Proposed Extension of Part 4 of the Commission's Rules Regarding Outage Reporting to Interconnected Voice Over Internet Protocol Service Providers and Broadband Internet Service Providers, 33686-33699 [2011-14311]

Agencies

• FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION

[Federal Register Volume 76, Number 111 (Thursday, June 9, 2011)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 33686-33699]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2011-14311]



[[Page 33686]]

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

FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION

47 CFR Part 4

[PS Docket No. 11-82; FCC 11-74]


Proposed Extension of Part 4 of the Commission's Rules Regarding 
Outage Reporting to Interconnected Voice Over Internet Protocol Service 
Providers and Broadband Internet Service Providers

AGENCY: Federal Communications Commission.

ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking.

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

SUMMARY: The purpose of this document is to seek comment on a proposal 
to extend the Commission's communications outage reporting requirements 
to interconnected Voice over Internet Protocol (VoIP) service providers 
and broadband Internet Service Providers (ISPs). This action will help 
ensure that our current and future 9-1-1 systems are as reliable and 
resilient as possible and assist our Nation's preparedness for man-made 
or natural disasters, such as Hurricane Katrina.

DATES: Submit comments on or before August 8, 2011. Submit reply 
comments on or before October 7, 2011. Written comments on the 
Paperwork Reduction Act proposed information collection requirements 
must be submitted by the public, Office of Management and Budget (OMB), 
and other interested parties on or before August 8, 2011.

ADDRESSES: You may submit comments, identified by PS Docket No. 11-82, 
by any of the following methods:
     Federal eRulemaking Portal: https://www.regulations.gov. 
Follow the instructions for submitting comments.
     Federal Communications Commission's Web Site: https://www.fcc.gov/cgb/ecfs/. Follow the instructions for submitting comments 
on the Commission's Electronic Comment Filing System (ECFS).
     People with Disabilities: Contact the FCC to request 
reasonable accommodations (accessible format documents, sign language 
interpreters, CART, etc.) by e-mail: FCC504@fcc.gov or phone: (202) 
418-0530 or TTY: (202) 418-0432.

In addition to filing comments with the Secretary, a copy of any 
comments on the Paperwork Reduction Act information collection 
requirements contained herein should be submitted to 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 Nicholas_A._Fraser@omb.eop.gov or via fax at 202-395-5167. For detailed 
instructions for submitting comments and additional information on the 
rulemaking process, see the SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION section of this 
document.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Gregory Intoccia, Public Safety and 
Homeland Security Bureau, at (202) 418-1300, Federal Communications 
Commission, 445 12th Street, SW., Washington, DC 20554; or via the 
Internet to Gregory.Intoccia@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 Boley Herman at (202) 418-0214 
or judith.b.herman@fcc.gov.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. Introduction

    1. Broadband technologies delivering communications services to end 
users have changed behaviors and revolutionized expectations in 
American life and are fast becoming substitutes for communications 
services provided by older, legacy communications technologies. In 
2010, 28 percent of the more than 89 million residential telephone 
subscriptions were provided by interconnected VoIP providers. Broadband 
networks now carry a substantial volume of 9-1-1 traffic. They are also 
a significant form of communications in times of crisis. Communications 
outages to broadband facilities threaten the public's ability to summon 
in emergency situations. The National Security and Emergency 
Preparedness posture of the United States depends on the availability 
of broadband communications during times of emergencies, and it is one 
of the core responsibilities of the Commission. In 2010 alone, there 
were a number of significant outages to broadband networks and services 
in various parts of the Nation.
    2. The resilience of the broadband communications infrastructure 
directly impacts the emergency preparedness and readiness posture of 
the United States. Outages to broadband networks can have a significant 
impact on emergency services, consumers, businesses, and governments. 
The most practical, effective way to maintain emergency preparedness 
and readiness is to work continuously to minimize the incidence of 
routine outages.
    3. Since 2005, the Commission has required providers of 
interconnected VoIP services to supply 9-1-1 emergency calling 
capabilities to their customers as a mandatory feature of the service. 
``Interconnected'' VoIP services allow a user generally to receive 
calls from and make calls to the legacy telephone network. Under the 
Commission's rules, interconnected VoIP providers must deliver all 9-1-
1 calls to the local emergency call center; deliver the customer's 
call-back number and location information where the emergency call 
center is capable of receiving it; and inform their customers of the 
capabilities and limitations of their VoIP 9-1-1 service. By 
Presidential Directives and Executive Orders the FCC has been assigned 
a critical role in the Nation's emergency preparedness and response 
efforts. Presidential Directives and Executive Orders and their 
implementing documents charge the FCC with ensuring the resiliency and 
reliability of the Nation's commercial and public safety communications 
infrastructure.
    4. The Commission has many years of experience working with 
communications providers to improve communications resiliency and 
emergency readiness. The Commission's current outage reporting rules, 
applicable to legacy communications systems, allows the Commission 
staff to collect and analyze key outage data that has helped to reduce 
outages. With the percent of VoIP-only households and businesses 
increasing, it is essential for safety reasons that we extend outage 
reporting to VoIP.
    5. The Commission's existing approach includes the analysis and 
response to information received during an emergency. During Hurricane 
Katrina, the Commission's outage reporting data was the Federal 
government's primary and best source of information about the condition 
of critical communications infrastructure in the disaster area. Using 
this information the Commission was able to contact affected reporting 
providers to establish an ad hoc data-driven working group to help 
manage the crisis.
    6. Currently, only providers of legacy circuit-switched voice and/
or paging communications over wireline, wireless, cable, and satellite 
communications services must report communications outages. Commission 
analysis of industry-wide outage reports has led to improvements in the 
engineering, provisioning, and deployment of communications 
infrastructure and services. The Commission has been able to share its 
analysis with members of industry, providing an understanding of 
recurring problems nationwide that an individual provider cannot know 
by itself. This process has also made communications networks more 
robust

[[Page 33687]]

to the effects of natural or man-made disasters, thereby improving our 
Nation's readiness posture. Reducing the number of communications 
outages greatly improves the resiliency of the communications critical 
infrastructure to withstand disruptions that would otherwise jeopardize 
the Nation's ability to communicate during emergency events, including 
to the Nation's 9-1-1 system.
    7. In this proceeding, we seek to extend these benefits to the 
broadband communications networks frequently used for emergency 
response today. We propose to extend the Commission's Part 4 
communications outage reporting requirements to include both 
interconnected VoIP service providers and broadband ISPs. This change 
would allow the Commission, and other Federal agencies, to track and 
analyze information on outages affecting broadband networks. The 
availability of this information would also help the Commission 
determine the extent of the problem nationwide, identify recurring 
problems, determine whether action can be taken immediately to help 
providers recover or prevent future outages, and ensure to the extent 
possible that broadband networks are prepared for disasters. Our 
proposed action will allow the Commission to use the same successful 
process it currently uses with wireline and wireless providers to 
refine best practices to prepare broadband communications networks 
better for emergency situations.
    8. In this Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (NPRM), with respect to 
both interconnected VoIP service and broadband Internet service we seek 
comment on reporting thresholds based on circumstances specific to each 
different type of service or technology. Because requiring 
interconnected VoIP service providers and broadband ISPs to report 
outages may impose a burden on them, we welcome comments quantifying 
this burden and recommendations to mitigate it. We believe that the 
type of information that would be collected for outage reporting is 
already collected by providers for their own internal use, and that 
reporting the information on a confidential basis to the Commission 
would create a minimal burden.
    9. We encourage comments on the thresholds or circumstances that 
should be included to improve our ability to address communication 
system vulnerabilities and to help prevent future outages through the 
development and refinement of best practices. We encourage interested 
parties to address these issues in the contexts of interconnected VoIP 
service and broadband Internet service. We also encourage commenters to 
address how the proposed information collection would facilitate best 
practices development and increased network security, reliability and 
resiliency throughout the United States and its Territories. We also 
seek comment on sources of authority.
    10. 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 (OMB) to comment on the information collection 
requirements contained in this document, as required by the Paperwork 
Reduction Act of 1995, Public Law 104-13. Public and agency comments 
are due August 8, 2011. 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; (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; and (e) ways to further reduce the information 
collection burden on small business concerns with fewer than 25 
employees. In addition, pursuant to the Small Business Paperwork Relief 
Act of 2002, Public Law 107-198, see 44 U.S.C. 3506(c)(4), we seek 
specific comment on how we might further reduce the information 
collection burden for small business concerns with fewer than 25 
employees.

II. Background

    11. In this section, we review the key prior Commission policies 
and results of those policies leading up to the present rules and the 
current proposal for extending the Commission's outage reporting 
requirements to interconnected VoIP service providers and broadband 
Internet service providers. In its initial 1992 Initial Outage 
Reporting Order, released on February 27, 1992 and published in the 
Federal Register at 57 FR 7883, March 5, 1992, the Commission 
established network outage reporting requirements for wireline 
providers. In 2004, in the Second Outage Reporting Order, released on 
August 19, 2004 and published in the Federal Register at 69 FR 70316, 
Dec. 3, 2004, the Commission extended outage reporting requirements to 
include providers of wireless (including paging), cable, and satellite 
communications.
    12. The Commission uses outage information submitted pursuant to 
Part 4 of its rules to, among other things, address communication 
system vulnerabilities and help prevent future outages. The Commission 
staff accomplishes this objective by using statistically meaningful 
trends in data as well as associated technical analysis to gather 
communications providers together in coordinated efforts to improve 
security, reliability and resiliency. Where necessary, the Commission 
also recommends policy changes to address persistent problems. The 
Commission works with each individual reporting service provider to 
monitor and address specific communications vulnerabilities identified 
in outage reports.
    13. As a result of reporting pursuant to the Commission's Part 4 
outage reporting rules, positive results have been achieved. For 
example, the frequency of wireline outages, which had spiked in 2008, 
has dramatically decreased since the issue was identified through the 
Commission's ongoing analyses of monthly wireline outages. Estimated 
lost 9-1-1 calls due to wireline outages were reduced by more than 50 
percent from peak when the Commission worked with the Network 
Reliability Steering Committee (NRSC) to reduce wireline outages. As a 
result of the conclusions drawn and the additional work of the NRSC, 
providers were able to take corrective action. These reductions 
occurred because of the Commission's analysis of outage reporting data 
and the sharing of data among Commission and industry network experts. 
Thus the Commission's existing outage reporting has increased the 
resiliency of the communications infrastructure and increased the 
availability of public safety communication services.
    14. On March 16, 2010, the Commission delivered to Congress the 
National Broadband Plan, which recommended that the Commission extend 
its Part 4 outage reporting rules to broadband ISPs and interconnected 
VoIP service providers as ``the lack of data limits our understanding 
of network operations and of how to prevent future outages.''
    15. In July 2010, the Public Safety and Homeland Security Bureau 
released a Public Notice in which it sought comment on a variety of 
issues related to whether, and if so how, the Commission should extend 
coverage of its Part 4 rules to apply to broadband ISPs and 
interconnected VoIP service

[[Page 33688]]

providers. The Bureau considered this information in preparing this 
NPRM.

III. Extending Outage Reporting Requirements

A. Interconnected VoIP Service Providers

    16. Interconnected VoIP services increasingly are viewed by 
consumers as a substitute for traditional telephone service. This is 
also reflected in our 9-1-1 emergency call system today, where we 
estimate that approximately 28 percent of residential wireline 9-1-1 
calls are made using VoIP service. In keeping with increased public 
reliance on interconnected VoIP services, we propose to extend our 
outage reporting rules to interconnected VoIP service providers. In 
2010, there were 29 million interconnected residential and business 
VoIP subscriptions in the United States. Between June 2009 and June 
2010, interconnected residential and business VoIP subscriptions 
increased from 24 million to 29 million and retail switched access 
lines decreased from 133 million to 122 million. Unlike wireline 
service, currently the Commission has no mechanism to identify outages 
of VoIP service that impact end users and cannot address the cause of 
9-1-1 outages relating to VoIP service. Applying outage reporting 
requirements to these services brings the reporting requirements into 
line with existing E9-1-1 obligations.
    17. We propose to apply our outage reporting requirements to both 
facilities-based and non-facilities-based interconnected VoIP service 
providers. Both groups are subject to our E9-1-1 obligation. A 
reporting requirement that extends only to facilities-based 
interconnected VoIP service providers would not result in reporting of 
all significant VoIP service outages experienced by end users and may 
put in jeopardy the ability to receive 9-1-1 calls. Our current rules 
require communications providers to report on service outages that 
affect their customers even if they do not own or operate the 
facilities that failed. We seek comment on this proposal.
    18. Currently, under the Commission's Part 4 outage reporting 
rules, an ``outage'' is defined to include ``a significant degradation 
in the ability of an end user to establish and maintain a channel of 
communications as a result of failure or degradation in the performance 
of a communications provider's network.'' Our rules tailor the 
definition of a reportable significant degradation to communications 
over cable, telephony carrier tandem, satellite, System Signaling 7 
(``SS7''), wireless, or wireline facilities. Broadband networks operate 
differently than legacy networks, so the impact of outages is likely to 
be different. We seek comment on the definition of ``outage'' as 
applicable to these providers. We believe that a complete loss of the 
ability to complete calls should be included. We seek comment on 
whether there should also be a threshold based on lost or delayed 
packets. Should the Commission use a concept such as ``loss of 
generally-useful availability or connectivity'' and if so, how should 
we define it? Should we adopt the metrics used by the Internet 
Engineering Task Force (IETF), such as packet loss, round-trip latency, 
and jitter? The Commission recognizes that wireless and satellite 
networks include specific latency challenges not found in wireline-only 
networks. Should the thresholds be altered to address the unique 
architectural characteristics and challenges of wireless, satellite, 
cable, and wireline systems used by interconnected VoIP service 
providers? If the thresholds need to be altered, what values should be 
used to represent the loss of generally-useful availability and 
connectivity? How should the concept itself be revised to provide more 
useful information for analysis purposes? What voice quality-related 
network metrics are routinely reported to operations support systems in 
carrier-operated VoIP architectures? Do the Real-time Transport Control 
Protocol (RTCP) round-trip and Session Initiation Protocol (SIP) Event 
Package for Voice Quality Reporting provide guidance for suitable 
metrics that are already being collected for purposes other than outage 
reporting? How should the number of potentially affected users be 
counted for interconnected VoIP service providers? Can the number of 
assigned telephone numbers for non-mobile VoIP service users be used in 
a manner similar to what is used for wireline service providers? We 
recognize the difficulty of distinguishing precisely when a VoIP end 
system cannot place a call as opposed to when it is simply temporarily 
disconnected from the network due to user choice or home network 
failure. Can statistical measures that compare typical to current 
device registration counts (e.g., number of active SIP registration 
entries) be used to detect and measure large-scale outages?
    19. For wireless service providers, the current rules require the 
service provider to estimate the simultaneous call capacity lost and 
then multiply the result by a concentration ratio of eight (to convert 
the number of users affected to the number of potentially affected 
users). Should a similar construct be used for mobile VoIP service 
users? Is there a direct estimate of the number of potentially affected 
users that would be preferable? For both wireline and wireless service 
providers, should the failure of core routers, network servers, SIP 
proxy servers, Serving General Packet Radio Service (GPRS) and Gateway 
GPRS support nodes, call session control function (CSCF), home 
subscriber servers (HSS), root name servers, provider-operated Domain 
Name System (DNS) servers, Dynamic Host Control Protocol (DHCP) 
servers, Call Agents, Session Border Controllers, Signaling Gateways, 
or some other type of communications equipment be reportable similar to 
the current reporting requirement for Mobile Switching Center failures? 
Should special considerations be given to services provided via VoIP to 
PSAPs? How should outages that are observable by end users as 
performance degradations (e.g., increased latency and/or jitter) be 
addressed? How should we account for those differences in our outage 
reporting rules? Should the same or a different standard apply to 
interconnected VoIP service providers who provide service to end users 
with wireless applications?
    20. Based on how interconnected VoIP service is typically 
configured and provided, we propose that a significant degradation of 
interconnected VoIP service exists and must be reported when an 
interconnected VoIP service provider has experienced an outage or 
service degradation for at least 30 minutes: (a) On any major facility 
(e.g., Call Agent, Session Border Controller, Signaling Gateway, CSCF, 
HSS) that it owns, operates, leases, or otherwise utilizes; (b) 
potentially affecting generally useful availability and connectivity of 
at least 900,000 user minutes (e.g., average packet loss of greater 
than one percent for 30,000 users for 30 minutes); or (c) otherwise 
potentially affecting special offices, or special facilities, including 
9-1-1 PSAPs. We seek comment on whether the proposed reporting 
thresholds are appropriate. Should some other analogous threshold be 
considered for interconnected VoIP service providers? Should the 
thresholds be equally applied to redundant facilities?

B. Broadband Internet Service Providers

    21. Interconnected VoIP services ride over broadband networks. If 
the underlying communications network fails, the VoIP service, 
including its Commission-mandated 9-1-1

[[Page 33689]]

capabilities, will fail as well. Thus we propose to extend our outage 
reporting rules to include broadband ISPs, a term which includes 
broadband Internet access service providers and broadband backbone 
ISPs. While there is increasing evidence that major outages are 
occurring on these providers' facilities, and those outages may disable 
9-1-1 and other service capabilities, currently there are no Commission 
requirements to report such outages. The Commission accordingly is 
unable to analyze underlying causes, support the development of best 
practices that would lead to better overall network performance. We 
seek comment on all aspects of this proposal.
    22. We seek comment on whether both facilities-based and non-
facilities based broadband ISPs should be required to report outages 
that meet a certain threshold. Inclusion of both of these types of 
providers we believe would ensure outage reporting covers Internet 
consumers and businesses that purchase Internet access through less 
traditional access arrangements (e.g., prepaid Internet access cards).
    23. Some broadband ISPs provide Internet access directly connecting 
to end users, while others provide the connectivity and related 
services needed to establish and maintain end-to-end IP communications 
among independently-operated networks. While we identify two broad 
categories of broadband ISPs, we seek comment on whether there are 
other categories of ISPs the Commission should consider for outage 
reporting purposes.
    24. A broadband Internet access service provider aggregates end-
user communications, usually within a specific geographic region. For 
this proceeding, we propose to define a ``broadband Internet access 
service provider'' as a provider of mass-market retail service by wire 
or radio that is able to support interconnected VoIP service as defined 
in our E11 rules. Alternatively, we could define a ``broadband Internet 
access service provider'' as a provider of mass-market retail service 
by wire or radio that provides the capability to transmit data to and 
receive data from all or substantially all Internet endpoints, 
including any capabilities that are incidental to and enable the 
operation of the communications service, but excluding dial-up Internet 
access service. This term would also encompass providers of any service 
that the Commission finds to be providing a functional equivalent of 
the service described in the previous sentence. We seek comment on this 
alternative approach and any other alternative definitions.
    25. We propose to define a ``broadband backbone ISP'' to be one 
that provides long-haul transmission for one or more broadband Internet 
access service providers (e.g., typically connecting traffic among 
major cities). We seek comment on this proposed definition.
    26. We distinguish between broadband Internet access service 
providers and broadband backbone ISPs because of the different roles 
that they perform. Often a single organization may fulfill both types 
of broadband ISP roles, providing roles as broadband Internet access 
service provider and as broadband backbone ISP. We seek comment on the 
definitions that we should use for purposes of outage reporting.
    27. Broadband Internet Access Service Providers. Broadband Internet 
access service providers aggregate end-user communications, usually 
within a specific geographic region. Examples of broadband Internet 
access service providers are local exchange carriers that provide end-
user traffic access to the Internet, and cable system operators that 
aggregate the traffic of residential end users using cable modem 
technology and offer access to the Internet.
    28. Broadband Internet access service providers are the conduit for 
delivering broadband services to the American public and business 
community. When outages occur that severely degrade the delivery of the 
broadband services, end users are negatively affected, which can 
include 9-1-1 services. Without a reporting requirement, however, it is 
nearly impossible to determine the extent, the effect, and the 
consequences of broadband outages.
    29. Broadband Internet access service providers continue to show 
significant growth in subscribership. Between 1999 and 2009, the number 
of fixed-location business and residential connections grew at an 
annual compound rate of 42 percent, increasing from 2 million to 81 
million connections. This growth reflects the American public's 
increasing reliance on broadband Internet access service to conduct 
important daily communications.
    30. We therefore propose to extend the outage reporting 
requirements in Part 4 of our rules to broadband Internet access 
service providers. Consistent with the current definition of ``outage'' 
in Part 4 of the Commission's rules, which places emphasis on a 
``significant degradation'' of communications, we propose that an 
outage in the context of broadband Internet access service provider be 
defined as ``the loss to the end user of generally-useful availability 
and Internet connectivity.''
    31. Should we measure ``generally-useful availability and 
connectivity'' of broadband Internet service as it relates to a 
broadband Internet access service provider as the operational state in 
which the transmission from the end user to the broadband ISP Point of 
Presence (PoP) is operating as designed for normal use, the logical 
functions and relay systems required from ISPs are operating as 
designed for normal use, and the end user is not prevented by the 
broadband Internet access service provider from establishing 
communications with any destination device on the global Internet that 
has an assigned Internet Protocol address?
    32. We seek comment on whether for broadband Internet access 
service providers the ``loss of generally-useful availability and 
connectivity'' can be measured using the metrics defined by the IETF, 
such as packet loss, round-trip latency, or jitter from the source to 
the destination host? Are there additional metrics that should be used 
to trigger outage reporting? There are differences in the various 
architectures of different types of communications systems employed by 
broadband Internet access service providers that may affect the 
delivery of Internet services. We seek comment on the applicability of 
the IETF metrics and their values for these types of service providers. 
Based on an examination of commercial practices, and considering the 
apparent lack of standardized values for the metrics presented here, we 
believe that the appropriate values should be packet loss of one 
percent or more, round-trip latency of 100 ms or more, or jitter of 4 
ms or more from the source to the destination host in order to trigger 
outage reporting. Are these values appropriate for all types of 
broadband Internet access service providers? Are there more appropriate 
values? What are they and why are they better? How should the number of 
potentially affected users be counted for broadband Internet access 
service providers? For non-mobile users, can the number of IP addresses 
be used as a direct estimate of the number of potentially affected non-
mobile users? In the cases where Dynamic Host Configuration Protocol 
(DHCP) is used to assign IP addresses by Internet access service 
providers, how does its use affect the estimate of the number of 
potentially affected users given the dynamic re-use of IP addresses? 
Should there be a multiplier introduced to improve the estimate? For 
wireless service providers, the current rules require the service 
provider to

[[Page 33690]]

estimate the simultaneous call capacity lost and then multiply the 
result by a concentration ratio of eight (to convert the number of 
users affected to the number of potentially affected users). Should a 
similar construct be used for non-mobile broadband access users? Is 
there a direct estimate of the number of potentially affected users 
that would be preferable? We also understand that performance 
degradations on control elements in ISP networks can result in Internet 
service that is neither generally useful nor available to end users. We 
seek comment on what thresholds should be set to measure outages of 
this nature. We seek comment on whether these outage definitions are 
appropriate, and how these user-centric metrics might be aggregated 
into a more meaningful metric that can be the basis for reporting.
    33. Should we require a broadband Internet access service provider 
to submit reports in cases similar to the current reporting 
requirements for voice service providers? We seek comment on requiring 
a report when the provider has experienced an outage or service 
degradation for at least 30 minutes: (a) On any major facility (e.g., 
authoritative DNS server, DHCP server, HSS) that it owns, operates, 
leases, or otherwise utilizes; (b) potentially affecting generally-
useful availability and connectivity of at least 900,000 user minutes 
(e.g., average packet loss of greater than one percent for 30,000 users 
for 30 minutes); or (c) that affects any special offices and 
facilities, including major military installations, key government 
facilities, nuclear power plants, airports, and Public Safety Answering 
Points (PSAPs). Are there other special facilities for which outage 
reporting would be appropriate? Should a different standard apply to 
broadband access providers that provide service to end users with 
wireless applications? How should potentially affected mobile users be 
counted?
    34. Broadband Backbone ISPs. A broadband backbone ISP interconnects 
a broadband Internet access service provider to other broadband 
Internet access service providers. Broadband backbone ISPs also connect 
to each other through network access points (NAPs) or private peering 
arrangements. Broadband backbone ISPs route all traffic incoming from 
broadband Internet access service providers and provide the 
infrastructure needed for Internet connectivity between the broadband 
Internet access service providers.
    35. Based on the role that they serve, we believe it possible that 
an outage suffered by a broadband backbone ISP could cause greater 
impact, as measured by the number of affected users, than a similar 
outage experienced by an access ISP. Such outages could severely impact 
the ability of users to reach 9-1-1 during an emergency. We therefore 
propose to require that broadband backbone ISPs report outages whenever 
the broadband backbone ISP experiences an outage or service degradation 
affecting other ISPs or end users. Reporting of these types of service 
disruptions would serve as a foundation for the development of network 
best practices to guard against future disruptions of this magnitude 
that have the potential to compromise public safety and have a 
widespread negative effect on consumers.
    36. We seek comment on what threshold of disruption should 
constitute a reportable broadband backbone ISP service outage. 
Consistent with the current definition of ``outage'' in Part 4 of our 
rules that places emphasis on a ``significant degradation'' of 
communications, we propose that an outage in the context of a broadband 
backbone ISP be defined as the loss of ``generally-useful availability 
and Internet connectivity.''
    37. Should we define ``generally-useful availability and Internet 
connectivity'' of broadband Internet service as it relates to a 
broadband backbone ISP as: (a) The operational state in which the 
transmission between ISP PoPs is operating as designed for normal use; 
(b) the logical functions and relay systems required from ISPs are 
operating as designed for normal use; and/or (c) the connected access 
ISP networks are not prevented from establishing communications with 
any destination device on the global Internet that has an assigned 
Internet Protocol address. Can the ``loss of generally-useful 
availability and connectivity'' for broadband backbone ISPs be measured 
using the metrics defined by the IETF, including packet loss, round-
trip latency, or jitter as measured from source to destination PoP? Are 
there additional metrics that should be used to trigger outage 
reporting? We seek comment on these metrics and the values in this 
proposal. Based on commercial practices, and considering the lack of 
standardized values for the metrics presented here, we believe that the 
appropriate values should be packet loss of one percent or more, round-
trip latency of 100 ms or more, or jitter of 4 ms or more as measured 
from source to destination PoP in order to trigger outage reporting. 
Are these values appropriate for all types of broadband backbone ISPs? 
Are there more appropriate values? What are they and why are they 
better?
    38. Due to the Nation's growing dependence on ISPs to deliver 
critical IP communication services, we seek comment on requiring a 
broadband backbone ISP to submit outage reports when it experiences an 
outage or service degradation for at least 30 minutes: (a) On any major 
facility (e.g., PoP, Exchange Point, core router, root name server, 
ISP-operated DNS server, or DHCP server) that it owns, operates, 
leases, or otherwise utilizes; (b) potentially affecting generally-
useful availability and connectivity for any Internet PoP-to-Internet 
PoP (PoP-to-PoP) pair for which they lease, own or operate at least one 
of the PoPs where the ``loss of generally useful availability and 
connectivity'' is defined as: (1) An average packet loss of one percent 
or greater; (2) average round-trip delay of 100 ms or greater; or (3) 
average jitter of 4 ms or greater with measurements taken in each of at 
least six consecutive five-minute intervals as measured from source to 
destination PoP. We also seek comment on the proposed packet loss, 
latency, and jitter threshold values. Should the failure of routers, 
network servers, or some other type of communications equipment be 
reportable? Should failure of a PoP, core router, root name server, or 
authoritative DNS server be included in the list of such equipment?

C. Application of Part 4 Rules to Service Using New Wireless 
Technologies

    39. In the 2004 Second Outage Reporting Order, the Commission 
extended its outage reporting requirements beyond wireline providers to 
include wireless providers. In the decision, the Commission enumerated 
several types of licensees providing wireless service that would be 
covered by the Part 4 outage reporting obligations. Since that time, 
licensing in additional spectrum bands, e.g., Advanced Wireless 
Services (AWS) and 700 MHz licensing, has become available for wireless 
services. The 2004 Second Outage Reporting Order suggests that the 
Commission intended to extend the scope of outage reporting to include 
all non-wireline providers, including new technologies developed after 
the adoption of the 2004 Second Outage Reporting Order. We seek comment 
on whether we should amend our rules to clarify and reflect this 
meaning. For instance, should our rules be amended to state that the 
requirement also applies to new services using spectrum bands or new 
wireless technologies that come into being after the adoption of the 
rule? With respect

[[Page 33691]]

to AWS and 700 MHz licensees, are the current Part 4 outage reporting 
rules adequate to cover outage reporting obligations by these providers 
(e.g., reporting thresholds, and nature of information to be 
submitted)? Should the rules be amended so as to exclude AWS and 700 
MHz providers from reporting requirements because the services that 
they provide have not reached sufficiently high levels such that outage 
reporting would be desirable? For AWS and 700 MHz providers, what are 
their respective usage levels such that an outage would have a 
significantly large impact on telecommunications networks and users so 
as to warrant collecting such data?

IV. Mandatory Reporting and Other Alternatives

    40. For the Commission to obtain as complete a picture of service 
outages from interconnected VoIP service providers and broadband ISPs, 
and to allow the Commission to assist in facilitating a resolution of 
outages and preventing future outages, we propose that the outage 
reporting described herein be mandatory, just as it is today for 
services covered under our Part 4 rules. Because of the importance of 
the reliability and resiliency of broadband communications for the 
Nation's 9-1-1 system and overall emergency response, we believe 
mandatory reporting is appropriate. We note that a voluntary outage 
reporting trial was attempted, without success, prior to the imposition 
of our original Part 4 rules. Hence, mandatory outage reporting was 
adopted to ensure timely, accurate reporting.
    41. We note that Japan requires outage reporting from broadband 
communications providers. We seek comment on what role the Japanese 
outage reporting requirements played in restoring communications during 
the recent earthquake-related events. We seek comment also on current 
proposals in other countries to require outage reporting by broadband 
communications providers and, specifically, how those proposals are 
tailored to ensure valuable data is collected while imposing the least 
amount of burden on reporting providers.
    42. We seek comment on whether mandatory reporting is necessary to 
obtain a comprehensive view of outages experienced by customers that 
may impact 9-1-1 and other services. Alternatively, if we were to adopt 
a voluntary reporting scheme, how could the Commission be confident 
that it is not missing important information? What other regulatory 
alternatives should the Commission consider for interconnected VoIP 
service provider and broadband ISP outage reporting? What aspects of 
the information that providers share, as part of their voluntary 
ongoing public-private coordination, should we adopt?

V. Reporting Process

    43. Under our Part 4 rules, communications providers are required 
to submit a Notification within two hours of discovering a reportable 
outage. An Initial Report is due within 72 hours after discovering the 
outage, and a Final Report is due within 30 days after discovering the 
outage. Final Reports must be submitted by a person authorized by the 
provider to submit such reports to the Commission and to bind the 
provider legally to the truth, completeness, and accuracy of the 
information contained in the report. The Final Communications Outage 
Report must contain all potentially significant information known about 
the outage after a good faith effort has been made to obtain it, 
including any information that was not contained in, or that has 
changed from that provided in, the Initial Report. We propose to follow 
the same reporting process for the reporting of outages experienced by 
interconnected VoIP service providers and broadband ISPs. We seek 
comment on this proposal.
    44. We currently provide an electronic reporting template to 
facilitate outage reporting by those types of providers currently 
subject to our Part 4 rules. We believe that this approach to 
collecting data has ensured that the Commission learns of major outages 
in a timely fashion and, at the same time, minimizes the amount of time 
and effort required to comply with the reporting requirements. We 
propose to utilize a very similar electronic reporting template to 
collect outage reports from interconnected VoIP service providers and 
broadband ISPs. We seek comment on this proposal.
    45. We believe this process is reasonable in light of the 
significant benefits conferred by the ability to analyze and address 
network outages. In addition, we believe that interconnected VoIP 
service providers and broadband ISPs are currently collecting in the 
ordinary course of their business much of the information, and perhaps 
even a broader range of information, than we propose be reported. 
Therefore, we believe that, in the usual case, complying with our 
proposed reporting requirements would not result in an undue 
administrative burden. We seek comment on the reasonableness of the 
reporting process proposed herein, and we request comment on relevant 
types of outage information already being collected by interconnected 
VoIP service providers and broadband ISPs so that we could align our 
metrics with what is already available to them.
    46. We seek comment on whether collecting and reporting as proposed 
would be no more burdensome for interconnected VoIP service providers 
and broadband ISPs than current Part 4 reporting requirements are for 
traditional providers. Is the burden greater on smaller VoIP service 
providers and smaller broadband ISPs? If so, to what degree? Are there 
alternative ways to accomplish the aims of this proceeding in a less 
burdensome manner? For example, what alternatives processes, if any, 
could be followed which would enable the Commission to collect the 
types of data specified in this proceeding without requiring a direct 
interface between the Commission and VoIP service providers and 
broadband ISPs? Analysis of outage reports by both Commission staff and 
reporting providers has led to a significant reduction in the frequency 
and scope of outages on the providers' networks. Is the burden of 
reporting outweighed by the benefits from the ability to analyze 
reported outages to help prevent future outages and assist better 
responses to actual outages?

VI. Sharing of Information and Confidentiality

    47. Data collected pursuant to the Commission's outage reporting 
requirements is presumptively confidential. Currently, to the extent 
that the Commission shares the outage information it receives, sharing 
is done on a presumptively confidential basis pursuant to the 
procedures in Part 0 of our rules for sharing information not generally 
available for inspection. We seek comment on whether the outage 
information collected from broadband ISPs and interconnected VoIP 
service providers should also be treated as presumptively confidential. 
We seek comment on publicly reporting aggregated information across 
companies, e.g., total number of incidents by root cause categories. 
Also, we seek comment on whether the Commission should share the 
information with other Federal agencies on a presumptively confidential 
basis.

VII. Legal Authority

    48. We believe the Commission has authority under the 
Communications Act to promulgate the reporting rules proposed here. In 
section 615a-1 of the Communications Act, Congress imposed a ``duty'' 
on ``each IP-enabled voice

[[Page 33692]]

service [interconnected VoIP] provider to provide 9-1-1 service and 
enhanced 9-1-1 service to its subscribers in accordance with the 
requirements of the Federal Communications Commission.'' The Commission 
has express statutory authority to adopt rules implementing that 
requirement. We seek comment on this interpretation.
    49. In addition, we believe that the Commission has authority to 
ensure both that interconnected VoIP providers fulfill their duty to 
provide 9-1-1 services and to address obstacles, such as failures in 
underlying communications networks, to their doing so. Under the 
definition of ancillary authority recently adopted by the U.S. Court of 
Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit, the Commission may 
exercise ancillary authority when ``(1) The Commission's general 
jurisdictional grant under Title I [of the Communications Act] covers 
the regulated subject and (2) the regulations are reasonably ancillary 
to the Commission's effective performance of its statutorily mandated 
responsibilities.'' Both prongs are met here with respect to 
interconnected VoIP providers. The provision of interconnected VoIP is 
``communication by wire or radio'' within the general jurisdictional 
grant of section 2 of the Act. Second, as explained above, collecting 
outage information from interconnected VoIP providers as proposed in 
this Notice is ``reasonably ancillary'' to ensuring that interconnected 
VoIP providers are able to satisfy their 9-1-1 obligations under the 
Act as implemented in our Part 9 rules, and to enable the Commission to 
assist in improving the reliability of these mandated services. We seek 
comment on this analysis.
    50. We believe that the Commission has authority, under the test 
stated by the DC Circuit, to collect outage information from broadband 
Internet service providers. We believe that broadband services fall 
within the Commission's general jurisdictional grant as ``communication 
by wire or radio.'' The network outage reporting proposals for 
broadband Internet service providers are reasonably ancillary to 
ensuring that interconnected VoIP providers are able to satisfy their 
9-1-1 duties under the Act. This is because Interconnected VoIP 
services by definition depend on broadband networks. If a broadband 
network fails, interconnected VoIP traffic--including calls to 9-1-1--
cannot travel over that network. A broadband failure would potentially 
prevent interconnected VoIP providers from satisfying their duty under 
the Act and our rules to provide 9-1-1 services. For these reasons, and 
as authorized by section 4(i) of the Communications Act of 1934, as 
amended, 47 U.S.C. 154(i), we believe we have ancillary authority to 
collect outage information from broadband Internet service providers. 
We seek comment on this analysis. We also ask commenters to address 
other potentially relevant sources of authority, or to otherwise 
explain why they believe that the Commission has no legal authority to 
extend outage reporting requirements in the manner proposed.

VIII. Procedural Matters

A. Ex Parte Rules--Permit-But-Disclose

    51. This is a permit-but-disclose notice and comment rulemaking 
proceeding. Ex parte presentations are permitted, except during the 
Sunshine Agenda period, provided they are disclosed pursuant to the 
Commission's rules.

B. Comment Period and Procedures

    52. Pursuant to Sec. Sec.  1.415 and 1.419 of the Commission's 
rules, 47 CFR 1.415, 1.419, interested parties may file comments and 
reply comments on or before the dates indicated on the first page of 
this document. Comments may be filed using: (1) The Commission's 
Electronic Comment Filing System (ECFS), (2) the Federal Government's 
eRulemaking Portal, or (3) by filing paper copies. See Electronic 
Filing of Documents in Rulemaking Proceedings, 63 FR 24121 (1998).
    53. Electronic Filers: Comments may be filed electronically using 
the Internet by accessing the ECFS: https://www.fcc.gov/cgb/ecfs/ or the 
Federal eRulemaking Portal: https://www.regulations.gov. Filers should 
follow the instructions provided on the Web site for submitting 
comments. All comments shall be filed in PS Docket No. 07-114 and WC 
Docket No. 05-196. In completing the transmittal screen, filers should 
include their full name, U.S. Postal Service mailing address, and the 
applicable docket or rulemaking number. Parties may also submit an 
electronic comment by Internet e-mail. To get filing instructions, 
filers should send an e-mail to ecfs@fcc.gov, and include the following 
words in the body of the message, ``get form.'' A sample form and 
directions will be sent in response.
    54. Paper Filers: Parties who choose to file by paper must file an 
original and four copies of each filing. If more than one docket or 
rulemaking number appears in the caption of this proceeding, filers 
must submit two additional copies for each additional docket or 
rulemaking number. Filings can be sent by hand or messenger delivery, 
by commercial overnight courier, or by first-class or overnight U.S. 
Postal Service mail. 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. The filing hours are 
8 a.m. to 7 p.m. All hand deliveries must be held together with rubber 
bands or fasteners. Any envelopes must be disposed of before entering 
the building. Commercial overnight mail (other than U.S. Postal Service 
Express Mail and Priority Mail) must be sent to 9300 East Hampton 
Drive, Capitol Heights, MD 20743. U.S. Postal Service first-class, 
Express, and Priority mail must be addressed to 445 12th Street, SW., 
Washington, DC 20554.
    55. People With Disabilities: To request materials in accessible 
formats for people with disabilities (braille, large print, electronic 
files, audio format), send an e-mail to fcc504@fcc.gov or call the 
Consumer & Governmental Affairs Bureau at 202-418-0530 (voice), 202-
418-0432 (tty).
    56. The public may view the documents filed in this proceeding 
during regular business hours in the FCC Reference Information Center, 
Federal Communications Commission, 445 12th Street, SW., Room CY-A257, 
Washington, DC 20554, and on the Commission's Internet Home Page: 
https://www.fcc.gov. Copies of comments and reply comments are also 
available through the Commission's duplicating contractor: Best Copy 
and Printing, Inc., 445 12th Street, SW., Room CY-B402, Washington, DC 
20554, 1-800-378-3160.

C. Initial Regulatory Flexibility Analysis

    57. As required by the Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980 (RFA), 
the Commission has prepared an Initial Regulatory Flexibility Analysis 
(IRFA) of the possible significant economic impact on small entities of 
the policies and rules proposed in the NPRM. We request written public 
comment on the IRFA analysis. Comments must be filed by the same dates 
as listed in the first page of this document, and must have a separate 
and distinct heading designating them as responses to the IRFA. The 
Commission's Consumer and Governmental Affairs Bureau, Reference 
Information Center, will send a copy of this NPRM, including the IRFA, 
to the

[[Page 33693]]

Chief Counsel for Advocacy of the Small Business Administration.
Need for, and Objectives of, the Proposed Rules
    58. In 2005, the Commission adopted rules requiring providers of 
interconnected Voice over Internet Protocol (VoIP) service to supply 
E9-1-1 capabilities to their customers as a standard feature from 
wherever the customer is using the service. In 2008, Congress enacted 
the New and Emerging Technologies 9-1-1 Improvement Act of 2008 that 
amended the 9-1-1 Act to codify the Commission's E9-1-1 rules for 
interconnected VoIP providers. Interconnected VoIP service providers 
generally must transmit all 9-1-1 calls, including Automatic Number 
Identification (ANI) and the caller's Registered Location for each 
call, to the PSAP, designated statewide default answering point, or 
appropriate local emergency authority. Currently, however, the 
Commission's outage reporting rules covering legacy circuit-switched 
voice and/or paging communications over wireline, wireless, cable and 
satellite communications services do not also cover interconnected VoIP 
service providers or the broadband Internet Service Providers (ISPs) on 
whose networks interconnected VoIP services are carried. As a result, 
the Commission currently cannot monitor the reliability and 
availability of 9-1-1 and E9-1-1 communications that depend on these 
systems.
    59. With the objective of ensuring reliability of related networks 
and services, the NPRM proposes to extend the Commission's mandatory 
outage reporting rules under Part 4 of its rules to cover 
interconnected VoIP service providers and ``broadband Internet service 
providers'' meaning ``broadband Internet access service providers'' and 
``broadband backbone Internet service providers.'' Under the proposal, 
mandatory reporting to the Commission would be required when certain 
threshold conditions are present that are specific to the technology of 
each category of service provider.
    60. The proposed reporting to the Commission would use the 
Commission-approved Web-based outage reporting templates. The proposed 
reporting process for outages experienced by interconnected VoIP 
service providers and broadband ISPs would follow the existing 
reporting process for legacy communications providers, such as wireline 
communications providers.
    61. The Commission traditionally has addressed reliability issues 
by helping to develop and promote best practices that address 
vulnerabilities in the communications network, and by measuring the 
effectiveness of best practices through outage reporting. Under the 
Commission's current rules, the outage reporting process has been 
effective in improving the reliability, resiliency and security of the 
legacy services. Collaborating with providers and industry bodies, the 
Commission staff has been able to achieve dramatic reductions in 
outages affecting legacy services. The aim of extending outage 
reporting process to cover interconnected VoIP service providers and 
broadband ISPs is to achieve a similar result: Improve the reliability, 
resiliency and security of their services.
Legal Basis
    62. Authority: The legal basis for any action that may be taken 
pursuant to this NPRM is contained in sections 1, 2, 4(i)-(k), 4(o), 
218, 219, 230, 256, 301, 302(a), 303(f), 303(g), 303(j), 303(r), 403, 
615a-1, 621(b)(3), 621(d), 1302(a), and 1302(b) of the Communications 
Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. 151, 152, 154(i)-(k), 154(o), 218, 
219, 230, 256, 301, 302(a), 303(f), 303(g), 303(j), 303(r), 403, 615a-
1, 621(b)(3), 621(d), 1302(a), and 1302(b), and section 1704 of the 
Omnibus Consolidated and Emergency Supplemental Appropriations Act of 
1998, 44 U.S.C. 3504.
Description and Estimate of the Number of Small Entities to Which the 
Proposed Rules Would Apply
    63. The RFA directs agencies to provide a description of, and, 
where feasible, an estimate of, the number of small entities that may 
be affected by the proposed rules adopted herein. The RFA generally 
defines the term ``small entity'' as having the same meaning as the 
terms ``small business,'' ``small organization,'' and ``small 
governmental jurisdiction.'' In addition, the term ``small business'' 
has the same meaning as the term ``small business concern'' under the 
Small Business Act. A small business concern is one which: (1) Is 
independently owned and operated; (2) is not dominant in its field of 
operation; and (3) satisfies any additional criteria established by the 
Small Business Administration (SBA).
    64. Total Small Entities. Our action may affect small entities that 
are not easily categorized. We therefore describe three comprehensive, 
statutory small entity size standards. First, nationwide, there are a 
total of approximately 27.5 million small businesses, according to the 
SBA. In addition, a ``small organization'' is generally ``any not-for-
profit enterprise which is independently owned and operated and is not 
dominant in its field.'' Nationwide, as of 2007, there were 
approximately 1,621,315 small organizations. Finally, the term ``small 
governmental jurisdiction'' is defined generally as ``governments of 
cities, towns, townships, villages, school districts, or special 
districts, with a population of less than fifty thousand.'' Census 
Bureau data for 2011 indicate that there were 89,476 local governmental 
jurisdictions in the United States. We estimate that, of this total, as 
many as 88,506 entities may qualify as ``small governmental 
jurisdictions.'' Thus, we estimate that most governmental jurisdictions 
are small.
    65. Interconnected VoIP and Broadband ISPs. The 2007 Economic 
Census places these firms, the services of which might include Voice 
over Internet protocol (VoIP), in either of two categories, depending 
on whether the service is provided over the provider's own 
telecommunications facilities, or over client-supplied 
telecommunications connections. The former are within the category of 
Wired Telecommunications Carriers, which has an SBA small business size 
standard of 1,500 or fewer employees. These are also labeled 
``broadband.'' The latter are within the category of All Other 
Telecommunications, which has a size standard of annual receipts of $25 
million or less. These are labeled non-broadband.
    66. The most current Economic Census data for all such firms are 
2007 data. For the first category, the data show that 396 firms 
operated for the entire year, of which only 2 operated with more than 
1,000 employees. For the second category, the data show that 2,383 
firms operated for the entire year. Of those, only 37 had annual 
receipts of more than $25,499,999 per year. We estimate that the 
majority of ISP firms are small entities. To ensure that this IRFA 
describes the universe of small entities that our action might affect, 
we discuss below several different types of entities that might be 
currently providing interconnected VoIP service, Internet access 
service, or broadband backbone Internet service.
    67. Wireline Providers: Incumbent Local Exchange Carriers 
(Incumbent LECs). Neither the Commission nor the SBA has developed a 
small business size standard specifically for incumbent local exchange 
services. The appropriate size standard under SBA rules is for the 
category Wired Telecommunications Carriers. Under that size standard, 
such a business is small if it has 1,500 or fewer employees. Census 
Bureau data

[[Page 33694]]

for 2007 show that there were 3,188 firms in this category that 
operated for the entire year. Of this total, 3,144 had employment of 
999 or fewer, and 44 firms had employment of 1,000 employees or more. 
Thus under this category and the associated small business size 
standard, the majority of these incumbent local exchange service 
providers can be considered small.
    68. The Commission has included small incumbent LECs in this 
present RFA analysis. A ``small business'' under the RFA is one that, 
inter alia, meets the pertinent small business size standard and ``is 
not dominant in its field of operation.'' The SBA's Office of Advocacy 
contends that small incumbent LECs are not dominant in their field of 
operation because any such dominance is not ``national'' in scope. The 
Commission has therefore included small incumbent LECs in this RFA 
analysis.
    69. Wireline Providers: Interexchange Carriers. Neither the 
Commission nor the SBA has developed a small business size standard 
specifically for providers of interexchange services. The appropriate 
size standard under SBA rules is for the category Wired 
Telecommunications Carriers. Under that size standard, such a business 
is small if it has 1,500 or fewer employees. Census Bureau data for 
2007 show that there were 3,188 firms in this category that operated 
for the entire year. Of this total, 3,144 had employment of 999 or 
fewer, and 44 firms had employment of 1,000 employees or more. Thus 
under this category and the associated small business size standard, 
the Commission estimates that the majority of interexchange carriers 
are small entities that may be affected by our proposed action.
    70. Neither the Commission nor the SBA has developed a small 
business size standard specifically for operator service providers. The 
appropriate size standard under SBA rules is for the category Wired 
Telecommunications Carriers. Under that size standard, such a business 
is small if it has 1,500 or fewer employees. According to Commission 
data, 33 carriers have reported that they are engaged in the provision 
of operator services. Of these, an estimated 31 have 1,500 or fewer 
employees and 2 have more than 1,500 employees. Consequently, the 
Commission estimates that the majority of operator service providers 
are small entities that may be affected by our proposed action.
    71. Wireless Providers--Fixed and Mobile. To the extent the 
wireless services listed below are used by wireless firms for fixed and 
mobile broadband Internet access services, the NPRM's proposed rules 
may have an impact on those small businesses as set forth above and 
further below. For those services subject to auctions, we note that, as 
a general matter, the number of winning bidders that claim to qualify 
as small businesses at the close of an auction does not necessarily 
represent the number of small businesses currently in service.
    72. Wireless Providers--Fixed and Mobile Wireless: 
Telecommunications Carriers (except Satellite). Since 2007, the Census 
Bureau has placed wireless firms within this new, broad, economic 
census category. Under the present and prior categories, the SBA has 
deemed a wireless business to be small if it has 1,500 or fewer 
employees. For the category of Wireless Telecommunications Carriers 
(except Satellite), Census data for 2007, which supersede data 
contained in the 2002 Census, show that there were 1,383 firms that 
operated that year. Of those 1,383, 1,368 had fewer than 100 employees, 
and 15 firms had more than 100 employees. Thus under this category and 
the associated small business size standard, the majority of firms can 
be considered small. According to Commission data, 413 carriers 
reported that they were engaged in the provision of wireless telephony, 
including cellular service, Personal Communications Service (PCS), and 
Specialized Mobile Radio (SMR) Telephony services. Of these, an 
estimated 261 have 1,500 or fewer employees and 152 have more than 
1,500 employees. Consequently, the Commission estimates that 
approximately half or more of these firms can be considered small. 
Using available data, we estimate that the majority of wireless firms 
can be considered small.
    73. Wireless Providers--Fixed and Mobile: Wireless Communications 
Services. This service can be used for fixed, mobile, radiolocation, 
and digital audio broadcasting satellite uses. The Commission defined 
``small business'' for the wireless communications services (WCS) 
auction as an entity with average gross revenues of $40 million for 
each of the three preceding years, and a ``very small business'' as an 
entity with average gross revenues of $15 million for each of the three 
preceding