FCC Technology Transitions Policy Task Force Seeks Comment on Potential Trials, 31542-31548 [2013-12487]
Download as PDF
31542
Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 101 / Friday, May 24, 2013 / Notices
Federal Communications Commission.
Gloria J. Miles,
Federal Register Liaison, Office of the
Secretary, Office of Managing Director.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Leslie F. Smith, Office of Managing
Director (OMD), Federal
Communications Commission (FCC),
(202) 418–0217, or via the Internet at
Leslie.Smith@fcc.gov.
[FR Doc. 2013–12439 Filed 5–23–13; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6712–01–P
mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with NOTICES
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
OMB Control Number: 3060–0655.
Title: Requests for Waivers of
Regulatory Fees and Application Fees.
Form Number: N/A.
Type of Review: Extension of a
currently approved collection.
Respondents: Business or other forprofit entities.
Number of Respondents and
Responses: 340 respondents; 340
responses.
Estimated Time per Response: 1.0
hour.
Frequency of Response: On occasion
reporting requirements.
Obligation to Respond: Required to
obtain or retain benefits. Statutory
authority for this information collection
is contained in 47 U.S.C. 158 and 47
U.S.C. 159.
Total Annual Burden: 340 hours.
Total Annual Cost: $0.00.
Nature and Extent of Confidentiality:
Parties filing information may request
that the information be withheld from
disclosure. Requests for confidentiality
are processed in accordance with FCC
rules under 47 CFR § 0.459. This
information collection does not affect
individuals; however, should any
personally identifiable information (PII)
be submitted, the FCC has a system of
records notice, FCC/OMD–9,
‘‘Commission Registration System
(CORES)’’ to cover the collection, use,
storage, and destruction of this PII, as
required by the Privacy Act of 1974, as
amended, 5 U.S.C. 552a.
Privacy Act Impact Assessment: No
impacts.
Needs and Uses: Pursuant to 47
U.S.C. 158 and 47 U.S.C. 159, the FCC
is required to collect application fees
and annual regulatory fees from its
licensees and permittees. Licensees and
permittees may request waivers of these
fees where good cause is shown and
where waiver or deferral of the fee
would promote the public interest.
Financial information and reports that
are submitted to support waiver
requests are ordinarily maintained as
business records and can be easily
assembled. The FCC uses the
information submitted in support of the
waiver request to determine if such
waiver is warranted.
VerDate Mar<15>2010
21:14 May 23, 2013
Jkt 229001
FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS
COMMISSION
[GN Docket No. 13–5; DA 13–1016]
FCC Technology Transitions Policy
Task Force Seeks Comment on
Potential Trials
Federal Communications
Commission.
ACTION: Notice.
AGENCY:
In this document, the
Technology Transitions Policy Task
Force (Task Force) seeks comment on
several potential trials relating to the
ongoing transitions from copper to fiber,
from wireline to wireless, and from
time-division multiplexing (TDM) to
Internet Protocol (IP). The goal of these
trials would be to gather a factual record
to help determine what policies are
appropriate to promote investment and
innovation while protecting consumers,
promoting competition, and ensuring
that emerging all-IP networks remain
resilient and reliable. Towards this end,
the public notice seeks comment on a
set of potential trials, including targeted
trials on Voice over Internet Protocol
(VoIP) interconnection, Next Generation
911 (NG911) and the transition from
wireline to wireless service in certain
geographic areas. The public notice also
invites parties in favor of conducting a
trial in which one or more providers
make a general switch to all-IP traffic in
a geographic area to submit a detailed
and comprehensive plan laying out how
such a trial would work. It also seeks
comment on whether other trials should
be considered, such as additional
numbering trials, trials to facilitate
better access for persons with
disabilities, and whether there are
additional trials concerning the TDM to
IP or copper to fiber transitions that
should be evaluated. Finally, it seeks
comment on how best to work with
state, local and Tribal governments and
how to ensure successful trials while
also avoiding potential harmful impacts
to consumers.
DATES: Comments are due on or before
July 8, 2013. Reply comments are due
on or before August 7, 2013.
ADDRESSES: You may submit comments,
identified by GN Docket No. 13–5 by
any of the following methods: (1) The
Commission’s Electronic Comment
SUMMARY:
PO 00000
Frm 00028
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
Filing System (ECFS) or (2) by filing
paper copies. See Electronic Filing of
Documents in Rulemaking Proceedings,
63 FR 24121 (1998).
• 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. 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 messengerdelivered 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 8:00 a.m. to 7:00 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.
• 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).
In addition, one copy of each pleading
must be sent to the Commission’s
duplicating contractor, Best Copy and
Printing, Inc., 445 12th Street SW.,
Room CY–B402, Washington, DC 20554,
www.bcpiweb.com; phone: (202) 488–
5300 fax: (202) 488–5563.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Patrick Halley, Acting Deputy Director,
Technology Transitions Policy Task
Force, at 202–418–7550, or by email at
Patrick.Halley@fcc.gov.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The Task
Force proposes to move forward with
real-world trials to obtain data that will
be helpful to the Commission. The goal
E:\FR\FM\24MYN1.SGM
24MYN1
mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with NOTICES
Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 101 / Friday, May 24, 2013 / Notices
of any trials would be to gather a factual
record to help determine what policies
are appropriate to promote investment
and innovation while protecting
consumers, promoting competition, and
ensuring that emerging all-IP networks
remain resilient. We seek comment on
several potential trials relating to the
ongoing transitions from copper to fiber,
from wireline to wireless, and from
time-division multiplexing (TDM) to IP.
Consistent with their policy
development and coordination
functions, today’s action is taken by the
Chiefs of the Consumer & Governmental
Affairs Bureau, Public Safety and
Homeland Security Bureau, Wireless
Telecommunications Bureau, and
Wireline Competition Bureau, as well as
the Commission’s General Counsel, all
of whom were named by Chairman
Genachowski to serve as members of the
Task Force.
The Commission has a long history of
using trials and pilot programs to help
answer questions regarding technical
concerns and to gather data and develop
appropriate policy recommendations.
Indeed, the Commission recently
unanimously authorized a 6-month trial
to examine providing interconnected
VoIP providers direct access to
telephone numbers. Stakeholders have
also requested that the Commission
initiate trials to explore technology
transition issues.
In the spirit of these prior initiatives,
we seek comment on a set of potential
trials to assist the Commission in
ensuring that policy decisions related to
ongoing technology transitions are
grounded in sound data.
First, as we move from TDM to all-IP
networks, providers are migrating to
VoIP interconnection. VoIP
interconnection should be more
efficient and has the potential to
unleash new, innovative services and
features. We seek comment on a VoIP
interconnection trial that would gather
data to determine whether there are
technical issues that need to be
addressed and gather information
relevant to the appropriate policy
framework.
Second, as we transition away from
TDM, the nation’s emergency calling
(911) system must also migrate to
NG911. NG911 refers to an initiative
aimed at enabling the public to obtain
emergency assistance by means of
advanced communications technologies
beyond traditional voice-centric
devices. The NG911 proceeding
examines how to update the 911 system
to improve public emergency
communications services and allow
them to take advantage of the enhanced
capabilities of IP-based devices and
VerDate Mar<15>2010
21:14 May 23, 2013
Jkt 229001
networks by enabling 911 PSAPs to
receive texts, photos, videos, and data.
Although there is broad consensus
regarding the benefits and potential of
NG911, when these new capabilities
will be introduced is less certain. We
seek comment on a trial that will assist
the Commission, state, local and Tribal
governments, and PSAPs in a few
geographic areas to answer important
technical and policy questions to
accelerate the transition. Beyond
NG911, we also seek comment on how
a trial could elicit data on the impact of
network resiliency and public safety
more broadly as consumer migrate to
wireless and IP-based services that are
dependent on commercial power.
Third, at least one provider has
proposed serving consumers with
wireless service in place of wireline
service in certain geographic areas. We
seek comment on a trial that would
analyze the impact of doing so and, in
particular, focus on the consumer
experience and ensure that consumers
have the ability to move back to a
wireline product during the trial.
Some parties have advocated a trial in
which one or more providers make a
general switch to all-IP traffic in a
geographic area, potentially
transitioning from wireline to wireless
technology in part of the area, but also
making a number of other simultaneous
transitions. We have previously sought
comment on this general approach. We
seek further comment on this idea in the
context of the three potential trials
discussed above, including whether the
trials discussed herein should be
conducted in a single geographic area, if
there is information to be gained from
a general geographic trial that would not
be gathered from the more targeted trials
discussed here, and the costs and
benefits of the alternative approaches.
We invite parties in favor of conducting
a broader geographic trial to submit a
more detailed and comprehensive plan
laying out how such a trial would work.
We also seek comment on whether
there are other trials we should
consider, such as additional numbering
trials, trials to facilitate better access for
persons with disabilities, and whether
there are additional trials concerning
the TDM to IP or copper to fiber
transitions that we should evaluate. We
also seek comment on the general
structure and design of any trial, and
legal and administrative issues. We
recognize the important role that states
and Tribes continue to play in these
ongoing technology transitions and
therefore seek comment on how to best
work with state and local entities in
selecting and implementing potential
trials and ideas as to other ways that we
PO 00000
Frm 00029
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
31543
can effectively coordinate with state and
local agencies in this area.
We are mindful of the fact that, while
participation in any trial would be
voluntary for providers, all consumers
in trial regions would likely be affected,
either directly or indirectly. As
consumer protection is a core principle
guiding the work of the Task Force,
comments in support of any trial
proposal should address how best to
ensure a successful trial while also
avoiding potential harmful impacts to
consumers.
We also seek comment on ways to
obtain useful data in addition to trials.
For instance, the Commission is
currently collecting data regarding
special access through a mandatory data
request. Are there other data collections
that the Commission should undertake
to obtain data necessary to guide sound
policymaking regarding the ongoing
technological transitions?
I. Technology Trials
A. VoIP Interconnection
Several commenters have urged the
Commission to initiate a trial for VoIP
interconnection to ensure that technical
and process issues are understood and
resolved. We seek comment on whether
to conduct such a trial so that the
Commission can gather real-world data
on the need and scope for technical or
industry standards for the exchange of
voice traffic in Internet protocol formats.
We note that interconnection for voice
(and possibly other real-time services)
using Internet protocols at the
application layer is distinct from and
raises different technical and
administration issues than general
peering and interconnection for layer-3
IP data services, and we emphasize that
the trial we propose today does not
reach layer-3 peering issues.
Background. The Commission has
highlighted the tremendous benefits,
efficiencies, and increased reliability
and redundancy that interconnecting
using Internet protocols has over the
traditional TDM framework. VoIP
interconnection also unleashes the
potential for new services and features
for consumers such as high definition
(HD) audio, additional video and text
media formats, and secured caller ID. In
the USF/ICC Transformation Order, the
Commission stated that it ‘‘expect[ed]
all carriers to negotiate in good faith in
response to requests for IP-to-IP
interconnection for the exchange of
voice traffic.’’ See USC/ICC
Transformation Order, FCC 11–161,
published at 76 FR 78384, 76 FR 76623,
77 FR 26987, December 8, 2011,
December 16, 2011, May 8, 2012. The
E:\FR\FM\24MYN1.SGM
24MYN1
mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with NOTICES
31544
Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 101 / Friday, May 24, 2013 / Notices
Commission also explained that ‘‘[t]he
duty to negotiate in good faith has been
a longstanding element of
interconnection requirements under the
Communications Act and does not
depend upon the network technology
underlying the interconnection, whether
TDM, IP, or otherwise.’’ In the Further
Notice of Proposed Rulemaking
accompanying the USF/ICC
Transformation Order, the Commission
sought comment on all aspects of VoIP
interconnection, from different legal
frameworks, to various policy proposals
and questions on implementation of
each issue. Although commenters
agreed that future interconnection for
voice traffic would occur using Internet
protocols, commenters disagreed about
the appropriate policy framework for
VoIP interconnection, and whether
there was a need for technical and
industry standards.
More recently, in 2012, the FCC’s
Technological Advisory Council (TAC)
examined the issue of VoIP
interconnection and concluded that,
although ‘‘VoIP Interconnect[ion] is
happening all over the world, at a rapid
rate,’’ implementation in the United
States has been ‘‘delayed’’ aside from
the efforts of some cable companies and
competitive local exchange carriers
(CLECs). Finally, as noted above, the
Commission recently adopted an Order
and NPRM regarding providing
interconnected VoIP providers direct
access to numbers. Among other things,
that item sought comment on the status
of VoIP interconnection arrangements in
the United States. We look forward to
receiving updated information as we
evaluate the framework for these
potential trials.
Discussion. We seek comment on
conducting a trial in a few geographic
markets, including at least one major
metropolitan area and one rural area.
We seek comment on the number of
geographic markets to be included in
the trial, the scope of a geographic area,
and on the selection criteria. We seek
comment on how best to encourage
participation in such a trial and the
means of identifying appropriate
geographic areas in these trials.
Technical Issues. We seek comment
on how to structure a trial to help
identify whether industry standards or
standards profiles are needed in the
areas of signaling, media formats
(codecs), non-voice media such as text
and video, fault location, and fail-over
and quality-of-service measurements. A
trial may also identify multiple lowerlayer mechanisms for exchanging voice
traffic, such as common points of
presence or Internet exchange points,
Internet transport, and dedicated
VerDate Mar<15>2010
21:14 May 23, 2013
Jkt 229001
transport links. We seek comment on
how to structure any trial to help
examine these issues.
Logistical Issues. In moving from
TDM to VoIP interconnection, issues
such as the number and physical points
of interconnection, pricing, transit,
numbering and number portability,
service level agreements, quality of
service, and other terms and conditions
will need to be resolved. For example,
the TAC identified several issues that
need to be resolved to reach VoIP
interconnection agreements, including
routing, addressing, security, signaling,
media, quality, accounting/charging,
and testing. A trial may shed light on
which issues are more difficult to
resolve and which issues parties are
able to negotiate more easily. In
addition, parties will need to resolve
application of any legacy rules to the
VoIP interconnection agreement. For
example, parties would need to resolve
whether and how intercarrier
compensation occurs with VoIP
interconnection, or whether parties will
exchange traffic under a bill-and-keep
methodology. We seek comment on how
best to structure any trial to provide the
Commission with data to evaluate
which policies may be appropriate.
Process. We are considering allowing
providers that participate in a trial to
negotiate in good faith without a
backstop of regulations or specific
parameters and provide updates,
reports, and data to the Commission
regarding any technical issues as well as
any other issues of dispute. We also
seek comment on whether we should, as
some commenters have proposed,
conduct another trial where parties
agree to negotiate pursuant to the
existing section 251/252 framework or a
similar process (including one that does
not require any party to concede that
sections 251/252 apply as a legal
matter). Given the positions in the
record it is unclear whether any
incumbent LECs would voluntarily
agree to a trial using the section 251/252
framework. AT&T not only opposes
NTCA’s proposal to regulate VoIP
interconnection under sections 251 and
252 as ‘‘needless and harmful,’’ but also
argues that the Commission lacks Title
II authority to regulate interconnection
between IP-based service providers. See
AT&T Jan. 28, 2013 Comments, GN
Docket No. 12–353, at 11; AT&T Feb. 25,
2013 Reply Comments, GN Docket No.
12–353, at 32–33. CenturyLink contends
that the requirements of section 251
were meant to address the ‘‘difficulties
of competitors in providing voice
telephony service in a marketplace
where incumbent LECs were
monopolists with ubiquitous facilities
PO 00000
Frm 00030
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
and 100 percent market share. Because
fewer than 40% of households currently
purchase voice services from ILECs, this
concern no longer exists, and section
251 should therefore not be used to
mandate IP-to-IP interconnection.’’ See
CenturyLink Feb. 25, 2013 Reply
Comments, GN Docket No. 12–353, at
18; see also Verizon Feb. 25, 2013 Reply
Comments, GN Docket No. 12–353, at
11–12 (arguing that the Commission
does not have the authority to require
interconnection in any particular
format, including IP, under section 251
of the Act). But see NECA et al. Feb. 25,
2013 Reply, GN Docket No. 12–353, at
3 (arguing that IP interconnection
arrangements between carriers for the
exchange of traffic is subject to sections
251 and 252, regardless of the
technologies employed).
We seek comment on these
approaches. Should we allow providers
to negotiate and, if they cannot resolve
disputes, then no agreement is reached?
Or, should there be a process for
arbitrating or mediating disputes? If so,
should the state be responsible for
arbitrating the agreements, or should the
Commission or an independent entity
arbitrate or mediate any disputes?
Should any VoIP interconnection
agreements reached during the trial be
the basis for future agreements or could
doing so impact the negotiations during
the trial? If we undertake a trial under
the section 251/252 framework, should
the existing rules be applied or should
they be modified?
Data. We propose that providers
participating in a VoIP interconnection
trial submit data regarding the length of
time it took to reach an agreement, the
issues in dispute, a copy of any
agreements that are reached, as well as
reports on the implementation of such
agreements, such as call quality and
reliability metrics, and a description of
any technical problems that were
encountered. We seek comment on the
scope and frequency of these reporting
requirements.
B. Public Safety—NG911
Background. Public safety is a
paramount value that must to be
protected as technologies transition. The
transition of the current enhanced 911
(E911) system to IP-based technologies
has already begun, with widelyaccepted industry standards and first
deployments of NG911. NG911
promises to use widely available IP
technologies to create 911 services that
are more resilient and cost-effective,
offer additional capabilities such as text,
data and video, and better meet the
needs of people with disabilities. With
the technology transition, we have the
E:\FR\FM\24MYN1.SGM
24MYN1
mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with NOTICES
Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 101 / Friday, May 24, 2013 / Notices
opportunity to better coordinate the
provision of emergency services with
the emergence of IP-based networks.
Such coordination may avoid deploying
costly legacy network translation
components, and hasten the availability
of new features and functionality.
The NG911 architecture differs
significantly from the legacy 911 TDM
model. For example, the number and
nature of hand-off points for 911 calls to
the public safety emergency services IP
network (ESInet) differs from the
current approach of routing all calls
through a selective router. Similarly,
with nomadic, mobile, and over-the-top
VoIP applications, conveying accurate
caller location data to the 911 call
center, i.e., the PSAP, changes from a
number-based lookup mechanism to
new protocols.
Scope. Given that reliable 911 service
is critical to public safety, we seek
comment on a possible trial that would
deploy an ‘‘all-IP’’ NG911 service on an
accelerated basis in a number of
geographic areas where public safety
authorities are ready to deploy NG911
for one or more PSAPs. We seek
comment on using trials that build on
the earlier and more limited NG911
proof-of-concept effort that was
conducted by the U.S. Department of
Transportation in 2008. With an
updated NG911 trial, we would hope to
gather both process and technical
knowledge, addressing such questions
as: Can VoIP and other IP-based
networks readily interconnect with
ESInets? Can advanced real-time
services, such as video and text, reach
ESInets? In IP-based networks, how can
subscriber location data be maintained
and conveyed to the ESInet? How long
does it take transition from a TDMbased to an IP-based architecture?
Where and how are 911 calls to be
handed off to the ESInet, whether by
ILECs or other providers, such as CMRS,
interconnected VoIP, interconnected
text and telematics services? Are there
state or Commission rules that
accelerate or delay the conversion from
E911 to NG911? Are there steps that
regulators can take to speed the
transition to NG911 and/or minimize
the expense? We seek comment on the
technical and process issues that should
be covered by a trial and on how best
to structure a trial to gather data on
these issues.
Process. We are considering a NG911
trial that would take place in areas
where public safety authorities are
transitioning or have taken initial steps
to prepare for transition of their legacy
systems to NG911 and where providers,
including landline, wireless, and
interconnected VoIP, are able to deliver
VerDate Mar<15>2010
21:14 May 23, 2013
Jkt 229001
VoIP-based 9–1–1 calls (and potentially
other IP-based traffic) to an ESInet,
either ‘‘natively’’ or, if necessary,
initially through legacy network
gateways (LNGs). We seek comment on
the process for identifying such areas.
Trial participants would also make
caller location available through NG911
mechanisms, including the Location
Information Server (LIS). We seek
comment on candidate PSAPs or
regions, the selection of participating
carriers, and whether trials should take
place in areas where calls are delivered
via VoIP or also via legacy network
gateways. We intend to coordinate with
the National 9–1–1 Implementation
Coordination Office and seek comment
on the best ways to coordinate with
state, local, and Tribal authorities
during such trials.
Any trial of this kind should provide
data on both the challenges of
transitioning from E911 to NG911 and
the operational performance
characteristics of NG911 call handling.
Thus, we propose that participants in
the trial document the design and
conversion process, including effort and
time required, and gather data on call
handling performance, interoperability
issues, location accuracy, and any
system failures related to call or location
delivery. We seek comment on how best
to address these issues and whether
there are other aspects that should be
documented or evaluated.
Finally, we also seek comment on the
impact of consumer migration to
wireless and IP-based services that are
dependent on commercial power and
network resiliency and public safety
services generally. Participants in the
Commission’s recent field hearings
following Superstorm Sandy
consistently raised this issue and the
need to establish adequate back up
power solutions. How should this issue
be integrated into the Commission’s
technology trials and other data
gathering efforts?
C. Wireline to Wireless
We seek comment on conducting
trials to assess the impact on residential
and business customers when they are
transitioned from wireline voice and
broadband products to wireless
alternatives. We propose to compare
wireline and wireless offerings across a
number of dimensions, including:
quality and terms of service, price,
product functionalities, E–911
performance, accessibility options,
reliability, and potential carrier cost
savings in the delivery of voice and data
services to higher cost areas. While
there is potential for some service
quality degradation if not properly
PO 00000
Frm 00031
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
31545
transitioned, the move to wireless-only
networks also could enable improved
voice quality and reliability and
broadband investment in areas not
likely to be served in the near future
with wireline technology, or at higher
speeds than existing wireline offerings,
among other potential benefits. We want
to analyze the consumer experience,
including challenges and benefits for
consumers, of a wireless-only option as
part of a trial. In this section we seek
comment on how to structure any such
trials.
Background. As part of the technology
transition, some incumbent LECs are
considering replacing existing customer
voice and broadband services delivered
over legacy circuit switched wireline
networks with similar product offerings
delivered over a wireless IP network.
For example, Verizon is currently
replacing copper based services
damaged by Hurricane Sandy on Fire
Island, New York with wireless-only
voice and data products. We understand
that Verizon is coordinating with
applicable state authorities on the Fire
Island transition. We hope to learn from
these ongoing efforts in addition to the
results of this proposed trial which
would focus more systematically on the
consumer experience during such a
transition. For its part, AT&T has
indicated that it intends to seek
authority to serve millions of current
wireline customers, mostly in rural
areas, with a wireless-only product. See
AT&T Wire Center Trials Petition at 9
(explaining that AT&T will offer
wireless communications alternatives to
customers living in particularly highcost areas, including its Mobile
Premises Services, which allows
customers to make calls using ordinary
wireline handsets connected to wireless
base stations). We therefore seek
comment on conducting a trial that
would evaluate the customer experience
when customers are transitioned from
wireline to wireless voice and
broadband services. In particular, we are
interested in observing whether
consumers/businesses lose any
capabilities previously available to them
or what steps consumers/businesses
must take to keep the functionality of
certain services. Such capabilities could
include, among other things, access to
911 and emergency services, the ability
to send and receive a fax, credit card
transactions for small businesses, alarm/
security systems, and the ability for
individuals with disabilities to continue
to use the devices they use on a regular
basis. We are also interested in learning
about the potential benefits for
consumers/businesses of the transition
E:\FR\FM\24MYN1.SGM
24MYN1
mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with NOTICES
31546
Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 101 / Friday, May 24, 2013 / Notices
to wireless, including any improvement
in voice quality in areas with degraded
wireline networks, access to broadband
for the first time in areas with no
wireline broadband service, and
potential improvements in network
reliability.
Scope. We are considering a trial in
which participating LECs would make
available to consumers, in cooperation
with state and Tribal governments,
either through their own facilities or in
partnership with a wireless provider, a
home wireless voice product or data
product or both, intended as a
replacement for a customer’s existing
home voice and broadband data
services. We propose to test these new
service offerings in: (1) at least one
geographic area within each
participating LEC’s service territory; and
(2) at least one geographic area outside
of each participating LEC’s wireline
service territory. We propose that all
product offerings in any trial would be
the same within each participating
LEC’s trial areas and that the
characteristics of the offers would be
made public prior to the trial. We seek
comment on these proposals.
We seek comment on whether
customers that participate in such a trial
should have the option of wireline or
wireless service during the trial or
whether the LEC should be able to
require all customers in the LEC service
territory trial area to move to a wirelessonly product. We propose that
customers would be informed of when
they will be allowed to switch back to
their previous wireline products and
that they may do so at no charge for
some pre-established period, including
after the trial period end date.
Furthermore, we seek comment on
whether LECs participating in the trial
should disclose any differences between
a customer’s existing wireline and new
wireless service prior to the customer
switching. These differences may
include price, data usage allowances,
terms of service, 911 capabilities
(including location accuracy),
accessibility, calling features,
incompatibilities with fax machines or
other customer premises equipment, or
any other differences. We seek comment
on whether such a trial would result in
obtaining useful information and how
long it should last.
In its petition, AT&T proposes that
technology and policy trials be
conducted at the wire center level. The
record reflected a general support that
this as an appropriate level of
geography. Therefore we are considering
a trial at the wire center level and seek
comment on whether wire centers are
appropriately sized for this specific trial
VerDate Mar<15>2010
21:14 May 23, 2013
Jkt 229001
or whether an alternative unit would be
more appropriate. We also seek
comment on what factors should be
used to select trial markets.
Data. We propose that LECs
participating in such a trial would be
required to collect and submit a variety
of data, including a customer
satisfaction survey, to the Commission
for analysis. We seek comment on this
proposal as well as any other issues
relating to data collection. Should the
Commission, and/or state or Tribal
entities, collect data regarding customer
churn, subscriber counts, disconnects,
gross additions, average revenue per
user (ARPU), counts of customers
switching back to wireline service,
customer service complaints, service
visits and actual customer data speeds,
by month and separately for each
geographic area and product? Are there
other indicia related to voice and
broadband deployment and adoption,
competition, and investment that the
Commission should track during the
trial period?
We seek comment on whether LECs
participating in a trial should collect
network reliability measures for both
their wireline and wireless product
offerings in the trial areas. We seek
comment on whether, in addition to the
network reliability measures that the
Commission currently collects for
wireline services, participating carriers
should submit such information on
network reliability for all product
offerings in the relevant trial area during
the trial period. In addition to these
metrics, we seek comment on whether
providers should submit the number of
dropped and blocked wireless calls and
data sessions for participating
customers. Furthermore, we propose
that participants describe how they
address service continuity issues in the
event of a power outage through the use
of battery backup and other measures.
Should we collect alternative or
additional network reliability measures?
If so, what should these measures be?
We also seek comment on the public
safety and accessibility issues raised by
these trials.
D. Geographic All-IP Trials
AT&T and others have proposed an
‘‘all-IP’’ wire center trial. We have
already sought comment on this general
proposal, and an extensive record has
been compiled addressing it. Each of the
trials discussed above—VoIP
interconnection, NG911, and wireline to
wireless—address aspects of AT&T’s
proposal. Are there other aspects of
moving from TDM to IP that a
geographic trial of the kind AT&T has
proposed would elicit helpful data—
PO 00000
Frm 00032
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
such as the ability to transition specialpurpose TDM services?
We invite carriers interested in
pursuing such a trial to submit a more
detailed, comprehensive plan of how
such a trial would work, including the
design of the trial, the data that would
be collected, the rules that would need
to be waived and the role of the states
and Tribes. In presenting a detailed
roadmap for how such a trial would
work, carriers, at a minimum, should
list: (1) All of the services currently
provided by the carrier in a designated
wire center that the carrier would
propose to phase out; (2) estimates of
current demand for those services; and
(3) what the replacement for those
services would be, including current
prices and terms and conditions under
which the replacement services are
offered.
II. Additional Trials
Numbering and related databases. We
seek comment on a potential additional
trial on numbering issues and related
databases. The Commission recently
authorized a limited 6-month trial to
provide interconnected VoIP providers
direct access to numbers, but that trial
will not specifically examine changes in
the structure of current numbering
databases. We note that the technology
transition offers an opportunity to take
a fresh look at the assignment of
numbers and the features, capabilities,
and security of numbering-related
databases, and the TAC recently made
related recommendations on these
issues. For example, there have been
industry proposals for a unified, IPaccessible database that provides secure
access to number-related information.
Could a technology trial serve as a
means to test new technical proposals
for assigning telephone numbers, e.g.,
individually instead of in blocks of
1,000? What protocols and procedures
are most effective to assign and port
numbers in an all-IP environment?
Should there be a trial database that
provides access to number-related
information such as points of
termination or caller-ID information? If
so, how would we ensure that the
information in the trial database(s) is
kept consistent with existing databases
such as the Local Exchange Routing
Guide (LERG) and the caller-ID name
(CNAM) databases? Should such
databases support services other than
voice, such as real-time video and text?
Finally, should any such trial be
conducted in conjunction with a VoIP
interconnection trial or separately?
Improving Access for People with
Disabilities. Ensuring that people with
disabilities continue to have access to
E:\FR\FM\24MYN1.SGM
24MYN1
mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with NOTICES
Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 101 / Friday, May 24, 2013 / Notices
evolving technologies is another core
value of the Act. We seek comment on
what trials we should conduct to assess
the potential for improving access for
people with disabilities during this
transitional period. We note that Ofcom
has conducted a study into the
effectiveness of automated speech-totext as an assistive tool for individuals
who are deaf and hard-of-hearing in
VoIP communications. Should the FCC
conduct a trial on the effectiveness of
new speech-to-text technologies in the
telecommunications relay service (TRS)
context? Could the Commission expand
on the existing Ofcom study by
evaluating the role of automated speechto-text technologies in video-over-IP
communications, including the extent to
which the use of video could be used to
enhance communication with such
automated services if used for Internet
Protocol Captioned Telephone Service
(IP CTS)? Are there other trials that the
Commission might conduct to
investigate methods of improving access
for individuals who are deaf, hard of
hearing, deaf-blind, or who have a
speech disability?
Other Possible Trials. We seek
comment on whether we should have
any trials that focus more specifically on
the copper-to-fiber transition. Should
we consider a trial on issues relating to
copper retirement? For example, should
we consider a trial where the incumbent
LEC sells some or all copper loops to a
competitive LEC? Support for such
proposition has been mixed, and it is
unclear if it is feasible given that fiber
and copper may be intertwined in the
access plant. Also, any such approach
raises questions about the pricing of
such copper and access to the ILEC’s
shared facilities and space. We seek
comment on how we would address
these issues in a trial. We generally seek
comment on these issues.
Are there other trials we should
conduct that focus on consumer
protection and universal service?
Should we have a trial that focuses on
how to improve access to
communications services for lowincome Americans? For example, as the
transition from wireline to wireless
rapidly progresses, an increasing
number of Lifeline participants are
selecting wireless as their preferred
method of communication. Given these
demographic shifts, and building off of
the success of the 2012 Lifeline and Link
Up Reform Order, should the
Commission conduct trials to collect
data on ways to further improve Lifeline
program? Is a trial the right setting for
the Commission to explore ways to test
the appropriate monthly support
amount for Lifeline voice service to
VerDate Mar<15>2010
21:14 May 23, 2013
Jkt 229001
better gauge the appropriate price point
both for consumers and carriers who
provide Lifeline services? Are there
other universal service issues that could
be tested in a trial?
We also seek comment on whether we
should have any trials that focus
specifically on the delivery of services
to consumers and communities on
Tribal lands. We generally seek
comment on any potential issues
associated with trials taking place on
the lands of American Indian Tribes,
Alaska Native Villages, or on Hawaiian
Home Lands.
III. Role of State and Tribal
Governments
We seek comment on the role of states
and Tribal governments. We note that
NARUC has created a Presidential Task
Force on Federalism and
Telecommunications to focus on many
of these same issues related to
technology transitions, and we are
committed to coordinating as effectively
as possible with this and other state
efforts. We also note that the
Commission’s Intergovernmental
Advisory Committee (IAC) has offered
to play a role in working with states and
localities on issues related to technology
transitions. How should states and
Tribal governments be involved in the
trials? Should the NARUC Task Force,
the IAC, or any other Commission
advisory committees, be involved in the
selection of applications or areas? Does
it depend on the nature of the trial?
Should states or Tribal governments be
involved in selecting geographic areas?
Should non-governmental consumerfocused organizations be involved in the
trial selection process or the
implementation and monitoring of
trials?
We generally seek comment on how
to work cooperatively with the states
and Tribal governments with respect to
each trial and the nature of their
involvement, including how to address
issues where the state commission lacks
jurisdiction over IP-based or wireless
services. We also seek comment on
providing states and Tribal governments
with access to data collected during the
trial, and what role states and Tribal
governments should have in analyzing
the data and providing
recommendations to the Commission.
IV. General Trial Design and Structure
We seek comment on the process of
establishing, structuring, and gathering
useful data from these possible trials.
How should the Commission structure
the trials to address concerns about
incumbent LECs operating on ‘‘best
behavior’’ during the trials? We seek
PO 00000
Frm 00033
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
31547
comment on the process for selecting
the geographic areas for the trials. We
seek comment on the timing and
duration of each trial. Should the timing
differ based on the type of trial? How
should each trial wind down, and what
would be grounds for terminating a trial
altogether before its anticipated
completion date?
We seek comment on how to acquire
the most useful data from these trials.
What sort of reporting should we
require from participants and what sort
of automated or non-automated data
collection would be useful in each trial?
Should the Commission require trial
participants to collect the same data in
certain non-trial areas to allow
comparison with a control sample? To
what extent should the Commission
gather quantitative data and when is
qualitative data preferable? We seek
comment on the usability of the trial
data. What sort of protections should
apply to potentially sensitive data?
Should information be confidential,
filed pursuant to protective orders, or
generally open to the public? Should
we, as the Commission required in the
VoIP Direct Access Order, issue a report
with our findings after each trial
concludes?
V. Legal Issues
We seek comment on whether any
Commission rules or statutory
provisions are implicated by the
proposed trials. For example, entities
participating in the wireline to wireless
trial would need to file section 214
discontinuances. Section 214(a) of the
Act requires common carriers to obtain
Commission authorization before
discontinuing, reducing, or impairing
service to a community. See 47 U.S.C.
214(a). Under Part 63 of its rules, the
Commission has adopted specific
requirements that clarify this duty and
ensure that customers of domestic
telecommunications services receive
adequate notice of a carrier’s
discontinuance plans and have an
opportunity to inform the Commission
of any resultant hardships. See 47 CFR
63.60 et seq. In particular, before
discontinuing service, a
telecommunications carrier generally
must notify all affected customers of its
proposed discontinuances. Notice to
customers must include the name and
address of the carrier, the date of the
planned service discontinuance, the
geographic areas where service will be
discontinued, and a brief description of
the type of service affected. See 47 CFR
63.71(a). These requirements are
intended to inform consumers about
when their service may be discontinued
and to provide them with an
E:\FR\FM\24MYN1.SGM
24MYN1
31548
Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 101 / Friday, May 24, 2013 / Notices
opportunity to object to any proposed
discontinuances. Should we modify the
process for the trials? Would the
Commission need to waive or forbear
from any rules before conducting a trial?
We generally seek comment on these
issues as well as any issues regarding
the Commission’s legal authority to
conduct these voluntary trials.
Pursuant to sections 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. All comments
are to reference GN Docket No. 13–5 and
may be filed using: (1) The
Commission’s Electronic Comment
Filing System (ECFS) or (2) by filing
paper copies. See Electronic Filing of
Documents in Rulemaking Proceedings,
63 FR 24121 (1998).
Filings and comments are also
available for public inspection and
copying during regular business hours
at the FCC Reference Information
Center, Portals II, 445 12th Street SW.,
Room CY–A257, Washington, DC 20554.
They may also be purchased from the
Commission’s duplicating contractor,
Best Copy and Printing, Inc., Portals II,
445 12th Street SW., Room CY–B402,
Washington, DC 20554, telephone: (202)
488–5300, fax: (202) 488–5563, or via
email www.bcpiweb.com.
This matter shall be treated as a
‘‘permit-but-disclose’’ proceeding in
accordance with the Commission’s ex
parte rules. Persons making oral ex
parte presentations are reminded that
memoranda summarizing the
presentations must contain summaries
of the substance of the presentation and
not merely a listing of the subjects
discussed. More than a one or two
sentence description of the views and
arguments presented generally is
required. Other rules pertaining to oral
and written ex parte presentations in
permit-but-disclose proceedings are set
forth in section 1.1206(b) of the
Commission’s rules.
Federal Communications Commission.
Sean Lev,
General Counsel.
[FR Doc. 2013–12487 Filed 5–23–13; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6712–01–P
FEDERAL DEPOSIT INSURANCE
CORPORATION
Update to Notice of Financial
Institutions for Which the Federal
Deposit Insurance Corporation Has
Been Appointed Either Receiver,
Liquidator, or Manager
Update listing of financial
institutions in liquidation.
ACTION:
Notice is hereby given that
the Federal Deposit Insurance
Corporation (Corporation) has been
appointed the sole receiver for the
following financial institutions effective
as of the Date Closed as indicated in the
listing. This list (as updated from time
to time in the Federal Register) may be
relied upon as ‘‘of record’’ notice that
the Corporation has been appointed
receiver for purposes of the statement of
policy published in the July 2, 1992
issue of the Federal Register (57 FR
29491). For further information
concerning the identification of any
institutions which have been placed in
liquidation, please visit the Corporation
Web site at www.fdic.gov/bank/
individual/failed/banklist.html or
contact the Manager of Receivership
Oversight in the appropriate service
center.
SUMMARY:
Dated: May 20, 2013.
Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation.
Pamela Johnson,
Regulatory Editing Specialist.
Federal Deposit Insurance
Corporation.
AGENCY:
INSTITUTIONS IN LIQUIDATION
[In alphabetical order]
FDIC Ref. No.
Bank name
City
10479 .............
Central Arizona Bank ...................................................................
Scottsdale .................................
[FR Doc. 2013–12418 Filed 5–23–13; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6714–01–P
FEDERAL DEPOSIT INSURANCE
CORPORATION
mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with NOTICES
Sunshine Act Meeting
Pursuant to the provisions of the
‘‘Government in the Sunshine Act’’ (5
U.S.C. 552b), notice is hereby given that
at 10:00 a.m. on Tuesday, May 21, 2013,
the Board of Directors of the Federal
Deposit Insurance Corporation met in
closed session to consider matters
related to the Corporation’s supervision,
corporate, and resolution activities.
In calling the meeting, the Board
determined, on motion of Director
Jeremiah O. Norton (Appointive),
seconded by Vice Chairman Thomas M.
Hoenig, concurred in by Director
Thomas J. Curry (Comptroller of the
Currency), Director Richard Cordray
VerDate Mar<15>2010
21:14 May 23, 2013
Jkt 229001
(Director, Consumer Financial
Protection Bureau), and Chairman
Martin J. Gruenberg, that Corporation
business required its consideration of
the matters which were to be the subject
of this meeting on less than seven days’
notice to the public; that no earlier
notice of the meeting was practicable;
that the public interest did not require
consideration of the matters in a
meeting open to public observation; and
that the matters could be considered in
a closed meeting by authority of
subsections (c)(4), (c)(6), (c)(8),
(c)(9)(A)(ii), (c)(9)(B), and (c)(10) of the
‘‘Government in the Sunshine Act’’ (5
U.S.C. §§ 552b(c)(4), (c)(6), (c)(8),
(c)(9)(A)(ii), (c)(9)(B), and (c)(10)).
The meeting was held in the Board
Room of the FDIC Building located at
550 - 17th Street NW., Washington, DC.
Dated: May 21, 2013.
PO 00000
Frm 00034
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
State
AZ
Date closed
5/14/2013
Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation.
Valerie J. Best,
Assistant Executive Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2013–12581 Filed 5–22–13; 4:15 pm]
BILLING CODE P
FEDERAL MINE SAFETY AND HEALTH
REVIEW COMMISSION
Sunshine Act Meeting
May 21, 2013.
10:00 a.m., Wednesday,
May 29, 2013.
PLACE: The Richard V. Backley Hearing
Room, Room 511N, 1331 Pennsylvania
Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20004
(entry from F Street entrance).
STATUS: Open.
MATTERS TO BE CONSIDERED: The
Commission will consider and act upon
the following in open session: Secretary
of Labor v. S & S Dredging, Docket No.
TIME AND DATE:
E:\FR\FM\24MYN1.SGM
24MYN1
Agencies
[Federal Register Volume 78, Number 101 (Friday, May 24, 2013)]
[Notices]
[Pages 31542-31548]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2013-12487]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION
[GN Docket No. 13-5; DA 13-1016]
FCC Technology Transitions Policy Task Force Seeks Comment on
Potential Trials
AGENCY: Federal Communications Commission.
ACTION: Notice.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: In this document, the Technology Transitions Policy Task Force
(Task Force) seeks comment on several potential trials relating to the
ongoing transitions from copper to fiber, from wireline to wireless,
and from time-division multiplexing (TDM) to Internet Protocol (IP).
The goal of these trials would be to gather a factual record to help
determine what policies are appropriate to promote investment and
innovation while protecting consumers, promoting competition, and
ensuring that emerging all-IP networks remain resilient and reliable.
Towards this end, the public notice seeks comment on a set of potential
trials, including targeted trials on Voice over Internet Protocol
(VoIP) interconnection, Next Generation 911 (NG911) and the transition
from wireline to wireless service in certain geographic areas. The
public notice also invites parties in favor of conducting a trial in
which one or more providers make a general switch to all-IP traffic in
a geographic area to submit a detailed and comprehensive plan laying
out how such a trial would work. It also seeks comment on whether other
trials should be considered, such as additional numbering trials,
trials to facilitate better access for persons with disabilities, and
whether there are additional trials concerning the TDM to IP or copper
to fiber transitions that should be evaluated. Finally, it seeks
comment on how best to work with state, local and Tribal governments
and how to ensure successful trials while also avoiding potential
harmful impacts to consumers.
DATES: Comments are due on or before July 8, 2013. Reply comments are
due on or before August 7, 2013.
ADDRESSES: You may submit comments, identified by GN Docket No. 13-5 by
any of the following methods: (1) The Commission's Electronic Comment
Filing System (ECFS) or (2) by filing paper copies. See Electronic
Filing of Documents in Rulemaking Proceedings, 63 FR 24121 (1998).
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. 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 8:00 a.m. to 7:00 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.
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).
In addition, one copy of each pleading must be sent to the
Commission's duplicating contractor, Best Copy and Printing, Inc., 445
12th Street SW., Room CY-B402, Washington, DC 20554, www.bcpiweb.com;
phone: (202) 488-5300 fax: (202) 488-5563.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Patrick Halley, Acting Deputy
Director, Technology Transitions Policy Task Force, at 202-418-7550, or
by email at Patrick.Halley@fcc.gov.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The Task Force proposes to move forward with
real-world trials to obtain data that will be helpful to the
Commission. The goal
[[Page 31543]]
of any trials would be to gather a factual record to help determine
what policies are appropriate to promote investment and innovation
while protecting consumers, promoting competition, and ensuring that
emerging all-IP networks remain resilient. We seek comment on several
potential trials relating to the ongoing transitions from copper to
fiber, from wireline to wireless, and from time-division multiplexing
(TDM) to IP. Consistent with their policy development and coordination
functions, today's action is taken by the Chiefs of the Consumer &
Governmental Affairs Bureau, Public Safety and Homeland Security
Bureau, Wireless Telecommunications Bureau, and Wireline Competition
Bureau, as well as the Commission's General Counsel, all of whom were
named by Chairman Genachowski to serve as members of the Task Force.
The Commission has a long history of using trials and pilot
programs to help answer questions regarding technical concerns and to
gather data and develop appropriate policy recommendations. Indeed, the
Commission recently unanimously authorized a 6-month trial to examine
providing interconnected VoIP providers direct access to telephone
numbers. Stakeholders have also requested that the Commission initiate
trials to explore technology transition issues.
In the spirit of these prior initiatives, we seek comment on a set
of potential trials to assist the Commission in ensuring that policy
decisions related to ongoing technology transitions are grounded in
sound data.
First, as we move from TDM to all-IP networks, providers are
migrating to VoIP interconnection. VoIP interconnection should be more
efficient and has the potential to unleash new, innovative services and
features. We seek comment on a VoIP interconnection trial that would
gather data to determine whether there are technical issues that need
to be addressed and gather information relevant to the appropriate
policy framework.
Second, as we transition away from TDM, the nation's emergency
calling (911) system must also migrate to NG911. NG911 refers to an
initiative aimed at enabling the public to obtain emergency assistance
by means of advanced communications technologies beyond traditional
voice-centric devices. The NG911 proceeding examines how to update the
911 system to improve public emergency communications services and
allow them to take advantage of the enhanced capabilities of IP-based
devices and networks by enabling 911 PSAPs to receive texts, photos,
videos, and data. Although there is broad consensus regarding the
benefits and potential of NG911, when these new capabilities will be
introduced is less certain. We seek comment on a trial that will assist
the Commission, state, local and Tribal governments, and PSAPs in a few
geographic areas to answer important technical and policy questions to
accelerate the transition. Beyond NG911, we also seek comment on how a
trial could elicit data on the impact of network resiliency and public
safety more broadly as consumer migrate to wireless and IP-based
services that are dependent on commercial power.
Third, at least one provider has proposed serving consumers with
wireless service in place of wireline service in certain geographic
areas. We seek comment on a trial that would analyze the impact of
doing so and, in particular, focus on the consumer experience and
ensure that consumers have the ability to move back to a wireline
product during the trial.
Some parties have advocated a trial in which one or more providers
make a general switch to all-IP traffic in a geographic area,
potentially transitioning from wireline to wireless technology in part
of the area, but also making a number of other simultaneous
transitions. We have previously sought comment on this general
approach. We seek further comment on this idea in the context of the
three potential trials discussed above, including whether the trials
discussed herein should be conducted in a single geographic area, if
there is information to be gained from a general geographic trial that
would not be gathered from the more targeted trials discussed here, and
the costs and benefits of the alternative approaches. We invite parties
in favor of conducting a broader geographic trial to submit a more
detailed and comprehensive plan laying out how such a trial would work.
We also seek comment on whether there are other trials we should
consider, such as additional numbering trials, trials to facilitate
better access for persons with disabilities, and whether there are
additional trials concerning the TDM to IP or copper to fiber
transitions that we should evaluate. We also seek comment on the
general structure and design of any trial, and legal and administrative
issues. We recognize the important role that states and Tribes continue
to play in these ongoing technology transitions and therefore seek
comment on how to best work with state and local entities in selecting
and implementing potential trials and ideas as to other ways that we
can effectively coordinate with state and local agencies in this area.
We are mindful of the fact that, while participation in any trial
would be voluntary for providers, all consumers in trial regions would
likely be affected, either directly or indirectly. As consumer
protection is a core principle guiding the work of the Task Force,
comments in support of any trial proposal should address how best to
ensure a successful trial while also avoiding potential harmful impacts
to consumers.
We also seek comment on ways to obtain useful data in addition to
trials. For instance, the Commission is currently collecting data
regarding special access through a mandatory data request. Are there
other data collections that the Commission should undertake to obtain
data necessary to guide sound policymaking regarding the ongoing
technological transitions?
I. Technology Trials
A. VoIP Interconnection
Several commenters have urged the Commission to initiate a trial
for VoIP interconnection to ensure that technical and process issues
are understood and resolved. We seek comment on whether to conduct such
a trial so that the Commission can gather real-world data on the need
and scope for technical or industry standards for the exchange of voice
traffic in Internet protocol formats. We note that interconnection for
voice (and possibly other real-time services) using Internet protocols
at the application layer is distinct from and raises different
technical and administration issues than general peering and
interconnection for layer-3 IP data services, and we emphasize that the
trial we propose today does not reach layer-3 peering issues.
Background. The Commission has highlighted the tremendous benefits,
efficiencies, and increased reliability and redundancy that
interconnecting using Internet protocols has over the traditional TDM
framework. VoIP interconnection also unleashes the potential for new
services and features for consumers such as high definition (HD) audio,
additional video and text media formats, and secured caller ID. In the
USF/ICC Transformation Order, the Commission stated that it
``expect[ed] all carriers to negotiate in good faith in response to
requests for IP-to-IP interconnection for the exchange of voice
traffic.'' See USC/ICC Transformation Order, FCC 11-161, published at
76 FR 78384, 76 FR 76623, 77 FR 26987, December 8, 2011, December 16,
2011, May 8, 2012. The
[[Page 31544]]
Commission also explained that ``[t]he duty to negotiate in good faith
has been a longstanding element of interconnection requirements under
the Communications Act and does not depend upon the network technology
underlying the interconnection, whether TDM, IP, or otherwise.'' In the
Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking accompanying the USF/ICC
Transformation Order, the Commission sought comment on all aspects of
VoIP interconnection, from different legal frameworks, to various
policy proposals and questions on implementation of each issue.
Although commenters agreed that future interconnection for voice
traffic would occur using Internet protocols, commenters disagreed
about the appropriate policy framework for VoIP interconnection, and
whether there was a need for technical and industry standards.
More recently, in 2012, the FCC's Technological Advisory Council
(TAC) examined the issue of VoIP interconnection and concluded that,
although ``VoIP Interconnect[ion] is happening all over the world, at a
rapid rate,'' implementation in the United States has been ``delayed''
aside from the efforts of some cable companies and competitive local
exchange carriers (CLECs). Finally, as noted above, the Commission
recently adopted an Order and NPRM regarding providing interconnected
VoIP providers direct access to numbers. Among other things, that item
sought comment on the status of VoIP interconnection arrangements in
the United States. We look forward to receiving updated information as
we evaluate the framework for these potential trials.
Discussion. We seek comment on conducting a trial in a few
geographic markets, including at least one major metropolitan area and
one rural area. We seek comment on the number of geographic markets to
be included in the trial, the scope of a geographic area, and on the
selection criteria. We seek comment on how best to encourage
participation in such a trial and the means of identifying appropriate
geographic areas in these trials.
Technical Issues. We seek comment on how to structure a trial to
help identify whether industry standards or standards profiles are
needed in the areas of signaling, media formats (codecs), non-voice
media such as text and video, fault location, and fail-over and
quality-of-service measurements. A trial may also identify multiple
lower-layer mechanisms for exchanging voice traffic, such as common
points of presence or Internet exchange points, Internet transport, and
dedicated transport links. We seek comment on how to structure any
trial to help examine these issues.
Logistical Issues. In moving from TDM to VoIP interconnection,
issues such as the number and physical points of interconnection,
pricing, transit, numbering and number portability, service level
agreements, quality of service, and other terms and conditions will
need to be resolved. For example, the TAC identified several issues
that need to be resolved to reach VoIP interconnection agreements,
including routing, addressing, security, signaling, media, quality,
accounting/charging, and testing. A trial may shed light on which
issues are more difficult to resolve and which issues parties are able
to negotiate more easily. In addition, parties will need to resolve
application of any legacy rules to the VoIP interconnection agreement.
For example, parties would need to resolve whether and how intercarrier
compensation occurs with VoIP interconnection, or whether parties will
exchange traffic under a bill-and-keep methodology. We seek comment on
how best to structure any trial to provide the Commission with data to
evaluate which policies may be appropriate.
Process. We are considering allowing providers that participate in
a trial to negotiate in good faith without a backstop of regulations or
specific parameters and provide updates, reports, and data to the
Commission regarding any technical issues as well as any other issues
of dispute. We also seek comment on whether we should, as some
commenters have proposed, conduct another trial where parties agree to
negotiate pursuant to the existing section 251/252 framework or a
similar process (including one that does not require any party to
concede that sections 251/252 apply as a legal matter). Given the
positions in the record it is unclear whether any incumbent LECs would
voluntarily agree to a trial using the section 251/252 framework. AT&T
not only opposes NTCA's proposal to regulate VoIP interconnection under
sections 251 and 252 as ``needless and harmful,'' but also argues that
the Commission lacks Title II authority to regulate interconnection
between IP-based service providers. See AT&T Jan. 28, 2013 Comments, GN
Docket No. 12-353, at 11; AT&T Feb. 25, 2013 Reply Comments, GN Docket
No. 12-353, at 32-33. CenturyLink contends that the requirements of
section 251 were meant to address the ``difficulties of competitors in
providing voice telephony service in a marketplace where incumbent LECs
were monopolists with ubiquitous facilities and 100 percent market
share. Because fewer than 40% of households currently purchase voice
services from ILECs, this concern no longer exists, and section 251
should therefore not be used to mandate IP-to-IP interconnection.'' See
CenturyLink Feb. 25, 2013 Reply Comments, GN Docket No. 12-353, at 18;
see also Verizon Feb. 25, 2013 Reply Comments, GN Docket No. 12-353, at
11-12 (arguing that the Commission does not have the authority to
require interconnection in any particular format, including IP, under
section 251 of the Act). But see NECA et al. Feb. 25, 2013 Reply, GN
Docket No. 12-353, at 3 (arguing that IP interconnection arrangements
between carriers for the exchange of traffic is subject to sections 251
and 252, regardless of the technologies employed).
We seek comment on these approaches. Should we allow providers to
negotiate and, if they cannot resolve disputes, then no agreement is
reached? Or, should there be a process for arbitrating or mediating
disputes? If so, should the state be responsible for arbitrating the
agreements, or should the Commission or an independent entity arbitrate
or mediate any disputes? Should any VoIP interconnection agreements
reached during the trial be the basis for future agreements or could
doing so impact the negotiations during the trial? If we undertake a
trial under the section 251/252 framework, should the existing rules be
applied or should they be modified?
Data. We propose that providers participating in a VoIP
interconnection trial submit data regarding the length of time it took
to reach an agreement, the issues in dispute, a copy of any agreements
that are reached, as well as reports on the implementation of such
agreements, such as call quality and reliability metrics, and a
description of any technical problems that were encountered. We seek
comment on the scope and frequency of these reporting requirements.
B. Public Safety--NG911
Background. Public safety is a paramount value that must to be
protected as technologies transition. The transition of the current
enhanced 911 (E911) system to IP-based technologies has already begun,
with widely-accepted industry standards and first deployments of NG911.
NG911 promises to use widely available IP technologies to create 911
services that are more resilient and cost-effective, offer additional
capabilities such as text, data and video, and better meet the needs of
people with disabilities. With the technology transition, we have the
[[Page 31545]]
opportunity to better coordinate the provision of emergency services
with the emergence of IP-based networks. Such coordination may avoid
deploying costly legacy network translation components, and hasten the
availability of new features and functionality.
The NG911 architecture differs significantly from the legacy 911
TDM model. For example, the number and nature of hand-off points for
911 calls to the public safety emergency services IP network (ESInet)
differs from the current approach of routing all calls through a
selective router. Similarly, with nomadic, mobile, and over-the-top
VoIP applications, conveying accurate caller location data to the 911
call center, i.e., the PSAP, changes from a number-based lookup
mechanism to new protocols.
Scope. Given that reliable 911 service is critical to public
safety, we seek comment on a possible trial that would deploy an ``all-
IP'' NG911 service on an accelerated basis in a number of geographic
areas where public safety authorities are ready to deploy NG911 for one
or more PSAPs. We seek comment on using trials that build on the
earlier and more limited NG911 proof-of-concept effort that was
conducted by the U.S. Department of Transportation in 2008. With an
updated NG911 trial, we would hope to gather both process and technical
knowledge, addressing such questions as: Can VoIP and other IP-based
networks readily interconnect with ESInets? Can advanced real-time
services, such as video and text, reach ESInets? In IP-based networks,
how can subscriber location data be maintained and conveyed to the
ESInet? How long does it take transition from a TDM-based to an IP-
based architecture? Where and how are 911 calls to be handed off to the
ESInet, whether by ILECs or other providers, such as CMRS,
interconnected VoIP, interconnected text and telematics services? Are
there state or Commission rules that accelerate or delay the conversion
from E911 to NG911? Are there steps that regulators can take to speed
the transition to NG911 and/or minimize the expense? We seek comment on
the technical and process issues that should be covered by a trial and
on how best to structure a trial to gather data on these issues.
Process. We are considering a NG911 trial that would take place in
areas where public safety authorities are transitioning or have taken
initial steps to prepare for transition of their legacy systems to
NG911 and where providers, including landline, wireless, and
interconnected VoIP, are able to deliver VoIP-based 9-1-1 calls (and
potentially other IP-based traffic) to an ESInet, either ``natively''
or, if necessary, initially through legacy network gateways (LNGs). We
seek comment on the process for identifying such areas. Trial
participants would also make caller location available through NG911
mechanisms, including the Location Information Server (LIS). We seek
comment on candidate PSAPs or regions, the selection of participating
carriers, and whether trials should take place in areas where calls are
delivered via VoIP or also via legacy network gateways. We intend to
coordinate with the National 9-1-1 Implementation Coordination Office
and seek comment on the best ways to coordinate with state, local, and
Tribal authorities during such trials.
Any trial of this kind should provide data on both the challenges
of transitioning from E911 to NG911 and the operational performance
characteristics of NG911 call handling. Thus, we propose that
participants in the trial document the design and conversion process,
including effort and time required, and gather data on call handling
performance, interoperability issues, location accuracy, and any system
failures related to call or location delivery. We seek comment on how
best to address these issues and whether there are other aspects that
should be documented or evaluated.
Finally, we also seek comment on the impact of consumer migration
to wireless and IP-based services that are dependent on commercial
power and network resiliency and public safety services generally.
Participants in the Commission's recent field hearings following
Superstorm Sandy consistently raised this issue and the need to
establish adequate back up power solutions. How should this issue be
integrated into the Commission's technology trials and other data
gathering efforts?
C. Wireline to Wireless
We seek comment on conducting trials to assess the impact on
residential and business customers when they are transitioned from
wireline voice and broadband products to wireless alternatives. We
propose to compare wireline and wireless offerings across a number of
dimensions, including: quality and terms of service, price, product
functionalities, E-911 performance, accessibility options, reliability,
and potential carrier cost savings in the delivery of voice and data
services to higher cost areas. While there is potential for some
service quality degradation if not properly transitioned, the move to
wireless-only networks also could enable improved voice quality and
reliability and broadband investment in areas not likely to be served
in the near future with wireline technology, or at higher speeds than
existing wireline offerings, among other potential benefits. We want to
analyze the consumer experience, including challenges and benefits for
consumers, of a wireless-only option as part of a trial. In this
section we seek comment on how to structure any such trials.
Background. As part of the technology transition, some incumbent
LECs are considering replacing existing customer voice and broadband
services delivered over legacy circuit switched wireline networks with
similar product offerings delivered over a wireless IP network. For
example, Verizon is currently replacing copper based services damaged
by Hurricane Sandy on Fire Island, New York with wireless-only voice
and data products. We understand that Verizon is coordinating with
applicable state authorities on the Fire Island transition. We hope to
learn from these ongoing efforts in addition to the results of this
proposed trial which would focus more systematically on the consumer
experience during such a transition. For its part, AT&T has indicated
that it intends to seek authority to serve millions of current wireline
customers, mostly in rural areas, with a wireless-only product. See
AT&T Wire Center Trials Petition at 9 (explaining that AT&T will offer
wireless communications alternatives to customers living in
particularly high-cost areas, including its Mobile Premises Services,
which allows customers to make calls using ordinary wireline handsets
connected to wireless base stations). We therefore seek comment on
conducting a trial that would evaluate the customer experience when
customers are transitioned from wireline to wireless voice and
broadband services. In particular, we are interested in observing
whether consumers/businesses lose any capabilities previously available
to them or what steps consumers/businesses must take to keep the
functionality of certain services. Such capabilities could include,
among other things, access to 911 and emergency services, the ability
to send and receive a fax, credit card transactions for small
businesses, alarm/security systems, and the ability for individuals
with disabilities to continue to use the devices they use on a regular
basis. We are also interested in learning about the potential benefits
for consumers/businesses of the transition
[[Page 31546]]
to wireless, including any improvement in voice quality in areas with
degraded wireline networks, access to broadband for the first time in
areas with no wireline broadband service, and potential improvements in
network reliability.
Scope. We are considering a trial in which participating LECs would
make available to consumers, in cooperation with state and Tribal
governments, either through their own facilities or in partnership with
a wireless provider, a home wireless voice product or data product or
both, intended as a replacement for a customer's existing home voice
and broadband data services. We propose to test these new service
offerings in: (1) at least one geographic area within each
participating LEC's service territory; and (2) at least one geographic
area outside of each participating LEC's wireline service territory. We
propose that all product offerings in any trial would be the same
within each participating LEC's trial areas and that the
characteristics of the offers would be made public prior to the trial.
We seek comment on these proposals.
We seek comment on whether customers that participate in such a
trial should have the option of wireline or wireless service during the
trial or whether the LEC should be able to require all customers in the
LEC service territory trial area to move to a wireless-only product. We
propose that customers would be informed of when they will be allowed
to switch back to their previous wireline products and that they may do
so at no charge for some pre-established period, including after the
trial period end date. Furthermore, we seek comment on whether LECs
participating in the trial should disclose any differences between a
customer's existing wireline and new wireless service prior to the
customer switching. These differences may include price, data usage
allowances, terms of service, 911 capabilities (including location
accuracy), accessibility, calling features, incompatibilities with fax
machines or other customer premises equipment, or any other
differences. We seek comment on whether such a trial would result in
obtaining useful information and how long it should last.
In its petition, AT&T proposes that technology and policy trials be
conducted at the wire center level. The record reflected a general
support that this as an appropriate level of geography. Therefore we
are considering a trial at the wire center level and seek comment on
whether wire centers are appropriately sized for this specific trial or
whether an alternative unit would be more appropriate. We also seek
comment on what factors should be used to select trial markets.
Data. We propose that LECs participating in such a trial would be
required to collect and submit a variety of data, including a customer
satisfaction survey, to the Commission for analysis. We seek comment on
this proposal as well as any other issues relating to data collection.
Should the Commission, and/or state or Tribal entities, collect data
regarding customer churn, subscriber counts, disconnects, gross
additions, average revenue per user (ARPU), counts of customers
switching back to wireline service, customer service complaints,
service visits and actual customer data speeds, by month and separately
for each geographic area and product? Are there other indicia related
to voice and broadband deployment and adoption, competition, and
investment that the Commission should track during the trial period?
We seek comment on whether LECs participating in a trial should
collect network reliability measures for both their wireline and
wireless product offerings in the trial areas. We seek comment on
whether, in addition to the network reliability measures that the
Commission currently collects for wireline services, participating
carriers should submit such information on network reliability for all
product offerings in the relevant trial area during the trial period.
In addition to these metrics, we seek comment on whether providers
should submit the number of dropped and blocked wireless calls and data
sessions for participating customers. Furthermore, we propose that
participants describe how they address service continuity issues in the
event of a power outage through the use of battery backup and other
measures. Should we collect alternative or additional network
reliability measures? If so, what should these measures be? We also
seek comment on the public safety and accessibility issues raised by
these trials.
D. Geographic All-IP Trials
AT&T and others have proposed an ``all-IP'' wire center trial. We
have already sought comment on this general proposal, and an extensive
record has been compiled addressing it. Each of the trials discussed
above--VoIP interconnection, NG911, and wireline to wireless--address
aspects of AT&T's proposal. Are there other aspects of moving from TDM
to IP that a geographic trial of the kind AT&T has proposed would
elicit helpful data--such as the ability to transition special-purpose
TDM services?
We invite carriers interested in pursuing such a trial to submit a
more detailed, comprehensive plan of how such a trial would work,
including the design of the trial, the data that would be collected,
the rules that would need to be waived and the role of the states and
Tribes. In presenting a detailed roadmap for how such a trial would
work, carriers, at a minimum, should list: (1) All of the services
currently provided by the carrier in a designated wire center that the
carrier would propose to phase out; (2) estimates of current demand for
those services; and (3) what the replacement for those services would
be, including current prices and terms and conditions under which the
replacement services are offered.
II. Additional Trials
Numbering and related databases. We seek comment on a potential
additional trial on numbering issues and related databases. The
Commission recently authorized a limited 6-month trial to provide
interconnected VoIP providers direct access to numbers, but that trial
will not specifically examine changes in the structure of current
numbering databases. We note that the technology transition offers an
opportunity to take a fresh look at the assignment of numbers and the
features, capabilities, and security of numbering-related databases,
and the TAC recently made related recommendations on these issues. For
example, there have been industry proposals for a unified, IP-
accessible database that provides secure access to number-related
information. Could a technology trial serve as a means to test new
technical proposals for assigning telephone numbers, e.g., individually
instead of in blocks of 1,000? What protocols and procedures are most
effective to assign and port numbers in an all-IP environment? Should
there be a trial database that provides access to number-related
information such as points of termination or caller-ID information? If
so, how would we ensure that the information in the trial database(s)
is kept consistent with existing databases such as the Local Exchange
Routing Guide (LERG) and the caller-ID name (CNAM) databases? Should
such databases support services other than voice, such as real-time
video and text? Finally, should any such trial be conducted in
conjunction with a VoIP interconnection trial or separately?
Improving Access for People with Disabilities. Ensuring that people
with disabilities continue to have access to
[[Page 31547]]
evolving technologies is another core value of the Act. We seek comment
on what trials we should conduct to assess the potential for improving
access for people with disabilities during this transitional period. We
note that Ofcom has conducted a study into the effectiveness of
automated speech-to-text as an assistive tool for individuals who are
deaf and hard-of-hearing in VoIP communications. Should the FCC conduct
a trial on the effectiveness of new speech-to-text technologies in the
telecommunications relay service (TRS) context? Could the Commission
expand on the existing Ofcom study by evaluating the role of automated
speech-to-text technologies in video-over-IP communications, including
the extent to which the use of video could be used to enhance
communication with such automated services if used for Internet
Protocol Captioned Telephone Service (IP CTS)? Are there other trials
that the Commission might conduct to investigate methods of improving
access for individuals who are deaf, hard of hearing, deaf-blind, or
who have a speech disability?
Other Possible Trials. We seek comment on whether we should have
any trials that focus more specifically on the copper-to-fiber
transition. Should we consider a trial on issues relating to copper
retirement? For example, should we consider a trial where the incumbent
LEC sells some or all copper loops to a competitive LEC? Support for
such proposition has been mixed, and it is unclear if it is feasible
given that fiber and copper may be intertwined in the access plant.
Also, any such approach raises questions about the pricing of such
copper and access to the ILEC's shared facilities and space. We seek
comment on how we would address these issues in a trial. We generally
seek comment on these issues.
Are there other trials we should conduct that focus on consumer
protection and universal service? Should we have a trial that focuses
on how to improve access to communications services for low-income
Americans? For example, as the transition from wireline to wireless
rapidly progresses, an increasing number of Lifeline participants are
selecting wireless as their preferred method of communication. Given
these demographic shifts, and building off of the success of the 2012
Lifeline and Link Up Reform Order, should the Commission conduct trials
to collect data on ways to further improve Lifeline program? Is a trial
the right setting for the Commission to explore ways to test the
appropriate monthly support amount for Lifeline voice service to better
gauge the appropriate price point both for consumers and carriers who
provide Lifeline services? Are there other universal service issues
that could be tested in a trial?
We also seek comment on whether we should have any trials that
focus specifically on the delivery of services to consumers and
communities on Tribal lands. We generally seek comment on any potential
issues associated with trials taking place on the lands of American
Indian Tribes, Alaska Native Villages, or on Hawaiian Home Lands.
III. Role of State and Tribal Governments
We seek comment on the role of states and Tribal governments. We
note that NARUC has created a Presidential Task Force on Federalism and
Telecommunications to focus on many of these same issues related to
technology transitions, and we are committed to coordinating as
effectively as possible with this and other state efforts. We also note
that the Commission's Intergovernmental Advisory Committee (IAC) has
offered to play a role in working with states and localities on issues
related to technology transitions. How should states and Tribal
governments be involved in the trials? Should the NARUC Task Force, the
IAC, or any other Commission advisory committees, be involved in the
selection of applications or areas? Does it depend on the nature of the
trial? Should states or Tribal governments be involved in selecting
geographic areas? Should non-governmental consumer-focused
organizations be involved in the trial selection process or the
implementation and monitoring of trials?
We generally seek comment on how to work cooperatively with the
states and Tribal governments with respect to each trial and the nature
of their involvement, including how to address issues where the state
commission lacks jurisdiction over IP-based or wireless services. We
also seek comment on providing states and Tribal governments with
access to data collected during the trial, and what role states and
Tribal governments should have in analyzing the data and providing
recommendations to the Commission.
IV. General Trial Design and Structure
We seek comment on the process of establishing, structuring, and
gathering useful data from these possible trials. How should the
Commission structure the trials to address concerns about incumbent
LECs operating on ``best behavior'' during the trials? We seek comment
on the process for selecting the geographic areas for the trials. We
seek comment on the timing and duration of each trial. Should the
timing differ based on the type of trial? How should each trial wind
down, and what would be grounds for terminating a trial altogether
before its anticipated completion date?
We seek comment on how to acquire the most useful data from these
trials. What sort of reporting should we require from participants and
what sort of automated or non-automated data collection would be useful
in each trial? Should the Commission require trial participants to
collect the same data in certain non-trial areas to allow comparison
with a control sample? To what extent should the Commission gather
quantitative data and when is qualitative data preferable? We seek
comment on the usability of the trial data. What sort of protections
should apply to potentially sensitive data? Should information be
confidential, filed pursuant to protective orders, or generally open to
the public? Should we, as the Commission required in the VoIP Direct
Access Order, issue a report with our findings after each trial
concludes?
V. Legal Issues
We seek comment on whether any Commission rules or statutory
provisions are implicated by the proposed trials. For example, entities
participating in the wireline to wireless trial would need to file
section 214 discontinuances. Section 214(a) of the Act requires common
carriers to obtain Commission authorization before discontinuing,
reducing, or impairing service to a community. See 47 U.S.C. 214(a).
Under Part 63 of its rules, the Commission has adopted specific
requirements that clarify this duty and ensure that customers of
domestic telecommunications services receive adequate notice of a
carrier's discontinuance plans and have an opportunity to inform the
Commission of any resultant hardships. See 47 CFR 63.60 et seq. In
particular, before discontinuing service, a telecommunications carrier
generally must notify all affected customers of its proposed
discontinuances. Notice to customers must include the name and address
of the carrier, the date of the planned service discontinuance, the
geographic areas where service will be discontinued, and a brief
description of the type of service affected. See 47 CFR 63.71(a). These
requirements are intended to inform consumers about when their service
may be discontinued and to provide them with an
[[Page 31548]]
opportunity to object to any proposed discontinuances. Should we modify
the process for the trials? Would the Commission need to waive or
forbear from any rules before conducting a trial? We generally seek
comment on these issues as well as any issues regarding the
Commission's legal authority to conduct these voluntary trials.
Pursuant to sections 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. All comments are to reference GN Docket No. 13-5 and may be
filed using: (1) The Commission's Electronic Comment Filing System
(ECFS) or (2) by filing paper copies. See Electronic Filing of
Documents in Rulemaking Proceedings, 63 FR 24121 (1998).
Filings and comments are also available for public inspection and
copying during regular business hours at the FCC Reference Information
Center, Portals II, 445 12th Street SW., Room CY-A257, Washington, DC
20554. They may also be purchased from the Commission's duplicating
contractor, Best Copy and Printing, Inc., Portals II, 445 12th Street
SW., Room CY-B402, Washington, DC 20554, telephone: (202) 488-5300,
fax: (202) 488-5563, or via email www.bcpiweb.com.
This matter shall be treated as a ``permit-but-disclose''
proceeding in accordance with the Commission's ex parte rules. Persons
making oral ex parte presentations are reminded that memoranda
summarizing the presentations must contain summaries of the substance
of the presentation and not merely a listing of the subjects discussed.
More than a one or two sentence description of the views and arguments
presented generally is required. Other rules pertaining to oral and
written ex parte presentations in permit-but-disclose proceedings are
set forth in section 1.1206(b) of the Commission's rules.
Federal Communications Commission.
Sean Lev,
General Counsel.
[FR Doc. 2013-12487 Filed 5-23-13; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6712-01-P