48. The Commission proposes further that entities seeking to 
receive support from the Mobility Fund have access to spectrum (and 
sufficient bandwidth) capable of supporting the required services, such 
as spectrum for use in Advanced Wireless Services, the 700 MHz Band, 
Broadband Radio Services, broadband PCS or cellular bands. Should the 
Commission limit eligibility based on access to specific spectrum 
suitable for providing the required services? If so, what spectrum 
should the Commission consider appropriate? Do the technical rules and 
configuration for Specialized Mobile Radio frequencies permit 3G 
service? The Commission also seeks comment on whether, with or without 
regard to requiring access to particular frequencies, the Commission 
should require that parties seeking support have access to a minimum 
amount of bandwidth and whether only paired blocks of bandwidth should 
be deemed sufficient.
3. Certification of Financial and Technical Capability
    49. The Commission also proposes that each party seeking to receive 
support from the Mobility Fund be required to certify that it is 
financially and technically capable of providing 3G or better service 
within the specified timeframe in the geographic areas for which it 
seeks support. The Commission seeks comment on how best to determine if 
an entity has sufficient resources to satisfy the Mobility Fund 
obligations. The Commission likewise seeks comment on certification 
regarding an entity's technical capacity. Does the Commission need to 
be specific as to the minimum showing required to make the 
certification? Or can the Commission rely on its post-auction review 
and performance requirements?
4. Other Qualifications
    50. In addition to the three minimum qualifications (ETC 
designation, access to spectrum for 3G or better services, and 
certifications regarding financial and technical capabilities), the 
Commission seeks comment on other eligibility requirements for entities 
seeking to receive support from the Mobility Fund. Parties providing 
suggestions should be specific and explain how the eligibility 
requirements would serve the ultimate goals of the Mobility Fund. At 
the same time that the Commission establishes minimum qualifications 
consistent with the goals of the Mobility Fund, are there ways the 
Commission can encourage participation by the widest possible range of 
qualified parties? For example, are there any steps the Commission 
should take to encourage smaller eligible parties to participate in the 
bidding for support?

E. Reverse Auction Mechanism

    51. At this stage in the development of the Mobility Fund, the 
Commission proposes rules for and seeks comment on certain auction 
design elements that will establish a general framework for the 
proposed reverse auction mechanism. Accordingly, as detailed in 
Appendix A of the Mobility Fund Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, the 
Commission proposes rules that will provide the Commission, the 
Wireless Bureau, and the Wireline Competition Bureau (Wireline Bureau) 
with some flexibility to choose among various methods of conducting the 
bidding and procedures to use during the bidding. These rules are 
generally modeled on the Commission rules that govern the design and 
conduct of its spectrum license auctions.
    52. While the rules the Commission proposes establish the framework 
for conducting a Mobility Fund auction, they do not necessarily by 
themselves establish the specific detailed procedures that will govern 
any auction process. The Commission envisions that it will develop and 
provide notice to potential bidders of detailed auction procedures 
prior to conducting a Mobility Fund auction. This will promote the use 
of specific procedures for an auction that take into account the 
particular program requirements and auction rules established in this 
proceeding. Specifically, the Commission proposes that, after 
establishing program and auction rules for the Mobility Fund in this 
proceeding, it will release a Public Notice announcing an auction date, 
identifying areas eligible for support through the auction, and seeking 
comment on specific detailed auction procedures to be used, consistent 
with those rules. The Commission further proposes that it will release 
a subsequent Public Notice specifying the auction procedures, including 
dates, deadlines, and other details of the application and bidding 
process. Consistent with the Commission's existing practice for 
spectrum auctions, the Commission delegates authority jointly to the 
Wireless and Wireline

[[Page 67068]]

Bureaus to establish as outlined here, through public notices, the 
necessary detailed auction procedures prior to a Mobility Fund auction, 
and to take all other actions needed to conduct any such auction. The 
Commission seeks comment on this proposal.
1. Basic Auction Design
    53. A reverse auction, in which potential providers or sellers of a 
defined service or other benefit compete to provide it at the lowest 
price, can be a relatively quick, simple, and transparent method of 
selecting parties that will provide a benefit at the lowest price and 
of setting the price those parties should be paid. Here, the Commission 
proposes general rules for a Mobility Fund reverse auction including 
some other aspects of the auction design and process that must be 
considered before actually conducting an auction. As a threshold 
matter, although there are a number of formats that could be used for 
reverse auctions, including both multiple-round and single-round 
formats, the Commission proposes to use a single-round reverse auction 
to award Mobility Fund support. The Commission proposes a single-round 
auction because it is simple and because the Commission expects bidders 
for Mobility Fund support to be well acquainted with the costs 
associated with providing access to advanced mobile wireless services 
in the areas they proposes to cover, and to bid accordingly.
2. Application Process
    54. The Commission proposes to use a two-stage application process 
similar to the one the Commission uses in spectrum license auctions. 
Under this proposal, the Commission would require a pre-auction short-
form application from entities interested in participating in a 
Mobility Fund auction. After the auction, the Commission would conduct 
a more extensive review of the winning bidders'' qualifications through 
long-form applications. The Commission envisions that both applications 
would be filed electronically, in a process similar to that used for 
spectrum license auctions.
    55. The Commission proposes that, in the short-form application, 
potential bidders provide basic ownership information and certify as to 
their compliance with the eligibility requirements for obtaining 
Mobility Fund support. Specifically, the Commission proposes that an 
applicant would need to provide information about its ownership similar 
to the Part 1 competitive bidding ownership rule for spectrum auctions, 
47 CFR 1.2112. This information will establish the identity of 
applicants and provide information that will aid in ensuring compliance 
with and enforcement of Mobility Fund auction and program rules. Also, 
a potential bidder would need to certify its qualifications to receive 
Mobility Fund support, including providing its ETC designation status 
and information regarding its access to adequate and appropriate 
spectrum. Finally, the Commission proposes that applicants be required 
to certify that they have and will comply with all rules for Mobility 
Fund competitive bidding. The Commission seeks comment on these 
proposed short-form application requirements.
    56. In addition, the Commission seeks comment on whether the 
Commission should require applicants to identify in their short-form 
applications the specific census tracts with unserved blocks on which 
they may wish to bid and provide service. As in the Commission's 
spectrum auctions, the Commission would not necessarily require a bid 
on each census tract selected in an applicant's short-form application. 
However, the availability of this information could be helpful in 
ensuring compliance with the Commission's auction rules. The Commission 
seeks comment on this and on any other information that the Commission 
should require of applicants in the pre-auction stage that would help 
ensure a quick and reliable application process.
    57. The Commission proposes that applications to participate in a 
Mobility Fund auction should be subject to review for completeness and 
compliance with its rules, and envisions a process similar to that used 
in spectrum license auctions. Specifically, after the application 
deadline, Commission staff would review the short-form applications, 
and once review is complete, the Commission would release a public 
notice indicating which short-form applications are deemed acceptable 
and which are deemed incomplete. Applicants whose short-form 
applications were deemed incomplete would be given a limited 
opportunity to cure defects and to resubmit correct applications. As 
with spectrum license auctions, applicants would only be able to make 
minor modifications to their short-form applications. Major amendments 
would make the applicant ineligible to bid. Once the Commission staff 
reviews the resubmitted applications, the Commission would release a 
second public notice designating the applicants that have qualified to 
participate in the Mobility Fund auction. The Commission seeks comment 
on adopting this application process in order to qualify entities to 
participate in a Mobility Fund auction.
3. Bidding Process
    58. The Commission proposes to conduct a single-round reverse 
auction to identify those applicants that will receive Mobility Fund 
support and the amount of support they will receive, subject to post-
auction processing requirements applicable to winning bidders. The 
Commission seeks comment on aspects of the bidding process for any 
Mobility Fund auction, so that potential bidders will understand how 
bids may be submitted, what bids will be acceptable, and how the 
auction mechanism will determine winning bidders.
    59. Based on the Commission's proposal to award support to bidders 
that will deploy service in unserved census blocks at the least per-
unit cost to the Mobility Fund, the Commission proposes that bids for 
Mobility Fund support would state the dollar amount of support sought 
per each unit associated with the unserved area(s) in those census 
tracts covered by the specific bid submitted. In addition, based on its 
proposal to award support to only one provider per area, the Commission 
proposes that a Mobility Fund auction would select at most one winning 
bidder per census tract. The Commission proposes that after bidding 
closes, in order to select winning bidders, the auction mechanism will 
rank bids based on the per-unit bids from lowest to highest and 
calculate the running sum represented by those bids and the number of 
units in the unserved areas covered by those bids. The Commission also 
proposes that if there are any identical bids--in the same per-unit 
amounts to cover the same tract or tracts, submitted by different 
bidders--that only one such bid, chosen randomly, be considered in the 
ranking.
    60. Under these proposals, the auction would identify winning 
bidders starting with the bidder making the lowest per-unit bid and 
continue to the bidders with the next lowest per-unit bids in turn, 
provided that support had not already been assigned for that census 
tract, so long as the running sum based on the units in the identified 
unserved areas covered by the bids does not exceed the available 
monies.
    61. Maximum bids and reserve prices. The Commission proposes a rule 
to provide the Commission with discretion to establish maximum 
acceptable per-unit bid amounts for a Mobility Fund auction. The 
Commission also proposes

[[Page 67069]]

that it may, prior to the auction, establish reserve amounts, separate 
and apart from any maximum opening bids, and may elect whether or not 
to disclose those reserves.
    62. Aggregating service areas and package bidding. The Commission 
proposes a rule to provide generally that the Commission shall have 
discretion to establish bidding procedures for any Mobility Fund 
auction that permit bidders to submit bids on packages of tracts, so 
that their bids may take into account scale and other essential 
efficiencies that tract-by-tract bidding may not permit. If a bidder 
were awarded support based on a package bid, it would still be re