Technology Transitions; Connect America Fund; Numbering Policies for Modern Communications, 11366-11373 [2014-04312]
Download as PDF
11366
Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 40 / Friday, February 28, 2014 / Proposed Rules
Dated: February 24, 2014.
Deborah Delisle,
Assistant Secretary for Elementary and
Secondary Education.
[FR Doc. 2014–04490 Filed 2–27–14; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4000–01–P
FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS
COMMISSION
47 CFR Part 54
[GN Docket No. 13–5; WC Docket Nos. 10–
90, 13–97, FCC 14–5]
Technology Transitions; Connect
America Fund; Numbering Policies for
Modern Communications
Federal Communications
Commission.
ACTION: Proposed rule.
AGENCY:
In this document, the Federal
Communications Commission
(Commission) seeks comment on a
number of discrete issues relating to the
rural broadband experiments and on the
appropriate budget and funding to
support initiatives for the ongoing need
for research into the future of telephone
numbering. The purpose of these
experiments is to speed market-driven
technological transitions and
innovations by preserving the core
statutory vales that exist today.
DATES: Comments are due on or before
March 31, 2014 and reply comments are
due on or before April 14, 2014. If you
anticipate that you will be submitting
comments, but find it difficult to do so
within the period of time allowed by
this document, you should advise the
contact listed below as soon as possible.
ADDRESSES: You may submit comments,
identified by either WC Docket No. 10–
90 or WC Docket No. 13–97, by any of
the following methods:
• Federal eRulemaking Portal: https://
www.regulations.gov. Follow the
instructions for submitting comments.
• Federal Communications
Commission’s Web site: https://
fjallfoss.fcc.gov/ecfs2/;. Follow the
instructions for submitting comments.
• People with Disabilities: Contact the
FCC to request reasonable
accommodations (accessible format
documents, sign language interpreters,
CART, etc.) by email: FCC504@fcc.gov
or phone: (202) 418–0530 or TTY: (202)
418–0432.
For detailed instructions for
submitting comments and additional
information on the rulemaking process,
see the SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION
section of this document.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Alexander Minard, Wireline
emcdonald on DSK67QTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
SUMMARY:
VerDate Mar<15>2010
16:27 Feb 27, 2014
Jkt 232001
Competition Bureau, (202) 418–0428 or
TTY: (202) 418–0484 for WC Docket No.
10–90, Robert Cannon, Office of
Strategic Planning and Policy Analysis,
(202) 418–2421 for WC Docket No. 13–
97.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: This is a
synopsis of the Commission’s Further
Notice of Proposed Rulemakings
(FNPRM’s) in WC Docket Nos. 10–90;
13–97 FCC 14–5, adopted on January 30,
2014 and released on January 31, 2014.
The full text of this document is
available for public inspection during
regular business hours in the FCC
Reference Center, Room CY–A257, 445
12th Street, SW., Washington, DC
20554. Or at the following Internet
address: https://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_
public/attachmatch/FCC-14-5A1.pdf.
Pursuant to §§ 1.415 and 1.419 of the
Commission’s rules, 47 CFR 1.415,
1.419, interested parties may file
comments and reply comments on or
before the dates indicated on the first
page of this document. Comments may
be filed using the Commission’s
Electronic Comment Filing System
(ECFS). See Electronic Filing of
Documents in Rulemaking Proceedings,
63 FR 24121, May 1, 1998.
D Electronic Filers: Comments may be
filed electronically using the Internet by
accessing the ECFS: https://
fjallfoss.fcc.gov/ecfs2/.
D Paper Filers: Parties who choose to
file by paper must file an original and
one copy of each filing. 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.
D All hand-delivered or messengerdelivered paper filings for the
Commission’s Secretary must be
delivered to FCC Headquarters at 445
12th St. SW., Room TW–A325,
Washington, 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 and boxes must be disposed
of before entering the building.
D Commercial overnight mail (other
than U.S. Postal Service Express Mail
and Priority Mail) must be sent to 9300
East Hampton Drive, Capitol Heights,
MD 20743.
D U.S. Postal Service first-class,
Express, and Priority mail must be
PO 00000
Frm 00022
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
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).
I. Further Notice of Proposed
Rulemaking (WC Docket No. 10–90)
1. In the Technology Transitions
Order and Further Notice of Proposed
Rulemaking (Order), adopted
concurrently with these FNPRM’s, the
Commission kick started the process for
a diverse set of experiments and data
collection initiatives that will allow the
Commission and the public to evaluate
how customers are affected by the
historic technology transitions that are
transforming our nation’s voice
communications services—from a
network based on time-division
multiplexed (TDM) circuit-switched
voice services running on copper loops
to an all-Internet Protocol (IP) network
using copper, co-axial cable, wireless,
and fiber as physical infrastructure. In
this FNPRM, the Commission seeks
comment on a number of discrete issues
relating to rural broadband experiments.
The final rules that were adopted
concurrently with these FNPRM’s are
published elsewhere in this issue of the
Federal Register.
A. Budget for Rural Broadband
Experiments
2. The Commission intends to provide
funding for experiments to extend
modern networks in rural, high-cost
areas without increasing the overall size
of the universal service fund. The USF/
ICC Transformation Order, 76 FR 73830,
November 29, 2011, directed Universal
Service Administrative Company
(USAC) to collect $4.5 billion annually
for the Connect America Fund, and, to
the extent disbursements in a given year
are less than collections, deposit the
excess in a broadband reserve account.
Because annual disbursements have
been less than $4.5 billion to date, and
funds have accumulated in the reserve
account, a limited amount of funding
could be awarded for experiments in
2014 from the reserve account without
exceeding the overall $4.5 billion
annual budget for the Connect America
Fund. The Commission proposes that a
limited amount of these unallocated
funds be made available for experiments
in any part of the country, whether
served by an incumbent price cap
carrier or rate-of-return carrier. Utilizing
these unallocated funds for rural
E:\FR\FM\28FEP1.SGM
28FEP1
Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 40 / Friday, February 28, 2014 / Proposed Rules
emcdonald on DSK67QTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
experiments could serve multiple
objectives: First, it would enable us to
better design the final competitive
bidding process that will be used
nationwide to award support in price
cap territories to the extent the price cap
carrier declines to make a state-level
commitment; second, it would enable
the Commission to provide funding for
technology experiments across the
country (not limited to areas where the
incumbent provider is a price cap
carrier), which will help inform future
decisions regarding implementation of
the Connect America Fund in areas
where the incumbent is a rate-of-return
carrier; and third, it would help the
Commission identify ways to use the
various universal service programs
together to attack in a coordinated
fashion the challenges of universal
access in rural America. The
Commission seeks comment on this
proposal.
3. According to USAC, the Connect
America reserve account is projected to
have an ending balance of $1.68 billion
as of the first quarter of 2014, with $1.45
billion of those funds already allocated
to Connect America Phase I
(incremental support in round one and
round two), the Mobility Fund Phase I,
the Tribal Mobility Fund Phase I, and
the Mobility Fund Phase II. The
Commission does not envision using all
unallocated funds in the broadband
reserve for experiments in rural areas,
but rather an amount that is sufficient
to enable us to award funding to a
limited number of projects that enable
evaluation of the four sets of interrelated
questions identified above. Should the
Commission make available $50 or $100
million or some other amount in total
support for experiments? Should the
Commission allocate a lesser or greater
amount? Should the Commission
specifically allocate a separate amount
for non-recurring support to be awarded
on a competitive basis, in addition to
recurring support, or merely a total
amount that can used in a variety of
ways, depending on the applications
received? Should the Commission
allocate a portion of the funds for Phase
II experiments in price cap areas, and a
separate amount for areas outside of
price cap territories?
B. Experiments in Areas Where the
Incumbent Is a Rate-of-Return Carrier
4. In the Order, the Commission
concluded that it should entertain
proposals to extend next generation
networks in areas where the incumbent
provider is a rate-of-return carrier. The
Commission did so with the intention to
use experiments as a vehicle to consider
how it might develop a longer term
VerDate Mar<15>2010
16:27 Feb 27, 2014
Jkt 232001
Connect America mechanism that
would be appropriately designed to
ensure that consumers, businesses, and
anchor institutions in rate-of-return
areas have access to innovative services
delivered over high-capacity networks.
5. The Commission remains firmly
committed to the goal of ensuring that
universal service support is utilized
efficiently to preserve voice and extend
broadband-capable networks in highcost areas in rural America. As
discussed in the USF/ICC
Transformation Order, the Commission
has taken steps to reform the universal
service mechanisms that support rate-ofreturn carriers ‘‘to address the
misaligned incentives’’ of the previous
regime ‘‘by correcting program design
flaws, extending successful safeguards,
ensuring basic fiscal responsibility, and
closing loopholes to ensure our rules
reward only prudent and efficient
investment in modern networks.’’ While
the Commission continues to evaluate
various proposals in the docket, the
Commission intends for rural broadband
experiments in rate-of-return areas to
provide us with valuable data that will
help ensure that funds are disbursed
efficiently and in the public interest in
areas served by incumbent rate-of-return
carriers.
6. The Commission proposes
generally to apply the same application
process and procedures adopted in the
Order for the Connect America Phase II
experiment to the experiments in rateof-return areas, recognizing that it may
be appropriate to adopt an
implementation schedule different than
that used in price cap territories. In
particular, the Commission proposes to
use a two-stage application process for
applications from entities wishing to
participate in experiments to extend
next generation networks in areas where
the incumbent is a rate-of-return carrier.
NTCA suggests that the Commission
should provide incumbent rate-of-return
carriers an initial window to submit
applications for the experiment, in
advance of soliciting applications from
other parties, and also should allow the
rate-of-return carrier to undertake the
same deployment proposed by a nonincumbent for the same or a lesser
amount of support. The Commission
seeks comment on these proposals. If
the Commission was to adopt such a
framework, how much time should be
provided for the incumbent to indicate
that it is willing to deploy broadband to
the same geographic area for the same
or a lesser amount of support as
proposed by a non-incumbent
applicant? Should the Commission
provide an opportunity, in turn, for the
original applicant (the non-incumbent)
PO 00000
Frm 00023
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
11367
to modify its proposal? Would the
additional time and complexity of
implementing such a process to make
final and best offers be unwieldy in
what is intended to be a short-term
experiment in 2014?
7. Consistent with the approach
adopted for experiments in price cap
territories and previously implemented
by the Commission for the second round
of Connect America Phase I, the
Commission proposes that experimental
funding would only be made only for
locations in high-cost census blocks
lacking broadband, subject to a
challenge process. The Commission
does not intend such experiments to
threaten the financial viability of
broadband networks that exist today
through support from our existing highcost mechanisms. Without prejudging
where the funding threshold will
ultimately be set for purposes of the
offer of model-based support to price
cap carriers, we encourage entities
interested in proposing experiments in
rate-of-return areas to focus their
proposals on high-cost areas similar to
those identified in the cost model as
potentially eligible for the Phase II offer
of model-based support to price cap
carriers. The Commission recognizes
that representatives of rate-of-return
carriers have argued that adjustments
would need to be made to the cost
model before it could be used on a
voluntary basis for any rate-of-return
carrier that wished to elect to receive
model-based support. Without
prejudging the resolution of that
question, could the model nonetheless
be employed to identify potential areas
where experiments in rate-of-return
areas might be useful?
8. The Commission proposes to allow
proposals in areas where the incumbent
is a rate-of-return carrier to be made at
the census block level in lieu of the
census tract level in recognition that
smaller providers may wish to develop
proposals for smaller geographic areas.
9. The Commission seeks comment on
all of these proposals. To the extent
parties argue, the Commission should
take a different approach in rate-ofreturn areas, they should identify with
specificity what aspects of the
experiments adopted for price cap areas
should be modified and why.
C. Selective Criteria for Rural
Broadband Experiments
10. A key objective in conducting
these experiments is to determine
whether there is interest in deploying
robust, scalable networks for an amount
equal to or less than model-based
support. Here, the Commission seeks
E:\FR\FM\28FEP1.SGM
28FEP1
emcdonald on DSK67QTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
11368
Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 40 / Friday, February 28, 2014 / Proposed Rules
comment on the selective criteria for
those experiments.
11. The Commission seeks comment
below on potential selective factors and
ask commenters to address how the
Commission might implement these
selective factors as part of its objective
process for selecting experiments. For
example, should the Commission adopt
a 100 point scale? The Commission also
seeks comment more generally on
whether any selective factors should be
added, deleted or modified.
12. The Commission proposes that
cost effectiveness should be the primary
criteria in evaluating which applications
to select for the experiment. How
should the Commission measure cost
effectiveness? One potential measure of
cost effectiveness is whether the
applicant proposes to serve an area for
an amount less than model-based
support. Are there other objective
measures for cost-effectiveness that the
Commission should test in the
experimental setting? If the Commission
were to adopt such a selective factor and
a scoring system, how many points
should be provided to applicants based
on the cost effectiveness of their
proposal? To the extent an applicant
seeks one-time funding as opposed to
recurring support, how should that be
evaluated in the scoring system, as
support amounts determined in the
forward looking cost model are
recurring amounts?
13. A second potential selective
criteria is the extent to which the
applicant proposes to build robust,
scalable networks. In the USF/ICC
Transformation Order, the Commission
indicated it would initiate a proceeding
in 2014 to review the performance
requirements in order to ensure that
Connect America continues to support
broadband that is reasonably
comparable to broadband services in
urban areas. The Commission hopes to
gather valuable data in the rural
broadband experiments regarding the
extent of interest among stakeholders in
building robust, scalable networks that
will meet Commission goals for an
evolving level of universal service. The
Commission adopted an ‘‘initial
minimum speed benchmark’’ for
recipients of Connect America of 4
Mbps downstream/1 Mbps upstream,
but it also specified that some number
of locations would receive at least 6
Mbps downstream and at least 1.5 Mbps
upstream by the end of the five-year
term of Phase II. If the Commission were
to adopt such a selective criteria, how
much weight should be given to
applicants that propose to offer services
more robust than what the Commission
established for price cap carriers
VerDate Mar<15>2010
16:27 Feb 27, 2014
Jkt 232001
accepting model-based support? Should
the Commission assign varying weights
based on the percentage of locations in
the proposed project areas that would
receive services of varying speeds?
Should the Commission also assign
additional weight for applicants that
propose to offer service with unlimited
usage or usage allowances significantly
higher than established for the price cap
carriers that accept model-based
support? Should additional weight be
assigned to applicants that commit to
offering at least 100 Mbps service to
schools with 1,000 students or more,
with the ability to scale that to 1 gigabit
service within several years, and
comparable services to libraries?
14. A third potential criteria could be
the extent to which applicants propose
innovative strategies to leverage nonFederal governmental sources of
funding, such as State, local, or Tribal
government funding. The Commission
recognizes the importance of a State,
local or Tribal government commitment
to advance universal service in
partnership with the Commission. If the
Commission were to adopt this criteria,
how much weight should be given to
applications that leverage non-Federal
governmental funding sources?
15. A fourth potential criteria could
be whether applicants propose to offer
high-capacity connectivity to Tribal
lands. If the Commission were to adopt
this criteria, how much weight should
be given to applications that propose to
serve Tribal lands?
16. Finally, the Commission seeks
more specific comment on how the
mechanics of the scoring system would
function. What role, if any, should there
be for more subjective evaluations of the
financial and technical qualifications of
applicants, or of which proposals
provide the best value for requested
funding? For instance, should there be
flexibility to deviate from the scoring
system in order to achieve diversity of
projects, both in terms of geography and
types of technologies?
17. Relatedly, the Commission seeks
comment on what information may be
useful to include in the formal
proposals for rural broadband
experiments, such as: The number of
proposed residential and small business
locations to be served within eligible
census blocks in the relevant census
tract; the number of health care
providers, schools and libraries that are
physically located within the eligible
census blocks; whether the proposal
includes the provision of service on
Tribal lands and, if so, identification of
the Tribal lands to be served; the
planned service offerings that would be
offered to residential and small
PO 00000
Frm 00024
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
businesses, and such anchor
institutions, with details regarding the
proposed speeds, latencies, usage
allowance (if any), and pricing of such
offerings; whether the services offered to
residential consumers would be
sufficiently robust to utilize advanced
educational and health care
applications; when such services would
be available to consumers, businesses
and such anchor institutions (the
planned deployment schedule); whether
the infrastructure can be upgraded later
to offer greater throughput (i.e., speeds)
and more capacity for each user at a
given price point; how network speeds
and other characteristics can be
measured; whether any discounted
services would be offered to specific
populations, such as low-income
households or customers on Tribal
lands; proposed strategies for demand
aggregation; proposed strategies for
addressing barriers to adoption (e.g.,
whether the applicant proposes to offer
digital literacy training or equipment to
subscribers); whether and how other
service providers can use the facilities
constructed; availability and cost of
backhaul and other assets required for
project success; whether constraints in
middle-mile connectivity may limit the
services offered; whether the applicant
plans to rely in part on financing from
non-federal governmental institutions
(e.g., State, regional, Tribal, or local
funding; State universal service fund;
private foundations); whether the
applicant expects to have access to
resources that will contribute to project
success, such as in-kind contributions,
access to cell towers, poles and rights of
way, expedited permitting, or existing
authorizations; information regarding
the proposed network to be deployed
and the technologies to be utilized (e.g.,
wireline, fixed wireless, or mobile
wireless); how the applicant proposes to
offer voice telephony service to
customers at rates reasonably
comparable to rates charged for similar
services in urban areas; and the amount
of Connect America support requested
(total and per location) and the time
period over which funding would be
provided.
D. Additional Considerations for Rural
Broadband Experiments
18. In the Order, the Commission
makes clear that the experiments will
focus on areas where end users lack
Internet access that delivers 3 Mbps
downstream/768 kbps Mbps upstream.
Here, the Commission seeks comment
on specific measures to implement that
objective. What specific numerical
measure should be used to determine
whether the extent of competitive
E:\FR\FM\28FEP1.SGM
28FEP1
emcdonald on DSK67QTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 40 / Friday, February 28, 2014 / Proposed Rules
overlap is de minimis? The Commission
recognizes that unserved locations will
not neatly align with census block or
census tract boundaries. What measures
should the Commission take to ensure
that federal funds are focused on
bringing next generation networks to the
unserved?
19. The Commission expects that the
amount of funding to be made available
for any experiment will not exceed the
amount of model-calculated support for
a given geographic area. The
Commission seeks comment on whether
to limit the amount of support available
in census tracts where the average cost
per location is higher than the
preliminary extremely high cost
threshold to the amount per location
equal to that preliminary extremely high
cost threshold.
20. The Commission seeks comment
on allowing applicants for funding
awarded through this rural broadband
experiment to propose to serve partiallyserved census blocks, which are not
eligible for the offer of model-based
support to price cap carriers. In
adopting a framework for the Phase II
challenge process, the Wireline
Competition Bureau (Bureau)
concluded, primarily for administrative
reasons, that partially served blocks
would not be included in the offer of
model-based support, reasoning that the
administrative burdens on both
Commission staff and potential
challenges of conducting sub-census
block challenges outweighed the
marginal benefits. That was a reasonable
approach for determining whether the
incumbent would receive the
opportunity to receive model-based
support in exchange for a state-level
commitment, given the assumption that
areas not served by price cap carriers
through the offer of model-based
support potentially could be eligible for
support through the Phase II
competitive bidding process. The
Commission believes it could be
valuable to examine on a limited scale,
in the Phase II experiment, whether the
administrative difficulties of
entertaining challenges to the eligibility
of partially served census blocks could
be mitigated by doing such challenges
only if a partially served census block
is tentatively awarded funding (rather
than in advance of selection). Such an
approach could advance the
Commission’s goal of ensuring that all
consumers, businesses and anchor
institutions—including those that
currently lack service in these partially
served census blocks—will have an
opportunity to gain broadband access in
the future.
VerDate Mar<15>2010
16:27 Feb 27, 2014
Jkt 232001
21. The Commission seeks comment
on any additional rules or requirements
it should adopt in the context of rural
broadband experiments. For instance,
should a condition of participation be
offering discounted broadband services
to low-income consumers? For
applicants whose service areas include
Tribal lands, should a condition of
participation be offering service to
residents and anchor institutions on
Tribal lands? Should a condition of
participation be to offer to connect
community-based institutions, such as
schools, libraries, and health care
providers, within the project area with
high-capacity services appropriate for
educational or healthcare activities? To
the extent an applicant fails to meet the
conditions of its experiment, should
facilities built using universal service
funding be made available to others?
The Commission asks commenters to
refresh the record on issues relating to
the Eligible Telecommunications
Carriers (ETC) designation process.
Should the Commission adopt federal
rules regarding the ETC designation
process specifically for the rural
broadband experiments? For instance,
should the Commission adopt a
presumption that if a State fails to act
on an ETC application from a selected
participant within a specified period of
time, such as 60 days, the State lacks
jurisdiction over the applicant, and the
Commission will address the ETC
application pursuant to section
214(e)(6)? The Commission also seeks
comment on whether and how the
competitive bidding requirements and
other rules applicable to participants
and vendors in other universal service
programs should apply in the context of
these experiments, to the extent an
applicant seeks to offer services to
schools, libraries, and/or health care
providers, as well as to residential end
users. Are there other issues discussed
above in the service experiments section
that should be addressed in the context
of these experiments in rural, high-cost
areas, and if so, how?
22. To the extent Connect America
Phase II funding is awarded in the
experiment prior to the offer of modelbased support to price cap carriers,
should the Commission direct the
Bureau to adjust the offer of support for
a state-level commitment to remove
those areas from the offer? In such
situations, should the incumbent price
cap carrier be relieved of its federal ETC
high-cost obligations for the area when
support is awarded to another entity?
The Commission notes that the carrier
would still be required to comply with
current notice requirements, including
PO 00000
Frm 00025
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
11369
notice of discontinuance and notice of
network change requirements.
Similarly, should areas served by
experiments be excluded from the Phase
II competitive bidding process? How
does the potential difference in
duration, or other aspects, of proposals
selected for the experiment impact any
decision to exclude such areas from the
general Phase II competitive bidding
process?
E. Rural Healthcare Broadband
Experiments
23. In this section, the Commission
seeks comment on soliciting
experiments that focus on ensuring that
consumers have access to advanced
services to address the increased and
growing demand for telemedicine and
remote monitoring. The Commission
has a role in ensuring universal access
to advanced telecommunications and
information services. Historically, the
Commission’s high-cost program has
focused on providing support to
providers for the cost of deploying and
operating networks in high-cost areas. In
the Order, the Commission invites
experiments that would explore how to
achieve the goals and requirements
adopted in the USF/ICC Transformation
Order to use the Connect America Fund
to tackle the challenges of universal
access in rural areas. Here, the
Commission seeks comment more
broadly on consumer-oriented rural
broadband experiments that would
improve patient access to health care.
24. When the Commission adopted
the Healthcare Connect Fund in 2012, it
sought to advance several goals for the
rural healthcare program: (1) Increasing
access to broadband for health care
providers (HCPs), particularly those
serving rural areas; (2) fostering the
development and deployment of
broadband health care networks, and (3)
maximizing the cost-effectiveness of the
program. It also set aside up to $50
million to conduct a pilot program to
test expanded access to telemedicine at
skilled nursing facilities. The
Commission seeks comment on
experiments that focus on the
implications of the technology
transition on health care facilities and
their patients. The Commission seeks
comment on conducting experiments
that would explore how to improve
access to advanced telecommunications
and information services for healthcare
for vulnerable populations such as the
elderly and veterans in rural, high-cost,
and insular areas. For example,
technological advances hold great
promise to enable the elderly to age in
place, in their home, with remote
monitoring of key health statistics
E:\FR\FM\28FEP1.SGM
28FEP1
emcdonald on DSK67QTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
11370
Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 40 / Friday, February 28, 2014 / Proposed Rules
through a broadband-enabled device.
Likewise, the Department of Veteran
Affairs has implemented a telehealth
initiative which has reduced the
number of days spent in the hospital by
59 percent, and hospital admissions by
35 percent for veterans across the
country, saving over $2000 per year per
patient, including even when factoring
in the costs of the program. These
programs are critical to achieving
savings in healthcare costs, and
reducing the amount of time patients are
away from home, but a critical gap
remains in ensuring that patients, such
as the elderly and veterans, have access
to sufficient connectivity at home to
transmit the necessary data for
telemedicine applications such as
remote health care monitoring, to enable
patients to access the health care
provider’s patient portal, and for other
broadband-enabled health care
applications.
25. Consistent with the decision in
the USF/ICC Transformation Order to
connect all areas, including homes,
businesses and anchor institutions—
which the Commission defined as
schools, libraries, medical and
healthcare providers, public safety
entities, community colleges and other
institutions of higher education, and
other community support organizations
and agencies that provide outreach,
access, equipment, and support services
to facilitate greater use of broadband
service by vulnerable populations,
including low-income, the unemployed,
and the aged—the Commission seeks
comment on conducting an experiment
to support broadband connections to the
consumer for discrete rural populations,
such as the elderly or veterans, to enable
their participation in telehealth
initiatives. One example would be a
project that seeks to explore how the
Connect America Fund can be targeted
to work with other federal initiatives to
serve the needs of particular
populations, such as ensuring adequate
health care for veterans in rural
America. Another example would be a
project that seeks to explore how to use
the Connect America Fund to extend
broadband to surrounding rural
communities that lack residential
broadband service.
26. The Commission seeks comment
on the amount of funding it should
allocate for such experiments. If the
Commission moves forward with rural
healthcare broadband experiments, it
proposes to do so in a manner that
would not impact the size of the Fund.
Specifically, the Commission proposes
funding any such experiments out of the
$50 million currently authorized for the
skilled nursing facility pilot program.
VerDate Mar<15>2010
16:27 Feb 27, 2014
Jkt 232001
The Commission has previously
decided to set aside that amount of onetime support for testing broadband use
in telemedicine. The Commission seeks
comment on this proposal and other
options that would not impact the size
of the Fund, such as funding coming
from the existing Connect America
Fund budget or the rural health care
mechanism.
27. The Commission proposes
generally to use the application process
described above for the Connect
America rural broadband experiments
for any healthcare experiments. To the
extent parties suggest the Commission
use different processes for a healthcare
experiment, they should identify with
specificity which aspects of the process
should be modified and why.
28. The Commission seeks comment
on the specific selective criteria for a
healthcare broadband experiment. How
many projects should be funded, and
how should applications be prioritized?
What auditing and recordkeeping
measures should be in place for any
such experiment to protect against
waste, fraud and abuse? Are there
specific ways in which the
Commission’s experience with the
successful Rural Health Care Pilot
Program or other universal service pilot
programs which should be reflected in
the evaluation of proposals or the
operation of the experiments? Are there
requirements under the existing rural
health care mechanism (either the
Telecommunications Program or the
new Healthcare Connect Fund), or other
universal service programs, that would
be implicated by such experiments? If
so, commenters should identify those
rules with specificity and indicate how
experiments would need to be tailored
to such rules, or explain whether and
how those rules should be waived or
modified.
29. Finally, the Commission seeks
comment on how these experiments
might be implemented consistent with
our legal authority. Following the
Telecommunications Act of 1996, the
Commission implemented the directives
in section 254 by adopting rules to
administer universal service through
four separate programs, but nothing in
the statutory framework requires this
result. Sections 254(b)(2) and 254(b)(3)
require the Commission to ‘‘base
policies on the preservation and
advancement of universal service’’ on
‘‘principles’’ that ‘‘[a]ccess to advanced
telecommunications and information
services should be provided in all
regions of the Nation’’ and that
‘‘[c]onsumers in all regions of the
Nation, including low-income
consumers and those in rural, insular,
PO 00000
Frm 00026
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
and high cost areas should have access
to . . . advanced telecommunications
and information services . . . that are
reasonably comparable to services
provided in urban areas.’’ Section
254(h)(1) contains specific provisions
for ‘‘health care providers in rural
areas’’ and section 254(h)(2) requires the
Commission ‘‘to establish competitively
neutral rules to enhance . . . access to
advanced telecommunications services
and information services for all . . .
health care providers.’’ The Commission
seeks comment on the Commission’s
legal authority to interpret section 254
to fund experiments that focus on
providing advanced
telecommunications and information
services to consumers in rural areas,
with a particular focus deploying
broadband that is sufficient to meet
consumers’ healthcare needs. The
Commission also seeks comment on
experiments that would provide support
to health care providers.
II. Further Notice of Proposed
Rulemaking Regarding Numbering
Research (WC Docket No. 13–97)
A. Research and Development of a
Numbering Testbed
30. In the Order, the Commission
delegates to the Chief Technology
Officer (CTO) (or, in the absence of a
CTO, the Chief of the Office of
Engineering and Technology (OET), or
the OET Chief’s designee) in
consultation with the Chiefs of the
Wireline Competition Bureau (WCB),
OET and Office of Strategic Planning &
Policy Analysis (OSP), the authority to
facilitate the development of a
telephony numbering testbed for
collaborative, multi-stakeholder
research and exploration of technical
options and opportunities for telephone
numbering in an all-IP network. The
numbering testbed is intended to be a
proof of concept. Developing ideas in a
testbed avoids disrupting current
systems and would allow interested
parties to work through technical
feasibility constraints to allow for the
broadest range of policy options and
outcomes. The testbed could facilitate
the development of a future telephone
numbering system by exploring what
options are feasible without undue
encumbrance by legacy notions and
systems. Informed by the research, the
Commission would be in a better
position to consider what steps may be
necessary to facilitate the technology
transitions and make informed
decisions toward the creation of a next
generation, efficient, secure and flexible
number management system, while
E:\FR\FM\28FEP1.SGM
28FEP1
emcdonald on DSK67QTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 40 / Friday, February 28, 2014 / Proposed Rules
maintaining backward compatibility to
the extent possible.
31. In the Order, the Commission sets
out its intent to facilitate cooperative
research and development into a
numbering testbed that builds upon the
work of multiple technical bodies and
experts to explore issues of number
management in a post-transition world.
The Commission describes the general
purposes of a numbering testbed and
direct the CTO to host an initial
workshop, open to all technical experts,
at which outside experts, advisory
groups, standards organizations and
other stakeholders who wish to
participate can work collaboratively to
design and launch a numbering testbed.
The Commission also seeks comment in
a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking below
on the funding and budget for the
testbed and other numbering research
initiatives.
32. Much work has already been done
by the Commission and multiple expert
bodies to identify issues and concerns
with regards to the future of telephone
numbering. The Commission would
expect that any testbed launched after
the initial workshop would build upon
these efforts.
33. In response to the May 10, 2013
Public Notice seeking comment on
potential trials to explore technology
transitions issues, the Commission
received several comments concerning
numbering. Numerous parties noted the
need for numbering research, testing
and trials. Commenters stated that a trial
is needed to explore the changing role
of the databases in an all-IP network,
and recommended that any trial should
be open to carriers, Voice over IP (VoIP)
providers, database administrators, and
others with an interest in numbering. In
Charge Systems noted the need to
identify and validate customers and
telephone numbers. Neustar noted the
decoupling of geography from telephone
number assignments as well as the
potential elimination of telephone
number allocation on a rate center basis.
NARUC commented on the need to
consider numbering resource utilization
and optimization.
34. Building upon the work and
recommendations of these expert
bodies, the Commission directs that it
work collaboratively with government
and non-government experts towards
basic research into the design and
development of a prototype posttransition number management system
as described below. The Commission
believes that the Commission, in
cooperation with other experts, can play
an important, beneficial and industryneutral role in accelerating the
VerDate Mar<15>2010
16:27 Feb 27, 2014
Jkt 232001
development of this pre-market, nonproduction system.
1. Developing the Testbed
35. The testbed goals would be to
enable research into numbering in an
all-IP network, unencumbered by the
constraints of the legacy network. Such
a testbed might address number
allocation and management as well as
database lookup for call routing. The
effort could include two facets: (i) A
small, non-production server system for
prototyping, and (ii) one or more
workshops or electronic fora to convene
an open, cross-industry, and
collaborative group of technical experts,
including, in particular, software
engineers with implementation
experience, to sketch and prototype a
system for managing numbering
resources and obtaining information
about these resources. Any testbed
should be designed to result in
experiences and output that will inform
the work of relevant industry standards
bodies, Commission advisory bodies
and the Commission, using the Internet
principles of ‘‘rough consensus and
running code.’’
36. The Testbed. As a small, nonproduction server system, the testbed
itself would be an engineering sandbox
designed by technical experts in which
to explore the future of numbering in a
pre-standards, non-operational, and
non-production environment. The
Commission anticipates that the testbed
numbering system would use common
industry approaches, such as HTTP
XML or RESTful APIs and JSON,
supporting operations such as allocating
a number ‘‘just in time’’ or in a block
from the available pools of numbers;
track to whom the number has been
allocated (either a traditional carrier, a
VoIP provider or, for 800 numbers, a
Responsible Organization (the entity
chosen by a toll-free subscriber to
manage and administer the appropriate
records in the toll free Service
Management System for the toll free
subscriber) or end user); create
credentials for end users and carriers
that allow them to assert that they have
been issued such a number; rapidly port
with validation, including new
mechanisms similar to domain names
that provide users with secure porting
keys for their numbers to greatly reduce
erroneous and malicious ports (and the
related slamming); associate validated
number user information to prevent
spoofing; provide information to carriers
and providers on how to interconnect to
the number; facilitate VoIP
interconnection; and promote efficient
number utilization including enabling
authorized parties to collect information
PO 00000
Frm 00027
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
11371
about number usage and assignment,
e.g., to effectively prevent number
hoarding or inefficient utilization.
37. The Commission further expects
that the testbed would include features
such as security (including the ability to
mitigate spoofing, phishing, unwanted
calls, and denial-of-service attacks), the
ability to authenticate numbers,
traceability, efficiency, portability, and
reliability. Any testbed should be
designed to promote competition and
create predictable dialing protocols for
end users. A properly designed testbed
should also take into account the needs
of emergency communications and N11
dialing for special services, as well as
any potential implications for persons
with disabilities. International
implications should be explored as well
as the impact of the IPv6 migration.
38. To be most useful to the
Commission, the testbed should permit
exploration of what is feasible for an allIP, post-transitions number system,
identify issues, and flag what actions
may be necessary in order to facilitate
the technology transitions. Questions
that could be explored include those
noted above as well as: how can the
number system be simplified? Can
multiple databases exist and can they be
distributed? What are the implications
of decoupling numbering from
geography or services? How can the
Commission measure actual number
utilization and prevent the inefficient
use of numbering resources? What
interfaces must be specified? What
databases are necessary? How will
routing be handled and what
information is necessary within the
database? What are the implications for
number utilization, particularly in light
of machine-to-machine
communications? Who can a number be
assigned to, how can that person be
authenticated, and what information
about that person needs to be in the
database?
39. While the Commission does not
anticipate needing a block of NANP
numbers to initiate the test bed, would
the availability of a block of numbers
facilitate the goals of this test bed? If so,
can the block be drawn from existing
resources such as pANI or the 555 NXX
or 456 NPA (carrier-specific services)
blocks or should they be drawn from
other numbering resources? How large a
resource allocation is needed and are
there Commission actions that need to
be taken to facilitate allocation?
40. Workshop(s). The Commission
expects to convene one or more
workshops to facilitate the design and
development of the testbed. These
workshops are intended to be
engineering working sessions, modeled
E:\FR\FM\28FEP1.SGM
28FEP1
11372
Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 40 / Friday, February 28, 2014 / Proposed Rules
after ‘hackathons’ in which groups of
technical experts collaborate intensively
to work through technical challenges
and create prototype systems.
Participation is open to any and all
technical experts. The Commission
particularly welcomes software
engineers with experience
implementing telephony-related
systems.
41. The initial workshop will be
hosted by the CTO and will focus on the
basic design and launch of the testbed
as a non-production, prototype system
for managing numbering resources and
obtaining information about these
resources in a post-transitions world.
The workshop has three objectives: (1)
To identify the gaps in the existing
system for an all-IP environment and
opportunities for simplification; (2) to
facilitate proposals for a general
architecture for the testbed; and (3) to
facilitate the infrastructure and
organization (mailing list, conference
calls) for those individuals that are
interested in doing the prototyping and
participating further in the testbed
process. Subsequent engineering
workshops will continue, as needed, to
assist participants in refining the testbed
and in further exploring the many
technical questions raised by an all-IP,
post transitions numbering management
system.
emcdonald on DSK67QTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
2. Process and Timeline
42. The Commission expects the
testbed to run for about a year. The
Commission anticipates that the testbed
would be hosted at a neutral but as of
yet undetermined location. The
Commission anticipates that
maintaining the physical testbed will
involve a modest expense of a few
thousand dollars per year. For further
information concerning the testbed and
the workshop, please contact Robert
Cannon, Robert.Cannon@fcc.gov, (202)
418–2421.
3. Further Notice of Proposed
Rulemaking
43. As indicated by experts and
commenters, there is an ongoing need
for research into the future of telephone
numbering. The Commission proposes
funding telephone numbering research
to support initiatives like the testbed,
and it seeks comment on the
appropriate budget and funding. For
example, the Commission expects
funding to maintain the testbed to be
quite modest (approximately $100 per
month for server resources), which
could potentially be obtained from a
number of sources, but technical staff
resources may accelerate progress. The
Commission requires the collection of
VerDate Mar<15>2010
16:27 Feb 27, 2014
Jkt 232001
numbering contributions associated
with telephone numbering management
that are used to fund the operation of
numbering databases and services.
Should the Commission use some of the
revenue collected from these
contributions to fund the testbed and
related research? How would funding
for such research be determined? What
types of awards would be appropriate?
Should the Commission seek NANC
input on what research needs to be
conducted? If so, what timeframe would
be appropriate for obtaining input from
the NANC? The Commission seeks
comment on these issues. The
Commission also seeks comment on
how it can best identify any further
research that should be facilitated by the
Commission to supplement the work of
stakeholders participating in any testbed
and under what timeframe that research
should be performed. Should the
Commission solicit other numberingrelated research proposals? If so, what
kind of research would be most helpful
and how should the Commission
facilitate such research?
III. Procedural Matters
A. Further Notice of Proposed
Rulemaking in WC Docket No. 10–90
1. Paperwork Reduction Analysis
44. The Further Notice of Proposed
Rulemaking does not contain proposed
information collection requirements
subject to the Paperwork Reduction Act
of 1995, Public Law 104–13. In addition,
therefore, it does not contain any
proposed information collection burden
for small business concerns with fewer
than 25 employees, pursuant to the
Small Business Paperwork Relief Act of
2002, Public Law 107–198, see 44 U.S.C.
3506(c)(4).
2. Initial Regulatory Flexibility Analysis
45. The USF/ICC Transformation
Order and FNPRM, 76 FR 78384,
December 16, 2011, included an Initial
Regulatory Flexibility Analysis (IRFA)
pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 603, exploring the
potential impact on small entities of the
Commission’s proposal. The
Commission invites parties to file
comments on the IRFA in light of this
additional notice.
3. Ex Parte Presentations
46. The proceeding this document
initiates shall be treated as a ‘‘permitbut-disclose’’ proceeding in accordance
with the Commission’s ex parte rules.
Persons making ex parte presentations
must file a copy of any written
presentation or a memorandum
summarizing any oral presentation
within two business days after the
PO 00000
Frm 00028
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
presentation (unless a different deadline
applicable to the Sunshine period
applies). Persons making oral ex parte
presentations are reminded that
memoranda summarizing the
presentation must (1) list all persons
attending or otherwise participating in
the meeting at which the ex parte
presentation was made, and (2)
summarize all data presented and
arguments made during the
presentation. If the presentation
consisted in whole or in part of the
presentation of data or arguments
already reflected in the presenter’s
written comments, memoranda or other
filings in the proceeding, the presenter
may provide citations to such data or
arguments in his or her prior comments,
memoranda, or other filings (specifying
the relevant page and/or paragraph
numbers where such data or arguments
can be found) in lieu of summarizing
them in the memorandum. Documents
shown or given to Commission staff
during ex parte meetings are deemed to
be written ex parte presentations and
must be filed consistent with
§ 1.1206(b). In proceedings governed by
§ 1.49(f) or for which the Commission
has made available a method of
electronic filing, written ex parte
presentations and memoranda
summarizing oral ex parte
presentations, and all attachments
thereto, must be filed through the
electronic comment filing system
available for that proceeding, and must
be filed in their native format (e.g., .doc,
.xml, .ppt, searchable .pdf). Participants
in this proceeding should familiarize
themselves with the Commission’s ex
parte rules.
4. Filing Instructions
47. 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 in the Dates
section of this document. Comments
may be filed using the Commission’s
Electronic Comment Filing System
(ECFS). See Electronic Filing of
Documents in Rulemaking Proceedings,
63 FR 24121, May 1, 1998.
For further information, contact
Alexander Minard, Acting Deputy Chief,
Telecommunications Access Policy
Division, Wireline Competition Bureau,
at Alexander.Minard@fcc.gov, or at 202–
418–0428.
E:\FR\FM\28FEP1.SGM
28FEP1
Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 40 / Friday, February 28, 2014 / Proposed Rules
emcdonald on DSK67QTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
B. Further Notice of Proposed
Rulemaking in WC Docket No. 13–97
1. Initial Regulatory Flexibility
Certification
48. The Regulatory Flexibility Act of
1980, as amended (RFA), requires that
agencies prepare a regulatory flexibility
analysis for notice-and-comment
rulemaking proceedings, unless the
agency certifies that ‘‘the rule will not
have a significant economic impact on
a substantial number of small entities.’’
The RFA generally defines ‘‘small
entity’’ as having the same meaning as
the terms ‘‘small business,’’ ‘‘small
organization,’’ and ‘‘small governmental
jurisdiction.’’ In addition, the term
‘‘small business’’ has the same meaning
as the term ‘‘small business concern’’
under the Small Business Act. A small
business concern is one which: (1) Is
independently owned and operated; (2)
is not dominant in its field of operation;
and (3) satisfies any additional criteria
established by the Small Business
Administration (SBA).
49. In this Further Notice of Proposed
Rulemaking, the Commission states that
there is an ongoing need for research
into the future of telephone numbering,
proposes funding telephone numbering
research to support initiatives like the
testbed described in the Order in WC
Docket No. 13–97 described above, and
seeks comment on the appropriate
budget and funding. The Commission
notes that it expects the funding to
maintain the testbed to be quite modest
(approximately $100 per month) for
server resources, that it could
potentially be funded by contributions
already collected in association with
telephone numbering management, and
seeks comment on this. The
Commission seeks comment on how
funding for such research should be
determined, the types of awards that
would be appropriate, whether the
Commission should seek NANC input
on what research needs to be conducted,
and the timeframe for any such input
from NANC. This Further Notice of
Proposed Rulemaking only seeks
comment on funding and budget for
research and development projects and
does not propose new rules, burdens, or
requirements.
50. The Commission therefore
certifies, pursuant to the RFA, that the
proposals in this Notice of Proposed
Rulemaking, if adopted, will not have a
significant economic impact on a
substantial number of small entities. If
commenters believe that the proposals
discussed in this Notice of Proposed
Rulemaking require additional RFA
analysis, they should include a
discussion of these issues in their
VerDate Mar<15>2010
16:27 Feb 27, 2014
Jkt 232001
comments and additionally label them
as RFA comments. The Commission
will send a copy of this Notice of
Proposed Rulemaking, including a copy
of this initial regulatory flexibility
certification, to the Chief Counsel for
Advocacy of the SBA. In addition, a
copy of this Notice of Proposed
Rulemaking and this initial certification
will be published in the Federal
Register.
2. Ex Parte Presentations
51. The proceeding this document
initiates shall be treated as a ‘‘permitbut-disclose’’ proceeding in accordance
with the Commission’s ex parte rules.
Persons making ex parte presentations
must file a copy of any written
presentation or a memorandum
summarizing any oral presentation
within two business days after the
presentation (unless a different deadline
applicable to the Sunshine period
applies). Persons making oral ex parte
presentations are reminded that
memoranda summarizing the
presentation must (1) list all persons
attending or otherwise participating in
the meeting at which the ex parte
presentation was made, and (2)
summarize all data presented and
arguments made during the
presentation. If the presentation
consisted in whole or in part of the
presentation of data or arguments
already reflected in the presenter’s
written comments, memoranda or other
filings in the proceeding, the presenter
may provide citations to such data or
arguments in his or her prior comments,
memoranda, or other filings (specifying
the relevant page and/or paragraph
numbers where such data or arguments
can be found) in lieu of summarizing
them in the memorandum. Documents
shown or given to Commission staff
during ex parte meetings are deemed to
be written ex parte presentations and
must be filed consistent with
§ 1.1206(b). In proceedings governed by
§ 1.49(f) or for which the Commission
has made available a method of
electronic filing, written ex parte
presentations and memoranda
summarizing oral ex parte
presentations, and all attachments
thereto, must be filed through the
electronic comment filing system
available for that proceeding, and must
be filed in their native format (e.g., .doc,
.xml, .ppt, searchable .pdf). Participants
in this proceeding should familiarize
themselves with the Commission’s ex
parte rules.
3. Filing Instructions
52. Pursuant to sections 1.415 and
1.419 of the Commission’s rules, 47 CFR
PO 00000
Frm 00029
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 9990
11373
1.415, 1.419, interested parties may file
comments and reply comments on or
before the dates indicated in the Dates
section of this document. Comments
may be filed using the Commission’s
Electronic Comment Filing System
(ECFS). See Electronic Filing of
Documents in Rulemaking Proceedings,
63 FR 24121, May 1, 1998.
For further information, contact
Robert Cannon, Senior Counsel, Office
of Strategic Planning and Policy
Analysis, at Robert.Cannon@fcc.gov, or
at (202) 418–2421.
IV. Ordering Clauses
A. Further Notice of Proposed
Rulemaking in WC Docket No. 10–90
53. It is further ordered, that pursuant
to the authority contained in sections 1,
2, 4(i), 201–206, 214, 218–220, 251, 252,
254, 256, 303(r), 332, 403 of the
Communications Act of 1934, as
amended, and section 706 of the
Telecommunications Act of 1996, 47
U.S.C. 151, 152, 154(i), 201–206, 214,
218–220, 251, 252, 254, 256 303(r), 332,
403, and 1302, and sections 1.1 and
1.1421 of the Commission’s rules, 47
CFR 1.1, 1.421, this Further Notice of
Proposed Rulemaking in WC Docket No.
10–90 IS hereby adopted.
54. It is further ordered that pursuant
to applicable procedures set forth in
sections 1.415 and 1.419 of the
Commission’s rules, 47 CFR 1.415,
1.419, interested parties may file
comments on the Further Notice of
Proposed Rulemaking in WC Docket No.
10–90 or WC Docket No. 13–97 on or
before March 31, 2014 and reply
comments on or before April 14, 2014.
55. It is further ordered, that the
Commission’s Consumer and
Governmental Affairs Bureau, Reference
Information Center, shall send a copy of
this Further Notice of Proposed
Rulemaking in WC Docket No. 10–90,
including the Initial Regulatory
Flexibility Analysis, to the Chief
Counsel for Advocacy of the Small
Business Administration.
B. Further Notice of Proposed
Rulemaking in WC Docket No. 13–97
56. It is further ordered that pursuant
to Sections 1, 4, 201, 251, and 303(r) of
the Communications Act of 1934, as
amended, 47 U.S.C. 151, 154, 201, 251,
303(r), and section 1.1 of the
Commission’s rules, 47 CFR 1.1, the
Notice of Proposed Rulemaking in WC
Docket No. 13–97 is hereby adopted.
Federal Comunications Commission.
Marlene H. Dortch,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2014–04312 Filed 2–27–14; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6712–01–P
E:\FR\FM\28FEP1.SGM
28FEP1
Agencies
[Federal Register Volume 79, Number 40 (Friday, February 28, 2014)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 11366-11373]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2014-04312]
=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION
47 CFR Part 54
[GN Docket No. 13-5; WC Docket Nos. 10-90, 13-97, FCC 14-5]
Technology Transitions; Connect America Fund; Numbering Policies
for Modern Communications
AGENCY: Federal Communications Commission.
ACTION: Proposed rule.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: In this document, the Federal Communications Commission
(Commission) seeks comment on a number of discrete issues relating to
the rural broadband experiments and on the appropriate budget and
funding to support initiatives for the ongoing need for research into
the future of telephone numbering. The purpose of these experiments is
to speed market-driven technological transitions and innovations by
preserving the core statutory vales that exist today.
DATES: Comments are due on or before March 31, 2014 and reply comments
are due on or before April 14, 2014. If you anticipate that you will be
submitting comments, but find it difficult to do so within the period
of time allowed by this document, you should advise the contact listed
below as soon as possible.
ADDRESSES: You may submit comments, identified by either WC Docket No.
10-90 or WC Docket No. 13-97, by any of the following methods:
Federal eRulemaking Portal: https://www.regulations.gov.
Follow the instructions for submitting comments.
Federal Communications Commission's Web site: https://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/ecfs2/;. Follow the instructions for submitting
comments.
People with Disabilities: Contact the FCC to request
reasonable accommodations (accessible format documents, sign language
interpreters, CART, etc.) by email: FCC504@fcc.gov or phone: (202) 418-
0530 or TTY: (202) 418-0432.
For detailed instructions for submitting comments and additional
information on the rulemaking process, see the SUPPLEMENTARY
INFORMATION section of this document.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Alexander Minard, Wireline Competition
Bureau, (202) 418-0428 or TTY: (202) 418-0484 for WC Docket No. 10-90,
Robert Cannon, Office of Strategic Planning and Policy Analysis, (202)
418-2421 for WC Docket No. 13-97.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: This is a synopsis of the Commission's
Further Notice of Proposed Rulemakings (FNPRM's) in WC Docket Nos. 10-
90; 13-97 FCC 14-5, adopted on January 30, 2014 and released on January
31, 2014. The full text of this document is available for public
inspection during regular business hours in the FCC Reference Center,
Room CY-A257, 445 12th Street, SW., Washington, DC 20554. Or at the
following Internet address: https://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-14-5A1.pdf.
Pursuant to Sec. Sec. 1.415 and 1.419 of the Commission's rules,
47 CFR 1.415, 1.419, interested parties may file comments and reply
comments on or before the dates indicated on the first page of this
document. Comments may be filed using the Commission's Electronic
Comment Filing System (ECFS). See Electronic Filing of Documents in
Rulemaking Proceedings, 63 FR 24121, May 1, 1998.
[ssquf] Electronic Filers: Comments may be filed electronically
using the Internet by accessing the ECFS: https://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/ecfs2/.
[ssquf] Paper Filers: Parties who choose to file by paper must file
an original and one copy of each filing. 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.
[ssquf] All hand-delivered or messenger-delivered paper filings for
the Commission's Secretary must be delivered to FCC Headquarters at 445
12th St. SW., Room TW-A325, Washington, 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 and boxes must be disposed of
before entering the building.
[ssquf] Commercial overnight mail (other than U.S. Postal Service
Express Mail and Priority Mail) must be sent to 9300 East Hampton
Drive, Capitol Heights, MD 20743.
[ssquf] U.S. Postal Service first-class, Express, and Priority mail
must be addressed to 445 12th Street SW., Washington DC 20554.
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).
I. Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (WC Docket No. 10-90)
1. In the Technology Transitions Order and Further Notice of
Proposed Rulemaking (Order), adopted concurrently with these FNPRM's,
the Commission kick started the process for a diverse set of
experiments and data collection initiatives that will allow the
Commission and the public to evaluate how customers are affected by the
historic technology transitions that are transforming our nation's
voice communications services--from a network based on time-division
multiplexed (TDM) circuit-switched voice services running on copper
loops to an all-Internet Protocol (IP) network using copper, co-axial
cable, wireless, and fiber as physical infrastructure. In this FNPRM,
the Commission seeks comment on a number of discrete issues relating to
rural broadband experiments. The final rules that were adopted
concurrently with these FNPRM's are published elsewhere in this issue
of the Federal Register.
A. Budget for Rural Broadband Experiments
2. The Commission intends to provide funding for experiments to
extend modern networks in rural, high-cost areas without increasing the
overall size of the universal service fund. The USF/ICC Transformation
Order, 76 FR 73830, November 29, 2011, directed Universal Service
Administrative Company (USAC) to collect $4.5 billion annually for the
Connect America Fund, and, to the extent disbursements in a given year
are less than collections, deposit the excess in a broadband reserve
account. Because annual disbursements have been less than $4.5 billion
to date, and funds have accumulated in the reserve account, a limited
amount of funding could be awarded for experiments in 2014 from the
reserve account without exceeding the overall $4.5 billion annual
budget for the Connect America Fund. The Commission proposes that a
limited amount of these unallocated funds be made available for
experiments in any part of the country, whether served by an incumbent
price cap carrier or rate-of-return carrier. Utilizing these
unallocated funds for rural
[[Page 11367]]
experiments could serve multiple objectives: First, it would enable us
to better design the final competitive bidding process that will be
used nationwide to award support in price cap territories to the extent
the price cap carrier declines to make a state-level commitment;
second, it would enable the Commission to provide funding for
technology experiments across the country (not limited to areas where
the incumbent provider is a price cap carrier), which will help inform
future decisions regarding implementation of the Connect America Fund
in areas where the incumbent is a rate-of-return carrier; and third, it
would help the Commission identify ways to use the various universal
service programs together to attack in a coordinated fashion the
challenges of universal access in rural America. The Commission seeks
comment on this proposal.
3. According to USAC, the Connect America reserve account is
projected to have an ending balance of $1.68 billion as of the first
quarter of 2014, with $1.45 billion of those funds already allocated to
Connect America Phase I (incremental support in round one and round
two), the Mobility Fund Phase I, the Tribal Mobility Fund Phase I, and
the Mobility Fund Phase II. The Commission does not envision using all
unallocated funds in the broadband reserve for experiments in rural
areas, but rather an amount that is sufficient to enable us to award
funding to a limited number of projects that enable evaluation of the
four sets of interrelated questions identified above. Should the
Commission make available $50 or $100 million or some other amount in
total support for experiments? Should the Commission allocate a lesser
or greater amount? Should the Commission specifically allocate a
separate amount for non-recurring support to be awarded on a
competitive basis, in addition to recurring support, or merely a total
amount that can used in a variety of ways, depending on the
applications received? Should the Commission allocate a portion of the
funds for Phase II experiments in price cap areas, and a separate
amount for areas outside of price cap territories?
B. Experiments in Areas Where the Incumbent Is a Rate-of-Return Carrier
4. In the Order, the Commission concluded that it should entertain
proposals to extend next generation networks in areas where the
incumbent provider is a rate-of-return carrier. The Commission did so
with the intention to use experiments as a vehicle to consider how it
might develop a longer term Connect America mechanism that would be
appropriately designed to ensure that consumers, businesses, and anchor
institutions in rate-of-return areas have access to innovative services
delivered over high-capacity networks.
5. The Commission remains firmly committed to the goal of ensuring
that universal service support is utilized efficiently to preserve
voice and extend broadband-capable networks in high-cost areas in rural
America. As discussed in the USF/ICC Transformation Order, the
Commission has taken steps to reform the universal service mechanisms
that support rate-of-return carriers ``to address the misaligned
incentives'' of the previous regime ``by correcting program design
flaws, extending successful safeguards, ensuring basic fiscal
responsibility, and closing loopholes to ensure our rules reward only
prudent and efficient investment in modern networks.'' While the
Commission continues to evaluate various proposals in the docket, the
Commission intends for rural broadband experiments in rate-of-return
areas to provide us with valuable data that will help ensure that funds
are disbursed efficiently and in the public interest in areas served by
incumbent rate-of-return carriers.
6. The Commission proposes generally to apply the same application
process and procedures adopted in the Order for the Connect America
Phase II experiment to the experiments in rate-of-return areas,
recognizing that it may be appropriate to adopt an implementation
schedule different than that used in price cap territories. In
particular, the Commission proposes to use a two-stage application
process for applications from entities wishing to participate in
experiments to extend next generation networks in areas where the
incumbent is a rate-of-return carrier. NTCA suggests that the
Commission should provide incumbent rate-of-return carriers an initial
window to submit applications for the experiment, in advance of
soliciting applications from other parties, and also should allow the
rate-of-return carrier to undertake the same deployment proposed by a
non-incumbent for the same or a lesser amount of support. The
Commission seeks comment on these proposals. If the Commission was to
adopt such a framework, how much time should be provided for the
incumbent to indicate that it is willing to deploy broadband to the
same geographic area for the same or a lesser amount of support as
proposed by a non-incumbent applicant? Should the Commission provide an
opportunity, in turn, for the original applicant (the non-incumbent) to
modify its proposal? Would the additional time and complexity of
implementing such a process to make final and best offers be unwieldy
in what is intended to be a short-term experiment in 2014?
7. Consistent with the approach adopted for experiments in price
cap territories and previously implemented by the Commission for the
second round of Connect America Phase I, the Commission proposes that
experimental funding would only be made only for locations in high-cost
census blocks lacking broadband, subject to a challenge process. The
Commission does not intend such experiments to threaten the financial
viability of broadband networks that exist today through support from
our existing high-cost mechanisms. Without prejudging where the funding
threshold will ultimately be set for purposes of the offer of model-
based support to price cap carriers, we encourage entities interested
in proposing experiments in rate-of-return areas to focus their
proposals on high-cost areas similar to those identified in the cost
model as potentially eligible for the Phase II offer of model-based
support to price cap carriers. The Commission recognizes that
representatives of rate-of-return carriers have argued that adjustments
would need to be made to the cost model before it could be used on a
voluntary basis for any rate-of-return carrier that wished to elect to
receive model-based support. Without prejudging the resolution of that
question, could the model nonetheless be employed to identify potential
areas where experiments in rate-of-return areas might be useful?
8. The Commission proposes to allow proposals in areas where the
incumbent is a rate-of-return carrier to be made at the census block
level in lieu of the census tract level in recognition that smaller
providers may wish to develop proposals for smaller geographic areas.
9. The Commission seeks comment on all of these proposals. To the
extent parties argue, the Commission should take a different approach
in rate-of-return areas, they should identify with specificity what
aspects of the experiments adopted for price cap areas should be
modified and why.
C. Selective Criteria for Rural Broadband Experiments
10. A key objective in conducting these experiments is to determine
whether there is interest in deploying robust, scalable networks for an
amount equal to or less than model-based support. Here, the Commission
seeks
[[Page 11368]]
comment on the selective criteria for those experiments.
11. The Commission seeks comment below on potential selective
factors and ask commenters to address how the Commission might
implement these selective factors as part of its objective process for
selecting experiments. For example, should the Commission adopt a 100
point scale? The Commission also seeks comment more generally on
whether any selective factors should be added, deleted or modified.
12. The Commission proposes that cost effectiveness should be the
primary criteria in evaluating which applications to select for the
experiment. How should the Commission measure cost effectiveness? One
potential measure of cost effectiveness is whether the applicant
proposes to serve an area for an amount less than model-based support.
Are there other objective measures for cost-effectiveness that the
Commission should test in the experimental setting? If the Commission
were to adopt such a selective factor and a scoring system, how many
points should be provided to applicants based on the cost effectiveness
of their proposal? To the extent an applicant seeks one-time funding as
opposed to recurring support, how should that be evaluated in the
scoring system, as support amounts determined in the forward looking
cost model are recurring amounts?
13. A second potential selective criteria is the extent to which
the applicant proposes to build robust, scalable networks. In the USF/
ICC Transformation Order, the Commission indicated it would initiate a
proceeding in 2014 to review the performance requirements in order to
ensure that Connect America continues to support broadband that is
reasonably comparable to broadband services in urban areas. The
Commission hopes to gather valuable data in the rural broadband
experiments regarding the extent of interest among stakeholders in
building robust, scalable networks that will meet Commission goals for
an evolving level of universal service. The Commission adopted an
``initial minimum speed benchmark'' for recipients of Connect America
of 4 Mbps downstream/1 Mbps upstream, but it also specified that some
number of locations would receive at least 6 Mbps downstream and at
least 1.5 Mbps upstream by the end of the five-year term of Phase II.
If the Commission were to adopt such a selective criteria, how much
weight should be given to applicants that propose to offer services
more robust than what the Commission established for price cap carriers
accepting model-based support? Should the Commission assign varying
weights based on the percentage of locations in the proposed project
areas that would receive services of varying speeds? Should the
Commission also assign additional weight for applicants that propose to
offer service with unlimited usage or usage allowances significantly
higher than established for the price cap carriers that accept model-
based support? Should additional weight be assigned to applicants that
commit to offering at least 100 Mbps service to schools with 1,000
students or more, with the ability to scale that to 1 gigabit service
within several years, and comparable services to libraries?
14. A third potential criteria could be the extent to which
applicants propose innovative strategies to leverage non-Federal
governmental sources of funding, such as State, local, or Tribal
government funding. The Commission recognizes the importance of a
State, local or Tribal government commitment to advance universal
service in partnership with the Commission. If the Commission were to
adopt this criteria, how much weight should be given to applications
that leverage non-Federal governmental funding sources?
15. A fourth potential criteria could be whether applicants propose
to offer high-capacity connectivity to Tribal lands. If the Commission
were to adopt this criteria, how much weight should be given to
applications that propose to serve Tribal lands?
16. Finally, the Commission seeks more specific comment on how the
mechanics of the scoring system would function. What role, if any,
should there be for more subjective evaluations of the financial and
technical qualifications of applicants, or of which proposals provide
the best value for requested funding? For instance, should there be
flexibility to deviate from the scoring system in order to achieve
diversity of projects, both in terms of geography and types of
technologies?
17. Relatedly, the Commission seeks comment on what information may
be useful to include in the formal proposals for rural broadband
experiments, such as: The number of proposed residential and small
business locations to be served within eligible census blocks in the
relevant census tract; the number of health care providers, schools and
libraries that are physically located within the eligible census
blocks; whether the proposal includes the provision of service on
Tribal lands and, if so, identification of the Tribal lands to be
served; the planned service offerings that would be offered to
residential and small businesses, and such anchor institutions, with
details regarding the proposed speeds, latencies, usage allowance (if
any), and pricing of such offerings; whether the services offered to
residential consumers would be sufficiently robust to utilize advanced
educational and health care applications; when such services would be
available to consumers, businesses and such anchor institutions (the
planned deployment schedule); whether the infrastructure can be
upgraded later to offer greater throughput (i.e., speeds) and more
capacity for each user at a given price point; how network speeds and
other characteristics can be measured; whether any discounted services
would be offered to specific populations, such as low-income households
or customers on Tribal lands; proposed strategies for demand
aggregation; proposed strategies for addressing barriers to adoption
(e.g., whether the applicant proposes to offer digital literacy
training or equipment to subscribers); whether and how other service
providers can use the facilities constructed; availability and cost of
backhaul and other assets required for project success; whether
constraints in middle-mile connectivity may limit the services offered;
whether the applicant plans to rely in part on financing from non-
federal governmental institutions (e.g., State, regional, Tribal, or
local funding; State universal service fund; private foundations);
whether the applicant expects to have access to resources that will
contribute to project success, such as in-kind contributions, access to
cell towers, poles and rights of way, expedited permitting, or existing
authorizations; information regarding the proposed network to be
deployed and the technologies to be utilized (e.g., wireline, fixed
wireless, or mobile wireless); how the applicant proposes to offer
voice telephony service to customers at rates reasonably comparable to
rates charged for similar services in urban areas; and the amount of
Connect America support requested (total and per location) and the time
period over which funding would be provided.
D. Additional Considerations for Rural Broadband Experiments
18. In the Order, the Commission makes clear that the experiments
will focus on areas where end users lack Internet access that delivers
3 Mbps downstream/768 kbps Mbps upstream. Here, the Commission seeks
comment on specific measures to implement that objective. What specific
numerical measure should be used to determine whether the extent of
competitive
[[Page 11369]]
overlap is de minimis? The Commission recognizes that unserved
locations will not neatly align with census block or census tract
boundaries. What measures should the Commission take to ensure that
federal funds are focused on bringing next generation networks to the
unserved?
19. The Commission expects that the amount of funding to be made
available for any experiment will not exceed the amount of model-
calculated support for a given geographic area. The Commission seeks
comment on whether to limit the amount of support available in census
tracts where the average cost per location is higher than the
preliminary extremely high cost threshold to the amount per location
equal to that preliminary extremely high cost threshold.
20. The Commission seeks comment on allowing applicants for funding
awarded through this rural broadband experiment to propose to serve
partially-served census blocks, which are not eligible for the offer of
model-based support to price cap carriers. In adopting a framework for
the Phase II challenge process, the Wireline Competition Bureau
(Bureau) concluded, primarily for administrative reasons, that
partially served blocks would not be included in the offer of model-
based support, reasoning that the administrative burdens on both
Commission staff and potential challenges of conducting sub-census
block challenges outweighed the marginal benefits. That was a
reasonable approach for determining whether the incumbent would receive
the opportunity to receive model-based support in exchange for a state-
level commitment, given the assumption that areas not served by price
cap carriers through the offer of model-based support potentially could
be eligible for support through the Phase II competitive bidding
process. The Commission believes it could be valuable to examine on a
limited scale, in the Phase II experiment, whether the administrative
difficulties of entertaining challenges to the eligibility of partially
served census blocks could be mitigated by doing such challenges only
if a partially served census block is tentatively awarded funding
(rather than in advance of selection). Such an approach could advance
the Commission's goal of ensuring that all consumers, businesses and
anchor institutions--including those that currently lack service in
these partially served census blocks--will have an opportunity to gain
broadband access in the future.
21. The Commission seeks comment on any additional rules or
requirements it should adopt in the context of rural broadband
experiments. For instance, should a condition of participation be
offering discounted broadband services to low-income consumers? For
applicants whose service areas include Tribal lands, should a condition
of participation be offering service to residents and anchor
institutions on Tribal lands? Should a condition of participation be to
offer to connect community-based institutions, such as schools,
libraries, and health care providers, within the project area with
high-capacity services appropriate for educational or healthcare
activities? To the extent an applicant fails to meet the conditions of
its experiment, should facilities built using universal service funding
be made available to others? The Commission asks commenters to refresh
the record on issues relating to the Eligible Telecommunications
Carriers (ETC) designation process. Should the Commission adopt federal
rules regarding the ETC designation process specifically for the rural
broadband experiments? For instance, should the Commission adopt a
presumption that if a State fails to act on an ETC application from a
selected participant within a specified period of time, such as 60
days, the State lacks jurisdiction over the applicant, and the
Commission will address the ETC application pursuant to section
214(e)(6)? The Commission also seeks comment on whether and how the
competitive bidding requirements and other rules applicable to
participants and vendors in other universal service programs should
apply in the context of these experiments, to the extent an applicant
seeks to offer services to schools, libraries, and/or health care
providers, as well as to residential end users. Are there other issues
discussed above in the service experiments section that should be
addressed in the context of these experiments in rural, high-cost
areas, and if so, how?
22. To the extent Connect America Phase II funding is awarded in
the experiment prior to the offer of model-based support to price cap
carriers, should the Commission direct the Bureau to adjust the offer
of support for a state-level commitment to remove those areas from the
offer? In such situations, should the incumbent price cap carrier be
relieved of its federal ETC high-cost obligations for the area when
support is awarded to another entity? The Commission notes that the
carrier would still be required to comply with current notice
requirements, including notice of discontinuance and notice of network
change requirements. Similarly, should areas served by experiments be
excluded from the Phase II competitive bidding process? How does the
potential difference in duration, or other aspects, of proposals
selected for the experiment impact any decision to exclude such areas
from the general Phase II competitive bidding process?
E. Rural Healthcare Broadband Experiments
23. In this section, the Commission seeks comment on soliciting
experiments that focus on ensuring that consumers have access to
advanced services to address the increased and growing demand for
telemedicine and remote monitoring. The Commission has a role in
ensuring universal access to advanced telecommunications and
information services. Historically, the Commission's high-cost program
has focused on providing support to providers for the cost of deploying
and operating networks in high-cost areas. In the Order, the Commission
invites experiments that would explore how to achieve the goals and
requirements adopted in the USF/ICC Transformation Order to use the
Connect America Fund to tackle the challenges of universal access in
rural areas. Here, the Commission seeks comment more broadly on
consumer-oriented rural broadband experiments that would improve
patient access to health care.
24. When the Commission adopted the Healthcare Connect Fund in
2012, it sought to advance several goals for the rural healthcare
program: (1) Increasing access to broadband for health care providers
(HCPs), particularly those serving rural areas; (2) fostering the
development and deployment of broadband health care networks, and (3)
maximizing the cost-effectiveness of the program. It also set aside up
to $50 million to conduct a pilot program to test expanded access to
telemedicine at skilled nursing facilities. The Commission seeks
comment on experiments that focus on the implications of the technology
transition on health care facilities and their patients. The Commission
seeks comment on conducting experiments that would explore how to
improve access to advanced telecommunications and information services
for healthcare for vulnerable populations such as the elderly and
veterans in rural, high-cost, and insular areas. For example,
technological advances hold great promise to enable the elderly to age
in place, in their home, with remote monitoring of key health
statistics
[[Page 11370]]
through a broadband-enabled device. Likewise, the Department of Veteran
Affairs has implemented a telehealth initiative which has reduced the
number of days spent in the hospital by 59 percent, and hospital
admissions by 35 percent for veterans across the country, saving over
$2000 per year per patient, including even when factoring in the costs
of the program. These programs are critical to achieving savings in
healthcare costs, and reducing the amount of time patients are away
from home, but a critical gap remains in ensuring that patients, such
as the elderly and veterans, have access to sufficient connectivity at
home to transmit the necessary data for telemedicine applications such
as remote health care monitoring, to enable patients to access the
health care provider's patient portal, and for other broadband-enabled
health care applications.
25. Consistent with the decision in the USF/ICC Transformation
Order to connect all areas, including homes, businesses and anchor
institutions--which the Commission defined as schools, libraries,
medical and healthcare providers, public safety entities, community
colleges and other institutions of higher education, and other
community support organizations and agencies that provide outreach,
access, equipment, and support services to facilitate greater use of
broadband service by vulnerable populations, including low-income, the
unemployed, and the aged--the Commission seeks comment on conducting an
experiment to support broadband connections to the consumer for
discrete rural populations, such as the elderly or veterans, to enable
their participation in telehealth initiatives. One example would be a
project that seeks to explore how the Connect America Fund can be
targeted to work with other federal initiatives to serve the needs of
particular populations, such as ensuring adequate health care for
veterans in rural America. Another example would be a project that
seeks to explore how to use the Connect America Fund to extend
broadband to surrounding rural communities that lack residential
broadband service.
26. The Commission seeks comment on the amount of funding it should
allocate for such experiments. If the Commission moves forward with
rural healthcare broadband experiments, it proposes to do so in a
manner that would not impact the size of the Fund. Specifically, the
Commission proposes funding any such experiments out of the $50 million
currently authorized for the skilled nursing facility pilot program.
The Commission has previously decided to set aside that amount of one-
time support for testing broadband use in telemedicine. The Commission
seeks comment on this proposal and other options that would not impact
the size of the Fund, such as funding coming from the existing Connect
America Fund budget or the rural health care mechanism.
27. The Commission proposes generally to use the application
process described above for the Connect America rural broadband
experiments for any healthcare experiments. To the extent parties
suggest the Commission use different processes for a healthcare
experiment, they should identify with specificity which aspects of the
process should be modified and why.
28. The Commission seeks comment on the specific selective criteria
for a healthcare broadband experiment. How many projects should be
funded, and how should applications be prioritized? What auditing and
recordkeeping measures should be in place for any such experiment to
protect against waste, fraud and abuse? Are there specific ways in
which the Commission's experience with the successful Rural Health Care
Pilot Program or other universal service pilot programs which should be
reflected in the evaluation of proposals or the operation of the
experiments? Are there requirements under the existing rural health
care mechanism (either the Telecommunications Program or the new
Healthcare Connect Fund), or other universal service programs, that
would be implicated by such experiments? If so, commenters should
identify those rules with specificity and indicate how experiments
would need to be tailored to such rules, or explain whether and how
those rules should be waived or modified.
29. Finally, the Commission seeks comment on how these experiments
might be implemented consistent with our legal authority. Following the
Telecommunications Act of 1996, the Commission implemented the
directives in section 254 by adopting rules to administer universal
service through four separate programs, but nothing in the statutory
framework requires this result. Sections 254(b)(2) and 254(b)(3)
require the Commission to ``base policies on the preservation and
advancement of universal service'' on ``principles'' that ``[a]ccess to
advanced telecommunications and information services should be provided
in all regions of the Nation'' and that ``[c]onsumers in all regions of
the Nation, including low-income consumers and those in rural, insular,
and high cost areas should have access to . . . advanced
telecommunications and information services . . . that are reasonably
comparable to services provided in urban areas.'' Section 254(h)(1)
contains specific provisions for ``health care providers in rural
areas'' and section 254(h)(2) requires the Commission ``to establish
competitively neutral rules to enhance . . . access to advanced
telecommunications services and information services for all . . .
health care providers.'' The Commission seeks comment on the
Commission's legal authority to interpret section 254 to fund
experiments that focus on providing advanced telecommunications and
information services to consumers in rural areas, with a particular
focus deploying broadband that is sufficient to meet consumers'
healthcare needs. The Commission also seeks comment on experiments that
would provide support to health care providers.
II. Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking Regarding Numbering Research
(WC Docket No. 13-97)
A. Research and Development of a Numbering Testbed
30. In the Order, the Commission delegates to the Chief Technology
Officer (CTO) (or, in the absence of a CTO, the Chief of the Office of
Engineering and Technology (OET), or the OET Chief's designee) in
consultation with the Chiefs of the Wireline Competition Bureau (WCB),
OET and Office of Strategic Planning & Policy Analysis (OSP), the
authority to facilitate the development of a telephony numbering
testbed for collaborative, multi-stakeholder research and exploration
of technical options and opportunities for telephone numbering in an
all-IP network. The numbering testbed is intended to be a proof of
concept. Developing ideas in a testbed avoids disrupting current
systems and would allow interested parties to work through technical
feasibility constraints to allow for the broadest range of policy
options and outcomes. The testbed could facilitate the development of a
future telephone numbering system by exploring what options are
feasible without undue encumbrance by legacy notions and systems.
Informed by the research, the Commission would be in a better position
to consider what steps may be necessary to facilitate the technology
transitions and make informed decisions toward the creation of a next
generation, efficient, secure and flexible number management system,
while
[[Page 11371]]
maintaining backward compatibility to the extent possible.
31. In the Order, the Commission sets out its intent to facilitate
cooperative research and development into a numbering testbed that
builds upon the work of multiple technical bodies and experts to
explore issues of number management in a post-transition world. The
Commission describes the general purposes of a numbering testbed and
direct the CTO to host an initial workshop, open to all technical
experts, at which outside experts, advisory groups, standards
organizations and other stakeholders who wish to participate can work
collaboratively to design and launch a numbering testbed. The
Commission also seeks comment in a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking below
on the funding and budget for the testbed and other numbering research
initiatives.
32. Much work has already been done by the Commission and multiple
expert bodies to identify issues and concerns with regards to the
future of telephone numbering. The Commission would expect that any
testbed launched after the initial workshop would build upon these
efforts.
33. In response to the May 10, 2013 Public Notice seeking comment
on potential trials to explore technology transitions issues, the
Commission received several comments concerning numbering. Numerous
parties noted the need for numbering research, testing and trials.
Commenters stated that a trial is needed to explore the changing role
of the databases in an all-IP network, and recommended that any trial
should be open to carriers, Voice over IP (VoIP) providers, database
administrators, and others with an interest in numbering. In Charge
Systems noted the need to identify and validate customers and telephone
numbers. Neustar noted the decoupling of geography from telephone
number assignments as well as the potential elimination of telephone
number allocation on a rate center basis. NARUC commented on the need
to consider numbering resource utilization and optimization.
34. Building upon the work and recommendations of these expert
bodies, the Commission directs that it work collaboratively with
government and non-government experts towards basic research into the
design and development of a prototype post-transition number management
system as described below. The Commission believes that the Commission,
in cooperation with other experts, can play an important, beneficial
and industry-neutral role in accelerating the development of this pre-
market, non-production system.
1. Developing the Testbed
35. The testbed goals would be to enable research into numbering in
an all-IP network, unencumbered by the constraints of the legacy
network. Such a testbed might address number allocation and management
as well as database lookup for call routing. The effort could include
two facets: (i) A small, non-production server system for prototyping,
and (ii) one or more workshops or electronic fora to convene an open,
cross-industry, and collaborative group of technical experts,
including, in particular, software engineers with implementation
experience, to sketch and prototype a system for managing numbering
resources and obtaining information about these resources. Any testbed
should be designed to result in experiences and output that will inform
the work of relevant industry standards bodies, Commission advisory
bodies and the Commission, using the Internet principles of ``rough
consensus and running code.''
36. The Testbed. As a small, non-production server system, the
testbed itself would be an engineering sandbox designed by technical
experts in which to explore the future of numbering in a pre-standards,
non-operational, and non-production environment. The Commission
anticipates that the testbed numbering system would use common industry
approaches, such as HTTP XML or RESTful APIs and JSON, supporting
operations such as allocating a number ``just in time'' or in a block
from the available pools of numbers; track to whom the number has been
allocated (either a traditional carrier, a VoIP provider or, for 800
numbers, a Responsible Organization (the entity chosen by a toll-free
subscriber to manage and administer the appropriate records in the toll
free Service Management System for the toll free subscriber) or end
user); create credentials for end users and carriers that allow them to
assert that they have been issued such a number; rapidly port with
validation, including new mechanisms similar to domain names that
provide users with secure porting keys for their numbers to greatly
reduce erroneous and malicious ports (and the related slamming);
associate validated number user information to prevent spoofing;
provide information to carriers and providers on how to interconnect to
the number; facilitate VoIP interconnection; and promote efficient
number utilization including enabling authorized parties to collect
information about number usage and assignment, e.g., to effectively
prevent number hoarding or inefficient utilization.
37. The Commission further expects that the testbed would include
features such as security (including the ability to mitigate spoofing,
phishing, unwanted calls, and denial-of-service attacks), the ability
to authenticate numbers, traceability, efficiency, portability, and
reliability. Any testbed should be designed to promote competition and
create predictable dialing protocols for end users. A properly designed
testbed should also take into account the needs of emergency
communications and N11 dialing for special services, as well as any
potential implications for persons with disabilities. International
implications should be explored as well as the impact of the IPv6
migration.
38. To be most useful to the Commission, the testbed should permit
exploration of what is feasible for an all-IP, post-transitions number
system, identify issues, and flag what actions may be necessary in
order to facilitate the technology transitions. Questions that could be
explored include those noted above as well as: how can the number
system be simplified? Can multiple databases exist and can they be
distributed? What are the implications of decoupling numbering from
geography or services? How can the Commission measure actual number
utilization and prevent the inefficient use of numbering resources?
What interfaces must be specified? What databases are necessary? How
will routing be handled and what information is necessary within the
database? What are the implications for number utilization,
particularly in light of machine-to-machine communications? Who can a
number be assigned to, how can that person be authenticated, and what
information about that person needs to be in the database?
39. While the Commission does not anticipate needing a block of
NANP numbers to initiate the test bed, would the availability of a
block of numbers facilitate the goals of this test bed? If so, can the
block be drawn from existing resources such as pANI or the 555 NXX or
456 NPA (carrier-specific services) blocks or should they be drawn from
other numbering resources? How large a resource allocation is needed
and are there Commission actions that need to be taken to facilitate
allocation?
40. Workshop(s). The Commission expects to convene one or more
workshops to facilitate the design and development of the testbed.
These workshops are intended to be engineering working sessions,
modeled
[[Page 11372]]
after `hackathons' in which groups of technical experts collaborate
intensively to work through technical challenges and create prototype
systems. Participation is open to any and all technical experts. The
Commission particularly welcomes software engineers with experience
implementing telephony-related systems.
41. The initial workshop will be hosted by the CTO and will focus
on the basic design and launch of the testbed as a non-production,
prototype system for managing numbering resources and obtaining
information about these resources in a post-transitions world. The
workshop has three objectives: (1) To identify the gaps in the existing
system for an all-IP environment and opportunities for simplification;
(2) to facilitate proposals for a general architecture for the testbed;
and (3) to facilitate the infrastructure and organization (mailing
list, conference calls) for those individuals that are interested in
doing the prototyping and participating further in the testbed process.
Subsequent engineering workshops will continue, as needed, to assist
participants in refining the testbed and in further exploring the many
technical questions raised by an all-IP, post transitions numbering
management system.
2. Process and Timeline
42. The Commission expects the testbed to run for about a year. The
Commission anticipates that the testbed would be hosted at a neutral
but as of yet undetermined location. The Commission anticipates that
maintaining the physical testbed will involve a modest expense of a few
thousand dollars per year. For further information concerning the
testbed and the workshop, please contact Robert Cannon,
Robert.Cannon@fcc.gov, (202) 418-2421.
3. Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking
43. As indicated by experts and commenters, there is an ongoing
need for research into the future of telephone numbering. The
Commission proposes funding telephone numbering research to support
initiatives like the testbed, and it seeks comment on the appropriate
budget and funding. For example, the Commission expects funding to
maintain the testbed to be quite modest (approximately $100 per month
for server resources), which could potentially be obtained from a
number of sources, but technical staff resources may accelerate
progress. The Commission requires the collection of numbering
contributions associated with telephone numbering management that are
used to fund the operation of numbering databases and services. Should
the Commission use some of the revenue collected from these
contributions to fund the testbed and related research? How would
funding for such research be determined? What types of awards would be
appropriate? Should the Commission seek NANC input on what research
needs to be conducted? If so, what timeframe would be appropriate for
obtaining input from the NANC? The Commission seeks comment on these
issues. The Commission also seeks comment on how it can best identify
any further research that should be facilitated by the Commission to
supplement the work of stakeholders participating in any testbed and
under what timeframe that research should be performed. Should the
Commission solicit other numbering-related research proposals? If so,
what kind of research would be most helpful and how should the
Commission facilitate such research?
III. Procedural Matters
A. Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking in WC Docket No. 10-90
1. Paperwork Reduction Analysis
44. The Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking does not contain
proposed information collection requirements subject to the Paperwork
Reduction Act of 1995, Public Law 104-13. In addition, therefore, it
does not contain any proposed information collection burden for small
business concerns with fewer than 25 employees, pursuant to the Small
Business Paperwork Relief Act of 2002, Public Law 107-198, see 44
U.S.C. 3506(c)(4).
2. Initial Regulatory Flexibility Analysis
45. The USF/ICC Transformation Order and FNPRM, 76 FR 78384,
December 16, 2011, included an Initial Regulatory Flexibility Analysis
(IRFA) pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 603, exploring the potential impact on
small entities of the Commission's proposal. The Commission invites
parties to file comments on the IRFA in light of this additional
notice.
3. Ex Parte Presentations
46. The proceeding this document initiates shall be treated as a
``permit-but-disclose'' proceeding in accordance with the Commission's
ex parte rules. Persons making ex parte presentations must file a copy
of any written presentation or a memorandum summarizing any oral
presentation within two business days after the presentation (unless a
different deadline applicable to the Sunshine period applies). Persons
making oral ex parte presentations are reminded that memoranda
summarizing the presentation must (1) list all persons attending or
otherwise participating in the meeting at which the ex parte
presentation was made, and (2) summarize all data presented and
arguments made during the presentation. If the presentation consisted
in whole or in part of the presentation of data or arguments already
reflected in the presenter's written comments, memoranda or other
filings in the proceeding, the presenter may provide citations to such
data or arguments in his or her prior comments, memoranda, or other
filings (specifying the relevant page and/or paragraph numbers where
such data or arguments can be found) in lieu of summarizing them in the
memorandum. Documents shown or given to Commission staff during ex
parte meetings are deemed to be written ex parte presentations and must
be filed consistent with Sec. 1.1206(b). In proceedings governed by
Sec. 1.49(f) or for which the Commission has made available a method
of electronic filing, written ex parte presentations and memoranda
summarizing oral ex parte presentations, and all attachments thereto,
must be filed through the electronic comment filing system available
for that proceeding, and must be filed in their native format (e.g.,
.doc, .xml, .ppt, searchable .pdf). Participants in this proceeding
should familiarize themselves with the Commission's ex parte rules.
4. Filing Instructions
47. 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 in the Dates section of this
document. Comments may be filed using the Commission's Electronic
Comment Filing System (ECFS). See Electronic Filing of Documents in
Rulemaking Proceedings, 63 FR 24121, May 1, 1998.
For further information, contact Alexander Minard, Acting Deputy
Chief, Telecommunications Access Policy Division, Wireline Competition
Bureau, at Alexander.Minard@fcc.gov, or at 202-418-0428.
[[Page 11373]]
B. Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking in WC Docket No. 13-97
1. Initial Regulatory Flexibility Certification
48. The Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980, as amended (RFA),
requires that agencies prepare a regulatory flexibility analysis for
notice-and-comment rulemaking proceedings, unless the agency certifies
that ``the rule will not have a significant economic impact on a
substantial number of small entities.'' The RFA generally defines
``small entity'' as having the same meaning as the terms ``small
business,'' ``small organization,'' and ``small governmental
jurisdiction.'' In addition, the term ``small business'' has the same
meaning as the term ``small business concern'' under the Small Business
Act. A small business concern is one which: (1) Is independently owned
and operated; (2) is not dominant in its field of operation; and (3)
satisfies any additional criteria established by the Small Business
Administration (SBA).
49. In this Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, the Commission
states that there is an ongoing need for research into the future of
telephone numbering, proposes funding telephone numbering research to
support initiatives like the testbed described in the Order in WC
Docket No. 13-97 described above, and seeks comment on the appropriate
budget and funding. The Commission notes that it expects the funding to
maintain the testbed to be quite modest (approximately $100 per month)
for server resources, that it could potentially be funded by
contributions already collected in association with telephone numbering
management, and seeks comment on this. The Commission seeks comment on
how funding for such research should be determined, the types of awards
that would be appropriate, whether the Commission should seek NANC
input on what research needs to be conducted, and the timeframe for any
such input from NANC. This Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking only
seeks comment on funding and budget for research and development
projects and does not propose new rules, burdens, or requirements.
50. The Commission therefore certifies, pursuant to the RFA, that
the proposals in this Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, if adopted, will
not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small
entities. If commenters believe that the proposals discussed in this
Notice of Proposed Rulemaking require additional RFA analysis, they
should include a discussion of these issues in their comments and
additionally label them as RFA comments. The Commission will send a
copy of this Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, including a copy of this
initial regulatory flexibility certification, to the Chief Counsel for
Advocacy of the SBA. In addition, a copy of this Notice of Proposed
Rulemaking and this initial certification will be published in the
Federal Register.
2. Ex Parte Presentations
51. The proceeding this document initiates shall be treated as a
``permit-but-disclose'' proceeding in accordance with the Commission's
ex parte rules. Persons making ex parte presentations must file a copy
of any written presentation or a memorandum summarizing any oral
presentation within two business days after the presentation (unless a
different deadline applicable to the Sunshine period applies). Persons
making oral ex parte presentations are reminded that memoranda
summarizing the presentation must (1) list all persons attending or
otherwise participating in the meeting at which the ex parte
presentation was made, and (2) summarize all data presented and
arguments made during the presentation. If the presentation consisted
in whole or in part of the presentation of data or arguments already
reflected in the presenter's written comments, memoranda or other
filings in the proceeding, the presenter may provide citations to such
data or arguments in his or her prior comments, memoranda, or other
filings (specifying the relevant page and/or paragraph numbers where
such data or arguments can be found) in lieu of summarizing them in the
memorandum. Documents shown or given to Commission staff during ex
parte meetings are deemed to be written ex parte presentations and must
be filed consistent with Sec. 1.1206(b). In proceedings governed by
Sec. 1.49(f) or for which the Commission has made available a method
of electronic filing, written ex parte presentations and memoranda
summarizing oral ex parte presentations, and all attachments thereto,
must be filed through the electronic comment filing system available
for that proceeding, and must be filed in their native format (e.g.,
.doc, .xml, .ppt, searchable .pdf). Participants in this proceeding
should familiarize themselves with the Commission's ex parte rules.
3. Filing Instructions
52. 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 in the Dates section of this
document. Comments may be filed using the Commission's Electronic
Comment Filing System (ECFS). See Electronic Filing of Documents in
Rulemaking Proceedings, 63 FR 24121, May 1, 1998.
For further information, contact Robert Cannon, Senior Counsel,
Office of Strategic Planning and Policy Analysis, at
Robert.Cannon@fcc.gov, or at (202) 418-2421.
IV. Ordering Clauses
A. Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking in WC Docket No. 10-90
53. It is further ordered, that pursuant to the authority contained
in sections 1, 2, 4(i), 201-206, 214, 218-220, 251, 252, 254, 256,
303(r), 332, 403 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, and
section 706 of the Telecommunications Act of 1996, 47 U.S.C. 151, 152,
154(i), 201-206, 214, 218-220, 251, 252, 254, 256 303(r), 332, 403, and
1302, and sections 1.1 and 1.1421 of the Commission's rules, 47 CFR
1.1, 1.421, this Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking in WC Docket No.
10-90 IS hereby adopted.
54. It is further ordered that pursuant to applicable procedures
set forth in sections 1.415 and 1.419 of the Commission's rules, 47 CFR
1.415, 1.419, interested parties may file comments on the Further
Notice of Proposed Rulemaking in WC Docket No. 10-90 or WC Docket No.
13-97 on or before March 31, 2014 and reply comments on or before April
14, 2014.
55. It is further ordered, that the Commission's Consumer and
Governmental Affairs Bureau, Reference Information Center, shall send a
copy of this Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking in WC Docket No. 10-
90, including the Initial Regulatory Flexibility Analysis, to the Chief
Counsel for Advocacy of the Small Business Administration.
B. Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking in WC Docket No. 13-97
56. It is further ordered that pursuant to Sections 1, 4, 201, 251,
and 303(r) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C.
151, 154, 201, 251, 303(r), and section 1.1 of the Commission's rules,
47 CFR 1.1, the Notice of Proposed Rulemaking in WC Docket No. 13-97 is
hereby adopted.
Federal Comunications Commission.
Marlene H. Dortch,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2014-04312 Filed 2-27-14; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6712-01-P