Wireline Competition Bureau Seeks Further Comment on Specific Issues Related to the Implementation of the Remote Areas Fund, 9020-9024 [2013-02686]
Download as PDF
9020
Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 26 / Thursday, February 7, 2013 / Proposed Rules
Dated: January 31, 2013.
H. Curtis Spalding,
Regional Administrator, EPA New England.
[FR Doc. 2013–02812 Filed 2–6–13; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560–50–P
FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS
COMMISSION
47 CFR Part 54
[WC Docket No. 10–90; DA 13–69]
Wireline Competition Bureau Seeks
Further Comment on Specific Issues
Related to the Implementation of the
Remote Areas Fund
I. Introduction
Federal Communications
Commission.
ACTION: Proposed rule.
AGENCY:
In this document, the
Wireline Competition Bureau seeks
further comment on specific issues
relating to the implementation of the
Remote Areas Fund.
DATES: Comments are due on or before
February 19, 2013 and reply comments
are due on or before March 18, 2013.
ADDRESSES: Interested parties may file
comments on or before February 19,
2013 and reply comments on or before
March 18, 2013. All pleadings are to
reference WC Docket No. 10–90.
Comments may be filed using the
Commission’s Electronic Comment
Filing System (ECFS) or by filing paper
copies, by any of the following methods:
• Electronic Filers: Comments may be
filed electronically using the Internet by
accessing the ECFS: https://fjallfoss.fcc.
gov/ecfs2/.
• Paper Filers: Parties who choose to
file by paper must file an original and
one copy of each filing.
• People with Disabilities: To request
materials in accessible formats for
people with disabilities (Braille, large
print, electronic files, audio format),
send an email to fcc504@fcc.gov or call
the Consumer & Governmental Affairs
Bureau at (202) 418–0530 (voice), (202)
418–0432 (tty).
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: Ted
Burmeister, Wireline Competition
Bureau at (202) 418–7389 or TTY (202)
418–0484, or Heidi Lankau, Wireline
Competition Bureau at (202) 418–2876
or TTY (202) 418–0484.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: This is a
synopsis of the Commission’s Public
Notice (Notice) in WC Docket No. 10–
mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
SUMMARY:
VerDate Mar<15>2010
16:53 Feb 06, 2013
Jkt 229001
90; DA 13–69, released January 17,
2013. The complete text of this
document is available for inspection
and copying during normal business
hours in the FCC Reference Information
Center, Portals II, 445 12th Street SW.,
Room CY–A257, Washington, DC 20554.
The document may also be purchased
from the Commission’s duplicating
contractor, Best Copy and Printing, Inc.,
445 12th Street SW., Room CY–B402,
Washington, DC 20554, telephone (800)
378–3160 or (202) 863–2893, facsimile
(202) 863–2898, or via Internet at
https://www.bcpiweb.com.
1. On November 18, 2011, the Federal
Communications Commission
(Commission) released the USF/ICC
Transformation Order and FNPRM, 76
FR 73830, November 29, 2011 and 76
FR 78384, December 16, 2011, which
comprehensively reformed and
modernized the universal service highcost and intercarrier compensation
systems. The Commission established
the Connect America Fund to ensure
that voice and broadband service is
available throughout the nation. Within
Connect America, the Commission
created a Remote Areas Fund with a
budget of ‘‘at least $100 million
annually’’ to ensure that even
Americans living in the most remote
areas of the nation, where the cost of
providing terrestrial broadband service
is extremely high, can obtain service. In
the accompanying FNPRM, 76 FR
78384, December 16, 2011, the
Commission sought comment on
various issues relating to the Remote
Areas Fund, including how to define the
remote areas eligible for support from
the Remote Areas Fund, qualifications
for participating providers, the public
interest obligations of these providers,
as well as administrative issues.
2. Based on the record generated in
response to the FNPRM, the Bureau now
seeks further detailed comment on
issues relating to the implementation of
the Remote Areas Fund as a portable
consumer subsidy program, as proposed
by the Commission in the FNPRM and
supported by a diverse group of
commenters. In particular, we seek to
further develop the record on a number
of specific issues, including defining the
areas where Remote Areas funding will
be available, how to set the consumer
subsidy, consumer eligibility, measures
to keep the program within a defined
annual budget, service provider
participation, performance
requirements, and accountability and
oversight.
PO 00000
Frm 00034
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
II. Discussion
A. Areas Eligible for Remote Areas Fund
Support
3. Discussion. We seek to further
develop the record on administratively
feasible ways to identify areas (both
those served by price cap carriers and
by rate-of-return carriers) where
consumers would be eligible for the
Remote Areas Fund.
4. In lieu of using the cost model to
define eligible areas, should the
Commission use the National
Broadband Map to identify unserved
census blocks and provide Remote
Areas Fund support to those census
areas until they become served with
broadband that meets the Commission’s
performance requirements (i.e., speed,
capacity, latency) for non-Remote Areas
Fund eligible areas?
5. If the Commission chooses to
utilize the most current version of the
National Broadband Map available at
the time it adopts rules for the Remote
Areas Fund for the purpose of
determining areas eligible for the
Remote Areas Fund, should there be a
process to contest the classification of
areas as unserved or served on the map
before Remote Areas funding is
provided, and how could that process
be implemented in a way to expedite
the launch of the Remote Areas Fund?
For instance, should the Commission
consider any updates to the National
Broadband Map gathered in conjunction
with Connect America Phase I when
finalizing areas eligible for the Remote
Areas Fund? Should the Commission
implement a process to allow
households to self-report if data indicate
that certain areas are served, if they
contend those areas are unserved?
6. We ask for further comment on
other possible data sources that the
Commission could use to identify
unserved areas. Should the Commission
take into consideration the unique
characteristics of locations like Alaska
or Hawaii in determining areas eligible
for Remote Areas funding, and if so,
how? To the extent parties advocate use
of information other than a cost model
or the National Broadband Map to
identify remote areas, they should
provide specific objective metrics that
could be used under such an approach.
7. Implementing the Remote Areas
Fund in Rate-of-Return Areas. We seek
to further develop the record on the
suggestion of the National Exchange
Carrier Association, Inc. et al. that the
Commission take into account the $250
per-line per month cap when
identifying areas that are eligible for the
Remote Areas Fund. In lieu of relying
on a forward looking cost model, should
E:\FR\FM\07FEP1.SGM
07FEP1
mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 26 / Thursday, February 7, 2013 / Proposed Rules
the Commission identify areas for the
Remote Areas Fund based on reported
loop cost, such as a rule that all
unserved locations in rate-of-return
study areas for which the reported loop
cost equals or exceeds the 95th
percentile for average cost be eligible for
Remote Areas Fund support?
8. Alternatively, should the
Commission rely on the National
Broadband Map to identify rate-ofreturn census blocks that would be
eligible for the Remote Areas Fund, as
well as price cap census blocks?
9. We anticipate that rate-of-return
carriers would be eligible, as existing
eligible telecommunications carriers
(ETCs), to seek funding from the Remote
Areas Fund and potentially could use
alternative technologies, either directly
or through resale, to provide broadband
to their highest cost customers. To the
extent an existing ETC receives funding
from the Remote Areas Fund, should
any adjustment be made to its receipt of
support under other high-cost support
mechanisms? Should there be any
adjustment to an existing rate-of-return
ETC’s support if another ETC were to
serve some portion of the study area
through the Remote Area Fund?
10. Would the ability to serve
customers through the Remote Areas
Fund address concerns raised by rate-ofreturn carriers regarding their ability to
meet the current rule requiring the
deployment of broadband upon
reasonable request?
11. To the extent parties argue that a
different method for identifying remote
areas should be used in areas served by
rate-of-return carriers than areas served
by price cap carriers, they should
present specific alternative proposals of
how to identify those areas that would
be eligible for such funding.
12. Transition Issues. If the
Commission were to adopt an approach
that relied on the National Broadband
Map in lieu of a cost threshold in the
forward-looking cost model to designate
census blocks eligible for Remote Areas
funding, the potential eligibility of
specific areas would change over time
with the ongoing deployment of
broadband-capable infrastructure by
existing ETCs receiving support under
other universal service mechanisms as
well as with expansion by unsubsidized
competitors.
13. How should the rules address the
transition where an area that is initially
classified as unserved, and therefore
eligible for Remote Areas Fund support,
subsequently becomes served by a
terrestrial broadband provider, and how
does the answer differ if the
Commission chooses to structure the
Remote Areas Fund as a one-time
VerDate Mar<15>2010
16:53 Feb 06, 2013
Jkt 229001
payment, as opposed to a monthly
subsidy?
14. Would it be a cost-effective use of
universal service funds to provide a
Remote Areas Fund voucher to a
consumer that resides in a location that
is expected to receive terrestrial
broadband at some point in the future
through Connect America Phase I or
Phase II? How would a rule identifying
all unserved areas as eligible for the
Remote Areas Fund, at least until they
become served, affect the incentives of
existing ETCs to deploy terrestrial
broadband? How would it impact
carriers’ incentives to participate in
other universal service programs, such
as Connect America Phase II or the
Mobility Fund Phase II?
B. Consumer Subsidy
15. Discussion. We seek to further
develop the record on implementation
details regarding how a portable
consumer subsidy should be structured,
how the amount of the portable
consumer subsidy would be set, what
restrictions, if any, should be placed on
the service contracts that are supported
by this subsidy, and how such a
program could be designed to stay
within a $100 million annual budget.
We also seek to further develop the
record on the relative advantages and
disadvantages of structuring the Remote
Areas Fund as a one-time subsidy or a
monthly retail subsidy.
1. One-Time Subsidy
16. We seek to further develop the
record on setting the subsidy amount for
a one-time payment. Satellite and fixed
wireless broadband services typically
include a combination of upfront and
monthly set-up and equipment fees. We
note that in its satellite program, RUS
awarded Hughes Network Systems
(Hughes) a grant of $58,777,306 and
Wildblue Communications (Wildblue) a
grant of $19,533,444. Based on RUS’
estimates of the number of subscribers
that would benefit from these grants,
Hughes received an award of
approximately $227 per subscriber and
Wildblue received an award of
approximately $177 per subscriber.
Would $200 in one-time support per
location be an appropriate amount for
the Remote Areas Fund one-time
subsidy, or should it be higher or lower?
How should the Commission account
for the fact that in some locations,
installation and other upfront costs may
be significantly higher (e.g., due to the
extreme remoteness of a location or
obstacles that may make it difficult for
a signal to reach the location)? We
encourage commenters to suggest
specific dollar amounts and provide
PO 00000
Frm 00035
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
9021
specific factual information in support
of their assertions.
17. How would adoption of a
consumer voucher structured as a onetime payment impact providers’ existing
practices regarding the amortization of
installation costs through monthly
rates? Would this approach avoid
distorting providers’ business decisions
regarding the relative amounts of
upfront and monthly fees charged to the
retail consumer? Would this approach
present any unique administrative
challenges?
18. Should the Commission set forth
pricing and performance requirements
that would apply over a minimum
period of time to ensure ongoing and
acceptable service to the consumer, as a
condition of receiving a one-time
payment? We note that RUS’ BIP
program for satellite took such an
approach, setting pricing restrictions on
basic service packages, prohibiting
carriers from requiring customers to
enter into extended contracts (subject to
certain exceptions), and requiring
carriers to offer customer premise
equipment at no cost for all their service
packages. Would a similar approach be
appropriate for the Remote Areas Fund?
Should a condition of receiving the onetime payment be that the Remote Areas
Fund-supported providers offer voice
service at a rate not to exceed the
Commission’s prior reasonable
comparability benchmark for voice
service for non-rural carriers, i.e.,
$36.52? What would be an appropriate
amount of time for such pricing and
performance requirements?
19. How would structuring the
consumer subsidy as a one-time
payment affect the nature of
competition among potential providers
to serve the consumer? Should the
Commission adopt any restrictions on
the ability of consumers to obtain a new
one-time subsidy if they switch
providers after some amount of time?
Would it be wasteful for the Remote
Areas Fund to subsidize the cost of
installing a satellite dish or fixed
wireless receiver on a home if the
consumer previously has used a Remote
Areas Fund voucher to install
equipment from another provider? What
types of reporting or other requirements
might the Commission impose to protect
against waste, fraud and abuse? For
example, in the Lifeline program,
consumers must certify that they will
notify their service providers within 30
days if they move to a new address.
What kinds of burdens might this
requirement impose on service
providers, and particularly on small
businesses?
E:\FR\FM\07FEP1.SGM
07FEP1
9022
Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 26 / Thursday, February 7, 2013 / Proposed Rules
mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
2. Monthly Retail Subsidy
20. In the USF/ICC Transformation
Order and FNPRM, the Commission also
sought comment on various issues
relating to structuring the portable
consumer subsidy as ‘‘a monthly
amount equal to the difference between
the retail price of a ‘basic’ satellite
voice-broadband service and an
appropriate reference price for
reasonably comparable service in urban
areas.’’ We seek to further develop the
record on what specific figure should be
used as the urban reference price,
pending implementation of the urban
rate survey, if the Commission were to
implement a monthly subsidy?
21. We note that the Commission’s
prior reasonable comparability
benchmark for voice service for nonrural carriers was $36.52. On an interim
basis, would it be reasonable to set the
urban reference price for voice at $37 for
purposes of the Remote Areas Fund? We
also note that several large fixed
terrestrial providers offer broadband at
speeds close to the Commission’s 4
Mbps downstream/1 Mbps upstream
benchmark at prices ranging from $45 to
$49.95 per month. Would setting an
urban reference price for broadband at
a somewhat higher level, such as $60, be
a reasonable interim approach for the
Remote Areas Fund? Should that figure
be lower or higher?
22. We also seek further comment on
what should be considered ‘‘basic’’
satellite voice-broadband service for the
purposes of setting the monthly
consumer subsidy amount. Satellite
broadband providers offer a variety of
service tiers with different usage limits
at different prices, with the lowest price
offerings currently in the $50 range.
Should the Commission deem the
lowest price offering to be a ‘‘basic’’
broadband offering, and therefore focus
on the $50 plan in setting the satellite
reference rate? Should consumers be
able to use their monthly voucher to
purchase services above the basic
offering?
23. How, if at all, should the
Commission take into account the costs
of installation and other upfront costs as
part of a monthly retail subsidy? For
instance, should the representative
retail rate be determined by adding
together the monthly service amount
plus any upfront fees, amortized over a
two-year period?
24. Satellite broadband service rates
provide a useful framework for setting
the portable consumer subsidy amount
because they are generally uniform
nationwide. However, we acknowledge
that terrestrial wireless or wireline
service providers may be viable
VerDate Mar<15>2010
16:53 Feb 06, 2013
Jkt 229001
providers for certain remote areas and
may choose to participate in the Remote
Areas Fund. Given that these service
providers can charge rates that vary by
geography, we seek comment on
whether, and if so, how to account for
these varying rates when setting the rate
that will be compared to reasonably
comparable services in urban areas.
25. How, if at all, should the usage
amounts associated with wireless
broadband services in urban areas be
factored into such an adjustment?
3. Applying the Subsidy to Consumer
Bill
26. Regardless of whether the
Commission structures the Remote
Areas Fund as a one-time or monthly
subsidy, we seek further comment on
measures to ensure the consumer
receives the full benefit of the subsidy.
27. To discourage service providers
from raising their rates in response to
the availability of a consumer subsidy,
the Commission sought comment in the
USF/ICC Transformation Order and
FNPRM on requiring ‘‘each ETC to
establish an ‘anchor price’ for its basic
service offering—including installation
and equipment charges—as a condition
of eligibility to receive Remote Areas
Fund support.’’ Should the Remote
Areas Fund-supported provider be
required to apply the discount to the
provider’s best available rates, including
any discounts or promotions, at the time
the consumer subscribes to the service?
How could the Commission structure
this requirement to prevent service
providers from capturing the subsidy
and not passing it on to the consumer?
How could it be structured so that it
could be audited to verify that providers
are in fact providing consumers their
best available rates?
4. Restrictions on Extended Contracts
28. As the Commission noted in the
FNPRM, certain satellite providers
require that consumers enter into 24month contracts when they subscribe to
their services. We seek to further
develop the record on issues relating to
the use of extended contracts by Remote
Areas Fund-supported providers.
29. If Remote Areas Fund-supported
providers are permitted to enter into
extended contracts with consumers
receiving Remote Areas Fund subsidies,
should the maximum permitted contract
term be 24 months? We note that in
implementing its satellite broadband
program, RUS only permitted awardees
to enter into one-year contracts in
certain circumstances. Does the answer
depend on whether the Commission
structures the Remote Areas Fund as a
one-time payment or a monthly
PO 00000
Frm 00036
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
subsidy? If the Commission provides
portable consumer subsidies for
extended contracts, how should it
handle early termination fees?
C. Consumer Eligibility for the Remote
Areas Fund
30. Discussion. Should the
Commission adopt the same definition
for household for purposes of the
Remote Areas Fund as it did for Lifeline
and associated implementing
regulations?
31. Should the Commission require
consumer self-certifications that they do
not have terrestrial broadband available
at their home meeting defined
requirements (i.e., for capacity, latency,
usage, and price) as a precondition to
receiving the Remote Areas Fund
consumer subsidy? Are there any other
specific mechanisms the Commission
should adopt to ensure that Remote
Areas funding does not go to consumers
that already have terrestrial broadband
that meets the Commission’s
requirements?
32. Should consumers be required to
self-certify that they are using Remote
Areas Fund support at their primary
address? If consumers are found to be
making false self-certifications, should
the Commission impose penalties for
such false statements and
misrepresentations?
33. If the Commission did require
primary address self-certifications,
would it be reasonable to employ
Lifeline requirements (e.g., 30-day
moving notifications, a prohibition on
P.O. box addresses, and a requirement
that applicants provide both a primary
address and billing address) to impose
the primary address restriction? How
should the Commission account for
certain groups like seasonal workers
that may make frequent moves between
residences?
34. If the Commission requires
consumers to submit a certification
pursuant to a one Remote Areas Fund
subsidy per household or primary
address restriction, should the service
provider be responsible for collecting
and verifying the certification? We note
that USAC is in the process of
developing a database to verify that
households do not receive more than
one Lifeline subsidy. Should USAC also
develop a database of Remote Areas
Fund-eligible households with
associated addresses, and could the
Lifeline database be expanded for this
purpose in a cost-effective way? What
steps, if any, should USAC or ETCs take
to verify self-certifications in the interim
while the database would be developed?
We also seek comment on whether the
costs to ETCs or the Administrator of
E:\FR\FM\07FEP1.SGM
07FEP1
Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 26 / Thursday, February 7, 2013 / Proposed Rules
verifying certifications against such a
database or other data source would
outweigh any potential savings
associated with restricting Remote Areas
Fund support to one-per-household
and/or primary addresses.
35. If a database is employed, should
ETCs be required to collect the data for
the database from their customers? How
can the Commission ensure that data
that are submitted to the database by
ETCs are uniform? As an alternative to
creating a database or utilizing an
expanded version of USAC’s Lifeline
database, are there other types of tools
or data sources that USAC or ETCs
could rely on to verify consumers’
addresses?
D. Designing the Remote Areas Fund
Within a Set Budget
36. Discussion. Recognizing that the
answer depends on the level of subsidy
provided, what would be the financial
impact of making all census blocks
shown as unserved areas on the
National Broadband Map eligible for
Remote Areas Fund support, until
deployment occurs in those areas,
whether through support from universal
service or through market forces? How
likely is it that the Commission would
need to limit the number of locations in
remote areas that will be eligible for
support to stay within a defined budget?
If so, what criteria should the
Commission use to determine which
remote areas will receive support and
which will not? If the demand for the
Remote Areas Fund were to exceed a
defined $100 million annual budget,
should the Commission reevaluate and
set a higher budget for the following
year, or should the Commission adopt a
$100 million hard cap in interest of
promoting fiscal responsibility and
controlling the overall size of the
universal service budget?
mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
E. Service Providers Eligible To Receive
Support From the Remote Areas Fund
37. Discussion. Should the
Commission impose requirements to
standardize the required showings to be
designated an ETC to participate in the
Remote Areas Fund, the procedural
aspects of the ETC application process,
the time states take to review ETC
applications, the criteria states use to
evaluate ETC applications, and the
obligations that states place on ETCs? If
so, what specific requirements should
be adopted? The National Cable &
Telecommunications Association
proposes that ETC applications be
deemed granted within 30 days of filing;
would a more reasonable time frame for
such a requirement be 60 or 90 days?
VerDate Mar<15>2010
16:53 Feb 06, 2013
Jkt 229001
38. ETCs that receive Remote Areas
Fund support will be required to
provide voice service. We seek to
update the record on the quality of the
voice service that satellite providers and
wireless Internet Service Providers
(WISPs) are able to offer today, and over
the next twelve months. We note that
nothing in the Commission’s existing
regulations would preclude incumbent
voice providers that have already
received an ETC designation and who
wish to resell satellite broadband
services or other wireless broadband
services from receiving Remote Areas
funding, assuming such services meet
specified performance requirements.
What is the likelihood that satellite
providers and WISPs would enter
partnerships with traditional voice
providers, i.e., incumbent telephone
companies, to fulfill voice obligations in
areas eligible for Remote Areas funding?
F. Performance Requirements for
Remote Areas Fund-Supported Service
Providers
39. Discussion. The International
Telecommunication Union has noted
that while latency delays above 400
milliseconds are unacceptable for
network planning, latency up to 300
milliseconds provides acceptable voice
quality for most users with an
increasing number of users becoming
dissatisfied if latency exceeds 300
milliseconds. Based on this information,
we seek comment on an appropriate
latency standard for the Remote Areas
Fund. How should the Commission
address the increased latency
experienced during double hop calls?
40. We also seek to further develop
the record on setting required usage
allowances for providers participating
in the Remote Areas Fund. We have not
yet established minimum usage
requirements that will apply to price
cap carriers that elect to make a
statewide commitment to serve areas in
Phase II. Given the Commission’s
recognition that it may be appropriate to
‘‘modestly relax’’ performance
requirements in areas supported by the
Remote Areas Fund, what downward
adjustments would represent an
appropriate balancing of the ‘‘economic
and technical characteristics of
networks’’ likely to serve the most
remote areas?
41. We note that according to one
source, during the second half of 2012,
the median monthly data consumption
for fixed services in North America was
16.8 GB per-subscriber. And according
to recent Commission speed testing
data, 75 percent of surveyed DSL
subscribers in April 2012 used less than
20 GB per month. Given this historical
PO 00000
Frm 00037
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
9023
data and industry forecasts for future
usage, what usage allowance should be
a required minimum for providers
participating in the Remote Areas Fund?
Would 20 GB be an appropriate usage
allowance requirement for the Remote
Areas Fund, at least in its initial
implementation? Should the
Commission periodically adjust the
Remote Areas Fund usage allowance
requirement to reflect consumer
behavior, and if so, how often?
G. Accountability and Oversight
42. Discussion. Should any of the 47
CFR 54.313 reporting requirements not
apply or be tailored for Remote Areas
Fund recipients? For example, is the
requirement that ETCs report detailed
information about outages, and the
number of complaints they receive per
1,000 connections, reasonable for
Remote Areas Fund-supported
participants? Is there a need to require
a five-year build-out plan in a situation
where the subsidy is structured as a
consumer subsidy, rather than a supplyside subsidy for deployment? While
recognizing there are fundamental
differences between the Lifeline
program and Connect America high-cost
programs, are there lessons that the
Commission could learn from Lifeline’s
administration of consumer subsidies?
What measures would the Commission
need to put in place to ensure that
subsidies are not flowing to consumers
that are already served by terrestrial
broadband meeting the Commission’s
broadband speed benchmark? What
specific kinds of documents should
Remote Areas Fund participants be
required to retain in order to facilitate
USAC’s audits and investigations of
funding recipients? Should Remote
Areas Fund participants be required to
maintain date stamped screen shots of
Web site advertisements and/or other
documentary evidence of pricing,
including both published and
unpublished rates available upon
request, to facilitate the ability of
auditors to ensure that consumers have
the benefit of best available rates?
III. Procedural Matters
A. Initial Regulatory Flexibility Act
Analysis
43. The USF/ICC Transformation
Order and FNPRM included an Initial
Regulatory Flexibility Analysis (IRFA)
pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 603, exploring the
potential impact on small entities of the
Commission’s proposal. We invite
parties to file comments on the IRFA in
light of this additional notice.
E:\FR\FM\07FEP1.SGM
07FEP1
9024
Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 26 / Thursday, February 7, 2013 / Proposed Rules
B. Initial Paperwork Reduction Act of
1995 Analysis
44. This Public Notice contains
information collection requirements
subject to the Paperwork Reduction Act
of 1995 (PRA), Public Law 104–13 that
were originally proposed in the USF/
ICC Transformation Order and FNPRM.
The USF/ICC Transformation Order and
FNPRM was submitted to the Office of
Management and Budget (OMB) for
review under section 3507(d) of the
PRA. OMB, the general public, and
other Federal agencies were invited to
comment on the new information
collection requirements contained in
that proceeding and referenced in this
Public Notice.
mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
C. Filing Requirements
45. Interested parties may file
comments and reply comments on or
before the dates indicated on the first
page of this document. Comments are to
reference WC Docket Nos. 10–90 and
DA 13–69 and may be filed using the
Commission’s Electronic Comment
Filing System (ECFS). Electronic Filing
of Documents in Rulemaking
Proceedings, 63 FR 24121, May 1, 1998.
D Electronic Filers: Comments may be
filed electronically using the Internet by
accessing the ECFS: https://
fjallfoss.fcc.gov/ecfs2/.
D Paper Filers: Parties who choose to
file by paper must file an original and
one copy of each filing.
D 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.
D All hand-delivered or messengerdelivered paper filings for the
Commission’s Secretary must be
delivered to FCC Headquarters at 445
12th St. SW., Room TW–A325,
Washington, DC20554. The filing hours
are 8:00 a.m. to 7:00 p.m. All hand
deliveries must be held together with
rubber bands or fasteners. Any
envelopes and boxes must be disposed
of before entering the building.
D 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.
D U.S. Postal Service first-class,
Express, and Priority mail must be
addressed to 445 12th Street SW.,
Washington, DC 20554.
In addition, we request that one copy
of each pleading be sent to each of the
following:
VerDate Mar<15>2010
16:53 Feb 06, 2013
Jkt 229001
(1) Ted Burmeister,
Telecommunications Access Policy
Division, Wireline Competition Bureau,
445 12th Street SW., Room 5–A445,
Washington, DC 20554; email:
Theodore.Burmeister@fcc.gov;
(2) Heidi Lankau,
Telecommunications Access Policy
Division,Wireline Competition Bureau,
445 12th Street SW., Room 5–B511,
Washington, DC 20554; email:
Heidi.Lankau@fcc.gov;
(3) Charles Tyler,
Telecommunications Access Policy
Division, Wireline Competition Bureau,
445 12th Street SW., Room 5–A452,
Washington, DC 20554; email: mail to:
Charles.Tyler@fcc.gov.
46. People with Disabilities: To
request materials in accessible formats
for people with disabilities (braille,
large print, electronic files, audio
format), send an email to fcc504@fcc.gov
or call the Consumer & Governmental
Affairs Bureau at 202–418–0530 (voice),
202–418–0432 (tty).
47. This matter shall be treated as a
‘‘permit-but-disclose’’ proceeding in
accordance with the Commission’s ex
parte rules. Persons making ex parte
presentations must file a copy of any
written presentation or a memorandum
summarizing any oral presentation
within two business days after the
presentation (unless a different deadline
applicable to the Sunshine period
applies). Persons making oral ex parte
presentations are reminded that
memoranda summarizing the
presentation must (1) list all persons
attending or otherwise participating in
the meeting at which the ex parte
presentation was made, and (2)
summarize all data presented and
arguments made during the
presentation. If the presentation
consisted in whole or in part of the
presentation of data or arguments
already reflected in the presenter’s
written comments, memoranda or other
filings in the proceeding, the presenter
may provide citations to such data or
arguments in his or her prior comments,
memoranda, or other filings (specifying
the relevant page and/or paragraph
numbers where such data or arguments
can be found) in lieu of summarizing
them in the memorandum. Documents
shown or given to Commission staff
during ex parte meetings are deemed to
be written ex parte presentations and
must be filed consistent with rule
section 1.1206(b). In proceedings
governed by rule section 1.49(f) or for
which the Commission has made
available a method of electronic filing,
written ex parte presentations and
memoranda summarizing oral ex parte
presentations, and all attachments
PO 00000
Frm 00038
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
thereto, must be filed through the
electronic comment filing system
available for that proceeding, and must
be filed in their native format (e.g., .doc,
.xml, .ppt, searchable .pdf). Participants
in this proceeding should familiarize
themselves with the Commission’s ex
parte rules.
Federal Communications Commission.
Trent B. Harkrader,
Division Chief, Telecommunications Access
Policy Division, Wireline Competition Bureau.
[FR Doc. 2013–02686 Filed 2–6–13; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6712–01–P
DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
National Oceanic and Atmospheric
Administration
50 CFR Part 223
RIN 0648–BC10
Sea Turtle Conservation; Shrimp
Trawling Requirements
National Marine Fisheries
Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and
Atmospheric Administration (NOAA),
Commerce.
ACTION: Proposed rule; withdrawal.
AGENCY:
We (NMFS) have determined
that a final rule to withdraw the
alternative tow time restriction and
require all skimmer trawls, pusher-head
trawls, and wing nets (butterfly trawls)
rigged for fishing to use turtle excluder
devices (TEDs) in their nets is not
warranted at this time. Thus, we are
discontinuing our Environmental
Review process under the National
Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) and
do not intend to prepare a Final
Environmental Impact Statement for
this Action. We therefore withdraw our
proposed rule to require TEDs in these
vessels published May 10, 2012, in the
Federal Register.
DATES: The proposed rule published on
May 10, 2012 (77 FR 27411), is
withdrawn as of February 7, 2013.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Michael Barnette, 727–551–5794.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
SUMMARY:
Background
On May 10, 2012, we published a
proposed rule (77 FR 27411) that would
require all skimmer trawls, pusher-head
trawls, and wing nets (butterfly trawls)
to use TEDs in their nets. Subsequently,
a notice of availability on a Draft
Environmental Impact Statement (DEIS)
to Reduce Incidental Bycatch and
Mortality of Sea Turtles in the
Southeastern U.S. Shrimp Fisheries was
E:\FR\FM\07FEP1.SGM
07FEP1
Agencies
[Federal Register Volume 78, Number 26 (Thursday, February 7, 2013)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 9020-9024]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2013-02686]
=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION
47 CFR Part 54
[WC Docket No. 10-90; DA 13-69]
Wireline Competition Bureau Seeks Further Comment on Specific
Issues Related to the Implementation of the Remote Areas Fund
AGENCY: Federal Communications Commission.
ACTION: Proposed rule.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: In this document, the Wireline Competition Bureau seeks
further comment on specific issues relating to the implementation of
the Remote Areas Fund.
DATES: Comments are due on or before February 19, 2013 and reply
comments are due on or before March 18, 2013.
ADDRESSES: Interested parties may file comments on or before February
19, 2013 and reply comments on or before March 18, 2013. All pleadings
are to reference WC Docket No. 10-90. Comments may be filed using the
Commission's Electronic Comment Filing System (ECFS) or by filing paper
copies, by any of the following methods:
Electronic Filers: Comments may be filed electronically
using the Internet by accessing the ECFS: https://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/ecfs2/.
Paper Filers: Parties who choose to file by paper must
file an original and one copy of each filing.
People with Disabilities: To request materials in
accessible formats for people with disabilities (Braille, large print,
electronic files, audio format), send an email to fcc504@fcc.gov or
call the Consumer & Governmental Affairs Bureau at (202) 418-0530
(voice), (202) 418-0432 (tty).
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: Ted Burmeister, Wireline Competition
Bureau at (202) 418-7389 or TTY (202) 418-0484, or Heidi Lankau,
Wireline Competition Bureau at (202) 418-2876 or TTY (202) 418-0484.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: This is a synopsis of the Commission's
Public Notice (Notice) in WC Docket No. 10-90; DA 13-69, released
January 17, 2013. The complete text of this document is available for
inspection and copying during normal business hours in the FCC
Reference Information Center, Portals II, 445 12th Street SW., Room CY-
A257, Washington, DC 20554. The document may also be purchased from the
Commission's duplicating contractor, Best Copy and Printing, Inc., 445
12th Street SW., Room CY-B402, Washington, DC 20554, telephone (800)
378-3160 or (202) 863-2893, facsimile (202) 863-2898, or via Internet
at https://www.bcpiweb.com.
I. Introduction
1. On November 18, 2011, the Federal Communications Commission
(Commission) released the USF/ICC Transformation Order and FNPRM, 76 FR
73830, November 29, 2011 and 76 FR 78384, December 16, 2011, which
comprehensively reformed and modernized the universal service high-cost
and intercarrier compensation systems. The Commission established the
Connect America Fund to ensure that voice and broadband service is
available throughout the nation. Within Connect America, the Commission
created a Remote Areas Fund with a budget of ``at least $100 million
annually'' to ensure that even Americans living in the most remote
areas of the nation, where the cost of providing terrestrial broadband
service is extremely high, can obtain service. In the accompanying
FNPRM, 76 FR 78384, December 16, 2011, the Commission sought comment on
various issues relating to the Remote Areas Fund, including how to
define the remote areas eligible for support from the Remote Areas
Fund, qualifications for participating providers, the public interest
obligations of these providers, as well as administrative issues.
2. Based on the record generated in response to the FNPRM, the
Bureau now seeks further detailed comment on issues relating to the
implementation of the Remote Areas Fund as a portable consumer subsidy
program, as proposed by the Commission in the FNPRM and supported by a
diverse group of commenters. In particular, we seek to further develop
the record on a number of specific issues, including defining the areas
where Remote Areas funding will be available, how to set the consumer
subsidy, consumer eligibility, measures to keep the program within a
defined annual budget, service provider participation, performance
requirements, and accountability and oversight.
II. Discussion
A. Areas Eligible for Remote Areas Fund Support
3. Discussion. We seek to further develop the record on
administratively feasible ways to identify areas (both those served by
price cap carriers and by rate-of-return carriers) where consumers
would be eligible for the Remote Areas Fund.
4. In lieu of using the cost model to define eligible areas, should
the Commission use the National Broadband Map to identify unserved
census blocks and provide Remote Areas Fund support to those census
areas until they become served with broadband that meets the
Commission's performance requirements (i.e., speed, capacity, latency)
for non-Remote Areas Fund eligible areas?
5. If the Commission chooses to utilize the most current version of
the National Broadband Map available at the time it adopts rules for
the Remote Areas Fund for the purpose of determining areas eligible for
the Remote Areas Fund, should there be a process to contest the
classification of areas as unserved or served on the map before Remote
Areas funding is provided, and how could that process be implemented in
a way to expedite the launch of the Remote Areas Fund? For instance,
should the Commission consider any updates to the National Broadband
Map gathered in conjunction with Connect America Phase I when
finalizing areas eligible for the Remote Areas Fund? Should the
Commission implement a process to allow households to self-report if
data indicate that certain areas are served, if they contend those
areas are unserved?
6. We ask for further comment on other possible data sources that
the Commission could use to identify unserved areas. Should the
Commission take into consideration the unique characteristics of
locations like Alaska or Hawaii in determining areas eligible for
Remote Areas funding, and if so, how? To the extent parties advocate
use of information other than a cost model or the National Broadband
Map to identify remote areas, they should provide specific objective
metrics that could be used under such an approach.
7. Implementing the Remote Areas Fund in Rate-of-Return Areas. We
seek to further develop the record on the suggestion of the National
Exchange Carrier Association, Inc. et al. that the Commission take into
account the $250 per-line per month cap when identifying areas that are
eligible for the Remote Areas Fund. In lieu of relying on a forward
looking cost model, should
[[Page 9021]]
the Commission identify areas for the Remote Areas Fund based on
reported loop cost, such as a rule that all unserved locations in rate-
of-return study areas for which the reported loop cost equals or
exceeds the 95th percentile for average cost be eligible for Remote
Areas Fund support?
8. Alternatively, should the Commission rely on the National
Broadband Map to identify rate-of-return census blocks that would be
eligible for the Remote Areas Fund, as well as price cap census blocks?
9. We anticipate that rate-of-return carriers would be eligible, as
existing eligible telecommunications carriers (ETCs), to seek funding
from the Remote Areas Fund and potentially could use alternative
technologies, either directly or through resale, to provide broadband
to their highest cost customers. To the extent an existing ETC receives
funding from the Remote Areas Fund, should any adjustment be made to
its receipt of support under other high-cost support mechanisms? Should
there be any adjustment to an existing rate-of-return ETC's support if
another ETC were to serve some portion of the study area through the
Remote Area Fund?
10. Would the ability to serve customers through the Remote Areas
Fund address concerns raised by rate-of-return carriers regarding their
ability to meet the current rule requiring the deployment of broadband
upon reasonable request?
11. To the extent parties argue that a different method for
identifying remote areas should be used in areas served by rate-of-
return carriers than areas served by price cap carriers, they should
present specific alternative proposals of how to identify those areas
that would be eligible for such funding.
12. Transition Issues. If the Commission were to adopt an approach
that relied on the National Broadband Map in lieu of a cost threshold
in the forward-looking cost model to designate census blocks eligible
for Remote Areas funding, the potential eligibility of specific areas
would change over time with the ongoing deployment of broadband-capable
infrastructure by existing ETCs receiving support under other universal
service mechanisms as well as with expansion by unsubsidized
competitors.
13. How should the rules address the transition where an area that
is initially classified as unserved, and therefore eligible for Remote
Areas Fund support, subsequently becomes served by a terrestrial
broadband provider, and how does the answer differ if the Commission
chooses to structure the Remote Areas Fund as a one-time payment, as
opposed to a monthly subsidy?
14. Would it be a cost-effective use of universal service funds to
provide a Remote Areas Fund voucher to a consumer that resides in a
location that is expected to receive terrestrial broadband at some
point in the future through Connect America Phase I or Phase II? How
would a rule identifying all unserved areas as eligible for the Remote
Areas Fund, at least until they become served, affect the incentives of
existing ETCs to deploy terrestrial broadband? How would it impact
carriers' incentives to participate in other universal service
programs, such as Connect America Phase II or the Mobility Fund Phase
II?
B. Consumer Subsidy
15. Discussion. We seek to further develop the record on
implementation details regarding how a portable consumer subsidy should
be structured, how the amount of the portable consumer subsidy would be
set, what restrictions, if any, should be placed on the service
contracts that are supported by this subsidy, and how such a program
could be designed to stay within a $100 million annual budget. We also
seek to further develop the record on the relative advantages and
disadvantages of structuring the Remote Areas Fund as a one-time
subsidy or a monthly retail subsidy.
1. One-Time Subsidy
16. We seek to further develop the record on setting the subsidy
amount for a one-time payment. Satellite and fixed wireless broadband
services typically include a combination of upfront and monthly set-up
and equipment fees. We note that in its satellite program, RUS awarded
Hughes Network Systems (Hughes) a grant of $58,777,306 and Wildblue
Communications (Wildblue) a grant of $19,533,444. Based on RUS'
estimates of the number of subscribers that would benefit from these
grants, Hughes received an award of approximately $227 per subscriber
and Wildblue received an award of approximately $177 per subscriber.
Would $200 in one-time support per location be an appropriate amount
for the Remote Areas Fund one-time subsidy, or should it be higher or
lower? How should the Commission account for the fact that in some
locations, installation and other upfront costs may be significantly
higher (e.g., due to the extreme remoteness of a location or obstacles
that may make it difficult for a signal to reach the location)? We
encourage commenters to suggest specific dollar amounts and provide
specific factual information in support of their assertions.
17. How would adoption of a consumer voucher structured as a one-
time payment impact providers' existing practices regarding the
amortization of installation costs through monthly rates? Would this
approach avoid distorting providers' business decisions regarding the
relative amounts of upfront and monthly fees charged to the retail
consumer? Would this approach present any unique administrative
challenges?
18. Should the Commission set forth pricing and performance
requirements that would apply over a minimum period of time to ensure
ongoing and acceptable service to the consumer, as a condition of
receiving a one-time payment? We note that RUS' BIP program for
satellite took such an approach, setting pricing restrictions on basic
service packages, prohibiting carriers from requiring customers to
enter into extended contracts (subject to certain exceptions), and
requiring carriers to offer customer premise equipment at no cost for
all their service packages. Would a similar approach be appropriate for
the Remote Areas Fund? Should a condition of receiving the one-time
payment be that the Remote Areas Fund-supported providers offer voice
service at a rate not to exceed the Commission's prior reasonable
comparability benchmark for voice service for non-rural carriers, i.e.,
$36.52? What would be an appropriate amount of time for such pricing
and performance requirements?
19. How would structuring the consumer subsidy as a one-time
payment affect the nature of competition among potential providers to
serve the consumer? Should the Commission adopt any restrictions on the
ability of consumers to obtain a new one-time subsidy if they switch
providers after some amount of time? Would it be wasteful for the
Remote Areas Fund to subsidize the cost of installing a satellite dish
or fixed wireless receiver on a home if the consumer previously has
used a Remote Areas Fund voucher to install equipment from another
provider? What types of reporting or other requirements might the
Commission impose to protect against waste, fraud and abuse? For
example, in the Lifeline program, consumers must certify that they will
notify their service providers within 30 days if they move to a new
address. What kinds of burdens might this requirement impose on service
providers, and particularly on small businesses?
[[Page 9022]]
2. Monthly Retail Subsidy
20. In the USF/ICC Transformation Order and FNPRM, the Commission
also sought comment on various issues relating to structuring the
portable consumer subsidy as ``a monthly amount equal to the difference
between the retail price of a `basic' satellite voice-broadband service
and an appropriate reference price for reasonably comparable service in
urban areas.'' We seek to further develop the record on what specific
figure should be used as the urban reference price, pending
implementation of the urban rate survey, if the Commission were to
implement a monthly subsidy?
21. We note that the Commission's prior reasonable comparability
benchmark for voice service for non-rural carriers was $36.52. On an
interim basis, would it be reasonable to set the urban reference price
for voice at $37 for purposes of the Remote Areas Fund? We also note
that several large fixed terrestrial providers offer broadband at
speeds close to the Commission's 4 Mbps downstream/1 Mbps upstream
benchmark at prices ranging from $45 to $49.95 per month. Would setting
an urban reference price for broadband at a somewhat higher level, such
as $60, be a reasonable interim approach for the Remote Areas Fund?
Should that figure be lower or higher?
22. We also seek further comment on what should be considered
``basic'' satellite voice-broadband service for the purposes of setting
the monthly consumer subsidy amount. Satellite broadband providers
offer a variety of service tiers with different usage limits at
different prices, with the lowest price offerings currently in the $50
range. Should the Commission deem the lowest price offering to be a
``basic'' broadband offering, and therefore focus on the $50 plan in
setting the satellite reference rate? Should consumers be able to use
their monthly voucher to purchase services above the basic offering?
23. How, if at all, should the Commission take into account the
costs of installation and other upfront costs as part of a monthly
retail subsidy? For instance, should the representative retail rate be
determined by adding together the monthly service amount plus any
upfront fees, amortized over a two-year period?
24. Satellite broadband service rates provide a useful framework
for setting the portable consumer subsidy amount because they are
generally uniform nationwide. However, we acknowledge that terrestrial
wireless or wireline service providers may be viable providers for
certain remote areas and may choose to participate in the Remote Areas
Fund. Given that these service providers can charge rates that vary by
geography, we seek comment on whether, and if so, how to account for
these varying rates when setting the rate that will be compared to
reasonably comparable services in urban areas.
25. How, if at all, should the usage amounts associated with
wireless broadband services in urban areas be factored into such an
adjustment?
3. Applying the Subsidy to Consumer Bill
26. Regardless of whether the Commission structures the Remote
Areas Fund as a one-time or monthly subsidy, we seek further comment on
measures to ensure the consumer receives the full benefit of the
subsidy.
27. To discourage service providers from raising their rates in
response to the availability of a consumer subsidy, the Commission
sought comment in the USF/ICC Transformation Order and FNPRM on
requiring ``each ETC to establish an `anchor price' for its basic
service offering--including installation and equipment charges--as a
condition of eligibility to receive Remote Areas Fund support.'' Should
the Remote Areas Fund-supported provider be required to apply the
discount to the provider's best available rates, including any
discounts or promotions, at the time the consumer subscribes to the
service? How could the Commission structure this requirement to prevent
service providers from capturing the subsidy and not passing it on to
the consumer? How could it be structured so that it could be audited to
verify that providers are in fact providing consumers their best
available rates?
4. Restrictions on Extended Contracts
28. As the Commission noted in the FNPRM, certain satellite
providers require that consumers enter into 24-month contracts when
they subscribe to their services. We seek to further develop the record
on issues relating to the use of extended contracts by Remote Areas
Fund-supported providers.
29. If Remote Areas Fund-supported providers are permitted to enter
into extended contracts with consumers receiving Remote Areas Fund
subsidies, should the maximum permitted contract term be 24 months? We
note that in implementing its satellite broadband program, RUS only
permitted awardees to enter into one-year contracts in certain
circumstances. Does the answer depend on whether the Commission
structures the Remote Areas Fund as a one-time payment or a monthly
subsidy? If the Commission provides portable consumer subsidies for
extended contracts, how should it handle early termination fees?
C. Consumer Eligibility for the Remote Areas Fund
30. Discussion. Should the Commission adopt the same definition for
household for purposes of the Remote Areas Fund as it did for Lifeline
and associated implementing regulations?
31. Should the Commission require consumer self-certifications that
they do not have terrestrial broadband available at their home meeting
defined requirements (i.e., for capacity, latency, usage, and price) as
a precondition to receiving the Remote Areas Fund consumer subsidy? Are
there any other specific mechanisms the Commission should adopt to
ensure that Remote Areas funding does not go to consumers that already
have terrestrial broadband that meets the Commission's requirements?
32. Should consumers be required to self-certify that they are
using Remote Areas Fund support at their primary address? If consumers
are found to be making false self-certifications, should the Commission
impose penalties for such false statements and misrepresentations?
33. If the Commission did require primary address self-
certifications, would it be reasonable to employ Lifeline requirements
(e.g., 30-day moving notifications, a prohibition on P.O. box
addresses, and a requirement that applicants provide both a primary
address and billing address) to impose the primary address restriction?
How should the Commission account for certain groups like seasonal
workers that may make frequent moves between residences?
34. If the Commission requires consumers to submit a certification
pursuant to a one Remote Areas Fund subsidy per household or primary
address restriction, should the service provider be responsible for
collecting and verifying the certification? We note that USAC is in the
process of developing a database to verify that households do not
receive more than one Lifeline subsidy. Should USAC also develop a
database of Remote Areas Fund-eligible households with associated
addresses, and could the Lifeline database be expanded for this purpose
in a cost-effective way? What steps, if any, should USAC or ETCs take
to verify self-certifications in the interim while the database would
be developed? We also seek comment on whether the costs to ETCs or the
Administrator of
[[Page 9023]]
verifying certifications against such a database or other data source
would outweigh any potential savings associated with restricting Remote
Areas Fund support to one-per-household and/or primary addresses.
35. If a database is employed, should ETCs be required to collect
the data for the database from their customers? How can the Commission
ensure that data that are submitted to the database by ETCs are
uniform? As an alternative to creating a database or utilizing an
expanded version of USAC's Lifeline database, are there other types of
tools or data sources that USAC or ETCs could rely on to verify
consumers' addresses?
D. Designing the Remote Areas Fund Within a Set Budget
36. Discussion. Recognizing that the answer depends on the level of
subsidy provided, what would be the financial impact of making all
census blocks shown as unserved areas on the National Broadband Map
eligible for Remote Areas Fund support, until deployment occurs in
those areas, whether through support from universal service or through
market forces? How likely is it that the Commission would need to limit
the number of locations in remote areas that will be eligible for
support to stay within a defined budget? If so, what criteria should
the Commission use to determine which remote areas will receive support
and which will not? If the demand for the Remote Areas Fund were to
exceed a defined $100 million annual budget, should the Commission
reevaluate and set a higher budget for the following year, or should
the Commission adopt a $100 million hard cap in interest of promoting
fiscal responsibility and controlling the overall size of the universal
service budget?
E. Service Providers Eligible To Receive Support From the Remote Areas
Fund
37. Discussion. Should the Commission impose requirements to
standardize the required showings to be designated an ETC to
participate in the Remote Areas Fund, the procedural aspects of the ETC
application process, the time states take to review ETC applications,
the criteria states use to evaluate ETC applications, and the
obligations that states place on ETCs? If so, what specific
requirements should be adopted? The National Cable & Telecommunications
Association proposes that ETC applications be deemed granted within 30
days of filing; would a more reasonable time frame for such a
requirement be 60 or 90 days?
38. ETCs that receive Remote Areas Fund support will be required to
provide voice service. We seek to update the record on the quality of
the voice service that satellite providers and wireless Internet
Service Providers (WISPs) are able to offer today, and over the next
twelve months. We note that nothing in the Commission's existing
regulations would preclude incumbent voice providers that have already
received an ETC designation and who wish to resell satellite broadband
services or other wireless broadband services from receiving Remote
Areas funding, assuming such services meet specified performance
requirements. What is the likelihood that satellite providers and WISPs
would enter partnerships with traditional voice providers, i.e.,
incumbent telephone companies, to fulfill voice obligations in areas
eligible for Remote Areas funding?
F. Performance Requirements for Remote Areas Fund-Supported Service
Providers
39. Discussion. The International Telecommunication Union has noted
that while latency delays above 400 milliseconds are unacceptable for
network planning, latency up to 300 milliseconds provides acceptable
voice quality for most users with an increasing number of users
becoming dissatisfied if latency exceeds 300 milliseconds. Based on
this information, we seek comment on an appropriate latency standard
for the Remote Areas Fund. How should the Commission address the
increased latency experienced during double hop calls?
40. We also seek to further develop the record on setting required
usage allowances for providers participating in the Remote Areas Fund.
We have not yet established minimum usage requirements that will apply
to price cap carriers that elect to make a statewide commitment to
serve areas in Phase II. Given the Commission's recognition that it may
be appropriate to ``modestly relax'' performance requirements in areas
supported by the Remote Areas Fund, what downward adjustments would
represent an appropriate balancing of the ``economic and technical
characteristics of networks'' likely to serve the most remote areas?
41. We note that according to one source, during the second half of
2012, the median monthly data consumption for fixed services in North
America was 16.8 GB per-subscriber. And according to recent Commission
speed testing data, 75 percent of surveyed DSL subscribers in April
2012 used less than 20 GB per month. Given this historical data and
industry forecasts for future usage, what usage allowance should be a
required minimum for providers participating in the Remote Areas Fund?
Would 20 GB be an appropriate usage allowance requirement for the
Remote Areas Fund, at least in its initial implementation? Should the
Commission periodically adjust the Remote Areas Fund usage allowance
requirement to reflect consumer behavior, and if so, how often?
G. Accountability and Oversight
42. Discussion. Should any of the 47 CFR 54.313 reporting
requirements not apply or be tailored for Remote Areas Fund recipients?
For example, is the requirement that ETCs report detailed information
about outages, and the number of complaints they receive per 1,000
connections, reasonable for Remote Areas Fund-supported participants?
Is there a need to require a five-year build-out plan in a situation
where the subsidy is structured as a consumer subsidy, rather than a
supply-side subsidy for deployment? While recognizing there are
fundamental differences between the Lifeline program and Connect
America high-cost programs, are there lessons that the Commission could
learn from Lifeline's administration of consumer subsidies? What
measures would the Commission need to put in place to ensure that
subsidies are not flowing to consumers that are already served by
terrestrial broadband meeting the Commission's broadband speed
benchmark? What specific kinds of documents should Remote Areas Fund
participants be required to retain in order to facilitate USAC's audits
and investigations of funding recipients? Should Remote Areas Fund
participants be required to maintain date stamped screen shots of Web
site advertisements and/or other documentary evidence of pricing,
including both published and unpublished rates available upon request,
to facilitate the ability of auditors to ensure that consumers have the
benefit of best available rates?
III. Procedural Matters
A. Initial Regulatory Flexibility Act Analysis
43. The USF/ICC Transformation Order and FNPRM included an Initial
Regulatory Flexibility Analysis (IRFA) pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 603,
exploring the potential impact on small entities of the Commission's
proposal. We invite parties to file comments on the IRFA in light of
this additional notice.
[[Page 9024]]
B. Initial Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 Analysis
44. This Public Notice contains information collection requirements
subject to the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (PRA), Public Law 104-13
that were originally proposed in the USF/ICC Transformation Order and
FNPRM. The USF/ICC Transformation Order and FNPRM was submitted to the
Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for review under section 3507(d)
of the PRA. OMB, the general public, and other Federal agencies were
invited to comment on the new information collection requirements
contained in that proceeding and referenced in this Public Notice.
C. Filing Requirements
45. Interested parties may file comments and reply comments on or
before the dates indicated on the first page of this document. Comments
are to reference WC Docket Nos. 10-90 and DA 13-69 and may be filed
using the Commission's Electronic Comment Filing System (ECFS).
Electronic Filing of Documents in Rulemaking Proceedings, 63 FR 24121,
May 1, 1998.
[ssquf] Electronic Filers: Comments may be filed electronically
using the Internet by accessing the ECFS: https://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/ecfs2/.
[ssquf] Paper Filers: Parties who choose to file by paper must file
an original and one copy of each filing.
[ssquf] 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.
[ssquf] 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, DC20554. The filing hours are
8:00 a.m. to 7:00 p.m. All hand deliveries must be held together with
rubber bands or fasteners. Any envelopes and boxes must be disposed of
before entering the building.
[ssquf] 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.
[ssquf] U.S. Postal Service first-class, Express, and Priority mail
must be addressed to 445 12th Street SW., Washington, DC 20554.
In addition, we request that one copy of each pleading be sent to
each of the following:
(1) Ted Burmeister, Telecommunications Access Policy Division,
Wireline Competition Bureau, 445 12th Street SW., Room 5-A445,
Washington, DC 20554; email: Theodore.Burmeister@fcc.gov;
(2) Heidi Lankau, Telecommunications Access Policy
Division,Wireline Competition Bureau, 445 12th Street SW., Room 5-B511,
Washington, DC 20554; email: Heidi.Lankau@fcc.gov;
(3) Charles Tyler, Telecommunications Access Policy Division,
Wireline Competition Bureau, 445 12th Street SW., Room 5-A452,
Washington, DC 20554; email: mail to: Charles.Tyler@fcc.gov.
46. People with Disabilities: To request materials in accessible
formats for people with disabilities (braille, large print, electronic
files, audio format), send an email to fcc504@fcc.gov or call the
Consumer & Governmental Affairs Bureau at 202-418-0530 (voice), 202-
418-0432 (tty).
47. This matter shall be treated as a ``permit-but-disclose''
proceeding in accordance with the Commission's ex parte rules. Persons
making ex parte presentations must file a copy of any written
presentation or a memorandum summarizing any oral presentation within
two business days after the presentation (unless a different deadline
applicable to the Sunshine period applies). Persons making oral ex
parte presentations are reminded that memoranda summarizing the
presentation must (1) list all persons attending or otherwise
participating in the meeting at which the ex parte presentation was
made, and (2) summarize all data presented and arguments made during
the presentation. If the presentation consisted in whole or in part of
the presentation of data or arguments already reflected in the
presenter's written comments, memoranda or other filings in the
proceeding, the presenter may provide citations to such data or
arguments in his or her prior comments, memoranda, or other filings
(specifying the relevant page and/or paragraph numbers where such data
or arguments can be found) in lieu of summarizing them in the
memorandum. Documents shown or given to Commission staff during ex
parte meetings are deemed to be written ex parte presentations and must
be filed consistent with rule section 1.1206(b). In proceedings
governed by rule section 1.49(f) or for which the Commission has made
available a method of electronic filing, written ex parte presentations
and memoranda summarizing oral ex parte presentations, and all
attachments thereto, must be filed through the electronic comment
filing system available for that proceeding, and must be filed in their
native format (e.g., .doc, .xml, .ppt, searchable .pdf). Participants
in this proceeding should familiarize themselves with the Commission's
ex parte rules.
Federal Communications Commission.
Trent B. Harkrader,
Division Chief, Telecommunications Access Policy Division, Wireline
Competition Bureau.
[FR Doc. 2013-02686 Filed 2-6-13; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6712-01-P