Reexamination of Roaming Obligations of Commercial Mobile Radio Service Providers and Other Providers of Mobile Data Services, 26199-26220 [2011-10223]

Agencies

• FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION

[Federal Register Volume 76, Number 88 (Friday, May 6, 2011)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 26199-26220]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2011-10223]



[[Page 26199]]

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

FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION

47 CFR Parts 0 and 20

[WT Docket No. 05-265; FCC 11-52]


Reexamination of Roaming Obligations of Commercial Mobile Radio 
Service Providers and Other Providers of Mobile Data Services

AGENCY: Federal Communications Commission.

ACTION: Final rule.

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

SUMMARY: In this document, the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) 
adopts a rule that requires facilities-based providers of commercial 
mobile data services to offer data roaming arrangements to other such 
providers on commercially reasonable terms and conditions, subject to 
certain limitations, thereby advancing the Commission's goal of 
ensuring that all Americans have access to competitive broadband mobile 
data services.

DATES: Effective June 6, 2011, except for Sec.  20.12(e)(2) which 
contains information collection requirements that have not been 
approved by the Office of Management and Budget (OMB). The Commission 
will publish a document in the Federal Register announcing the 
effective date of this amendment.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Peter Trachtenberg, Wireless 
Telecommunications Bureau, (202) 418-7369, e-mail 
Peter.Trachtenberg@fcc.gov. 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 or via the Internet at Judith-B.Herman@fcc.gov.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: This is a summary of the Commission's Second 
Report and Order in WT Docket No. 05-265; FCC 11-52, adopted April 7, 
2011, and released on April 7, 2011. The full text of the Second Report 
and Order is available for public inspection and copying during 
business hours in the FCC Reference Information Center, Portals II, 445 
12th Street, SW., Room CY-A257, Washington, DC 20554. It also may be 
purchased from the Commission's duplicating contractor at Portals II, 
445 12th Street, SW., Room CY-B402, Washington, DC 20554; the 
contractor's Web site, https://www.bcpiweb.com; or by calling (800) 378-
3160, facsimile (202) 488-5563, or e-mail FCC@BCPIWEB.com. Copies of 
the public notice also may be obtained via the Commission's Electronic 
Comment Filing System (ECFS) by entering the docket number WT Docket 
No. 05-265. Additionally, the complete item is available on the Federal 
Communications Commission's Web site at https://www.fcc.gov.

Synopsis of the Second Report and Order

I. Introduction

    1. In this Second Report and Order (Second R&O), the Commission 
promotes consumer access to nationwide mobile broadband service by 
adopting a rule that requires facilities-based providers of commercial 
mobile data services to offer data roaming arrangements to other such 
providers on commercially reasonable terms and conditions, subject to 
certain limitations. Widespread availability of data roaming capability 
will allow consumers with mobile data plans to remain connected when 
they travel outside their own provider's network coverage areas by 
using another provider's network, and thus promote connectivity for and 
nationwide access to mobile data services such as e-mail and wireless 
broadband Internet access. The rule the Commission adopts today also 
serves the public interest by promoting investment in and deployment of 
mobile broadband networks, consistent with the recommendations of the 
National Broadband Plan. The deployment of mobile data networks is 
essential to achieve the goal of making broadband connectivity 
available everywhere in the United States, and the availability of data 
roaming will help ensure the viability of new wireless data network 
deployments and thus promote the development of competitive facilities-
based service offerings for the benefit of consumers. Today's actions 
will therefore advance the Commission's goal of ensuring that all 
Americans have access to competitive broadband mobile data services.
    2. The Commission adopts the data roaming rule based on its 
authority under the Act, including several provisions of Title III, 
which provides the Commission with authority to manage spectrum and 
establish and modify license and spectrum usage conditions in the 
public interest. This rule will apply to all facilities-based providers 
of commercial mobile data services regardless of whether these entities 
are also providers of commercial mobile radio service (CMRS). To 
resolve disputes arising pursuant to the rule the Commission adopts 
here, the Commission provides that parties may file a petition for 
declaratory ruling under Section 1.2 of the Commission's rules or file 
a formal or informal complaint under the rule established herein 
depending on the circumstances specific to each dispute. Also, in order 
to facilitate the negotiation of data roaming arrangements, the 
Commission provides guidance on factors that the Commission could 
consider when evaluating any data roaming disputes that might be 
brought before the agency.

II. Discussion

A. The Public Interest in a Data Roaming Rule

    3. After carefully considering the arguments in the record, the 
Commission concludes that it will serve the public interest to adopt a 
data roaming rule. Specifically, the Commission requires providers of 
commercial mobile data services to offer data roaming arrangements on 
commercially reasonable terms and conditions, subject to specified 
limitations as set forth below, pursuant to the Commission's authority 
under the Communications Act. The Commission concludes that adopting a 
roaming rule tailored for mobile data services will best promote 
consumer access to seamless mobile data coverage nationwide, 
appropriately balance the incentives for new entrants and incumbent 
providers to invest in and deploy advanced networks across the country, 
and foster competition among multiple providers in the industry, 
consistent with the National Broadband Plan. Broadband deployment is a 
key priority for the Commission, and the deployment of commercial 
mobile data networks will be essential to achieve the goal of making 
broadband connectivity available everywhere in the United States. As 
discussed above, the Commission's determination to adopt a commercial 
mobile data roaming rule is supported by the overwhelming majority of 
commenters and evidence in the record.
    4. Commercial mobile data services provided over advanced mobile 
broadband technologies have become an increasingly significant part of 
the lives of American consumers and the shape of the mobile industry. 
Mobile data services increasingly are used for a variety of both 
personal and business purposes, including back-up communications during 
emergencies and for accessibility. Data traffic has risen sharply over 
the past few years as a result of the increased adoption of smartphones 
combined with increased data consumption per device. The Commission's 
data roaming rule will maximize consumers' ability to use and

[[Page 26200]]

benefit from wireless broadband data services wherever they are by 
enhancing the ability of all facilities-based providers, including 
small and regional providers, to provide nearly nationwide data 
coverage through roaming arrangements.
    5. As data services increasingly become the focus of the mobile 
wireless services, consumers increasingly expect their providers to 
offer competitive broadband data services, and the availability of data 
roaming arrangements can be critical to providers remaining competitive 
in the mobile services marketplace. The Commission agrees that the 
availability of roaming capabilities is and will continue to be a 
critical component to enable consumers to have a competitive choice of 
facilities-based providers offering nationwide access to commercial 
mobile data services. As more and more consumers use mobile devices to 
access a wide array of both personal and business services, they have 
become more reliant on their devices. These consumers expect to be able 
to have access to the full range of services available on their devices 
wherever they go. Providers with local or regional service areas need 
roaming arrangements to offer nationwide coverage, and there may be 
areas where building another network may be economically infeasible or 
unrealistic. Even where providers have invested in and built out 
broadband networks in a regional service territory, a service 
provider's inability to offer roaming easily can deter customers from 
subscribing. For example, Cincinnati Bell represents that ``[d]ue to 
the limited availability of nationwide roaming partners for 3G and 4G 
services, [it] is seeing a steady defection of its customers to the 
national carriers even though Cincinnati Bell offers a superior network 
in its operating area.'' Availability of such roaming arrangements also 
may be particularly important for consumers in rural areas--where 
mobile data services may be solely available from small rural 
providers. According to BendBroadband, its mobile broadband product is 
``not commercially viable for most consumers primarily because we 
cannot offer mobility outside of our service area, due to our inability 
to secure reasonable rates and terms for data roaming.'' A data roaming 
requirement will therefore help to ensure that, as consumers become 
increasingly reliant on wireless devices, continuity of spectrum-based 
services is preserved across networks and geographic regions.
    6. The Commission also concludes that the data roaming rule that 
the Commission adopts today will encourage investment in and deployment 
of broadband networks by multiple service providers, including large 
nationwide providers, regional providers, and small providers. Given 
that mobile broadband networks, particularly ``fourth-generation'' 
networks, are still at an early stage of development, significant 
network investment and deployment will also be critical to nationwide 
broadband access and for the promotion of competitive choice in 
broadband services. This data roaming rule will promote mobile 
broadband network deployment, investment, and competition, consistent 
with the goals of the National Broadband Plan, by helping to ensure the 
viability of new data network deployments.
    7. The Commission is persuaded by the evidence that roaming 
arrangements help encourage investment by ensuring that providers 
wanting to invest in their networks can offer subscribers a competitive 
level of mobile network coverage. Roaming arrangements can help provide 
greater assurance to service providers that, if they make the 
investment to expand or upgrade their facilities, they will be able to 
offer competitive service options to their customers through a 
combination of local or regional facilities-based service and roaming 
arrangements. Sprint and T-Mobile state that data roaming arrangements 
will allow service providers to compete more effectively and thus 
greater certainty in access to such arrangements will give them ``the 
resources and the confidence to continue to invest in their businesses, 
including in the construction of new network infrastructure.'' 
SouthernLINC explains that ``when carriers are considering whether to 
invest in the deployment of new technologies and services, the 
availability of data roaming assures the carriers that they will be 
able to meet customers' expectations of seamless connectivity for these 
services. This in turn provides carriers with the certainty they need 
to move forward with these much-needed investments.'' NTELOS reports 
that its roaming agreement with Sprint led to its ability to upgrade 
virtually its entire network to EV-DO Revision A. Clearwire asserts 
that a data roaming obligation supports long-term facilities-based 
entry into new markets, and that once providers enter into new markets 
they will continue to build out networks to contain business costs 
associated with roaming. Further, as argued by several commenters 
representing rural providers--Blooston Rural Carriers, OPASTCO and 
NTCA, RCA, and RTG--the lack of roaming for commercial mobile wireless 
services may deter providers from investing in broadband at the exact 
time such investment is sorely needed. The Chief Financial Officer of 
regional provider Cellular South, for example, states that ``investment 
banks and other sources of investment capital are likely to make the 
judgment that a small rural or regional carrier that cannot obtain data 
roaming agreements with the large national carriers will find it more 
difficult to attract and retain customers'' and that ``[s]uch a 
judgment would lead to the withholding of investment capital which, in 
turn, would hamstring the carrier's efforts to deploy advanced 
broadband infrastructure.'' MetroPCS contends that in order to ensure 
that smaller, rural and mid-tier carriers invest now in LTE, they need 
to know that they will have access to LTE roaming once they have 
upgraded.
    8. The availability of roaming arrangements can also provide 
additional incentives to enter a market by allowing network providers 
without a presence in an area a competitive level of local coverage 
during the early period of investment and buildout. The Commission 
finds that encouraging new entry and local or regional deployments 
serves the public interest, given that such network deployments, 
particularly when these deployments are coupled with roaming 
availability beyond the network service area, would provide consumers 
with greater competitive choices in mobile broadband. Previously, the 
Commission found that lack of roaming can constitute a significant 
hurdle to new competition and can delay or deter entry into a market 
because a provider seeking to provide service in a new geographic area, 
without the ability to supplement its networks with roaming and whose 
initial facilities would necessarily be limited, would be required to 
compete with incumbents that had been developing and expanding their 
networks for many years.
    9. The record in this proceeding supports these findings. Bright 
House Networks, for example, contends that a data roaming requirement 
would remove a barrier to entry and a Senior Vice President of the 
company states that such a requirement would be key to Bright House 
investing more. T-Mobile notes that the ability to roam has enabled the 
company to ``build a facilities-based footprint over time as its 
customer base grows,'' and asserts that a roaming rule will enable it 
to ``invest in new facilities in smaller markets that

[[Page 26201]]

would not be economical to build out unless T-Mobile could use roaming 
to serve the adjacent more sparsely populated areas,'' and thus promote 
rural investment. In addition, according to US Cellular, new wireless 
providers entering the wireless marketplace today face far more 
daunting prospects than did their predecessors of decades ago unless 
they can offer their customers both voice and data roaming on a 
seamless nationwide basis. SkyTerra (now LightSquared) states that the 
absence of a data roaming obligation can discourage service providers 
from entering the market and building upon existing networks. SkyTerra 
further states that without a data roaming obligation, its potential 
customers would likely be discouraged from purchasing terrestrial-based 
services from SkyTerra, especially in the initial stages of SkyTerra's 
network build out.
    10. Accordingly, the Commission finds that availability of roaming 
arrangements helps provide consumers with greater competitive choices 
in mobile broadband by encouraging investment and network deployments 
and ensuring that providers wanting to invest in their networks or to 
enter into a new market can offer subscribers a competitive level of 
mobile network coverage and service. By removing barriers to customer 
acquisition by providers in smaller or remote areas, the rule the 
Commission adopts today will encourage greater use of spectrum and 
additional sustainable investment in broadband networks serving these 
areas.
    11. The Commission finds the roaming rule that the Commission 
adopts, discussed in greater detail below, also will provide incentives 
for host providers to invest and deploy advanced data networks, and 
avoid potential disincentives for those providers to invest. The 
Commission agrees with AT&T and Verizon Wireless that there are pro-
competitive benefits that flow from providers differentiating 
themselves on the basis of coverage in their licensed service areas, 
including in rural and remote areas. The Commission finds that the 
terms and scope of the roaming rule that the Commission adopts will 
protect these benefits, maintain incentives for host providers to 
invest and deploy advanced data networks, and avoid potential 
disincentives for those providers to invest. First, host providers will 
be paid for providing data roaming service, and the Commission adopts a 
general requirement of commercial reasonableness for all roaming terms 
and conditions, including rates, rather than a more specific 
prescriptive regulation of rates requested by some commenters. This 
will give host providers appropriate discretion in the structure and 
level of such rates that they offer. As the Commission found in the 
Order on Reconsideration, ``the relatively high price of roaming 
compared to providing facilities-based service will often be sufficient 
to counterbalance the incentive to `piggy back' on another carrier's 
network.'' The Commission notes that the pro-investment incentives that 
providers will have as a consequence of the high cost of roaming are 
reflected in the terms and conditions offered by mobile data service 
providers, which commonly include authorizing termination of service or 
other actions if a subscriber's roaming on other networks becomes too 
large a part of the subscriber's service use. At a minimum, these 
roaming limitations demonstrate that providers are unlikely to rely on 
roaming arrangements in place of network deployment as the primary 
source of their service provision, nor will such arrangements lead to 
reduced investment by requesting providers.
    12. Finally, as discussed more fully below, the Commission provides 
that, if providers bring disputes to the Commission, the Commission 
will take into account factors including the impact on buildout 
incentives and the extent and nature of providers' existing build-out 
in determining the commercial reasonableness of proffered terms. As the 
Commission has concluded before, a case-by-case determination of 
commercial reasonableness in the event of a dispute preserves 
incentives to invest and protects consumers by facilitating their 
access to nationwide service.
    13. The data roaming rule the Commission adopts today also 
adequately addresses AT&T's argument that a data roaming requirement 
would weaken host providers' investment incentives by leaving them with 
``no control'' over the terms under which they will carry roaming 
traffic and thus unable to manage the additional network congestion 
caused by such traffic. Under the Commission's data roaming rule, 
providers will have the ability to negotiate commercially reasonable 
measures to safeguard the quality of service against network congestion 
that may result from roaming traffic or to prevent harm to the network. 
This rule also includes the ability to offer individualized, 
commercially reasonable terms, including rates, and to evaluate a 
number of factors on a case-by-case basis in determining commercial 
reasonableness. The Commission finds that this approach strikes the 
best balance between concerns over the potential for congestion or 
other harms from roaming traffic and the significant benefits that data 
roaming arrangements can provide to consumers.
    14. The Commission rejects arguments by AT&T and Verizon Wireless 
that a data roaming rule is unnecessary because data roaming agreements 
are occurring without regulation. The Commission finds that providers 
have encountered significant difficulties obtaining data roaming 
arrangements on advanced ``3G'' data networks, particularly from the 
major nationwide providers. For example, Cellular South states that 
after constructing its own EVDO facilities in some portions of its 
service area, its requests for data roaming on large carriers' 
compatible networks were ``rebuffed'' for over a year. OPASTCO and NTCA 
state that ``rural wireless carriers' attempts to enter into 
negotiations with the nationwide wireless providers for data roaming 
agreements are many times rejected out of hand, with a citation to the 
lack of a data roaming requirement in the Commission's rules'' and that 
``[t]his trend has increased as the mobile wireless industry has begun 
to transition to 3G wireless services.''
    15. The Commission observes that AT&T has largely refused to 
negotiate domestic 3G roaming arrangements until recently, even though 
it launched its 3G service in 2005 and was providing coverage to 275 
major metropolitan areas in May 2008. For example, RTG has stated that 
``collectively, its members have not been able to enter into 3G data 
roaming agreements with AT&T.'' In addition, according to RCA, AT&T 
indicated ``recently'' that ``it will not negotiate any 3G data roaming 
agreements unless it helps to fill-in its nationwide coverage map.'' 
AT&T itself stated in its Reply Comments filed July 12, 2010 that it 
had just ``begun to offer 3G roaming arrangements * * *.'' In mid-
November, 2010, it stated that it was ``actively negotiating'' several 
domestic 3G agreements but did not indicate that it had entered into 
any such agreements. On March 24, 2011, AT&T filed an ex parte with the 
Commission indicating that it had entered into a domestic HSPA+ roaming 
agreement, with Mosaic Telecommunications--apparently, its first 
roaming agreement for data service above 2.5G.
    16. Commenters also assert difficulties reaching agreements with 
Verizon Wireless. Cox Communications states that obtaining an initial 
response to a request to negotiate a roaming agreement with Verizon 
Wireless

[[Page 26202]]

required nearly four months and that negotiations over the terms of 
Verizon Wireless's requirement for a nondisclosure agreement consumed 
another four months; and thus, actual negotiations over terms and 
conditions of a roaming agreement did not even begin for eight months 
after Cox's initial request. RTG and RCA assert that Verizon Wireless 
has ``told numerous RTG members that it will not enter into EV-DO (3G) 
roaming agreements in areas where it already has 3G coverage,'' and 
therefore is not open to 3G roaming agreements for customers of smaller 
providers that serve areas where Verizon Wireless has its own network 
coverage. Although Verizon Wireless indicates that it currently has a 
number of EV-DO roaming arrangements with other providers (including 
with several providers that it asserts are members of RCA), it had only 
nine EV-DO roaming agreements as of April, 2010 even though its EV-DO 
network has been in operation since October of 2003 and as of June 
2007, covered more than 210 million pops with EV-DO Rev. A. The 
Commission notes again the importance of roaming to consumers in rural 
areas, where mobile data services may be solely available from small 
rural providers, and therefore the past difficulties of rural providers 
in obtaining data roaming presents a serious concern.
    17. The Commission is also concerned that the recent successes by 
some providers in obtaining 3G data roaming agreements or offers may 
have been the result of large providers seeking to defuse an issue 
under active Commission consideration and may not accurately reflect 
the ability of requesting providers to obtain data roaming arrangements 
in the future if the Commission were to decide not to adopt any data 
roaming rules. For example, although the Commission determined in 2007 
that CMRS providers were not entitled to voice roaming within their own 
licensed service areas (the ``home roaming'' exclusion) in part because 
it contemplated that providers would negotiate home roaming agreements, 
the Commission concluded in the Order on Reconsideration that ``the 
adoption of an automatic roaming obligation with a home roaming 
exclusion appears to have significantly reduced the incentive to make 
home roaming available, and will lead to a reduction in the 
availability of home roaming arrangements over time.'' Consolidation in 
the mobile wireless industry has reduced the number of potential 
roaming partners for some of the smaller, regional and rural providers. 
In addition, this consolidation may have simultaneously reduced the 
incentives of the largest two providers to enter into such arrangements 
by reducing their need for reciprocal roaming. The Commission also 
notes that AT&T and Verizon Wireless are only now deploying ``fourth-
generation'' Long Term Evolution networks. Based on the record before 
it, the Commission finds it likely that these providers will not be 
willing to offer roaming arrangements that cover these networks any 
time in the near future, except in very limited circumstances. The 
Commission agrees with many of the commenters that, given the coverage 
of these nationwide providers, there is a serious risk they might halt 
the negotiations of roaming on their advanced mobile data networks 
altogether in the future in the absence of Commission oversight, 
harming competition and consumers. Given these developments in the 
mobile services marketplace, and in light of past difficulties that 
providers have experienced obtaining data roaming arrangements, the 
Commission finds that adopting a balanced, flexible requirement will 
help to promote the availability of data roaming in the future. The 
Commission notes that the Commission intends to closely monitor further 
development of the commercial mobile broadband data marketplace and 
stand ready to take additional action if necessary to help ensure that 
the Commission's goals in this proceeding are achieved.
    18. In sum, the Commission concludes that there are substantial 
benefits that will be derived from adoption of the data roaming rule 
set forth herein, and that these benefits substantially outweigh the 
minimal costs associated with the rule. The Commission reaches this 
conclusion even though it is not possible to quantify with precision 
the benefits and costs based on the information the Commission has 
before it, and even though many of the benefits are not subject to 
quantification. Adoption of the rule, which is designed to promote 
access to nationwide mobile broadband service and enhance incentives 
for providers to invest in deployment of broadband facilities, is 
necessary to help ensure that the benefits of mobile broadband services 
will be more fully realized. Absent such a rule, there will be a 
significant risk that fewer consumers would have nationwide access to 
competitive mobile broadband services, and that even voice roaming will 
ultimately be rolled back as voice becomes a data application.
    19. The benefits of adopting the proposed data roaming obligation 
are substantial. The rule promotes the availability of commercially 
reasonable data roaming arrangements that might not otherwise be 
available. Consistent with the record comments submitted by providers 
of all sizes serving a large portion of consumers throughout all parts 
of this country, millions of American consumers who otherwise might not 
have full access to mobile broadband services will benefit from 
adoption of the rule.
    20. Furthermore, the Commission finds that the rule will promote 
significant investment in facilities-based broadband networks 
throughout the country. As discussed above, several providers state 
that a data roaming obligation is necessary to provide an acceptable 
level of risk for the investment in data capabilities for their 
network, as it increases their chances of being able to offer their 
subscribers the nationwide coverage needed for a viable product 
offering. Based on the information in the record, the Commission 
expects that there could be billions of dollars of additional 
investment in upgraded facilities and/or expanded coverage, providing 
consumers with substantial benefits while also creating thousands of 
jobs.
    21. With the added investment and deployment of broadband services 
by multiple providers, additional benefits will result from increased 
competition. As discussed above, several commenters have stated that a 
data roaming obligation is necessary for them to provide competitive 
services, and enables them to upgrade existing services or build out 
facilities-based coverage in new markets. The benefits of competition 
include likely lower prices for such services, which will result in 
direct consumer surplus as well as greater utilization of broadband 
data services. In addition, less expensive mobile broadband services 
increase the availability of these services to consumers, which in turn 
creates incentives for edge providers to develop innovative new 
services that use this capability. Although the benefits cannot be 
calculated with precision, a rough estimate is that the benefits from 
the increased competition would be in the billions of dollars per year.
    22. By comparison with the benefits of adopting a data roaming rule 
that promotes the availability of data roaming arrangements, the 
Commission finds that the potential costs of adopting the rule that 
requires providers to offer data roaming arrangements on

[[Page 26203]]

commercial reasonable terms and conditions are small.
    23. As discussed above, the two major opponents of a data roaming 
obligation--Verizon Wireless and AT&T--assert that adoption of such an 
obligation could discourage investment by providers, particularly in 
rural areas, which in turn would reduce mobile broadband availability 
and utilization. The rule adopted in this Order, however, allows host 
providers to control the terms and conditions of proffered data roaming 
arrangements, within a general requirement of commercial 
reasonableness. For the reasons stated above, the Commission concludes 
that such terms would preserve providers' incentive to invest in their 
networks. Indeed, neither AT&T nor Verizon state that they would invest 
less under a roaming obligation and therefore do not expect the roaming 
rule to reduce the investment of host networks.
    24. Another potential cost is the possibility that requesting 
providers will substitute roaming for investment in coverage and 
accordingly under-invest in deploying new infrastructure. Again, 
however, the Commission's rule obligates the host provider only to 
offer data roaming on commercially reasonable terms and conditions. As 
discussed above, such a standard will provide the requesting provider 
with sufficient incentive to invest in facilities, except where doing 
so would be economically infeasible or unrealistic regardless of the 
availability of roaming agreements. Further, the Commission provides 
that the data roaming obligation does not create mandatory resale 
obligations.
    25. An additional potential cost could result from harm to the host 
provider's network that might result from congestion or technical 
problems. To enable a host provider to safeguard its quality of service 
against network congestion, the order expressly provides that host 
providers are permitted to negotiate commercially reasonable measures 
to safeguard against network congestion that might result from data 
roaming traffic. The host provider thus would have the flexibility to 
account for the additional traffic roaming would generate, and 
therefore avoid harmful congestion. Similarly, the rule expressly 
provides that it is reasonable for a provider not to offer a data 
roaming arrangement to a requesting provider that is not 
technologically compatible, or where it is not technically feasible to 
provide roaming for the particular data service for which roaming is 
requested, or where any changes to the host provider's network required 
to accommodate roaming are not economically reasonable.
    26. Thus, the Commission concludes that there are substantial 
benefits that will be derived from adoption of the data roaming rule 
set forth herein, and that these benefits substantially outweigh the 
minimal costs associated with the rule.

B. Scope and Requirements of the Data Roaming Rule

    27. As discussed above, the Commission concludes that the public 
interest would be served by adopting a data roaming rule. The 
Commission will require that facilities-based providers of commercial 
mobile data services offer data roaming arrangements to other such 
providers on commercially reasonable terms and conditions, subject to 
certain limitations specified below. The Commission determines that the 
data roaming rule the Commission adopts should apply to all facilities-
based providers of commercial mobile data services. In establishing 
this rule, the Commission seeks to balance various competing interests, 
and the Commission finds that it is appropriate to specify certain 
grounds on which, under the rule adopted today, providers of commercial 
mobile data services can reasonably refuse to offer a data roaming 
arrangement. The Commission also clarifies that under the data roaming 
rule adopted herein, providers of commercial mobile data roaming 
services are permitted to negotiate commercially reasonable measures to 
safeguard quality of service against network congestion that may result 
from roaming traffic or to prevent harm to their networks. The 
Commission discusses the rule and limitations and the standard of 
commercial reasonableness in more detail below.
    28. Covered Entities. Consistent with the comments addressing the 
scope of covered entities, the Commission determines that the data 
roaming requirement should apply to all facilities-based providers of 
commercial mobile data services. For purposes of data roaming, the 
Commission defines a ``commercial mobile data service'' as any mobile 
data service that is not interconnected with the public switched 
network but is (1) provided for profit; and (2) available to the public 
or to such classes of eligible users as to be effectively available to 
the public. The scope of the current roaming obligation in Section 
20.12 covers the CMRS providers' provision of mobile voice and data 
services that are interconnected with the public switched network, as 
well as their provision of text messaging and push-to-talk services. 
The rule adopted herein will complement the current roaming obligation 
in Section 20.12 and cover mobile services that fall outside the scope 
of that obligation. Under the Commission's decision today, as long as a 
provider provides mobile data services that are for profit and 
available to the public or to such classes of eligible users as to be 
effectively available to the public, it will be covered by the rule 
adopted herein regardless of whether the provider also provides any 
CMRS and without regard to the mobile technology it is utilizing to 
provide services. Thus, the scope includes MSS/ATC providers that offer 
commercial mobile data services that meet these requirements. In 
addition, the data roaming rule adopted herein covers all facilities-
based providers of commercial mobile data services, including those 
constructing network facilities to offer service on a wholesale basis. 
Further, providers of commercial mobile data services are covered 
without regard to the devices used to access or receive their services. 
This approach is supported by those parties in the record that 
commented on this issue, will help to achieve technological neutrality 
in the data roaming obligation, and will ensure that the rule the 
Commission adopts is adequate in the face of rapid changes in 
commercial mobile technology and the commercial mobile ecosystem 
overall.
    29. Application of the Commercial Mobile Data Roaming Rule. The 
rule the Commission adopts today requires all facilities-based 
providers of commercial mobile data services to offer data roaming 
arrangements to other such providers on commercially reasonable terms 
and conditions. As noted above, the Commission concludes that this rule 
serves the public interest by promoting connectivity for and nationwide 
access to mobile data services and by promoting investment in and 
deployment of mobile broadband networks, among other benefits. When a 
request for data roaming negotiations is made, as a part of the duty of 
providers to offer data roaming arrangements on commercially reasonable 
terms and conditions, a would-be host provider has a duty to respond 
promptly to the request and avoid actions that unduly delay or 
stonewall the course of negotiations regarding that request. The 
Commission will determine whether the terms and conditions of a 
proffered data roaming arrangement are commercially reasonable on a 
case-by-case basis, taking into consideration the totality of the 
circumstances.
    30. The duty to offer data roaming arrangements on commercially 
reasonable terms and conditions is

[[Page 26204]]

subject to certain limitations. In particular: (1) Providers may 
negotiate the terms of their roaming arrangements on an individualized 
basis; (2) it is reasonable for a provider not to offer a data roaming 
arrangement to a requesting provider that is not technologically 
compatible; (3) it is reasonable for a provider not to offer a data 
roaming arrangement where it is not technically feasible to provide 
roaming for the particular data service for which roaming is requested 
and any changes to the host provider's network necessary to accommodate 
roaming for such data service are not economically reasonable; and (4) 
it is reasonable for a provider to condition the effectiveness of a 
data roaming arrangement on the requesting provider's provision of 
mobile data service to its own subscribers using a generation of 
wireless technology comparable to the technology on which the 
requesting provider seeks to roam.
    31. The Commission concludes that it serves the public interest to 
include these limitations in recognition of the particular technical 
and policy issues that arise with respect to the provision of data 
services. As discussed above, the Commission recognizes that the 
commercial mobile broadband data marketplace, particularly 4G 
deployment, is still in a critical early stage. It encompasses many 
different services offered in conjunction with many different devices 
employing wide-ranging technologies and exacting varying network 
demands. In light of that continuing evolution, the Commission finds 
that the scope the Commission establishes for the roaming rule is 
sufficiently flexible to apply to a wide range of ever changing 
technologies and commercial contexts, and should afford parties 
negotiating commercial mobile data services roaming agreements a solid 
framework within which to arrange their negotiations and ultimately 
reach agreement on commercially reasonable terms. Below, the Commission 
further discusses and clarifies each of these limitations in turn.
    32. First, providers may negotiate the terms of their roaming 
arrangements on an individualized basis. In other words, providers may 
offer data roaming arrangements on commercially reasonable terms and 
conditions tailored to individualized circumstances without having to 
hold themselves out to serve all comers indiscriminately on the same or 
standardized terms. Conduct that unreasonably restrains trade, however, 
is not commercially reasonable. As discussed below, the Commission may 
consider a range of individualized factors in addressing disputes over 
the commercial reasonableness of the terms and conditions of the 
proffered data roaming arrangements. Giving providers flexibility to 
negotiate the terms of their roaming arrangements on an individualized 
basis ensures that the data roaming rule best serves the Commission's 
public interest goals discussed herein, and the boundaries of the rule 
are narrowly tailored to execute the Commission's spectrum management 
duties under the Act.
    33. Second, it is commercially reasonable for providers not to 
offer a data roaming arrangement to a requesting provider that is not 
technologically compatible. The Commission clarifies, however, that 
technological compatibility does not necessarily require the same air 
interface in the network infrastructure of the two providers. 
Technological compatibility can be achieved by using mobile equipment 
that can communicate with the host provider's network. For example, 
requesting providers that operate on different bands or technologies 
than the host might achieve technological compatibility by providing 
subscribers with multi-band and multi-mode user devices.
    34. Even if providers are technologically compatible, however, 
roaming for a particular service may not be feasible for other 
technical reasons. Accordingly, it is also commercially reasonable for 
a provider to refuse to enter into a data roaming arrangement for a 
particular data service where it is not technically feasible to provide 
roaming for such service and where any changes to its network that are 
necessary to accommodate such data roaming are economically 
unreasonable. With regard to these grounds for reasonably refusing to 
enter into a roaming arrangement, the Commission disagrees with 
commenters that they are too vague or would be too open to 
interpretation by providers seeking to delay or deny roaming access. As 
noted above, identical conditions already apply to requests for push-
to-talk and text-messaging roaming arrangements. Further, the 
Commission finds that these grounds will offer parties negotiating 
roaming agreements reasonable flexibility to negotiate terms without, 
for example, unduly hampering a host provider with the burden of either 
adopting technologies which it has not already adopted in order to 
accommodate the requesting provider's technology or undertaking 
economically unreasonable changes to its network.
    35. Finally, the Commission provides that it is commercially 
reasonable for a provider to condition the effectiveness of a roaming 
arrangement on the requesting provider's provision of mobile data 
service using a generation of wireless technology comparable to the 
technology on which the requesting provider seeks to roam. The 
Commission notes that as with technological compatibility, this does 
not mean that the requesting provider must have exactly the same air 
interface as the host provider. Rather, this focuses on capabilities, 
including data rates, of the generation of mobile wireless technology 
that is being used to provide services to subscribers. Permitting a 
service provider to condition the effectiveness of a roaming 
arrangement in this circumstance provides additional incentives for the 
requesting provider to invest in and upgrade its network to offer 
advanced services to its subscribers and ensures that the requesting 
provider is not merely reselling the host provider's services. This 
limitation prevents providers, for example, from only building a 2G 
network, providing their customers with 3G capable handsets, and then 
relying on roaming arrangements to provide nationwide 3G coverage, and 
thus reasonably addresses concerns raised by AT&T. To prevent undue 
delay in negotiations, the Commission clarifies that a host provider 
may not decline to enter into a roaming agreement with a requesting 
provider on the grounds that the requesting provider is not actually 
providing service at the time of the request for negotiations, but may 
tie the effectiveness of the agreement to the requesting provider 
offering the underlying service to its subscribers with a generation of 
wireless technology comparable to the technology on which it would 
roam. The Commission finds that incorporating this limitation as part 
of the scope of the data roaming rule is in the public interest and 
critical to ensuring facilities are deployed, helping to alleviate 
concerns about providers merely reselling commercial mobile data 
services on other networks. While the Commission agrees that providers 
have many different legitimate business and technological reasons for 
rolling out services in certain markets and not in others, the 
Commission finds that requiring, at a minimum, the underlying service 
to be offered by the requesting provider with a generation of wireless 
technology comparable to the technology on which it seeks to roam best 
balances competing interests of affording data roaming while also 
encouraging facilities-based service.

[[Page 26205]]

    36. This limitation is also consistent with the Commission's 
previous roaming decisions where the Commission has consistently 
limited roaming obligations to provisioning of certain services on 
technologically compatible networks. The limitation on covered services 
coupled with the technologically compatible networks requirement was 
sufficient to ensure that the generations of wireless technologies used 
were comparable. The commercial mobile data services marketplace, 
however, encompasses a broad array of generations of wireless 
technology and many different applications--many of which may require 
different technical considerations and offer different data speeds. 
Some of these also may be more competitively attractive than others. 
The Commission seeks to encourage facilities-based offerings of 
advanced mobile data services by providers and usage of data roaming 
arrangements to supplement such offerings. Accordingly, it serves the 
public interest to focus on capabilities, including data rates, of the 
generation of mobile wireless technology that is being used to provide 
services to subscribers.
    37. The Commission declines to adopt certain other requirements 
proposed by AT&T, which suggests that, in order to preserve the proper 
incentives for investment, the Commission establish an ``equal 
network'' rule that would limit data roaming to only providers that use 
the same radio technologies and air interfaces and that have 
substantial networks of their own. For the reasons discussed above, the 
Commission concludes, contrary to AT&T's argument, that providers will 
not have heightened incentives under the rule adopted here to scale 
back their own deployments and ``free-ride'' on the superior 
investments of others.
    38. The Commission finds it is unnecessary to adopt a requirement 
of identical interfaces. The Commission requires that the air 
interfaces be comparable in terms of capabilities, which should achieve 
the same benefits as a requirement of identical interfaces while 
providing greater technological flexibility in the rule. Further, the 
Commission agrees with Leap and RCA that adopting a ``substantial 
network'' requirement could be problematic. An inability to negotiate a 
roaming arrangement before making a substantial build out could deter 
new entrants and small, rural, and mid-sized providers from investing 
in broadband at the exact time such investment is sorely needed. The 
Commission are concerned that a ``substantial network'' requirement 
could hamper or dampen facilities-based build-out in rural areas by 
unduly limiting the role of roaming in network buildout. The Commission 
also disagrees with AT&T that, absent this requirement, providers will 
have heightened incentives to scale back their own deployments and 
``free-ride'' on the superior investments of others. As discussed 
above, the relatively high price of roaming compared to providing 
facilities-based service will often be sufficient to counterbalance the 
incentive to scale back deployments in favor of relying on another 
provider's network. Further, although the Commission does not find that 
lack of ``substantial'' networks deployments is categorically a 
commercially reasonable ground for declining to enter into a roaming 
arrangement, the Commission may consider the extent and nature of 
providers' build-out as one of the relevant factors in determining 
whether the proposed terms and conditions of a particular data roaming 
arrangement are commercially reasonable.
    39. Reasonable safeguards against congestion. With respect to any 
issues concerning network capacity, network integrity, or network 
security, the Commission notes that under the rule that the Commission 
is adopting providers of commercial mobile data services are free to 
negotiate commercially reasonable measures to safeguard quality of 
service against network congestion that may result from roaming traffic 
or to prevent harm to their networks. The Commission expects any 
measures, methods, or practices to manage the roaming traffic to be 
part of the roaming terms and conditions offered by the host providers 
in their roaming arrangements given that once providers enter into a 
data roaming arrangement, the arrangement will govern the terms under 
which roaming is provided. Any issues arising in connection with the 
negotiation of these measures will be resolved in accordance with the 
dispute resolution procedures the Commission adopts in this Order. The 
Commission notes that reasonable measures to safeguard against network 
congestion from roaming traffic are supported by a number of 
commenters, and are already a feature of many commercially negotiated 
roaming arrangements. The Commission cautions, however, that host 
providers may not engage in stonewalling behavior or refuse to 
negotiate because of concerns over the impact of roaming traffic on 
network congestion.
    40. The Commission declines to further detail the specific measures 
that may be adopted to safeguard subscriber quality of service, as 
proposed by AT&T. As discussed herein, the commercial mobile data 
services marketplace encompasses an array of generations of wireless 
technology and many different services--many of which may require 
different technical considerations in resolving network congestion. 
Providers should have significant flexibility to negotiate safeguards 
subject to commercial reasonableness, and a dispute over the 
reasonableness of any particular measure can be addressed under the 
dispute resolution procedures, on a case-by-case basis based on the 
totality of circumstances. The Commission does not agree with AT&T that 
its approach will lead to ``constant second-guessing'' by the 
Commission.
    41. The Commission also declines to specify, as suggested by 
Clearwire, that data roaming be limited to ``best efforts access'' to 
the host provider's network. The Commission does not see the benefit in 
prohibiting parties from negotiating other access terms in their 
roaming arrangement.
    42. Host providers of commercial mobile data roaming services also 
are authorized to negotiate commercially reasonable measures to ensure 
that data roaming does not compromise the security and integrity of 
their networks. The Commission is aware of the risks network operators 
face from harmful devices on their networks and note that the 
Commission has previously considered the need for providers to protect 
their networks when it adopted open platform provisions for the 700 MHz 
Band C Block. It would also be appropriate for providers of commercial 
mobile data roaming service to take reasonable measures to ensure that 
network performance will not be significantly degraded.
    43. We emphasize again that we intend to closely monitor further 
development of the commercial mobile broadband data marketplace and 
stand ready to take additional action if necessary to help ensure that 
our goals in this proceeding are achieved.

C. Legal Authority

    44. The Commission finds that the Commission has the authority to 
require facilities-based providers of commercial mobile data services 
to offer data roaming arrangements to other such providers on 
commercially reasonable terms and conditions. As discussed above, the 
Commission finds that the rule the Commission adopts today serves the 
public interest by promoting connectivity for, and nationwide access 
to, mobile broadband. By promoting consumer access to advanced wireless 
services, the data roaming rule will

[[Page 26206]]

enhance the unique social and economic benefits that a mobile service 
provides. The data roaming rule will also serve the public interest by 
promoting competition and investment in and deployment of mobile 
broadband services. Broadband deployment is a key priority for the 
Commission, and the deployment of mobile data networks will be 
essential to achieve the goal of making broadband connectivity 
available everywhere in the United States. As noted earlier, mobile 
broadband networks, particularly ``fourth-generation'' networks, are 
still at an early stage of deployment. Both nationwide and non-
nationwide providers have obtained licenses, including AWS and 700 MHz 
spectrum licenses, which will be used to provide innovative wireless 
data services to consumers. The Commission finds that the availability 
of data roaming will help ensure the viability of new data network 
deployments and promote the development of competitive service 
offerings for the benefit of consumers.
    45. The Commission's authority under Title III allows it to adopt 
requirements to serve these public interest objectives. Spectrum is a 
public resource, and Title III of the Act provides the Commission with 
broad authority to manage spectrum, including allocating and assigning 
radio spectrum for spectrum based services and modifying spectrum usage 
conditions in the public interest. The Commission is charged with 
maintaining control ``over all the channels of radio transmission'' in 
the United States. Section 301 states that ``[i]t is the purpose of 
this Act, among other things, to maintain the control of the United 
States over all the channels of radio transmission; and to provide for 
the use of such channels, but not the ownership thereof, by persons for 
limited periods of time, under licenses granted by Federal authority, 
and no such license shall be construed to create any right, beyond the 
terms, conditions, and periods of the license.'' The issuance of a 
Commission license does not convey any ownership or property interests 
in the spectrum and does not provide the licensee with any rights that 
can override the Commission's proper exercise of its regulatory power 
over the spectrum. Section 316 authorizes the Commission to adopt new 
conditions on existing licenses if it determines that such action 
``will promote the public interest, convenience, and necessity.'' 
Further, the Commission may utilize its rulemaking powers to modify 
licenses when a new policy is based upon the general characteristics of 
an industry. Section 303 provides the Commission with authority to 
establish operational obligations for licensees that further the goals 
and requirements of the Act if the obligations are in the ``public 
convenience, interest, or necessity'' and not inconsistent with other 
provisions of law. Section 303 also authorizes the Commission, subject 
to what the ``public interest, convenience, or necessity requires,'' to 
``[p]rescribe the nature of the service to be rendered by each class of 
licensed stations and each station within any class.''
    46. The Commission finds that these provisions establish its 
authority to adopt rules facilitating roaming with respect to 
commercial mobile data services. Specifically, the Commission finds 
that it is within its authority to manage spectrum and to impose 
conditions on licensees where necessary to promote the public interest, 
convenience, and necessity to adopt data roaming rules. As discussed 
above, the Commission finds that the data roaming rule the Commission 
adopts today serves the public interest by facilitating consumer access 
to ubiquitous mobile broadband service. As more and more consumers use 
mobile devices to access a wide array of both personal and business 
services, they have become more reliant on their devices. These 
consumers expect to be able to have access to the full range of 
services available on their devices wherever they go. By promoting 
connectivity for, and ubiquitous access to, mobile broadband, the rule 
the Commission adopts today supports consumer expectations and helps 
ensure that consumers are able to fully utilize and benefit from the 
availability of wireless broadband data services.
    47. As discussed earlier, the data roaming rule the Commission 
adopts today also supports the Commission's goal of encouraging 
investment and innovation and the efficient use of spectrum. The 
Commission agrees with commenters that adopting a data roaming rule 
will encourage service providers to invest in and upgrade their 
networks to be able to compete with other providers and control their 
costs. By encouraging build-out and deployment of advanced data 
services, the rule the Commission adopts today helps ensure that 
spectrum is being put to its best and most efficient use. Data roaming 
also furthers the goals under Section 706(a) and (b) of the 
Telecommunications Act of 1996, including encouraging new deployment of 
advanced services to all Americans by promoting competition and by 
removing barriers to infrastructure investment, including the barriers 
to new entrants. The Commission estimated that more than 10 million 
Americans live in rural census blocks with two or fewer mobile service 
providers. Data roaming will encourage service providers to invest in 
and upgrade their networks and to deploy advanced mobile services 
ubiquitously, including in rural areas.
    48. The Commission disagrees with AT&T and Verizon Wireless's 
argument that the Commission lacks authority to impose data roaming 
rules because data roaming is a private mobile radio service, as 
defined in section 332 of the Act and thus any common carrier 
regulation of data roaming is prohibited under the terms of the 
statute. Section 332(c)(2) provides that ``a person engaged in the 
provision of a service that is a private mobile service shall not * * * 
be treated as a common carrier for any purpose * * *'' AT&T and Verizon 
Wireless argue that Section 332(c)(2) prohibits the Commission from 
imposing any roaming obligation for provisioning of commercial mobile 
data services that do not interconnect with the public switched 
networks because non-interconnected commercial mobile data services are 
not CMRS but private mobile radio service (PMRS). AT&T argues that 
roaming obligations clearly amount to common carrier obligations and 
that, under the Supreme Court's decision in FCC v. Midwest Video 
Corporation (Midwest Video II), such regulations are prohibited. In 
Midwest Video II, the Supreme Court found that obligations requiring 
cable television systems to allocate channels for educational, 
government, public, and leased access users had ``relegated cable 
systems, pro tanto, to common-carrier status.'' The Court noted that 
the rules required operators to make these channels available on a 
first-come non-discriminatory basis, prohibited cable operators from 
influencing the content of access programming, and also put limits on 
charges for access. The Court found that this ``common carrier status'' 
violated the Act's prohibition against deeming broadcasters to be 
common carriers, because at the time, cable regulations rested on the 
FCC's authority to regulate broadcasting. AT&T argues that requiring 
carriers to offer data roaming ``on reasonable request, on reasonable 
terms and rates, and free from unreasonable discrimination'' would 
similarly treat such providers as common carriers in violation of the 
prohibition against common carrier treatment in the definition of 
``private mobile service.''
    49. Contrary to the arguments of AT&T and Verizon Wireless, to 
adopt a data roaming rule as discussed herein, the Commission does not 
need to

[[Page 26207]]

determine that a mobile service should be classified as CMRS. Section 
332 does not bar the Commission from establishing spectrum usage 
conditions based upon its Title III authority. As discussed above, 
Title III generally provides the Commission with authority to regulate 
``radio communications'' and ``transmission of energy by radio.'' Among 
other provisions, Title III gives the Commission the authority to 
classify radio stations. It also establishes the basic licensing scheme 
for radio stations, allowing the Commission to grant, revoke, or modify 
licenses. The Commission has imposed operating conditions on licensees 
regardless of the type of service they provide.
    50. In this Order, the Commission imposes an obligation with 
limitations on facilities-based providers of commercial mobile data 
services to offer data roaming arrangements to other facilities-based 
providers of commercial mobile data services on an individualized case-
by-case basis, subject to a standard of commercial reasonableness as 
well as certain specified limitations set forth herein. Imposing such a 
requirement is consistent with the Commission's authority to impose 
certain operating conditions on any spectrum authorization holders, 
including private mobile radio licensees, if it serves the public 
interest. The data roaming rule will complement the current roaming 
rules applicable to interconnected services, improve efficiency of 
spectrum use, encourage competition and increase sharing opportunities 
between private mobile services and other services. In particular, the 
Commission finds that the rule the Commission adopts today is 
consistent with the requirements of sections 332(a)(2)-(4) of the Act. 
Sections 332(a)(2)-(4) provide that, in managing the spectrum made 
available for use by private mobile services, the Commission shall 
consider whether its actions will: improve the efficiency of spectrum 
use and reduce the regulatory burden upon spectrum users, based upon 
sound engineering principles, user operational requirements, and 
marketplace demands; encourage competition and provide services to the 
largest feasible number of users; or increase interservice sharing 
opportunities between private mobile services and other services. The 
Commission finds that, by promoting competition, investment, and new 
entry while facilitating consumer access to ubiquitous mobile broadband 
service, the rule the Commission adopts today will serve these 
objectives.
    51. The Commission also finds that the data roaming rules we adopt 
do not amount to treating mobile data service providers as ``common 
carriers'' under the Act. As AT&T and Verizon Wireless recognize, a 
``sine qua non'' of common carrier treatment is ``the undertaking to 
carry for all people indifferently. The extent of the obligation the 
Commission imposes today is to offer, in certain circumstances, 
individually negotiated data roaming arrangements with commercially 
reasonable terms and conditions. The rule the Commission adopts will 
allow individualized service agreements and will not require providers 
to serve all comers indifferently on the same terms and conditions. 
Providers can negotiate different terms and conditions on an 
individualized basis, including prices, with different parties. The 
commercial reasonableness of terms offered to a particular provider may 
depend on numerous individualized factors, including the level of 
competitive harm in a given market and the benefits to consumers; the 
extent and nature of the requesting provider's build-out; whether the 
requesting provider is seeking roaming for an area where it is already 
providing facilities-based service; and the impact of granting the 
request on the incentives for either provider to invest in facilities 
and coverage, services, and service quality. In addition, providers may 
reasonably choose not to offer a roaming arrangement to a requesting 
provider that is not technologically compatible or refuse to enter into 
a roaming arrangement where it is not technically feasible to provide 
roaming for the service for which it is requested. A provider is not 
required to make changes to its network that are economically 
unreasonable, and it is reasonable for a provider to condition the