Disruptions to Communications, 45095-45118 [2016-16273]
Download as PDF
Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 133 / Tuesday, July 12, 2016 / Proposed Rules
impose any requirements on small
entities. The agency has determined that
neither of the companies affected by this
proposed reconsideration document is
considered to be a small entity.
D. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act
(UMRA)
This action does not contain an
unfunded mandate of $100 million or
more as described in UMRA, 2 U.S.C.
1531–1538, and does not significantly or
uniquely affect small governments. The
action imposes no enforceable duty on
any state, local, or tribal governments or
the private sector.
E. Executive Order 13132: Federalism
This action does not have federalism
implications. It will not have substantial
direct effects on the states, on the
relationship between the national
government and the states, or on the
distribution of power and
responsibilities among the various
levels of government.
F. Executive Order 13175: Consultation
and Coordination With Indian Tribal
Governments
This action does not have tribal
implications as specified in Executive
Order 13175. There are no ferroalloys
production facilities that are owned or
operated by tribal governments. Thus,
Executive Order 13175 does not apply
to this action.
G. Executive Order 13045: Protection of
Children From Environmental Health
Risks and Safety Risks
mstockstill on DSK3G9T082PROD with PROPOSALS
This action is not subject to Executive
Order 13045 because it is not
economically significant as defined in
Executive Order 12866, and because the
EPA does not believe the environmental
health or safety risks addressed by this
action present a disproportionate risk to
children. The health risk assessments
completed for the final rule are
presented in the Residual Risk
Assessment for the Ferroalloys Source
Category in Support of the 2015 Final
Rule document, which is available in
the docket for this action (EPA–HQ–
OAR–2010–0895–0281), and are
discussed in section V.G of the
preamble for the final rule (80 FR
37366).
I. National Technology Transfer and
Advancement Act (NTTAA)
This action involves technical
standards. In the final rule for this
source category, the EPA decided to use
ASTM D7520–13, Standard Test Method
for Determining the Opacity in a Plume
in an Outdoor Ambient Atmosphere, for
measuring opacity from the shop
buildings. This standard is an
acceptable alternative to EPA Method 9
and is available from the American
Society for Testing and Materials
(ASTM), 100 Barr Harbor Drive, Post
Office Box C700, West Conshohocken,
PA 19428–2959. See https://
www.astm.org/. For this proposed
reconsideration action, the EPA has
agreed to reconsider the use of ASTM
D7520–13 as the only method to be used
to measure opacity from the shop
buildings.
J. Executive Order 12898: Federal
Actions To Address Environmental
Justice in Minority Populations and
Low-Income Populations
The EPA believes that this action does
not have disproportionately high and
adverse human health or environmental
effects on minority populations, lowincome populations, and/or indigenous
peoples, as specified in Executive Order
12898 (59FR 7629, February 16, 1994)
because it does not affect the level of
protection provided to human health or
the environment. This action only
includes reconsideration of certain
issues of the final rule that will not
affect the emission standards that were
finalized on June 30, 2015.
List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 63
Environmental protection,
Administrative practice and procedures,
Air pollution control, Hazardous
substances, Intergovernmental relations,
Reporting and recordkeeping
requirements.
Dated: June 30, 2016.
Gina McCarthy,
Administrator.
[FR Doc. 2016–16450 Filed 7–11–16; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560–50–P
FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS
COMMISSION
H. Executive Order 13211: Actions
Concerning Regulations That
Significantly Affect Energy Supply,
Distribution, or Use
47 CFR Part 4
This action is not subject to Executive
Order 13211 because it is not a
significant regulatory action under
Executive Order 12866.
AGENCY:
VerDate Sep<11>2014
18:07 Jul 11, 2016
Jkt 238001
[PS Docket No. 15–80, 11–82; FCC 16–63]
Disruptions to Communications
Federal Communications
Commission.
ACTION: Proposed rule.
PO 00000
Frm 00026
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
45095
In this document, the Federal
Communications Commission
(Commission) seeks comment on: A
proposal to update the Commission’s
outage reporting requirement rules to
address broadband network disruptions,
including packet-based disruptions
based on network performance
degradation; proposed changes to the
rules governing interconnected voice
over Internet protocol (VoIP) outage
reporting to include disruptions based
on network performance degradation,
update our outage definition to address
incidents involving specified network
components; and modify the reporting
process to make it consistent with other
services; reporting of call failures in the
radio access network and local access
network, and on geography-based
reporting of wireless outages in rural
areas; and, refining the covered critical
communications at airports subject to
the Commission’s outage reporting
requirements.
DATES: Submit comments on or before
August 26, 2016, and reply comments
on or before September 12, 2016.
ADDRESSES: You may submit comments,
identified by PS Docket No. 15–80 and
11–82, by any of the following methods:
• Federal Communications
Commission’s Web site: https://
fjallfoss.fcc.gov/ecfs2/. Follow the
instructions for submitting comments.
• Filings can be sent by hand or
messenger delivery, by commercial
overnight courier, or by first-class or
overnight U.S. Postal Service mail. See
the SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION Section
for more instructions.
• 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:
Brenda D. Villanueva, Attorney Advisor,
Public Safety and Homeland Security
Bureau, (202) 418–7005, or
brenda.villanueva@fcc.gov.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: This is a
summary of the Commission’s Further
Notice of Proposed Rulemaking
(FNPRM), FCC 16–63, adopted May 25,
2016, and released May 26, 2016. The
full text of this document is available for
inspection and copying during normal
business hours in the FCC Reference
Center (Room CY–A257), 445 12th
Street SW., Washington, DC 20554 or
SUMMARY:
E:\FR\FM\12JYP1.SGM
12JYP1
mstockstill on DSK3G9T082PROD with PROPOSALS
45096
Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 133 / Tuesday, July 12, 2016 / Proposed Rules
via ECFS at https://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/
ecfs/. The full text may also be
downloaded at: https://apps.fcc.gov/
edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-1663A1.pdf.
Pursuant to sections 1.415 and 1.419
of the Commission’s rules, 47 CFR
1.415, 1.419, interested parties may file
comments and reply comments on or
before the dates indicated on the first
page of this document. Comments may
be filed using the Commission’s
Electronic Comment Filing System
(ECFS). See Electronic Filing of
Documents in Rulemaking Proceedings,
63 FR 24121 (1998).
• Electronic Filers: Comments may be
filed electronically using the Internet by
accessing the ECFS: https://apps.fcc.gov/
ecfs/.
• Paper Filers: Parties who choose to
file by paper must file an original and
one copy of each filing. If more than one
docket or rulemaking number appears in
the caption of this proceeding, filers
must submit two additional copies for
each additional docket or rulemaking
number.
Filings can be sent by hand or
messenger delivery, by commercial
overnight courier, or by first-class or
overnight U.S. Postal Service mail. All
filings must be addressed to the
Commission’s Secretary, Office of the
Secretary, Federal Communications
Commission.
• All hand-delivered or messengerdelivered paper filings for the
Commission’s Secretary must be
delivered to FCC Headquarters at 445
12th St. SW., Room TW–A325,
Washington, DC 20554. The filing hours
are 8:00 a.m. to 7:00 p.m. All hand
deliveries must be held together with
rubber bands or fasteners. Any
envelopes and boxes must be disposed
of before entering the building.
• Commercial overnight mail (other
than U.S. Postal Service Express Mail
and Priority Mail) must be sent to 9300
East Hampton Drive, Capitol Heights,
MD 20743.
• U.S. Postal Service first-class,
Express, and Priority mail must be
addressed to 445 12th Street SW.,
Washington, DC 20554.
People with Disabilities: To request
materials in accessible formats for
people with disabilities (braille, large
print, electronic files, audio format),
send an email to fcc504@fcc.gov or call
the Consumer & Governmental Affairs
Bureau at 202–418–0530 (voice), 202–
418–0432 (tty).
Synopsis of Further Notice of Proposed
Rulemaking
In this document, the Federal
Communication Commission
VerDate Sep<11>2014
18:07 Jul 11, 2016
Jkt 238001
(Commission) seeks comment on
proposals to modernize its outage
reporting rules to increase its ability to
detect adverse outage trends and
facilitate industrywide network
improvements. The Commission seeks
comment on whether and how to update
its part 4 outage reporting requirements
to address broadband, an increasingly
essential element in our nation’s
communications networks, along with
other streamline proposals. This action
seeks to ensure that the outage reporting
system keeps pace with technological
change and addresses evolving
consumer preference impact in order to
be better equipped to promote the safety
of life and property through the use of
wire and radio communication.
In a companion document, a Report
and Order and Order on
Reconsideration in PS Docket No. 15–
80, and ET Docket No. 04–35,
respectively, the Commission adopts
several proposals in a Notice of
Proposed Rulemaking in 2015, and
resolves several outstanding matters
related to its adoption of the part 4 rules
in a Report and Order in 2004.
I. Further Notice of Proposed
Rulemaking
1. As service providers transition from
legacy network facilities to IP-based
networks, the Commission must
continue to safeguard the reliability and
resiliency of all of these interrelated
systems. As we have observed before,
broadband networks and services
increasingly characterize the
environment for the nation’s 9–1–1 and
NG911 emergency communications and,
thus, are central to the nation’s
emergency preparedness, management
of crises, and essential public safetyrelated communications. To meet the
challenge of assuring broadband
networks in order to carry out its
foundational public safety mission, the
Commission must maintain visibility
into TDM-based networks while
simultaneously ensuring similar
visibility into commercial IP and hybrid
networks. Our current part 4 rules
establish outage reporting requirements
that are in many ways centered on
‘‘circuit-switched telephony’’ and
circuits that involve a ‘‘serving central
office.’’ The proposals in this FNPRM,
among other things, aim to update the
part 4 rules to ensure reliability of
broadband networks used to deploy
critical communications services, used
both for emergency and non-emergency
purposes. As discussed below, we
believe the part 4 rules can likely
provide the Commission with the
necessary situational awareness about
these broadband networks by updating
PO 00000
Frm 00027
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
them to (1) extend their application to
broadband Internet access services
(BIAS), and (2) revising the manner in
which they apply to existing and future
dedicated services to ensure a
broadband emphasis. In this FNPRM,
we propose to use the term ‘‘dedicated
service’’ to refer to those services
defined in 2013’s Special Access Data
Collection Implementation Order, i.e.,
‘‘service that ‘transports data between
two or more designated points, e.g.,
between an End User’s premises and a
point-of-presence, between the central
office of a local exchange carrier (LEC)
and a point-of-presence, or between two
End User premises, at a rate of at least
1.5 Mbps in both directions (upstream/
downstream) with prescribed
performance requirements that include
bandwidth, latency, or error-rate
guarantees or other parameters that
define delivery under a Tariff or in a
service-level agreement.’ ’’).These
actions, we believe, will ensure that the
Commission’s ability to monitor
communications reliability and
resiliency keeps pace with technological
change and the broadband-based
capabilities and uses of today’s evolving
networks.
2. More specifically, we: (i) Seek
comment on proposed reporting
requirements, metrics, and narrative
elements for both BIAS and dedicated
services outages and disruptions,
including for network performance
degradation; and (ii) propose to amend
the Commission’s existing outage
reporting requirements for
interconnected VoIP to reflect
disruptions resulting from network
performance degradation. In addition,
we seek further comment on two
proposals raised in the Notice and
aimed at increasing our awareness of
certain outages: (i) Reporting call
failures in both the wireless and
wireline/interconnected VoIP access
networks; and (ii) reporting outages that
affect large geographic areas but do not
trigger the user-minute threshold
because of sparse population. We also
seek comment on establishing outage
reporting triggers for certain airport
communications assets (‘‘special offices
and facilities’’) designated as TSP Level
3 and Level 4 facilities. Finally, we seek
to determine the most cost-effective
approaches to accomplish these
objectives, and accordingly seek
comment on potential costs and benefits
associated with each proposal in the
FNPRM. To that end, commenters
should provide specific data and
information, such as actual or estimated
dollar figures, and include any
supporting documents and descriptions
E:\FR\FM\12JYP1.SGM
12JYP1
mstockstill on DSK3G9T082PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 133 / Tuesday, July 12, 2016 / Proposed Rules
of how any data was gathered and
analyzed.
3. The nation’s transition from legacy
(i.e., TDM-based) communications
platforms to IP for communications
services has been steadily progressing
since the last time the Commission
expanded its outage reporting
requirements to include ‘‘newly
emerging forms of communication’’ in
2004. For one thing, consumers have
significantly increased their dependence
on broadband networks. Beyond
consumer technologies, important
sectors are relying increasingly on
interconnected VoIP and broadband
services. Indeed, in 2016, broadband
service is a central part of most
Americans’ lives.
4. Reliance by enterprise customers
on dedicated services also continues to
increase, reflecting the rapid transition
of the nation’s businesses and
governmental institutions to broadband
powered communications. As we
recently observed in the Special Access
proceedings, such services are ‘‘an
important building block for creating
private or virtual private networks
across a wide geographic area and
enabling the secure and reliable transfer
of data between locations.’’ They can
also ‘‘provide dedicated access to the
Internet and access to innovative
broadband services.’’ They are used by
mobile wireless providers to backhaul
voice and data traffic from cell sites to
their mobile telephone switching
offices. Branch banks and gas stations
use such connections for ATMs and
credit card readers. Businesses,
governmental institutions, hospitals and
medical offices, and even schools and
libraries use them to create their own
private networks and to access other
services such as Voice over IP (VoIP),
Internet access, television, cloud-based
hosting services, video conferencing,
and secure remote access. Carriers buy
them as a critical input for delivering
their own customized, advanced service
offerings to end users. We believe it is
critical that our outage reporting rules,
long applicable to communications
services such as special access, continue
to provide an appropriate measure of
network resiliency, reliability and
security assurance for today’s and
tomorrow’s broadband network services.
5. The Commission has long
recognized the importance of these
trends for outage reporting. In 2010, the
National Broadband Plan called on the
Commission to extend part 4 outage
reporting rules to broadband Internet
service providers and interconnected
VoIP service providers, citing a ‘‘lack of
data [that] limited our understanding of
network operations and of how to
VerDate Sep<11>2014
18:07 Jul 11, 2016
Jkt 238001
prevent future outages.’’ The following
year, the Commission proposed to
safeguard reliable 911 service by
extending outage reporting rules to
broadband Internet access service
(BIAS) and backbone Internet service as
well as interconnected VoIP service. In
the 2012 Part 4 VoIP Order, the
Commission adopted rules to extend
reporting requirements to
interconnected VoIP service providers
for outages resulting in a complete loss
of service, but deferred action on the
remaining proposals. At the time, the
Commission indicated that its proposals
to extend outage reporting obligations to
broadband providers ‘‘deserve[d] further
study.’’
6. Numerous commenters in this and
other proceedings have urged the
Commission to closely monitor changes
in network reliability as 911 networks
migrate to IP, and others assert that
some communities are increasingly
dependent upon robust mobile
broadband connectivity to deliver, in
part, public safety services necessary for
modern life. As federal funds are spent
to ensure deployment of broadband,
e.g., through programs such as the
Connect America Fund, we expect
recipients of these funds to build out
networks that serve the public interest
through reliable access to critical
communications, e.g., 911. The U.S.
Government Accountability Office
(GAO) recognized that ‘‘[t]he
communications sector is transitioning
from legacy networks to an all-Internet
Protocol (IP) environment, leading
consumer and public safety groups,
among others, to question how reliably
the nation’s communications networks
will function during times of crisis.’’
Echoing the Broadband Opportunity
Council, in its 2015 report GAO
questioned whether the Commission
can currently fulfill its information
needs through existing efforts to collect
comprehensive, nationwide data on
technology transitions, and
recommended that we develop a
strategy and gather information on the
‘‘IP transition to assess its potential
effects on public safety and consumers.’’
It also noted that this ‘‘would help [the
Commission] address these areas of
uncertainty as it oversees the IP
transition,’’ and enable ‘‘data-driven
decisions.’’ We agree and seek comment
below on mechanisms to improve the
quantity and quality of data collected on
the impact of increased broadband
availability and usage.
7. In the fulfillment of its public
safety responsibilities, no context is
more important for the Commission to
research and monitor the technology
transition than in the deployment of IP-
PO 00000
Frm 00028
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
45097
based Next Generation 911 (NG911)
networks. NENA’s i3 architecture has
become the de facto standard for NG911
network design, in which voice, text,
and data communications to, from, and
between PSAPs operate over an
Emergency Services IP network
(ESINet). The Commission has observed
that ‘‘new capabilities will enhance the
accessibility of 911 to the public (e.g.,
by enabling video and text-to-911 for
persons with speech and hearing
disabilities), and will provide PSAPs
with enhanced information that will
enable emergency responders to assess
and respond to emergencies more
quickly.’’ Service providers typically
market such improvements to 911 as a
way to offer better service at lower cost
and an opportunity to phase out
obsolete technologies.
8. Nevertheless, we acknowledge that
‘‘evolving technology, while providing
many benefits to PSAPs and the public,
also has introduced new and different
risks.’’ For example, 911 service can
now be disrupted by software
malfunctions, database failures, and
errors in conversion from legacy to IPbased network protocols, and such
disruptions can occur in unique parts of
the IP network that lack analogous
counterparts in legacy architecture.
Moreover, the consolidation of critical
resources in a small number of
databases increases the risk of a 911
service failure that affects many PSAPs
at once, even across state lines or
potentially impacting all of a service
provider’s customers nationwide. Given
the growing deployment of ESINets and
the Commission’s specific interest in
monitoring the reliability and resiliency
of PSAP connectivity, we believe that it
is critical for the Commission to have
visibility into the networks of all
providers supporting ESINet service and
other critical infrastructure to fully
understand reliability and resiliency
factors associated with public safety and
critical infrastructure communications.
9. For both emergency and nonemergency services, broadband is now
(or rapidly is becoming) the
communications sector’s essential
transmission technology and, thus, ‘‘an
integral component of the U.S.
economy, underlying the operations of
all businesses, public safety
organizations, and government.’’ These
communications sector developments,
both in NG911 deployment and in the
nation’s communications sector more
broadly, illustrate how important it is
that the Commission’s outage reporting
requirements evolve at a similar pace as
the communications sector. As 911
services evolve toward NG911
combinations of voice, data, and video,
E:\FR\FM\12JYP1.SGM
12JYP1
45098
Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 133 / Tuesday, July 12, 2016 / Proposed Rules
and as voice and data are exchanged
over the same infrastructure, it is
necessary for the Commission to refocus
its lens for outage reporting and reexamine its part 4 reporting metrics to
ensure that they collect the necessary
data on the reliability of broadband
networks. Access to such objective
information would ensure that the
evolution of critical communications
services does not pose an obstacle to the
Commission’s established consumer
protection, public safety, and national
security statutory missions.
mstockstill on DSK3G9T082PROD with PROPOSALS
A. Broadband Network Outage
Reporting
1. The Need for Updated Broadband
Network Disruption and Outage
Reporting
10. Broadband networks now provide
an expanding portion of today’s
emergency and non-emergency
communications and have technological
flexibility that allows service providers
to offer both old and new services over
a single architecture. We observe that
broadband networks come with their
own advantages and challenges;
particularly, outages and service
disruptions can occur at both at the
physical infrastructure and the service
levels. We recognize that network
outage or service disruptions at the
application level in which various
services are provided (e.g., streaming
video, video teleconferencing) have
different performance and network
management requirements than those at
the physical network infrastructure
level. Broadband networks are just as
vulnerable to physical outages and
service disruptions as the publicswitched telephone network (PSTN),
but are also susceptible to attacks at the
application layer, which may not affect
the underlying physical infrastructure.
We seek comment on these observations
as they relate to our proposed
broadband outage reporting
requirements.
11. We further observe that broadband
networks’ interrelated architectural
makeup renders them more susceptible
to large-scale service outages. Growing
reliance on remote servers and softwaredefined control has increased the scale
of outages, as compared to those in the
legacy circuit switched-environment.
Through news accounts, we have
observed recent outage events impacting
customers across several states.
Moreover, broadband networks’
architectural efficiencies can actually
magnify the impact of customer serviceaffecting outages that do occur. For
example, ‘‘sunny day’’ outages—caused
by technical issues rather than by
VerDate Sep<11>2014
18:07 Jul 11, 2016
Jkt 238001
environmental ones—have been shown
to jeopardize 911 communications
services, sometimes across several
states. Indeed, broadband networks can
support centralized services, but, if not
engineered well, they can harm
resiliency objectives. We believe that
these challenges will likely become
more pronounced as broadband
increasingly comes to define the
nation’s communication networks. This
new paradigm of larger, more impactful
outages suggests that there would be
significant value in collecting data on
outages and disruptions to commercial
broadband service providers. We seek
comment on this view.
12. Given the potential for broadscale, highly-disruptive outages in the
broadband environment—and
particularly those impacting 911
service—the adoption of updated
broadband reporting requirements
would likely provide the Commission
with more consistent and reliable data
on critical communications outages and
enable it to perform its mission more
effectively in light of evolving
technologies and service offerings. Over
the past decade, review and analysis of
outage reports have enabled the
Commission to facilitate and promote
systemic improvements to reliability,
both through industry outreach, the
CSRIC, and formal policy initiatives.
The analysis of trends identified from
our authoritative outage report
repository has proven to be a useful tool
for the Commission in working with
providers to address outages and
facilitate sector-wide improvements. As
NG911 functionality becomes
centralized within broadband networks,
network vulnerabilities specific to
emergency services will emerge, and the
Commission should be well-informed of
such vulnerabilities. We seek comment
on this position.
a. Mandatory vs. Voluntary Reporting
13. In the 2011 Part 4 Notice, the
Commission asked whether and how
outage reporting should to be extended
to broadband. At the time numerous
commenters challenged the idea, with
some suggesting that mandatory outage
reporting is not suitable for broadband
packet-switched networks given built in
redundancies, and the complexity of
tracing disruptions to a single cause.
14. Where the Commission has
required mandatory reporting of
disruptions to IP communications (such
as interconnected VoIP
communications), 47 CFR 4.3(h), 4.9(g),
we have found substantial value from
that reporting. We believe that the same
is true for other IP-based networks and
services that have become such a typical
PO 00000
Frm 00029
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
feature of our communications
networks. Additionally, in the 2012 Part
4 Order, the Commission observed that
‘‘the record . . . reflect[ed] a
willingness on the part of broadband
Internet service providers to participate
in a voluntary process’’ to improve the
Commission’s awareness of broadband
outages and their impact on public
safety. Over the past four years,
broadband providers have not come
forward with concrete proposals for
such a process or even expressed such
an interest in voluntary reporting. As
with previous attempts at voluntary
reporting, we are concerned that any
voluntary regime for broadband outages
would be unsuccessful in achieving a
level of participation necessary to make
the program effective. We seek comment
on this position, and how to apply the
lessons learned from our previous
voluntary outage reporting regime.
Finally, as the Commission observed in
2011, ‘‘even if incentives did motivate
individual market participants to
optimize their own reliability, they do
not necessarily optimize systemic
reliability.’’ We believe that mandatory
reporting of broadband network outages
would motivate such optimization, and,
thus, would advance the public interest.
We seek comment on this view.
15. For the reasons set out above, we
reaffirm our belief that mandatory
reporting requirements would have a
positive effect on the reliability and
resiliency of broadband networks.
Therefore, we tentatively conclude that
broadband network outage reporting
should be mandatory. We seek comment
on this tentative conclusion and seek
further comment on the issues first
raised generally in the 2011 Part 4
Notice.
2. Proposed Coverage of Broadband
Outages
16. In proposing updated broadband
outage reporting rules, we must identify
the appropriate set of broadband—and
broadband-constituent—services,
facilities, and infrastructure that are
reasonably appropriate for reporting
requirements. In the 2015 Open Internet
Order, we described the broadband
communications environment to
include a number of different market
segments and services, including
arrangements underlying those services.
Among other things, we drew a
distinction between networks and
services deploying broadband
capabilities provided to consumers,
those deploying such capabilities to
businesses and other enterprises, and
those providing Internet backbone
services. And we specifically excluded
from broadband Internet access service
E:\FR\FM\12JYP1.SGM
12JYP1
mstockstill on DSK3G9T082PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 133 / Tuesday, July 12, 2016 / Proposed Rules
(BIAS) enterprise service offerings such
as ‘‘special access services’’ and their
functional equivalents and other nonBIAS services, e.g., Internet access,
interconnection, backbone service,
traffic exchange, non-BIAS data
services.
17. In the Business Data Services/
Special Access NPRM, including its
adjunct 2015 Data Collection, we further
described the ‘‘special access’’ or
‘‘dedicated services’’ that form critical
portions of the broadband ecosystem,
i.e.,—links that ‘‘enabl[e] secure and
reliable transfer of data between
locations.’’ Although such services are
already addressed in part 4 to some
extent, which as noted above broadly
defines those ‘‘communications
services’’ subject to these rules, our part
4 reporting standards do not ensure that
outage reporting illuminates broadband
issues critical to functionality of these
services. We believe that the public
safety goals to be accomplished through
Part 4 assurance for today’s broadband
communications world can best be
advanced if we extend the scope of our
rules to BIAS, for the first time, and
update and clarify those requirements
for dedicated services so that we receive
broadband-specific outage information
for those services, and that we ensure
our requirements apply equally and
neutrally regardless of technology or
provider type. We seek comment on this
view.
18. For broadband outage reporting
purposes, we believe developing
reporting metrics that clearly address
this functionality to be critical to our
continued ability to obtain situational
awareness with respect to reliability of
the Nation’s most important
communications services. For the
reasons set forth below, we tentatively
conclude that the public safety goals to
be accomplished through Part 4
assurance for today’s broadband
communications world can most
reasonably be advanced by extending
those rules to cover BIAS, and by
updating those requirements for
measuring the reliability of dedicated
services. In our view, these steps are
likely to provide us with most if not all
of the information reasonably necessary
for purposes of our Part 4 mission,
while avoiding the need to subject other
service providers (such as Internet
backbone providers) to these reporting
requirements. Our proposal will also
ensure that our requirements apply
equally and neutrally regardless of
technology or provider type. We seek
comment on these views. By taking the
actions now proposed, we believe we
will have the ability to ensure greater
broadband network reliability,
VerDate Sep<11>2014
18:07 Jul 11, 2016
Jkt 238001
resiliency, and security. We believe,
thus, that this approach would ensure
comprehensive outage reporting that, for
BIAS and dedicated services, would
encompass: (i) All customer market
segments to include—mass market,
small business, medium size business,
specific access services, and enterpriseclass (including PSAPs, governmental
purchasers, carriers, critical
infrastructure industries, large academic
institutional users, etc.); (ii) all
providers of such services on a
technology neutral basis; and (iii) all
purchasers (end users) of those services
without limitation. We seek comment
on this view.
a. Broadband Internet Access Service
(BIAS)
19. The Commission defines BIAS in
47 CFR 8.2(a) as:
[a] mass-market retail service by wire or radio
that provides the capability to transmit data
to and receive data from all or substantially
all Internet endpoints, including any
capabilities that are incidental to and enable
the operation of the communications service,
but excluding dial-up Internet access service.
This term also encompasses any service that
the Commission finds to be providing a
functional equivalent of the service described
in the previous sentence . . . .
BIAS includes those services offered
over facilities leased or owned, wireless
or wireline, to residences and
individuals, small businesses, certain
schools and libraries and rural health
entities. BIAS does not include
enterprise service offerings, which are
typically offered to larger organizations
through customized or individuallynegotiated arrangements, or special
access (‘‘dedicated’’) services. Some
NG911 systems use BIAS to support
critical functions like transmission of
location information, making it of
particular interest to the Commission as
NG911 is rolled out. BIAS is also
increasingly integral for everyday life;
according to the Commission’s latest
broadband subscribership data, over
250,000,000 Americans purchase
wireline or wireless (or both, typically)
BIAS to meet an ever-expanding array of
their communications needs. These
services are essential for work, family
and community activities, social
engagements and leisure, and are
increasingly vital for emergency services
communications whether as voice,
texting or other data transmission.
Given BIAS’ ubiquitous penetration
throughout the American landscape and
the multiple important emergency and
non-emergency uses for which
Americans consume BIAS, we recognize
the same, if not higher, need for
assurance through outage reporting
PO 00000
Frm 00030
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
45099
under part 4 as we have long recognized
for other communications services. We
seek comment on this understanding
and approach.
20. Existing part 4 rules define
relevant providers to include ‘‘affiliated
and non-affiliated entities that maintain
or provide communications networks or
services used by the provider,’’ and
require reporting of ‘‘all pertinent
information on the outage.’’ We seek
specific comment on whether BIAS
providers could be used as a central
reporting point for all broadband
network outages, i.e., whether our part
4 assurance goals for broadband outage
reporting can be effectuated through, or
should be limited to, an approach in
which only BIAS providers (as opposed
to other entities providing networks or
services) would be required to report.
We ask commenters to address BIAS
providers’ services relationships with
other providers (i.e., entities that
provide IP transport underlying the
BIAS offering), and particularly
whether, and the extent to which they
share information (formally or
informally) relevant to outage reporting.
Do providers typically discuss or notify
each other in the event of disruptions?
Do or can BIAS providers enter into
service level or other agreements that
contain requirements that enable them
to obtain adequate information
concerning the source of outages that
originate with such other providers?
Should our rules impose an obligation
on BIAS providers to provide such
information in their part 4 reports?
21. In what way is the Commission’s
experience with entities that ‘‘maintain
or provide communications networks or
services used by the provider’’ (e.g., for
legacy voice communications or
interconnected VoIP service) instructive
in its consideration of these issues
associated with BIAS outage reporting?
Or, are there sufficient technical or
operational differences between BIAS
and entities already covered by part 4 as
to warrant a new approach? If so, what
are those differences and how should
the Commission approach BIAS outage
reporting to address those differences in
ways that promote effective outage
reporting? What actions could the
Commission take to ensure that BIAS
providers can obtain sufficient
information in the event of a service
outage about the source and cause of the
outage? We also seek comment on
whether a BIAS-only approach would
sufficiently capture critical
communications, i.e., communications
involving critical infrastructure, needed
for NS/EP, or otherwise associated with
public safety or emergency
preparedness. If it does not, should the
E:\FR\FM\12JYP1.SGM
12JYP1
45100
Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 133 / Tuesday, July 12, 2016 / Proposed Rules
Commission extend its reporting
requirements directly to other entities
that maintain or provide
communications networks or services
used by the BIAS provider?
b. Dedicated Services
mstockstill on DSK3G9T082PROD with PROPOSALS
22. In our Dedicated Services/Special
Access proceeding, we have closely
examined the evolving (in terms of
scope, array and use of services) and
expanding (in terms of participants,
including new entrants) market for IPand other data protocol-based packet
services to enterprises and other
segments and purchasers not included
within the mass market level served by
BIAS providers. These dedicated
services power the fullest range of large
data pipe (high capacity) services, e.g.,
circuit-based TDM facilities like DS3s,
or data network transmission (packetbased) facilities such as ‘‘Ethernet’’, and
are deployed without geographic
restraint (i.e., in use for ‘‘last mile’’,
‘‘middle mile’’, ‘‘long haul’’, etc.).
Although DS3s and DS1s, both of which
are longstanding dedicated services
‘‘warhorses’’, have always been subject
to outage reporting (as have other ‘‘twoway voice and/or data
communications’’, 47 CFR 4.3(b)), our
reporting rules may provide insufficient
clarity as to non-TDM dedicated
services such as ‘‘Ethernet.’’ We seek to
provide both broadband-specific
reporting emphasis and scope of
covered services clarity in this FNPRM.
In the past, our rules and reporting
emphasis under part 4 have been framed
mostly by reference to legacy TDM
special access circuits, which is
certainly a segment of the services and
infrastructure properly classified as
‘‘dedicated services.’’ In this FNPRM,
we now place clearer emphasis on
broadband outages through new
proposed metrics, thresholds and
triggers, and also take steps to ensure all
dedicated services providers—old and
new—understand their compliance
obligations under our rules.
23. To achieve this clarity and
emphasis, we first seek comment on the
following definition of ‘‘dedicated
services’’ for outage reporting purposes:
Services that transport data between two or
more designated points, e.g., between an end
user’s premises and a point-of-presence,
between the central office of a local exchange
carrier (LEC) and a point-of-presence, or
between two end user premises, at a rate of
at least 1.5 Mbps in both directions
(upstream/downstream) with prescribed
performance requirements that include
bandwidth, latency, or error-rate guarantees
or other parameters that define delivery
under a Tariff or in a service-level agreement.
VerDate Sep<11>2014
18:07 Jul 11, 2016
Jkt 238001
In addition to commenting on this
proposed definition for part 4’s
purposes, we ask commenters whether
there are any other descriptors needed
to ensure both the clarity and breadth of
the services that should be included
within dedicated services for part 4
reporting assurance purposes.
24. Dedicated services are important
components for creating private or
virtual private networks across a wide
geographic area, and for enabling the
secure and reliable transfer of data
between locations, including the
provision of dedicated Internet access
and access to innovative broadband
services. Dedicated services, however,
[are] distinctly different from the mass
marketed, ‘‘best efforts’’ [BIAS] provided to
residential end users, such as AT&T’s Uverse or Comcast’s XFINITY. Dedicated
services typically provide dedicated
symmetrical transmission speeds with
performance guarantees, such as guarantees
for traffic prioritization, guarantees against
certain levels of frame latency, loss, and jitter
to support real-time IP telephony and video
applications, or guarantees on service
availability and resolving outages. As such,
dedicated services tends to cost substantially
more than ‘‘best efforts’’ services and are
offered to businesses, non-profits, and
government institutions who need to support
mission critical applications and have greater
demands for symmetrical bandwidth,
increased reliability, security, and service to
more than one location.
25. As with BIAS, we seek comment
on the extent to which those who
provide dedicated services are in a
position to inform the Commission of
the source and cause of reportable
outages. We believe that such providers
are reasonably likely to be wellinformed about these questions.
Dedicated services providers also
provision service ‘‘solutions’’ for other
communications providers; for example,
mobile providers use dedicated services
to backhaul voice and data traffic.
26. With respect to negotiated terms
and conditions for assurance, is it
standard industry practice to inform
dedicated services customers about the
nature of any particular outage or
performance issue that triggers
assurance guarantees (i.e., credits)? Does
this also extend to inform such
customers about any non-service
impacting outages, regardless of the
seriousness of the outages, or to inform
customers as to the provider’s overall
performance using an established set of
metrics? For example, are dedicated
service customers interested in nonservice impacting outages whose
notification helps inform resiliency
decisions or helps inform predictive risk
mitigation actions based on a larger data
set of observed failure modes? If so, how
PO 00000
Frm 00031
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
are such customer needs addressed
through contract negotiations or, postcontract, through course of dealing
between parties or by other means (e.g.,
Industry Data Breach Annual
Summaries, academic research, etc.)?
27. We recognize that variation
between and among dedicated services
providers, the services they provide,
their customers’ service needs and
profiles, and other factors may indicate
differences that we should consider
with respect to the benefits and burdens
of dedicated services outage reporting.
Accordingly, we seek comment on such
differences, and particularly their
impact on relative costs and burdens for
outage reporting.
28. In sum, to ensure the Commission
can effectively discharge its public
safety mandates and mission with
respect to the communications networks
and services upon which America’s
citizens, businesses and governmental
organizations rely, we propose that
BIAS providers be required to report
outages pursuant to the Commission’s
part 4 rules, and we propose to update
existing outage reporting metrics to
reflect broadband disruptions involving
dedicated services and provide clarity
as to scope of covered services. We
recognize that this approach may not
capture the full scope of
communications services, but we
believe, at this time, that the costs of
extending our outage reporting
requirements beyond these services may
exceed the benefits. We seek comment
on this view. To the extent commenters
believe that there are other
communications providers that provide
broadband-related services warranting
part 4 outage reporting, we invite
commenters to elaborate in detail.
3. Proposed Reporting Process for
Broadband Providers
29. Three-part submission process.
We seek comment on whether to apply
the three-part structure used by other
reporting entities under part 4 to
covered broadband service providers.
This process would require the provider
to file a notification to the Commission
within 120 minutes of discovering a
reportable outage as further defined in
Section V.B.; an initial report within 72
hours of discovery of the reportable
outage; and a final report within 30 days
of discovering the outage, similar to the
process described in 47 CFR 4.9(a), (c)–
(f) for cable, satellite, SS7, wireless, and
wireline providers. Covered providers
would submit all reports electronically
to the Commission and include all of
the information required by Section 4.11
of the Commission’s rules. A
notification would include: The name of
E:\FR\FM\12JYP1.SGM
12JYP1
mstockstill on DSK3G9T082PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 133 / Tuesday, July 12, 2016 / Proposed Rules
the reporting entity; the date and time
of the onset of the outage; a brief
description of the problem, including
root cause information and whether
there were any failures of critical
network elements, if known; service
effects; the geographic area affected by
the outage and a contact name and
telephone number for the Commission’s
technical staff. We note that this
notification requirement is distinct from
a covered 911 service provider’s
obligation to notify PSAPs in the event
of an outage impacting 911 service, 47
CFR 4.9(h), and we defer discussion of
those notification requirements to PS
Docket Nos. 13–75 and 14–193. The
initial reports would include the same
information, and in addition, any other
pertinent information then available on
the outage, as submitted in good faith.
Further, the provider’s final report
would include all other pertinent
information available on the outage,
including root cause information where
available and anything that was not
contained in or changed from the initial
report.
30. Reporting requirements
concerning critical network elements.
Pursuant to the requirements of Section
4.11 of our rules, once an outage triggers
a reporting requirement, there is certain
information that we expect providers,
acting in good faith, to include in their
reports to the extent such matters are at
issue in a given reportable event and the
provider, through the exercise of
reasonable due diligence, knows or
should know the facts. We believe our
concept of reportable outages must
evolve as new events threaten the
reliability and resiliency of
communications in ways that can
expose end users to serious risks, to that
end we routinely update the NORS data
fields to reflect changes in technology
and seek to do so here. Specifically, we
expect providers to include information
in their reports concerning (1) the
failure of facilities that might be
considered critical network elements,
and (2) unintended changes to software
or firmware or unintended
modifications to a database to the extent
relevant to a given outage or service
disruption that is otherwise reportable.
We seek comment on this approach.
31. We propose to consider a network
element ‘‘critical’’ if its failure would
result in the loss of any user
functionality that a covered broadband
provider’s service provides to its end
users. For example, Call Agents, Session
Border Controllers, Signaling Gateways,
Call Session Control Functions (CSCF),
and Home Subscriber Server (HSS)
could be considered ‘‘critical’’ network
elements. And, we believe that
VerDate Sep<11>2014
18:07 Jul 11, 2016
Jkt 238001
information concerning such failures
uniquely provides a sharper network
and service vulnerability focus that
would further the Commission’s public
safety and related missions by
enhancing the Commission’s situational
awareness and network operating status
awareness. We seek comment on this
assessment. We seek comment on these
views and on this reporting approach.
Additionally, we propose that to the
extent unintended changes to software
or firmware or unintended
modifications to a database are revealed
as part of reportable disruptions, we
should be apprised of those facts
through the outage reports providers
submit.
32. As with events involving critical
network element failure, we propose to
modify the NORS interface to support
information regarding outages and
disruptions that are associated with
unintended changes to software or
firmware or unintended modifications
to a database. This is consistent with
our customary practice of updating
NORS information fields as technologies
and services evolve. Thus, if unintended
changes to software or firmware or
unintended modifications to a database
played a role in causing an otherwise
reportable outage, we would expect
providers’ reports to include specific
detail about the nature of the associated
facts. The Commission seeks comment
on what information would be useful to
understand these exploitations. Would
it be helpful for us to use open fields so
that outages can be described in terms
defined by the provider acknowledging
that these may differ from provider to
provider? We seek comment on this
approach. We recognize that unintended
changes to software and firmware and
unintended modifications to a database
may not always manifest themselves in
the form of reportable communications
‘‘outages’’ as traditionally defined by the
Commission or as we propose for
broadband outage reporting. Are there
additional data drop-down menu fields
we should consider beyond those
proposed above that would provide
significant information about broadband
outages? Would it be useful to establish
pre-defined elements in the reporting
metrics that would provide the
Commission with more consistent
failure information that would improve
long-term analysis about unintended
changes to software and firmware or
unintended modifications to a database
that would not otherwise be reported to
the Commission? For example should
the Commission receive information on
distributed denial of service (DDoS)
attacks in order to support an improved
PO 00000
Frm 00032
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
45101
correlation should multiple outages
involve DDoS as a contributing factor?
33. Should we expand our definition
of Part 4 outages to include failures that
are software-related or firmwareinduced, or unintended modifications to
a database that otherwise do not trigger
hard-down outages or performance
degradations as described below? For
example, should a route hijacking that
diverts packets to another country, but
still delivers the packets to the
consumer be a reportable outage? If so,
we seek comment on this position. What
process should be followed to make the
Commission aware of such disruptions?
Would such a requirement be
unnecessary were the Commission to
adopt proposed data breach reporting
requirement proposed in the Broadband
Privacy Notice of Proposed Rulemaking,
WC Docket No. 16–106?
34. We seek broad comment on
updates to our traditional NORS
reporting processes and expectations
when reportable broadband outages
involving unintended software or
firmware changes or unintended
modifications to a database occur. We
ask commenters to address whether
valid public safety, national security,
economic security or other reasons
support the kind of granular reporting
features we now describe for broadband,
and whether such reasons justify
treating broadband outage reporting
differently from non-broadband outage
reporting. Do commenters believe that
alternative approaches should be
explored that could ensure that the
Commission receives all useful outage
and disruption causation information in
a timely and cost-effective manner?
35. Also, as discussed below, we
propose to adopt the same reporting
approach for interconnected VoIP
providers as we have for legacy service
providers (i.e., a notification, interim
report and final report). We seek
comment on this proposal.
Alternatively, we seek comment on
whether all reporting (i.e., legacy,
broadband and interconnected VoIP)
should be adjusted to a two-step
process. Are there other similar steps
that we should consider that would
ensure adequate reporting in reasonable,
appropriate time intervals across the
various technologies at issue for
reporting?
36. We seek comment on other steps
the Commission can take to make
providers’ reporting obligations
consistent across services or otherwise
streamline the process. As with other
covered providers in § 4.9, we seek
comment on whether 9–1–1 special
facilities are served by BIAS and
dedicated services providers such that a
E:\FR\FM\12JYP1.SGM
12JYP1
45102
Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 133 / Tuesday, July 12, 2016 / Proposed Rules
reporting requirement when 9–1–1
special facilities experiences a
reportable outage or communications
disruption would be warranted.
Similarly, each covered provider in part
4 is required to report outages and
communications disruptions to special
offices and facilities (in accordance to
§ 4.5(a) through (d)). We seek comment
on whether special offices and facilities
are served by BIAS and dedicated
services providers such that a reporting
requirement when these experience a
reportable outage or communications
disruption would be warranted. One
potential benefit of the transition to
more advanced communications
technologies is the ability to automate
processes that historically have required
a significant amount of manual
processing. We seek comment on
whether there are ways of automating
the outage reporting process beyond
what has been possible or has been
attempted in the context of legacy
communications services. How could
such automated reporting be
accomplished? What are the advantages
of such a reporting mechanism? What
are the disadvantages? What cost
savings would result from any such
automation?
mstockstill on DSK3G9T082PROD with PROPOSALS
4. Proposed Metrics and Thresholds for
Broadband Network Outage Reporting
a. ‘‘Hard Down’’ Outage Events Metrics
and Thresholds
37. By ‘‘hard down’’ outage events, we
refer to outages that result in loss of
service, as opposed to performance
degradations discussed below. In
determining the appropriate metrics and
thresholds for our broadband outage
reporting proposals, we initially sought
comment on the method for calculating
the ‘‘user minutes’’ potentially affected
by a broadband outage. In the 2011 Part
4 Notice, we proposed using potentiallyaffected IP addresses as a proxy for the
number of potentially affected users. At
least one commenter claimed using IP
addresses would tend to overstate the
impact of an outage, and advocated
using subscriber counts instead. More
recently, in response to our proposal for
major transport facility outage reporting,
Comcast recommended using a
‘‘bandwidth-based standard’’ as a
potential replacement for our userminute metric used for major transport
facility outage reporting. In light of
technological advances, we now seek to
revisit this issue.
38. We further propose a throughputbased metric and threshold for ‘‘hard
down’’ outage events. We propose to
define ‘‘throughput’’ as the amount of
information transferred within a system
VerDate Sep<11>2014
18:07 Jul 11, 2016
Jkt 238001
in a given amount of time. In light of
significant changes in technology and
the characteristics of broadband
networks generally, we believe that it is
appropriate to tailor our approach with
respect to the identification of a
threshold event for hard-down outages.
Since part 4 was first enacted, the
communications network architecture
and elements, and the services carried
over those networks, have grown more
diverse and require increased
throughput. The Commission currently
uses DS3 as the unit of throughput with
which to calibrate our reporting
threshold for major transport facility
outages. The companion document,
Report and Order, adopts an updated
metric, changing the standard from DS3
to OC3. Given the accumulating amount
of throughput required to deliver
today’s broadband services, we believe
that 1 Gbps would function as a
modern-day equivalent of the DS3 (45
Mbps) unit originally adopted in 2004,
we now calculate that a gigabit can
support nearly 24DS3s or 16,000 DS0s
(64 Kbps voice or data circuits). This
can be seen in the increased
deployments of residential
communications services offering up to
1 Gbps in download speeds. As such,
we tentatively conclude that the
threshold reporting criterion for outages
should be based on the number of Gbps
minutes affected by the outage because
Gb is a common denominator used
throughout the communications
industry as a measure of throughput for
high bandwidth services. We further
propose to introduce a broadband
metric calibrated with the current
900,000 user minute threshold. In
today’s broadband environment, a
typical user requesting ‘‘‘advanced
telecommunications capability’ requires
access to actual download speeds of at
least 25 Mbps.’’ Accordingly, we
calculate that if a facility with
throughput totaling 1 Gbps providing
individual users 25 Mbps of broadband
capacity each, experienced a disruption
to communications resulting in a
complete outage, 40 individual users
would be impacted. We calculate that
1Gbps in throughput total, which is
converted to 1,000 Mbps, is divided by
25 Mbps as the download speed for each
user, would result in a total of 40
individual users impacted by an outage
event. In establishing a gigabit per
second user minute threshold, we
calculate that 900,000 user minutes
divided by the 40 individual users
impacted by the outage, results in
22,500 Gbps user minutes. The 22,750
Gbps user minute figure was derived
from the current threshold-reporting
PO 00000
Frm 00033
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
criterion of ‘‘900,000 user minutes.’’
Assuming a 25 Mbps broadband user
connection, as stated in the 2015
Broadband Progress America report,
being delivered over a 1 Gbps facility,
we compute: 1 Gbps divided by 25
Mbps equals 40 broadband user
connections. Then, 900,000 user
minutes divided by the number of
impacted broadband user connections,
40, equals 22,750 Gbps user minutes.
This means that an outage event would
become reportable when it resulted in 1
Gbps of throughput affected in which
the event exceeds 22,500 Gbps user
minutes. To determine whether an
outage event is reportable using this
threshold, we multiply the size of the
facility measured in Gbps, by the
duration of the event measured in
minutes, and this total generates a Gbps
user minute number. If this user minute
number exceeds 22,500, then the outage
event is reportable to the Commission.
So for example, if a 1 Tbps (terabits per
second) facility experienced a
disruption for 45 minutes, we would
multiply 1000 by 45 minutes to get
45,000 Gbps user minutes, and since
this figure exceeds 22,500 Gbps user
minutes, the outage event would be
reportable. We seek comment on the
analysis presented, which would
establish a reporting threshold of an
outage of 1 Gbps (gigabit per second)
lasting for 30 minutes or more.
39. We seek comment on a
throughput-based metric and its
advantages or disadvantages over a userbased metric, for example, a 900,000
user-minute metric that treats
broadband users for measurement
purposes as those broadband end users
that have no service. We also seek
comment on whether a throughputbased metric would be more appropriate
for some networks rather others. For
instance, would our proposed 1 Gbps
throughput threshold be appropriate for
both BIAS and dedicated services? If
not, why not? Should we consider a
throughput-based metric for BIAS
networks set at a lower threshold, such
as 25 megabits per second (Mbps)?
Would this result in an unacceptably
small number of outages reports? How
well would a threshold of 1 Gbps or
greater lasting for 30 minutes or more
reflect the geographic scope and impact
of an outage and the number of
subscribers impacted by an outage?
Would a user-minute based threshold
better capture the geographic scope and
impact of an outage and the number of
subscribers impacted? Does using a
throughput metric in lieu of potentiallyaffected IP addresses, or that of
subscriber count, as described below,
E:\FR\FM\12JYP1.SGM
12JYP1
Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 133 / Tuesday, July 12, 2016 / Proposed Rules
mstockstill on DSK3G9T082PROD with PROPOSALS
provide better information to the
Commission? Would a throughput
metric be less or more burdensome for
providers than a user-based one? If so,
why? How might the increasing
availability of Gbps services affect the
usefulness of throughput as an outage
indicator? Is there a better throughput
threshold than 1 Gbps or greater lasting
for 30 minutes or more? If so, what
would it be?
40. In addition, we revisit the 2011
proposal to use potentially-affected IP
addresses as a proxy for the number of
potentially affected users. If we were to
adopt the 2011 proposal, would the
metric overstate the impact of an
outage? If so, by how much would the
outage impact be overstated? How well
could a potentially-affected IP addresses
threshold effectively communicate the
geographic scope and impact of an
outage and the numbers of subscribers
impacted? Would the increasing
deployment of IPv6 addresses affect the
utility or accuracy of this proposed
metric, and if so, how? Would using
subscriber counts as a proxy for number
of users be a more accurate metric to
determine the impact of an outage? In
what ways do providers measure the
number of subscribers now? Do
providers measure broadband
subscribers apart from other types of
subscribers? If so, why? Which new
subscribers would be counted under the
proposed rules that were not previously
counted? Should we consider unique
subscriber-based metrics for BIAS and
dedicated services provider? In
instances of outage events lasting less
than 30 minutes, should we consider
whether subscriber-based metrics
should be more indicative of a network
outage impacting a large metropolitan
area or geographic region? What benefit
would this add to our proposed
broadband outage reporting rules? Do
current provider subscriber counts
measure the total number of subscribers
served at any given time? Are provider
subscriber counts verified at the
occurrence of an outage or disruption?
What difficulties, if any, would covered
broadband providers experience in
applying a subscriber-based metric?
b. Performance Degradation Outage
Events Metrics and Thresholds
41. The following section addresses
requirements to report outage events in
cases of significant degradation of
communication. We tentatively
conclude that outage events are
reportable when there is a loss of
‘‘general useful availability and
connectivity,’’ even if not a total loss of
connectivity. We propose a series of
metrics and thresholds that we believe
VerDate Sep<11>2014
18:07 Jul 11, 2016
Jkt 238001
could identify outage events that
significantly degrade communications:
(1) A combination of packet loss and
latency metrics and thresholds, and (2)
a throughput-based metric and
threshold. Finally, we seek comment on
the appropriate locations for significant
degradation of communication
measurements.
(i) ‘‘Generally Useful Availability and
Connectivity’’
42. Consistent with the part 4
definition of an ‘‘outage,’’ in 47 CFR
4.5(a) (defining an ‘‘outage’’ as ‘‘a
significant degradation in the ability of
an end user to establish and maintain a
channel of communications as a result
of failure or degradation in the
performance of a communications
provider’s network), we again seek
comment on whether covered
broadband providers should be required
to report disruptions that significantly
degrade communications, including
losses of ‘‘generally useful availability
and connectivity’’ as measured by
specific metrics. We propose to define
‘‘generally useful availability and
connectivity’’ to include the availability
of functions that are part of the service
provided (i.e., ‘‘service functionality’’).
We tentatively conclude that outage
events experiencing significantly
degraded communications include those
events with a loss of generally useful
availability and connectivity, and seek
comment on this tentative conclusion.
43. In 2011, ATIS stated that losses of
‘‘generally useful availability and
connectivity’’ not resulting in a
complete loss of service should not be
reportable under the part 4 rules,
arguing that such events are ‘‘more akin
to static/noise on legacy
communications systems or error rates
in DS3 lines . . .’’ However, the loss of
‘‘generally useful availability and
connectivity’’ in the broadband context
would appear to be more akin to a
legacy voice call during which the users
cannot hear or make themselves
understood, tantamount to a complete
loss of service. This threshold may be
even more recognizable in a digital
context where effective bandwidth
minimums are well understood.
Accordingly, we reintroduce the
Commission’s 2011 proposal to require
covered broadband providers to report
on losses of ‘generally-useful
availability and connectivity’ to capture
analogous incidents where customers
are effectively unable to use their
broadband service. We seek comment
on this proposal.
44. We also seek comment on possible
alternatives or additional metrics of
generally-useful availability and
PO 00000
Frm 00034
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
45103
connectivity. For instance, should the
Commission create a reporting metric
based on loss of network capacity? If so,
how should the Commission quantify a
loss of a network capacity for reporting
purposes, and what would be an
appropriate reporting threshold? Should
we consider a metric measuring the
average relative bandwidth, where
providers would compare the active
bandwidth against the provider’s
bandwidth advertised or offered? Could
such a metric be quantified for reporting
purposes? If so, what would be an
appropriate reporting threshold? What
other metrics should the Commission
consider?
(ii) Metrics for Performance Degradation
45. In addition to the metrics for
generally-useful availability and
connectivity, we seek comment on
potential broadband outage reporting
metrics to measure significant
performance degradation in
communications. In this regard, we
propose two sets of proposals. We
propose a throughput metric and seek
comment on the appropriate thresholds;
or, propose an alternative metric based
in a combination of three core metrics,
throughput, packet loss, and latency,
and seek comment on the appropriate
thresholds. Moreover, we seek comment
on the extent potential metrics for
generally-useful availability and
connectivity may overlap with the
proposed metrics for significant
performance degradation in
communications.
46. First, given that throughput is
widely recognized as a key metric for
measuring network performance, we
propose using a throughput metric
threshold at 1 Gbps for a network outage
or service disruption event lasting 30
minutes or more. In addition to the use
of a throughput metric for hard down
outages described above, a throughput
metric can also determine when a
significant degradation occurs in a
network, as transmission rates decline
as network congestion increases. In
addition to throughput, we seek
comment on the utility of two other
metrics to indicate broadband network
performance degradation: Packet loss
and latency. Can a proposed 1 Gbps
event lasting for 30 minutes threshold
capture instances in which the network
suffers an outage or experience
degradation in network performance?
Would it be more appropriate to
maintain the 900,000 user-minute
threshold for throughput? If so, why?
How would it be determined and
calculated to be equivalent to a
throughput-based metric of 1 Gbps
threshold? How would maintaining the
E:\FR\FM\12JYP1.SGM
12JYP1
mstockstill on DSK3G9T082PROD with PROPOSALS
45104
Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 133 / Tuesday, July 12, 2016 / Proposed Rules
900,000 user-minute threshold capture
and account for the complexities found
in broadband networks and the outages
occurring on those networks? We also
seek comment on whether a throughput
threshold for performance degradation
should require a carrier’s average
throughput to drop a nominal
percentage, say 25 percent, below
normal levels. How would such a
threshold be measured and reported
should this threshold be reached?
Would this effectively capture the
impact to network subscribers and
facilities? Is a nominal drop of 25
percent in average throughput
thresholds indicative of noticeable
network performance degradation? We
seek comment on this approach.
47. We seek comment on a second
proposal looking at these proposed core
metrics—packet loss, latency, and
throughput. To what extent do covered
broadband providers already collect
information on packet loss, latency, and
throughput? Are any of the metrics
better suited than others at measuring
loss of generally-useful availability and
connectivity of broadband service? Are
there any alternate performance metrics
that would more effectively capture
network outages or performance
degradation? If so, what are they and do
these providers already capture these
metrics? Are any of the metrics more
cost-effective to monitor than others,
and if so, which are they and why?
48. We further propose to limit the
scope of outage filings to those events
that affect customer communications.
We seek comment on this approach. In
addition to packet loss, latency, and
throughput, we seek comment on
whether there are other metrics and
thresholds that would be indicative of
events impacting customer
communications, and comment about
other appropriate indicators that might
better reflect when these
communication services are disrupted.
Are there existing measurement efforts
regarding network performance and
assurance conducted by the
Commission that would provide better
guidance in determining reporting
thresholds for broadband network
outage reporting? How are these other
performance and assurance
measurements aligned with our proven
public safety and reliability efforts in
our current part 4 outage reporting
efforts? How does the use of these
network performance metrics
complement or conflict with other
efforts at the Commission? The
Commission is providing guidance
across a number of areas regarding
network performance metrics and
measurements ensuring users receive
VerDate Sep<11>2014
18:07 Jul 11, 2016
Jkt 238001
adequate and expected network
performance from their service
subscriptions.
49. Alternatively, should we consider
adopting more specific, absolute
thresholds for packet loss, latency, and
throughput to measure significant
performance degradation of
communications? In 2011, the
Commission proposed that service
degradation occurs whenever there is a
noticeable decline in a network’s
average packet loss; or average roundtrip latency; or average throughput of 1
Gbps, with all packet loss and latency
measurements taken in each of at least
six consecutive five-minute intervals
from source to destination host. If
absolute thresholds are preferable, how
would these particular thresholds be
calculated and determined? Would an
absolute threshold still be appropriate
with current broadband systems? How
could the reporting thresholds for
packet loss, latency, and throughput be
set at appropriate levels? If any of these
thresholds should be adjusted, what is
an appropriate threshold? Should the
requirement to take performance
measurements in six consecutive fiveminute intervals be modified? If so,
how?
50. We also seek comment on whether
these metrics support a consistent
reporting standard across all broadband
provider groups. The Commission
recognizes that there may be different
metrics for performance degradation for
different services and that a ‘‘one size
fits all’’ approach to determining
appropriate metrics and thresholds
indicating the health and performance
of broadband networks and services
may not be appropriate depending on
underlying quality of service and
network performance requirements. Are
these metrics (packet loss, latency, and
throughput) appropriate to evaluate
performance for both BIAS and
dedicated services? Alternatively, are
these metrics unique to either BIAS or
dedicated services, but not appropriate
for both? We also seek comment on
whether and how the proposed metrics
should differentiate mobile broadband
from fixed broadband. Are there unique
attributes of mobile broadband that we
should consider for our outage reporting
purposes? For example, will application
of these metrics to mobile broadband
result in too many instances where,
although a threshold is passed, there is
no major problem with the network?
Why or why not? Are other network
performance metrics more suitable for
mobile broadband than fixed
broadband, and if so, what are they?
PO 00000
Frm 00035
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
(iii) Measurement of Performance
Degradation
51. We also seek comment on the end
points from which covered broadband
providers would measure whether there
is performance degradation. In the case
of BIAS providers, we believe that these
metrics should be measured from
customer premises equipment to the
destination host. For dedicated services
providers, we believe that the metrics
should be measured from the closest
network aggregation point in the access
network (e.g., DSLAM serving DSL
subscribers) to the closest network
facility routing communications traffic
or exchanging traffic with other
networks (e.g., PoP, gateway).
52. We seek comment on these
tentative conclusions, and on whether
these end-points for measurement are
appropriate for their corresponding
services, as well as the use of the term
‘‘destination host’’ for all providers.
Does ‘‘destination host’’ appropriately
cover the various types of network
facilities used by covered broadband
providers to connect to their customers
and/or exchange traffic with other
networks? Where in a BIAS network
should the measurements take place to
record the measurements most
accurately? In a dedicated services
network? At what level of aggregation
should the measurements be taken in
the BIAS and dedicated services
networks? What is the best way to
determine the measurement clients and
servers are correctly chosen to
accurately measure the proposed
metrics? Are there other terms that
would better describe the point where
network traffic is routed and aggregated
from several endpoints (e.g., network
aggregation point) for either type of
service? For example, should we follow
the performance metrics established
under the Measuring Broadband
America program or other broadband
measurement metrics developed by the
Commission? We also seek comment on
a scenario in which the ‘‘destination
host’’ is on another BIAS provider’s
network. In that case, how would the
original BIAS provider detect an outage
on its network path? We seek comment
on this scenario and anything else the
Commission should consider with
respect to network end-points.
5. Broadband Reporting Confidentiality
and Part 4 Information Sharing
53. Currently, outage reports filed in
NORS are withheld from routine public
inspection and treated with a
presumption of confidentiality. We
propose to extend this same
presumptive confidential treatment to
E:\FR\FM\12JYP1.SGM
12JYP1
mstockstill on DSK3G9T082PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 133 / Tuesday, July 12, 2016 / Proposed Rules
any reports filed under rules adopted
pursuant to this FNPRM, including
broadband outage reporting filings. We
recognize, however, that this approach
of presumed confidentiality may need to
evolve as networks, and consumer
expectations about transparency, also
evolve. Accordingly, we seek comment
on the value and risk of increased
transparency with respect to
information about, or select elements of
NORS reports filed under the current
part 4 rules and any additional rules
adopted pursuant to this FNPRM.
54. As noted in the Report and Order
companion document, we believe that
the proposal of sharing NORS
information with state and other federal
entities requires further investigation,
including where state law would need
to be preempted to facilitate information
sharing. The Commission currently only
shares access to the NORS database with
DHS.
55. To assist the Commission, we
direct the Bureau to study these issues,
and develop proposals for how
information could be shared
appropriately with state entities and
federal entities other than DHS.
Accordingly, we seek comment on the
current reporting and information
sharing practices of broadband and
interconnected VoIP providers with
state governments and other federal
agencies. To which agencies and States
do providers already report? To what
extent is reporting mandatory? What
information on outages or
communications disruptions do
providers report to other federal and
state government bodies? What triggers
the reporting process? What are the
strengths and weaknesses of any
existing reporting and information
sharing processes? Could any such
processes provide an avenue for the
Commission to acquire data that it
would otherwise receive under the
proposed rules? If so, how? What else
should the Commission consider
regarding the current reporting and
information sharing practices of
broadband or interconnected VoIP
providers? Commenters should address
the impact of any other information
sharing activities on the part 4 mandates
proposed herein, and how these
requirements might be tailored to ensure
compliance without undue imposition
on those other information sharing
activities.
56. We seek comment on how the
Commission can strike the right balance
between facilitating an optimal
information sharing environment and
protecting proprietary information. Our
goal is to foster reciprocal sharing of
information on broadband network
VerDate Sep<11>2014
18:07 Jul 11, 2016
Jkt 238001
outages with federal and state partners,
while maintaining confidentiality
among those partners and of
information contained in the outage
reports. To ensure that the Commission
benefits from information that providers
make available to other federal agencies
or state governments, should we
encourage covered broadband and
interconnected VoIP providers to
provide the Commission with copies of
any outage reporting that they currently
provide to states or other federal
agencies, to be treated in the same
manner (i.e., confidential or nonconfidential) as the entity receiving the
original report? Are there alternative
methods toward sharing this
information? Should we ask our federal
and state government partners to
provide a preferred path toward sharing
this information? We recognize that
other federal and state agencies may
have different requirements for
licensees and FCC regulated entities,
and we seek comment on the wider
regulatory landscape in which
broadband providers may or may not
already be reporting outages. Are there
special considerations required for the
new filings or information collected that
the Commission has not previously
accommodated for part 4 providers? If
so, what adjustments to our original
information sharing proposals in the
Notice should be made for these new
NORS filings and information collected?
6. Cost-Benefit Analysis for Broadband
Network Outage Reporting
57. In the 2012 Part 4 Order, the
Commission deferred action on several
broadband outage proposals because
they were ‘‘sharply opposed by industry
on several bases, but especially based on
the expected costs.’’ In this FNPRM, we
seek to update the record on the costs
of implementing broadband outage
reporting, and also seek comment on the
costs of compliance with any additional
reporting requirements considered
herein. We also seek comment on the
costs associated with any alternative
proposals or unintended modifications
to proposals set out by commenters.
Specifically, we invite comment on the
incremental costs of detecting and
collecting information on the outage
thresholds described above; the costs of
filing reports in NORS; and the costs
associated with any additional reporting
or other requirements the Commission
may adopt to promote network
reliability and security. Comments in
this area should not focus on new
equipment but on the cost of modifying
existing outage detection systems to
detect and notify the Commission on
PO 00000
Frm 00036
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
45105
observed outages meeting reporting
thresholds proposed in this FNPRM.
a. Costs of Detecting and Reporting
Outages
58. We first consider the costs
associated with detecting and collecting
information on reportable outages under
the proposed rules. As a general matter,
we agree with the 2011 comments of the
National Association of State Utility
Consumers Advocates (NASUCA) and
the New Jersey Division of Rate
Counsel, who observe that VoIP and
‘‘broadband [providers] should already
be collecting outage-related data in the
normal course of conducting their
businesses and operations.’’ We believe
this to be as true today as it was in 2011
in light of service providers’ public
assurances of network performance and
reliability. If covered broadband
providers already collect internal data to
support claims of high network
reliability through advertising, we
anticipate that they would be able to
provide the Commission with similar
information at minimal incremental
cost. For this reason and others
discussed below, we do not believe that
requiring covered broadband providers
to submit outage data would create an
unreasonable burden.
(i) Outages Defined by Threshold Events
59. To begin, we note that nearly all
providers already have mechanisms in
place for determining when an outage
occurs and when it surpasses a certain
threshold, and if a provider does not, in
today’s wired world it would not
impose significant cost to install such a
mechanism. In fact, the record reflects
that providers routinely monitor the
operational status of their network as
part of the normal course of business.
Verizon, for instance, explained in 2011
that it ‘‘has significant visibility into its
broadband networks.’’ We believe that
any provider with ‘‘significant
visibility’’ into its network already has
the ability to detect network failures or
degradations that result in a total loss of
service for a large number of customers.
Commenters appear to concede this
view. Both ATIS and AT&T proposed
alternative reporting schemes that
would require reporting on total losses
of broadband service, and AT&T
submits that its proposed scheme would
be ‘‘unambiguous and easy-to-apply.’’
CenturyLink likewise admits that
‘‘reporting by a broadband Internet
access service provider where there is a
loss of connectivity to the Internet by
end-users is reasonable.’’ Comments like
these, along with ubiquitous advertising
on network reliability and performance
generally, suggest that the regime
E:\FR\FM\12JYP1.SGM
12JYP1
45106
Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 133 / Tuesday, July 12, 2016 / Proposed Rules
mstockstill on DSK3G9T082PROD with PROPOSALS
described above to report total losses of
broadband service would not impose
significant additional burdens on
providers. We seek comment on this
discussion.
(ii) Outages of ‘‘Generally Useful and
Available Connectivity’’
60. In 2011, industry commenters
identified data collection costs as the
most significant cost burden of the
proposed rules for performance
degradation events. However, we note
that the proposed reporting based on
loss of ‘‘generally-useful availability and
connectivity’’ does not concern every
degradation in performance an
individual user experiences, but is
instead designed to capture incidents in
which service is effectively unusable for
a large number of users or when critical
facilities are affected. We seek further
comment on the extent to which
providers already collect performance
degradation data for internal business
purposes. In 2011, covered VoIP and
broadband providers were already
monitoring QoS metrics, like packet
loss, latency and jitter, to assess network
performance for certain customers.
Today, providers collect network
performance information as a necessary
part of fulfilling their SLA duties for
particular customers, and more
generally, providers have significant
incentives to track these metrics as part
of their network, service, and business
risk assurance models. In other words,
providers’ existing approaches for
network data collection for premium
customers likely already captures losses
of ‘‘generally-useful availability and
connectivity,’’ and we believe similar
techniques could be expanded to
monitor network performance on a
broader scale. By building on existing
provider practices and harnessing
technological developments in network
monitoring, we believe that the
proposals for broadband reporting
requirements described herein would
not be unduly costly.
61. Because providers already
routinely collect much of this data, we
believe that the cost of compliance of
additional rules would be only the cost
of filing additional reports. We seek
comment on this discussion. If
providers do not collect this data, is
there similar or comparable data that
providers already collect, or could
collect at minimal expense, that would
be as cost-effective as data they would
report under the proposals outlined
above? If so, what data, and would it
provide the Commission with adequate
visibility into events that cause a loss of
generally-useful availability and
connectivity for significant numbers of
VerDate Sep<11>2014
18:07 Jul 11, 2016
Jkt 238001
broadband users? What would the cost
be of this comparable data?
62. We seek comment on whether we
should implement a prototype phase of
two years whereby providers would be
given significant latitude to determine a
qualifying threshold for the ‘‘generally
useful availability and connectivity’’
standard. While mandatory reporting
would remain, the data collected would
positively inform standards in this
category that would be broadly
applicable to the Commission’s needs in
this area yet closer to what the reporting
companies use for their own operations,
thereby reducing potential costs for
providers. We seek comment on this
analysis.
b. Costs of Filing Outage Reports
63. While we anticipate that the costs
of filing reports under the proposed
rules—i.e., of reformatting and
uploading information in the NORS
database—would not impose an
unreasonable burden on covered
broadband providers, we seek comment
on the specific costs. Outage reports are
currently filed in the Commission’s
web-based NORS database using simple
and straightforward ‘‘fill-in-the-blank’’
templates. NORS currently accepts
reports for legacy service outages
(wireline, wireless, etc.), as well as
interconnected VoIP ‘‘hard down’’
outages. We expect that any reports
from covered broadband providers
pursuant to rules ultimately adopted in
this proceeding would adhere to the
same efficient and streamlined process.
64. In light of growing overlap in
corporate ownership of
telecommunications network and
service offerings, we expect that the
inclusion of broadband service under
part 4 would largely extend reporting
obligations to providers already familiar
with reporting via NORS and with
internal processes in place for filing
reports. We recognize that entities
without prior experience reporting in
NORS, either themselves or through
affiliates, may incur some startup costs,
i.e., of establishing a NORS account and
training personnel in the use of NORS.
We seek comment on this analysis and
what specific startup costs would be.
65. Furthermore, we believe the
overall cost to providers of filing
disruption reports is a function of the
number of reports that are filed and the
costs of filing each report. Previously,
the Commission has estimated that the
filing of each three-stage outage report
(i.e., notification, initial report, and final
report) requires two hours of staff time,
compensated at $80 per hour,
amounting to a $160 total cost for the
provider. We believe that this estimate
PO 00000
Frm 00037
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
remains valid. Moreover, we estimate
that adoption of the proposed rules for
covered broadband providers would
result in the filing of 1,083 reports per
year, based on the likely correlation of
broadband Internet access service
outages with interconnected VoIP
outages, in which there were 750 reports
in 2015, and of broadband backbone
outages with interoffice blocking
outages, in which there were 330 reports
in 2015. In other words, based on 2015
figures, we estimate that there would be
approximately 750 reportable VoIP
outages, added to the 330 reportable
broadband outages independent of VoIP,
results in 1,083 total reports.
Accordingly, we estimate that adoption
of the rules proposed in this FNPRM
would create $173,280 in reporting
costs; calculated by adding the number
of VoIP and broadband outages in 2015,
and multiplying by the expected cost of
$160. We seek comment on this cost
estimate.
c. Benefits of Proposed Network Outage
Reporting
66. On balance, we believe that the
proposals of this FNPRM would
ultimately produce substantial benefits
for the public. As noted above, the
nation is increasingly reliant on
broadband communications, and
disasters, pandemics, and cyber attacks
can lead to sudden disruptions of
normal broadband traffic flows.
Adopted prior to widespread adoption
of broadband, the current part 4 outage
reporting rules have played a significant
role in the Commission’s successful
efforts to promote reliable and resilient
communications networks. The
Commission’s receipt of data on
broadband service (and expanded
interconnected VoIP service)
disruptions would enable it to adapt
this established practice to a world in
which IP-based networks are
increasingly relied on for critical
communications—including 911
service—as well as for financial
transactions, health care delivery and
management, and the operation of our
nation’s critical infrastructure.
67. Given the large and rising volume
of communications that occur over
broadband networks—and the overall
economic value these communications
represent—even minor increases in
network reliability that result from
outage reporting could have a
significant public benefit. We believe
that the benefits of the proposed
reporting requirements will be
substantial, as increases in network
reliability can improve not only
business continuity, but also the
availability of emergency response,
E:\FR\FM\12JYP1.SGM
12JYP1
Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 133 / Tuesday, July 12, 2016 / Proposed Rules
thereby saving many lives. We therefore
expect that, even if only a few lives are
saved each year, the annual benefit from
these proposed changes will far exceed
the costs they impose on affected
parties. We have noted throughout this
FNPRM that the harm from not
requiring broadband outage reporting
could be substantial, and we believe
that the benefits of the proposals would
far exceed the costs. We seek comment
on other harms that consumers or
providers face currently or may face in
the future as a result of loss of
connectivity that could have been
avoided if industry outage trends had
been spotted earlier and addressed more
constructively through NORS reporting.
We seek comment on the total expected
benefit of the proposed reporting
requirements for broadband providers.
mstockstill on DSK3G9T082PROD with PROPOSALS
B. Interconnected VoIP Outage
Reporting
68. In 2012, the Commission adopted
limited outage reporting requirements
for interconnected VoIP providers. The
rules apply to both facilities-based and
non-facilities-based interconnected VoIP
services. Since extending outage
reporting to interconnected VoIP,
however, the Commission has not
received consistent, timely, or
sufficiently detailed reporting needed to
promote greater interconnected VoIP
service. This causes us now to raise
questions about how to stimulate
granular and consistent reporting for
interconnected VoIP providers that aids
the Commission in its efforts to ensure
reliable, resilient, and secure
interconnected VoIP service for
America’s consumers and businesses.
Accordingly, we propose to modify the
existing reporting process for
interconnected VoIP to hew closer to the
process for other providers. Lastly, we
seek comment on whether there are any
differences between interconnected
VoIP services and other foregoing
broadband services that weigh in favor
of establishing different outage reporting
rules for the two kinds of service
providers.
1. Interconnected VoIP Outage
Reporting Process
69. We propose to amend the
reporting process for outages involving
interconnected VoIP service to
harmonize it with the ‘‘legacy’’ services
and the proposed reporting process for
broadband outages. However, because
the current outage reporting rules for
interconnected VoIP allow a 24-hour
notification period and do not require
interim reports, the Commission rarely
learns of interconnected VoIP network
outages in near real time, and often has
VerDate Sep<11>2014
18:07 Jul 11, 2016
Jkt 238001
to wait almost a month until the final
report is submitted to get outage event
root causes or other useful information.
70. Under the part 4 rules for legacy
services, specifically 47 CFR 4.11, initial
reports provide the Commission with
timely access to more detailed
information about an outage than was
available to the provider at the time of
the notification, in many cases
confirming the existence of an outage
that was only tentatively reported at the
notification stage. However, such initial
reports are not required of
interconnected VoIP providers, and
what’s more, the 24-hour notification
period has resulted in notifications
being filed well after an outage has
commenced, in some cases after the
outage has concluded. In one recent
instance, an interconnected VoIP outage
that affected close to 1 million users
across nearly a dozen states was first
reported to the Commission twentythree hours after its discovery.
Consequently, for certain
interconnected VoIP outages, the
Commission must wait until a final
report is filed—up to thirty days after
the notification is filed—to receive any
information about the underlying cause
of an interconnected VoIP outage, or
even to verify that a reportable outage in
fact occurred. Providers also do not
report information on the duration of
the outage in the notification, and are
currently only required to give this
information 30 days later in the final
report. Thus, we believe that the
abridged reporting adopted for
interconnected VoIP ‘‘hard down’’
outages creates significant gaps in the
Commission’s visibility into such
outages and hinders its ability to take
appropriate remedial actions.
71. We recognize that a lack of
visibility into underlying broadband
networks may pose challenges to
interconnected VoIP providers, in
providing information as the cause of
the outage. As with BIAS and dedicated
services providers, we seek comment on
whether interconnected VoIP providers
can, do, or should take steps
contractually or otherwise to address
these problems. At a minimum, we
believe that providers should make
reasonable efforts to learn about the
causes of any reportable outages and
thus to be in a position to include such
information in their reports, irrespective
of whether the affected facility is within
their control. Moreover, because
interconnected VoIP services often rely
on networks that provide BIAS services,
we believe that the proposed rules for
broadband outage reporting discussed
supra largely eliminate this concern and
essentially place interconnected VoIP
PO 00000
Frm 00038
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
45107
providers on the equal footing with
other part 4 entities. Accordingly, we
propose to replace the existing reporting
structure for interconnected VoIP with
the three-report structure used by all
other reporting entities, as originally
proposed in the 2011 Part 4 Notice.
Specifically, we propose to tighten the
timeframe for interconnected VoIP
providers to notify the Commission of
an outage from 24 hours to 120 minutes;
to require providers to file an initial
report with additional information
within 72 hours; and to file a final
report within 30 days of the outage that
includes all pertinent information about
the outage, including any information
available that was not contained in or
changed from the initial report. All
reports would be filed electronically
with the Commission.
72. Furthermore, although not
independent triggers for part 4
reporting, we expect providers to
include information in their reports
concerning (1) the failure of facilities
that might be considered critical
network elements (we consider a
network element ‘‘critical’’ if the failure
of that network element would result in
the loss of any user functionality that an
interconnected VoIP provider provides
to its consumers, for example, Call
Agents, Session Border Controllers,
Signaling Gateways, Call Session
Control Functions (CSCF), and Home
Subscriber Server (HSS)), and (2)
unintended changes to software or
firmware or unintended modifications
to a database to the extent relevant to a
given outage or service disruption that
is otherwise reportable. As described
fully in the broadband reporting process
above, reports should include specific
details.
73. At this time we believe adopting
a three-part reporting structure for
interconnected VoIP outages is
appropriate, however, as raised for
broadband outage reporting above, we
seek comment on other steps the
Commission can take to make providers’
reporting obligations consistent across
services or otherwise streamline the
process. We seek comment on whether
there are ways of automating the outage
reporting process for interconnected
VoIP service providers beyond what has
been possible or has been attempted in
the context of legacy communications
services. How could such automated
reporting be accomplished? What are
the advantages of such a reporting
mechanism? What are the
disadvantages? What cost savings would
result from any such automation?
Alternatively, we seek comment on
maintaining the two-step process for
interconnected VoIP outages.
E:\FR\FM\12JYP1.SGM
12JYP1
45108
Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 133 / Tuesday, July 12, 2016 / Proposed Rules
2. Proposed Interconnected VoIP Outage
Metrics
a. Outages Defined by Performance
Degradation
mstockstill on DSK3G9T082PROD with PROPOSALS
(i) Metrics for Performance Degradation
74. We also propose to require
interconnected VoIP providers to report
outages, per 47 CFR 4.5(a), that reflect
losses of ‘‘generally useful availability
and connectivity’’ as defined by specific
metrics. Similar to our proposal for
covered broadband providers, we
propose to base performance
degradation on packet loss and latency
for any network facility used to provide
interconnected VoIP service. We also
seek comment on whether it would be
appropriate to adopt a throughput-based
outage metric for interconnected VoIP
outage reporting in addition to the
throughput metric discussed above with
respect to broadband providers, i.e.,
providers would be required to report
an outage of 1Gbps or more of
interconnected VoIP service for 30
minutes or more. Are the proposed
metrics—relating to packet loss, latency
and throughput—well-suited for
interconnected VoIP? Would this
approach provide better methods for
detecting and reporting outages on
interconnected VoIP networks?
75. We recognize that adopting
performance degradation metrics may
result in an increased burden on VoIP
providers than their legacy voice
counterparts. We ask whether
interconnected VoIP’s unique
technology justifies a departure from a
pure ‘‘hard down’’ reporting metric
currently required for interconnected
VoIP providers and that of legacy
counterparts, to the adoption of
significant performance degradation
reporting metrics? Are there throughputrelated issues associated with
interconnected VoIP calling? For
example, where the service might be up
and running, yet be degraded to a point
that emergency call information
exchange is negatively impacted? Or,
given interconnected VoIP’s
dependence on broadband connectivity,
are there vulnerabilities associated with
that technology that introduce threat
scenarios (i.e., attack vectors) that justify
the added reporting burden? Are there
other considerations we should take
into account on the question of adding
a performance degradation element to
interconnected VoIP providers’
obligations under part 4?
76. As with our current ‘‘hard down’’
outage reporting for interconnected
VoIP, we propose to apply any new
rules to both facilities-based and nonfacilities-based interconnected VoIP. Do
VerDate Sep<11>2014
18:07 Jul 11, 2016
Jkt 238001
interconnected VoIP providers have
differing standards for network
performance? Are non-facilities-based
interconnected VoIP providers able to
measure and/or access packet loss,
latency, and/or throughput
measurements? If not, why? How are
non-facilities-based interconnected VoIP
providers able to determine the network
performance requirements for their
service? Should the Commission instead
adopt a single metric beyond which
voice service is so degraded that it is no
longer functional? If so, what is that
metric and how and where is it
measured? Would multiple metrics be
required? If so, what would those
metrics and how and where would they
be measured? We seek comment on
these proposals. We also seek comment
on how the proposed metrics apply to
mobile VoIP. Will application of these
metrics to mobile VoIP result in too
many instances where, although the
threshold is passed, there is no major
problem with the network? Are there
other metrics that are better suited for
mobile VoIP service? If so, why? Should
the monitoring period and metrics
adopted for interconnected VoIP outage
reporting be consistent with the
monitoring period and metrics adopted
for broadband outage reporting, or are
there differences between the two types
of services that warrant different
monitoring period and metrics?
77. Alternatively, as with our
proposed broadband outage reporting,
we could adopt more specific, absolute
thresholds for performance degradation,
like those proposed in the 2011 Part 4
Notice for broadband providers, e.g.,
service degradation occurs whenever
there is: (i) An average packet loss of 0.5
percent or greater; or (ii) average roundtrip latency of 100 ms or greater, with
all measurements taken in each of at
least six consecutive five-minute
intervals from source to destination
host. If absolute thresholds are
preferable, are these reporting
thresholds for packet loss and latency
set at appropriate levels for
interconnected VoIP service? Should the
Commission adjust any of these
thresholds and, if so, what is an
appropriate threshold? Should the
Commission modify the requirement to
take performance measurements in six
consecutive five-minute intervals? If so,
how?
(ii) Measurement of Performance
Degradation
78. Moreover, we seek comment on
the end-points from which
interconnected VoIP providers will need
to measure these metrics. We recognize
that it is important to consider the
PO 00000
Frm 00039
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
methods used to measure the proposed
metrics and account for the location of
the network elements within the
interconnected VoIP networks. This will
help to ensure accurate and reliable
measurements of the proposed metrics
to indicate network performance. We
propose that these metrics be measured
from ‘‘source to the destination host.’’
The term ‘‘source’’ would refer to the
network elements responsible for the
setting up the VoIP call (e.g., call
manager, user agent, client) while the
term ‘‘destination’’ would refer to the
endpoints routing and executing the call
(e.g., VoIP router, softphone). We seek
comment on the use of the terms
‘‘source’’ and ‘‘destination host’’ and ask
if these terms appropriately cover the
various types of network facilities (e.g.,
CSCF, HSS, AAA servers, SIP servers,
Session Border Controllers, Media
Gateway Controllers) used by
interconnected VoIP providers to
connect to their customers and/or
exchange network traffic with other
interconnected VoIP networks? Are
there other terms that would better
convey the network elements from
which interconnected VoIP providers
will need to measure the proposed
reporting metrics?
b. Benefits and Costs of Proposed
Reporting
79. We seek comment on whether the
benefits of this additional reporting
would outweigh the incremental burden
on providers. We estimate that the
three-part reporting of an outage—
including the filing of a notification,
initial report, and final report—imposes
only a $300 cost burden on the provider.
In 2015, the Commission reviewed 750
interconnected VoIP outages. We expect
to review an additional 750 filings for
the same number of outages received in
2015, and an additional 75 filings as a
result of our performance degradation
proposal discussed above. Therefore,
750 plus 75 initial reports multiplied by
0.75 hours it takes to complete an initial
report, multiplied by the cost of $80
employee hourly rate, results in $49,500
added cost. We therefore do not believe
that expanding the reporting process
from two reporting stages to three would
significantly increase burdens for
providers. We seek comment on this
tentative conclusion. To the extent that
commenters disagree, we seek comment
on alternative, least costly methods. Is
there similar or comparable data that
providers already collect, or could
collect at minimal expense given
current data collection practices, that
would be more cost-effective to report
than the data they would report under
the proposed rules? If so, what data, and
E:\FR\FM\12JYP1.SGM
12JYP1
Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 133 / Tuesday, July 12, 2016 / Proposed Rules
mstockstill on DSK3G9T082PROD with PROPOSALS
would it provide the Commission with
adequate visibility into events that
cause a loss of generally-useful
availability and connectivity for
significant numbers of interconnected
VoIP users? What would the cost be of
this comparable data?
80. We believe that the benefits of the
proposed rules would exceed the costs.
Absent the rules proposed in this
FNPRM, the Commission lacks
sufficient visibility into the reliability
and security of interconnected VoIP
networks. We believe that relevant data
is already routinely collected by
interconnected VoIP providers (in real
time), so the cost of compliance would
be only the cost of filing additional
reports where necessary. Moreover, we
believe that many of the proposed
outage reporting triggers for
interconnected VoIP, including those
based on performance degradation, are
likely to be covered by outages to the
underlying broadband networks.
Therefore, we do not believe the number
of additional reports filed annually
pursuant to the proposed rules for
interconnected VoIP to be significant.
We seek comment on this discussion.
C. Call Failures in Radio Access
Networks
81. In the 2015 Part 4 Notice, we
sought comment on the reporting of call
failures that result from congestion in
wireless radio access networks (RAN),
and in non-wireless (i.e., wireline and
VoIP) local access networks. We noted
that the inability of the access network
to support excess demand may not be
considered reportable as a ‘‘failure or
degradation’’ under our current rules,
but the inability of consumers to make
calls still undermines the reliability of
networks. Nevertheless, we are
concerned about the impact of such
events on the reliability of 911 service.
Because this appears to be
predominantly an issue with wireless
networks, we proposed to amend our
part 4 rules to require reporting of
systemic wireless call failures that
results from overloading in the RAN.
82. Requiring reporting of overloading
in the access network (wireless radio or
non-wireless local access) should not be
interpreted to mean that providers must
engineer their networks to account for
sporadic spikes in calls. Instead, the
reports would provide the Commission
with data to identify any trends in
network overloading. This could
include identifying, for example, a
particular network equipment that may
be more susceptible to failure in mass
calling events. Moreover, analysis of
this data allows the Commission to
work with industry to address situations
VerDate Sep<11>2014
18:07 Jul 11, 2016
Jkt 238001
where the network consistently fails to
address ‘‘bursty’’ call patterns similar to
those generated after disaster and widescale emergencies. While we recognize
the point made by several commenters
that networks should not be engineered
to be able to transmit every single call
if everyone in an area attempted to use
the network at once, we believe that it
would be in the interest of the public for
the Commission to receive information
on those situations, so that we can
determine if, when, and where, blocking
is consistently happening.
83. Verizon argues that such reporting
that would be collecting information
‘‘for the sake of it,’’ but that point
ignores the premise behind our outage
reporting rules. Although situational
awareness is one goal of outage
reporting, another key objective is to
provide data to the Commission so that
it can detect adverse outage trends and
facilitate industry-wide network
improvements. Moreover, even though
we continue to believe that outage
reporting encourages providers to fix
problems in their networks, we note that
many outage reports do not always
result in permanent fixes to the
network, as the outage may be a ‘‘oneoff’’ event. However, as Public
Knowledge observes, we will not know
that such events are indeed ‘‘one-off,’’ if
the Commission is not aware of them in
the first place.
84. Commenters also note that mass
calling events are often unpredictable
and typically short-lived, so they
question the value of reporting on such
events. However, because a mass calling
event can be the consequence of a
widespread disaster, we see significant
value in collecting information on such
events, as these are the incidents where
reliable, resilient communications are
most needed. Indeed, understanding
failure patterns in moments of network
saturation can help identify best
practices for network management, as
well as help certain communities realize
a need for greater detail in emergency
management plans. We recognize that
reporting on mass calling events will
not prevent them from occurring in the
future, but we believe there is
substantial value in analyzing such
events in hindsight, as individual
providers are unlikely to be able to see
how such an event fits into broader
industry practices and performance
levels. With such data, the Commission
would be in a better position to work
with providers to address industry-wide
problems and share industry-wide
mitigation solutions.
85. With respect to wireless RANs, we
propose to consider a cell site to be
‘‘out’’ whenever a cell tower operates at
PO 00000
Frm 00040
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
45109
full capacity (i.e., is unable to process
any additional calls) for 75 percent of
the time during a period of at least 30
minutes. If the number of potentiallyaffected wireless user-minutes exceeds
900,000 for the cell sites considered
‘‘out,’’ the outage would be reportable.
Similarly, for non-wireless local access
networks, we propose to amend our
outage reporting rules to consider a loop
carrier system or remote switch to be
‘‘out’’ whenever a remote terminal or
the group of channels connecting a
remote switch to a host operates at full
capacity (i.e., is unable to process any
additional calls) for 75 percent of the
time during a period of at least 30
minutes. If the number of user-minutes
exceeds 900,000 for the loop carrier
systems and remote switches that are
considered ‘‘out,’’ the outage would be
reportable.
86. We seek comment on these
proposals. Is 30 minutes an appropriate
time period to measure call blockages?
If not 30 minutes, what should be the
appropriate interval of measurement for
averaging purposes? Is 75 percent of that
time at full capacity the right percentage
of time? Alternatively, what percentage
of calls blocked during that period
constitutes congestion of the access
network? To the extent that commenters
oppose our proposal, we encourage
them to propose an alternative,
workable metric that addresses our
concern. Is there a better way to
measure persistent, widespread call
failures in the RAN or local access
network?
87. With respect to wireless RANs, we
seek comment on how providers
currently measure call failures. Would
providers know of, and therefore have a
way to measure, call attempts when a
cell site is fully congested and not
accepting call origination information?
Also, given that wireless calls are
constantly initiated and terminated
within any given cell site, could some
percentage below full capacity
constitute congestive RAN failure for
purposes of reporting? For congested
cell sites, should the usual methods for
calculating the total number of
customers affected be used, or should
some account be taken of the fact that
more than the usual number are trying
to use the towers during these periods?
88. In the Notice, we estimated that
under our proposal for reporting of
widespread call failures in wireless
RANs, providers would need to file
approximately 420 reports per year, thus
increasing their annual reporting costs
by $67,200. We based this estimate on
the assumption that wireless networks
and interoffice networks are engineered
to achieve comparably low rates of call
E:\FR\FM\12JYP1.SGM
12JYP1
45110
Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 133 / Tuesday, July 12, 2016 / Proposed Rules
failure and would have a comparable
rate of calls blocked.
89. We seek further comment on the
specific costs to implement some type of
reporting on call failures in both the
RAN and the local access network. With
regard to the RAN, CCA disagrees with
an assumption in the Notice that
providers are already technically
capable of tracking call failures at each
cell site, asserting that some of its
members ‘‘do not currently collect and
preserve this information in an ongoing
manner.’’ We seek more specific
information about the data that
providers already have about call
failures and the costs of adding
equipment to track call failures at cell
sites. To what extent do providers
already track call failures in the RAN
and the local access network? What
other parameters do operators use to
determine when new towers or
equipment must be installed to meet
increasing demand? Commenters should
be specific as to the information that
their networks can track. Commenters
should be specific and realistic in their
costs estimates as well.
90. Moreover, we ask if some type of
delayed implementation or exemption
for smaller and/or rural providers would
be helpful, particularly given that we
expect network overloading is less
likely to be an issue in rural areas. If we
were to delay implementation of this
type of reporting for a certain subset of
providers, what would be a reasonable
amount of time? What definition of
smaller and/or rural carrier would be
most appropriate?
mstockstill on DSK3G9T082PROD with PROPOSALS
D. Geography-Based Wireless Outage
Reporting
91. In the 2015 Part 4 Notice, we
sought comment on a separate and
additional wireless outage reporting
requirement based on the geographical
scope of an outage, irrespective of the
number of users potentially affected.
Wireless outages that may not meet our
900,000 user-minute threshold but cover
large geographic areas may be important
because wireless service may be the
only option in many areas, particularly
as the percentage of calls to 911 from
wireless devices continues to increase.
It may be possible that large geographic
areas are regularly losing service, but we
are not aware of them (other than by
press reports) because they do not meet
the 900,000 user-minute threshold.
Nonetheless, these outages are
especially important to areas where
service (wireless or otherwise) is
minimal, and when an outage occurs,
those in an emergency would have to
travel far to make a 911 call.
VerDate Sep<11>2014
18:07 Jul 11, 2016
Jkt 238001
93. We propose to amend the part 4
reporting requirements to include
wireless outages significantly affecting
rural areas. We seek comment on this
proposal. Specifically, we propose to
require a wireless provider serving a
rural area to file outage reports
whenever one-third or more of its macro
cell sites serving that area are disabled
such that communications services
cannot be handled through those sites,
or are substantially impaired due to the
outage(s) or other disruptions affecting
those sites. We seek comment on,
alternatively, requiring such reporting
upon the disabling of one-half of the
macro cell sites in the rural area. In
regard to the definition of ‘‘rural area,’’
while the Communications Act does not
include a statutory definition of what
constitutes a rural area, the Commission
has used a ‘‘baseline’’ definition of rural
as a county with a population density of
100 persons or fewer per square mile.
We propose to use this same definition
for purposes of determining wireless
outages affecting predominantly rural
areas. We ask, however, whether other
alternative definitions might be of better
use in aiding our visibility into ruralspecific outages. For example, should
we focus on areas designated for the
Universal Service Mobility Fund
support? Are there other rural area
designation tools or proxies that should
be considered (e.g., defining areas by
rural exchange operating carrier
designations—OCNs)? We seek
comment on these questions and
proposals.
94. Is there a geographic area
designation other than ‘‘rural area,’’ as
defined above, that aligns better with
the way wireless providers measure
their own service? For example, is there
a subset of any licensed service area
(e.g., Cellular Market Area) that wireless
carriers could more easily use to
identify outages in predominantly rural
areas? Or, would the use of zip codes,
such as when one hundred percent of a
zip code is impacted be an appropriate
measurement? Also, we seek comment
on whether an outage of at least onethird, or one-half, of cell sites within the
rural area would indicate an outage that
would be of a nature that it substantially
affects wireless coverage for a large
geographic area.
95. We recognize that this issue may
become less critical as wireless
providers begin to comply with the new
standardized method, adopted in the
above Report and Order, for calculating
the number of potentially affected users
during a wireless outage. By using a
national average to determine the
potentially affected users per site, will
adoption and implementation of this
PO 00000
Frm 00041
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
new formula for the number of
potentially-affected users increase the
reporting of outages in low population
areas? We also seek comment on
alternative measurements for outages in
rural areas. For example, could we
adopt a lower user-minute threshold for
rural areas to increase the reporting of
events affecting rural communities? For
example, would a threshold of 300,000
user-minutes in rural areas increase our
chances of receiving information on
outages that affect rural communities?
Conversely, for example, would clear
geographic criteria, such as a countybased threshold, for wireless outage
reporting simplify the M2M rules for
automated outage reporting and
eliminate the need for manual
interpretations of thresholds?
96. In the Notice, we estimated that
adoption of a geography-based outage
reporting requirement would result in
the filing of an additional 1,841 reports
per year, thereby increasing reporting
costs by $294,560 (i.e., 1,841 reports ×
$160 staff costs per report). To reach
this estimate, we subtracted the number
of additional outage reports that would
be generated by geography-based
reporting from the number of reports
that would be submitted for outages that
meet the current 900,000 user-minute
threshold. We estimated that geographybased reporting would generate
additional reports in counties where a
wireless provider has fifteen or fewer
cell sites. The number of counties with
fifteen or fewer cell sites represents 2.7
percent of the total number of cell sites
nationwide, based on analysis of data
collected from companies given to the
Commission during activations from the
Disaster Information Reporting System
(DIRS) in 2012. Using as a guide
counties with fifteen or fewer cell sites,
we calculated that a disruption to
communications would be reportable
under a geographic coverage standard if
one or two cell sites in the county are
down. Based on historical NORS data,
we then estimated that each cell site has
a 22.6 percent chance of experiencing
an outage within a given year, and using
CTIA’s estimate that 301,779 cell sites
were in operation nationwide as of the
end of 2012, we tentatively conclude
that adoption of a geography-based
reporting requirement would likely
result in the filing of 1,841 additional
reports per year, creating an estimate of
$294,560 cost burden.
97. We seek further comment on the
costs of implementing a new geographybased outage reporting requirement for
wireless carriers. Sprint and Verizon
argue that carriers would need to
develop and deploy additional
automation tools and monitoring
E:\FR\FM\12JYP1.SGM
12JYP1
Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 133 / Tuesday, July 12, 2016 / Proposed Rules
mstockstill on DSK3G9T082PROD with PROPOSALS
mechanisms. We estimate that, based on
our proposal here, our estimate of 1,841
additional reports per year from the
Notice will be the same. We seek further
comment on a way in which we could
capture outages affecting large
geographic areas without being overly
burdensome for providers. If, for
example, we were to adopt an outage
reporting requirement when 33 percent
of cell sites become disabled within a
county, would such a calculation
require additional tools or monitoring
mechanisms? We assume carriers would
already know when (and why) their cell
sites become disabled, and would know
the number of cell sites per county.
Therefore, we believe it would be a
relatively easy and inexpensive
calculation for providers to determine if
a certain threshold of cell sites in a
county have become disabled. Is onethird (33 percent) the appropriate
threshold?
98. NTCA comments that the burden
would be greater on smaller carriers,
where the failure of one tower may
trigger a reporting obligation. While we
could consider some type of exemption
for smaller carriers, we believe smaller
and rural carriers cover precisely the
areas targeted by this proposal.
Therefore, we do not propose to exempt
any carriers. We seek comment on this
approach.
E. Refining the Definition of ‘‘Critical
Communications’’ at Airports
99. Commercial aviation increasingly
depends on information systems that are
not collocated with airport facilities,
and that may carry critical information.
We seek comment on requiring
reporting of outages affecting critical
aviation information facilities that are
not airport-based, either as a function of
their status as TSP Level 3 or 4 facilities
(facilities are eligible for TSP Level 3 or
4 prioritization if they (3) support
public health, safety, and maintenance
of law and order activities or (4)
maintains the public welfare and the
national economic system), or upon
some other basis. In particular, we seek
comment on whether it is correct to
assume that some information systems
critical to safe commercial aviation are
not located within an airport’s facility.
If the assumption is accurate, we invite
discussion of the architecture of such
external systems, including the
safeguards currently established for
those systems. Were the Commission to
explore outage reporting requirements
for these systems and facilities, what
reporting criteria should it establish?
For outage reporting purposes, should
the Commission distinguish between
facilities enrolled in the TSP program
VerDate Sep<11>2014
18:07 Jul 11, 2016
Jkt 238001
and those facilities that are not? If so, on
what basis should the different
treatment be premised? What, if any,
additional costs might be associated
with expanding the reporting obligation
to such facilities, whether or not
enrolled in TSP?
F. Legal Authority
1. 911 and Emergency Communications
101. Following the evolution in the
country’s commercial communications
networks, the nation’s emergency
communications systems are in the
process of a critical transition from
legacy systems using time-division
multiplex (TDM)-based technologies to
Next Generation 911 (NG911) systems
that utilize IP-based technologies.
102. As a result of this transition, the
nation’s 911 system will increasingly
include the BIAS and dedicated
services, which will support a new
generation of 911 call services that may
be vulnerable to a similarly new
generation of disruptions that may not
have existed on legacy 911 networks.
Indeed, as NG911 services are
increasingly provisioned through
broadband network elements,
disruptions to broadband could impact
the provision and reliability of local 911
voice and other shared services essential
to emergency response. Accordingly, we
believe that monitoring the resiliency of
broadband networks supporting that
communication is vital to ensure the
reliable availability and functionality of
911 services.
103. Regarding our proposal to update
the outage reporting rules for
interconnected VoIP service providers,
47 U.S.C. 615a–1 instructs the
Commission to ‘‘take into account any
technical, network security, or
information privacy requirements that
are specific to IP-enabled voice
services’’ and to update regulations ‘‘as
necessitated by changes in the market or
technology, to ensure the ability of an
IP-enabled voice service provider to
comply with its obligations.’’ The
proposed reporting process seeks to
modernize the outage reporting system
in light of technology advances and
greater consumer adoption of
interconnected VoIP service,
considering the potential for
degradations of service to impact 911
call completion. We seek comment on
how Section 615a–1 provides authority
to adopt such proposals with respect to
interconnected VoIP.
104. We also believe that our
proposals to extend outage reporting to
the classes of broadband providers and
services described in this FNPRM are
authorized by or reasonably ancillary to
PO 00000
Frm 00042
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
45111
our statutorily mandated responsibility
under Section 615a–1 to ensure that ‘‘IPenabled voice service provider[s]
provide 9–1–1 service and enhanced 9–
1–1 service.’’ As noted above,
broadband services are now and will
continue to be key for delivery of 911
call information (including not only
voice but also data and video) from the
end-user to a PSAP. Therefore, to ensure
broadband-enabled voice service
providers comply with their 911
obligations, we seek comment on how
our proposals better equip the
Commission to meet its Section 615a–1
mandates. Moreover, in light of our
obligation to identify capabilities
necessary to support 911 and E911
service for interconnected VoIP, 47
U.S.C. 615a–1(6)(c), how would our
proposals here enable us to determine if
there are capabilities currently not
captured by our rules? We seek
comment on whether networks,
facilities, databases or other components
to the extent these are elements that
support a ‘‘seamless transmission,
delivery, and completion of 911 and E–
911 calls and associated E–911
information’’ have changed sufficiently
to warrant further consideration, or
because ‘‘critical components of the 911
infrastructure may reside with an
incumbent carrier, a PSAP, or some
other entity.’’ How should the
Commission analyze these
considerations in our Section 615a–1
analysis? In addition, we seek comment
as to whether these proposals are
authorized by or reasonably ancillary to
our statutory mandates to develop best
practices that promote consistency and
appropriate procedures for defining
network diversity requirements for IPenabled 911 and E911 call delivery.
105. Additionally, under the TwentyFirst Century Communications and
Video Accessibility Act of 2010 (CVAA),
the Commission may ‘‘promulgate
regulations to implement the
recommendations proposed by the
[Emergency Access Advisory Committee
(EAAC)], as well as any other
regulations, technical standards,
protocols, and procedures as are
necessary to achieve reliable,
interoperable communication that
ensures access by individuals with
disabilities to an Internet protocolenabled emergency network, where
achievable and technically feasible.’’
The CVAA has served as the basis for
Commission actions with respect to
text-to-911 and 911 relay services, and
we now seek comment on the
application of the CVAA to our
proposed disruption reporting rules for
broadband.
E:\FR\FM\12JYP1.SGM
12JYP1
mstockstill on DSK3G9T082PROD with PROPOSALS
45112
Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 133 / Tuesday, July 12, 2016 / Proposed Rules
106. In this vein, the EAAC has
recommended that the Commission
‘‘issue regulations as necessary to
require that target entities, in the
development and deployment of NG9–
1–1 systems, take appropriate steps to
support features, functions and
capabilities to enable individuals with
disabilities to make multimedia NG9–1–
1 emergency calls.’’ The EAAC
enumerated a list of goals for the
Commission related to 911 accessibility,
including enabling consumers to call
911 using different forms of data, text,
video, voice, and/or captioned
telephony individually or any
combination thereof; ensuring direct
access to 911 using IP-based text
communications (including real-time
text, IM, and email); and facilitating the
use of video multimedia calls into a
PSAP. The EAAC also recommended
that users have the option to call 911 via
voice or text service, as well as video
and any other emerging technology; that
is, callers should be able to access 911
using both old and new
communications services—something
that a single broadband network can
support. We note that these technologies
are commonly supported by broadband
networks, and to ensure access to 911
for individuals with disabilities, the
Commission must be able to assess how
those technologies are performing. The
EAAC also made clear that its
recommendations should evolve with
the technology. Perhaps most
importantly, the EAAC recommended
that the Commission ‘‘adopt
requirements that ensure that the
quality of video, text and voice
communications is sufficient to provide
usability and accessibility to individuals
with disabilities based on industry
standards for the environment.’’
107. Given that video, text, and voice
communications to 911 already traverse
broadband networks and will continue
to do so as the deployment of Real-Time
Text and other NG911 multimedia
applications grows, we believe that the
CVAA’s mandate for ensuring equal
access to 911 provides an additional
legal basis for the broadband reporting
rules proposed herein. We seek
comment on this tentative conclusion. Is
disruption reporting the optimal
mechanism for the Commission to the
quality of video, text and voice
communications is sufficient to provide
usability and accessibility to individuals
with disabilities? Are there alternative
measures the Commission could take to
ensure broadband network availability
for non-traditional 911 calls (i.e., 911
text messages or relay calls)? We believe
the proposed reporting requirements are
VerDate Sep<11>2014
18:07 Jul 11, 2016
Jkt 238001
an ‘‘achievable and technically feasible’’
way to ensure access to 911 for the deaf
and hard of hearing, as required under
the CVAA, and we seek comment on
this approach.
2. Title II
108. The Commission has classified
BIAS and dedicated services as
telecommunications services under
Title II of the Act. As such, we
tentatively conclude that the
Commission has ample authority under
Title II to support the outage reporting
requirements proposed in this FNPRM.
We seek comment on this tentative
conclusion, and on the relevance of
Sections 201, 202, 214, 218, and any
other provisions of Title II for
supporting the outage reporting
requirements proposed here for BIAS
and dedicated services.
As we observed in the 2015 Open
Internet Order, [S]ection 201 imposes a
duty ‘‘on common carriers to furnish
communications services subject to
Title II ‘upon reasonable request,’ ’’ and
to ensure that their practices are ‘‘just
and reasonable.’’ We also noted that the
general conduct standard ‘‘represents
our interpretation of [S]ections 201 and
202 in the broadband Internet access
context.’’ We seek comment on the
interplay between the 2015 Open
Internet Order and the Commission’s
authority under [S]ection 201 to
‘‘prescribe rules and regulations as may
be necessary in the public interest to
carry out the provisions of this chapter’’,
as such authority relates to BIAS. We
also seek comment generally on other
provisions of Title II and legal theories
under those provisions to support
outage reporting in the dedicated
services and BIAS contexts.
3. Title III
109. With respect to the rules
proposed herein for wireless voice and
broadband providers, we believe the
Commission has further legal authority
to support the rules proposed herein
under Title III of the Communications
Act. The Supreme Court has long
recognized that Title III grants the
Commission ‘‘expansive powers’’ and a
‘‘comprehensive mandate’’ to regulate
the use of spectrum in the public
interest, Nat’l Broad. Co. v. United
States, 319 U.S. 190, 219 (1943)
(recognizing the FCC’s ‘‘expansive
powers’’ and ‘‘comprehensive
mandate’’).
110. We believe that 47 U.S.C. 303(b)
and (r), and 316 provide the
Commission with authority to apply
outage reporting requirements to mobile
BIAS and dedicated services providers
and to CMRS providers in instances of
PO 00000
Frm 00043
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
call failures in the radio access network.
We seek comment on this view.
111. For example, Section 303(b)
authorizes the Commission to
‘‘[p]rescribe the nature of the service to
be rendered by each class of licensed
stations and each station within any
class.’’ Addressing the scope of this
provision in Cellco Partnership v. FCC,
700 F.3d 534 (D.C. Cir. 2012), the D.C.
Circuit recognized that Section 303(b)
authorizes the Commission to ‘‘lay[ ]
down a rule about ‘the nature of the
service to be rendered’ by entities
licensed’’ by the Commission. The court
further explained in Cellco that, while a
provider may choose not to offer a
wireless service, Section 303(b)
authorizes the Commission to ‘‘define[ ]
the form’’ that the ‘‘service must take for
those who seek a license to offer it.’’
112. We also believe 47 U.S.C. 316
authorizes the Commission to impose
new conditions on existing licenses if
we think such action ‘‘will promote the
public interest, convenience, and
necessity.’’ The D.C. Circuit in Celtronix
Telemetry, Inc. v. FCC, 272 F.3d 585
(D.C. Cir. 2001), recognized as
‘‘undisputed that the Commission
always retain[s] the power to alter the
term of existing licenses by
rulemaking.’’ Accordingly, we believe
that the outage reporting requirements
proposed here for mobile service
providers of BIAS or dedicated services,
as conditions imposed on existing
licenses, fall within the Commission’s
Section 316 authority, and we seek
comment on this view.
4. Section 706 of the
Telecommunications Act
113. It is the established policy of the
United States to ‘‘promote the continued
development of the Internet and other
interactive computer services and other
interactive media . . . [and] to
encourage the development of
technologies which maximize user
control over what information is
received by individuals, families, and
schools who use the Internet and other
interactive computer services, ’’ 47
U.S.C. 230(b). Furthering this policy, in
1996 Congress adopted Section 706 of
the Telecommunications Act of 1996,
which instructs the Commission to
‘‘encourage the deployment on a
reasonable and timely basis of advanced
telecommunications capability to all
Americans,’’ and further provides if the
Commission finds advanced
telecommunications capability is not
being deployed on a reasonable and
timely basis, it must ‘‘take immediate
action to accelerate deployment of such
capability.’’ Advanced
telecommunications capability, as
E:\FR\FM\12JYP1.SGM
12JYP1
mstockstill on DSK3G9T082PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 133 / Tuesday, July 12, 2016 / Proposed Rules
defined in the statute, 47 U.S.C.
1302(d)(1), includes a subset of
broadband Internet access. Thus, under
Section 706(b), the Commission
conducts an annual inquiry as to
whether advanced telecommunications
capability is being deployed to all
Americans on a reasonable and timely
basis.
114. We seek comment on the
contours of Section 706 as the basis for
broadband-related outage reporting
under part 4. We believe broadband
network reliability, resiliency, and
security are germane to the
Commission’s effort to achieve Section
706’s policy objectives. Mandatory
outage reporting could provide the
Commission with a dependable stream
of objective data to further inform its
annual inquiry under Section 706. We
seek comment on the value of the
proposed broadband outage reporting to
our annual Section 706 inquiry, and on
our more general view that such
disruption and outage data may aid the
Commission’s efforts to ensure the
deployment of advanced
telecommunications capabilities to all
Americans.
115. Further, the 2016 Broadband
Progress Report found that advanced
telecommunications capability is not
being deployed to all Americans in a
reasonable and timely fashion, requiring
the Commission to take immediate
action to accelerate broadband
deployment by removing barriers to
infrastructure investment and
promoting competition. We seek
comment on whether broadband outage
reporting would aid the Commission in
its efforts to identify where
infrastructure investment and effective
competition may be lacking and thus
enable the Commission to take steps to
remove any barriers to infrastructure
investment that may prevail or
otherwise to promote competition in
affected areas. For instance, we
observed in the 2016 Broadband
Progress Report that there are
indications of a ‘‘correlation between
non-adoption of broadband and security
and privacy concerns.’’ We also have
stated that ‘‘privacy and network
security are among the factors that can
affect the quality and reliability of
broadband services,’’ and that
‘‘[c]ommunications security, integrity,
and reliability must be maintained as
providers transition to IP-supported
networks.’’ Does the proposed
disruption reporting facilitate the 706(b)
mandate to take immediate action to
accelerate broadband deployment by
providing valuable information on
broadband infrastructure and service
vulnerabilities, risks and disruptions
VerDate Sep<11>2014
18:07 Jul 11, 2016
Jkt 238001
that dampen consumer adoption and,
thus, dis-incent broadband investment
and deployment? Would the proposed
reporting guide us to remove barriers to
infrastructure investment and promote
competition? Would broadband
reporting promote Section 706’s goals
by enabling us to view sustained
availability over time, providing a
comprehensive view of performancerelated metrics data? Of long-term
advanced capability deployment? Could
the Commission use the proposed
outage reporting to spot areas of
decreased investment or barriers to
competition that we might need to
stimulate or remove? We seek comment
on whether the reliability of broadband
service and its underlying network
infrastructure can advance Section 706
availability goals as well as bring a realtime measure of the services that are
available in a given area. For example,
Form 477 supports Section 706 goals
through non-outage data submitted by
providers on a semiannual basis.
Although those collections facilitate
Section 706 availability driven
considerations, we ask whether more
granular data submitted in Part 4’s time
intervals may be of additional value to
the Commission in the execution of
Section 706’s mandates. We think that
these insights can be added to our
Broadband Progress Report analyses
without compromising the objectives
now achieved through Part 4’s
confidentiality treatment (as further
discussed below), and we seek comment
on this view.
5. Universal Service Fund Mandates
Under Section 254
116. In addition, we believe that the
Commission’s universal service funding
mandates, underlying principles and
goals, as set forth in Section 254 of the
Act, authorize us to require broadband
disruption and outage reporting, as
proposed, where the data from such
reports could promote, or provide
assurance (e.g., of ‘‘maximum value’’)
to, the Commission’s universal service
funding efforts under Section 254.
Sections 254 and 1 operate dynamically
to ensure an appropriately broad scope
of Commission authority to promote and
safeguard universal service, thus,
Section 1, as a policy statement,
‘‘illuminates’’ Section 254 which, in
turn, ‘‘builds upon’’ Section 1. Comcast,
600 F.3d at 654. We seek comment on
this observation and analysis.
117. Certain broadband providers
receive significant federal universal
service high-cost broadband funding
support through the USF’s Connect
America Fund (CAF) program. To the
extent that covered broadband providers
PO 00000
Frm 00044
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
45113
receive (or have received) such funding,
it is logical to require a certain level of
assurance in behalf of the end users who
fund it. Accordingly, we tentatively
conclude that such part 4 reporting is an
appropriate assurance expectation from
CAF recipients, and we seek comment
on this tentative conclusion.
118. On that basis, we now ask how
part 4 disruption reporting concerning
the broadband services funded through
CAF support can best be used to assure
these services and infrastructure?
Specifically, should such assurance
measurements be sought through our
part 4 disruption reporting, or through
some other mechanism? How might the
collection and analysis of CAF recipient
outage information help inform our
Section 254-related considerations and
assist us in achieving our universal
service goals? Should the Commission
adopt standards for network health to be
made part of CAF funding
considerations? If so, what mechanisms
should be used by the Commission to
effectuate that approach? Should the
Commission, for example, condition
CAF support on standards that take into
account a provider’s network health as
revealed through outage reporting?
119. Section 4(o). As noted above,
Section 4(o), 47 U.S.C. 154(o), states that
‘‘[f]or the purpose of obtaining
maximum effectiveness from the use of
radio and wire communications in
connection with safety of life and
property, the Commission shall
investigate and study all phases of the
problem and the best methods of
obtaining the cooperation and
coordination of these systems.’’ We
believe that in order for the Commission
to fulfill this mandate in today’s
transitioning world and beyond, it must
be able to obtain relevant data—
including BIAS and dedicated services
outage reporting—to investigate and
study all aspects of broadband
communications. We also believe
Section 4(o) authorizes the Commission
to gather broadband network outage
data to help ensure NS/EP
communications continue to obtain
maximum effectiveness, e.g., to receive
appropriate levels of priority, be
delivered over robust and resilient
infrastructure, and function as required.
Indeed, we believe that the ability to
collect information on major disruptions
to broadband communications
supporting NS/EP priority services is
essential to the Commission in fulfilling
its national security/defense assurance
role under the Act. We seek comment
on these views.
E:\FR\FM\12JYP1.SGM
12JYP1
mstockstill on DSK3G9T082PROD with PROPOSALS
45114
Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 133 / Tuesday, July 12, 2016 / Proposed Rules
II. Procedural Matters
120. As required by the Regulatory
Flexibility Act of 1980 (RFA), the
Commission has prepared an Initial
Regulatory Flexibility Analysis (IRFA)
of the possible significant economic
impact on small entities of the proposals
addressed in the FNPRM. Written public
comments are requested on the IRFA.
Comments must be identified as
responses to the IRFA and must be filed
by the deadlines for comments
indicated on the first page of this
FNPRM. In addition, the FNPRM and its
IRFA (or summaries thereof) will be
published in the Federal Register.
121. The proceeding this FNPRM
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 rule
1.1206(b). In proceedings governed by
rule 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.
VerDate Sep<11>2014
18:07 Jul 11, 2016
Jkt 238001
III. Initial Regulatory Flexibility
Analysis
122. As required by the Regulatory
Flexibility Act of 1980, as amended
(RFA), the Commission has prepared
this present Initial Regulatory
Flexibility Analysis (IRFA) of the
possible significant economic impact on
a substantial number of small entities by
the policies and rules proposed in this
Further Notice of Proposed Rule Making
(FNPRM). Written public comments are
requested on this IRFA. Comments must
be identified as responses to the IRFA
and must be filed by the deadlines for
comments provided in ‘‘Comment
Period and Procedures’’ of this FNPRM.
The Commission will send a copy of
this FNPRM, including this IRFA, to the
Chief Counsel for Advocacy of the Small
Business Administration (SBA). In
addition, the FNPRM and IRFA (or
summaries thereof) will be published in
the Federal Register.
123. The FNPRM seeks additional
comment on various proposals first
issued in a Notice of Proposed
Rulemaking in PS Docket 11–80,
adopted in 2011 and in a Notice of
Proposed Rulemaking in PS Docket No.
15–80, adopted in 2015.
124. The FNPRM seeks comment on:
• A proposal to require the filing of
outage reports for broadband network
disruptions (BIAS and dedicated
service), including disruptions based on
network performance degradation;
• proposed updates to the rules
governing interconnected VoIP outage
reporting to (i) include disruptions
based on network performance
degradation, and (ii) modify the VoIP
outage reporting process to make it
consistent with other services;
• reporting of call failures in wireless
radio access networks and wireline local
access networks, and on geographybased reporting of wireless outages in
rural areas;
• refining the definition of ‘‘critical
communications’’ at airports.
125. The Commission traditionally
has addressed network resiliency and
reliability issues by working with
communications service providers to
develop and promote best practices that
address network vulnerabilities, and by
measuring the effectiveness of best
practices through outage reporting.
Under the Commission’s current rules,
the outage reporting process has been
effective in improving the reliability,
resiliency and security of legacy
networks and the services delivered
over them. Commission staff collaborate
with individual providers and industry
organizations to review outage results
and address areas of concern. These
PO 00000
Frm 00045
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
efforts have resulted in significant
reductions in outages affecting legacy
services, including interconnected VoIP.
The aim of extending outage reporting
to cover broadband providers is to
achieve a similar result: Enhance the
reliability, resiliency and security of
their services utilizing an approach—
tailored as appropriate to account for
broadband’s unique aspects—that has
produced significant benefits with
respect to legacy networks and services.
126. The legal bases for the rule
changes proposed in this FNPRM are
contained in sections 1, 4(i), 4(j), 4(o),
201(b), 214(d), 218, 222, 251(e)(3), 254,
301, 303(b), 303(g), 303(r), 307, 309(a),
309(j), 316, 332, 403, 615a–1, and 615c,
706 of the Communications Act of 1934,
as amended, 47 U.S.C. 151, 154(i)–(j) &
(o), 201(b), 214(d), 218, 222, 251(e)(3),
254, 301, 303(b), 303(g), 303(r), 307,
309(a), 309(j), 316, 332, 403, 615a–1,
and 615c, 1302(a) and 1302(b).
A. Description and Estimate of the
Number of Small Entities to Which
Rules Will Apply
127. The RFA directs agencies to
provide a description of, and, where
feasible, an estimate of, the number of
small entities that may be affected by
the proposed rules adopted herein. The
RFA generally defines the term ‘‘small
entity’’ the same 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, 5 U.S.C. 601(3). 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), Small Business
Act, 15 U.S.C. 632.
1. Total Small Entities
128. Our action may, over time, affect
small entities that are not easily
categorized at present. We therefore
describe here, at the outset, three
comprehensive, statutory small entity
size standards. First, nationwide, there
are a total of approximately 28.2 million
small businesses, according to the SBA.
In addition, a ‘‘small organization’’ is
generally ‘‘any not-for-profit enterprise
which is independently owned and
operated and is not dominant in its
field.’’ Nationwide, as of 2007, there
were approximately 1, 621,315 small
organizations. Finally, the term ‘‘small
governmental jurisdiction’’ is defined
generally as ‘‘governments of cities,
towns, townships, villages, school
districts, or special districts, with a
E:\FR\FM\12JYP1.SGM
12JYP1
Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 133 / Tuesday, July 12, 2016 / Proposed Rules
population of less than fifty thousand.’’
Census Bureau data for 2011 indicate
that there were 89,476 local
governmental jurisdictions in the
United States. We estimate that, of this
total, as many as 88,506 entities may
qualify as ‘‘small governmental
jurisdictions.’’ Thus, we estimate that
most governmental jurisdictions are
small.
mstockstill on DSK3G9T082PROD with PROPOSALS
2. Interconnected VoIP and Broadband
ISPs Services
129. The 2007 Economic Census
places Internet Service Providers, the
services of which might include Voice
over Internet protocol (VoIP), in either
of two categories, depending on whether
the service is provided over the
provider’s own telecommunications
facilities (e.g., cable and DSL ISPs),
which are considered within the Wired
Telecommunications Carriers category.
Or, depending on whether the VoIP
service is provided over client-supplied
telecommunications connections (e.g.,
dial-up ISPs), which are considered
within the All Other
Telecommunications category. To
ensure that this IRFA describes the
universe of small entities that our action
might affect, we discuss several
different types of entities that might be
currently providing interconnected VoIP
service, broadband Internet access
service, or business data services. In the
document, https://apps.fcc.gov/edocs_
public/attachmatch/FCC-16-63A1.pdf,
we provide a thorough discussion of
VoIP service provided over the
provider’s own telecommunications
facilities; and VoIP service provided
over client-supplied
telecommunications connections, and to
the extent applicable, whether each
listed are considered ‘‘small
businesses.’’
3. Wireline Providers
130. Neither the Commission nor the
SBA has developed a small business
size standard specifically for incumbent
local exchange services, providers of
interexchange services, or operator
service providers. The appropriate size
standard under SBA rules is for the
category Wired Telecommunications
Carriers. This industry comprises
establishments primarily engaged in
operating and/or providing access to
transmission facilities and infrastructure
that they own and/or lease for the
transmission of voice, data, text, sound,
and video using wired
telecommunications networks.
Transmission facilities may be based on
a single technology or a combination of
technologies. Establishments in this
industry use the wired
VerDate Sep<11>2014
18:07 Jul 11, 2016
Jkt 238001
telecommunications network facilities
that they operate to provide a variety of
services, such as wired telephony
services, including VoIP services; wired
(cable) audio and video programming
distribution; and wired broadband
Internet services. By exception,
establishments providing satellite
television distribution services using
facilities and infrastructure that they
operate are included in this industry.’’
In the document, https://apps.fcc.gov/
edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-1663A1.pdf, we provide a thorough
discussion of Incumbent Local
Exchange Services, Providers of
Interexchange Services, or Operator
Service Providers, and to the extent
applicable, whether each of these listed
are considered ‘‘small businesses.’’
4. Wireless Providers—Fixed and
Mobile
131. To the extent the wireless
services listed below are used by
wireless firms for fixed and mobile
broadband Internet access services, the
NPRM’s proposed rules may have an
impact on those small businesses as set
forth above and further below.
Accordingly, for those services subject
to auctions, we note that, as a general
matter, the number of winning bidders
that claim to qualify as small businesses
at the close of an auction does not
necessarily represent the number of
small businesses currently in service.
Also, the Commission does not
generally track subsequent business size
unless, in the context of assignments
and transfers or reportable eligibility
events, unjust enrichment issues are
implicated. In the document, https://
apps.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/
FCC-16-63A1.pdf, we provide a
thorough discussion of Wireless
Telecommunications Carriers (except
Satellite); Wireless Communications
Services (WCS); 1670–1675 MHz
Services; Wireless Telephony;
Broadband Personal Communications
Service; Specialized Mobile Radio
Licenses; Lower 700 MHz Band
Licenses; Upper 700 MHz Band
Licenses; 700 Mhz Guard Band
Licensees; Air-Ground Radiotelephone
Service; AWS Services (1710–1755 Mhz
and 2110–2155 Mhz Bands (AWS–1);
1915–1920 Mhz, 1995–2000 Mhz, 2020–
2025 Mhz and 2175–2180 Mhz Bands
(AWS–2); 2155–2175 Mhz Band (AWS–
3)); 3650–3700 MHz Band; Fixed
Microwave Services; Local Multipoint
Distribution Service; Broadband Radio
Service and Educational Broadband
Service; and to the extent applicable,
whether each of these listed are
considered ‘‘small businesses.’’
PO 00000
Frm 00046
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
45115
5. Satellite Service Providers
132. Two economic census categories
address the satellite industry. The first
category has a small business size
standard of $32.5 million or less in
average annual receipts, under SBA
rules. The category of Satellite
Telecommunications category
comprises firms ‘‘primarily engaged in
providing telecommunications services
to other establishments in the
telecommunications and broadcasting
industries by forwarding and receiving
communications signals via a system of
satellites or reselling satellite
telecommunications.’’ The second
category has a size standard of $32.5
million or less in annual receipts. The
second category, i.e., ‘‘All Other
Telecommunications’’ ‘‘comprises
establishments primarily engaged in
providing specialized
telecommunications services, such as
satellite tracking, communications
telemetry, and radar station operation.
This industry also includes
establishments primarily engaged in
providing satellite terminal stations and
associated facilities connected with one
or more terrestrial systems and capable
of transmitting telecommunications to,
and receiving telecommunications from,
satellite systems. Establishments
providing Internet services or voice over
Internet protocol (VoIP) services via
client-supplied telecommunications
connections are also included in this
industry.’’ In the document, https://
apps.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/
FCC-16-63A1.pdf, we provide a
thorough discussion of Satellite
Telecommunications firms, and All
Other Telecommunications
establishments; and to the extent
applicable, whether each of these listed
are considered ‘‘small businesses.’’
6. Cable Service Providers
133. Because Section 706 requires us
to monitor the deployment of broadband
regardless of technology or transmission
media employed, we know that some
broadband service providers do not
provide voice telephony service.
Accordingly, we describe below other
types of firms that may provide
broadband services, including cable
companies, MDS providers, and
utilities, among others. Wired
Telecommunications Carriers comprise
of establishments primarily engaged in
operating and/or providing access to
transmission facilities and infrastructure
that they own and/or lease for the
transmission of voice, data, text, sound,
and video using wired
telecommunications networks.
Transmission facilities may be based on
E:\FR\FM\12JYP1.SGM
12JYP1
45116
Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 133 / Tuesday, July 12, 2016 / Proposed Rules
mstockstill on DSK3G9T082PROD with PROPOSALS
a single technology or a combination of
technologies. Establishments in this
industry use the wired
telecommunications network facilities
that they operate to provide a variety of
services, such as wired telephony
services, including VoIP services; wired
(cable) audio and video programming
distribution; and wired broadband
Internet services. By exception,
establishments providing satellite
television distribution services using
facilities and infrastructure that they
operate are included in this industry.’’
For Cable Companies and Systems, the
Commission has also developed its own
small business size standards, for the
purpose of cable rate regulation. Under
the Commission’s rules, a ‘‘small cable
company’’ is one serving 400,000 or
fewer subscribers nationwide. Industry
data indicate that all but ten cable
operators nationwide are small under
this size standard. In addition, under
the Commission’s rules, a ‘‘small
system’’ is a cable system serving 15,000
or fewer subscribers. For Cable System
Operators, the Communications Act of
1934, as amended, also contains a size
standard for small cable system
operators, which is ‘‘a cable operator
that, directly or through an affiliate,
serves in the aggregate fewer than 1
percent of all subscribers in the United
States and is not affiliated with any
entity or entities whose gross annual
revenues in the aggregate exceed
$250,000,000.’’ The Commission has
determined that an operator serving
fewer than 677,000 subscribers shall be
deemed a small operator, if its annual
revenues, when combined with the total
annual revenues of all its affiliates, do
not exceed $250 million in the
aggregate. In the document, https://
apps.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/
FCC-16-63A1.pdf, we provide a
thorough discussion of Wired
Telecommunications Carriers; Cable
Companies and Systems; and Cable
System Operators; and to the extent
applicable, whether each of these listed
are considered ‘‘small businesses.’’
B. Description of Projected Reporting,
Recordkeeping, and Other Compliance
Requirements
134. The rules proposed in the
FNPRM would require broadband
Internet access providers and dedicated
service providers as well as
interconnected VoIP providers, to report
outages or disruptions to
communications according to specified
metrics and thresholds, of at least 30
minutes. These providers as proposed,
would need to specify when the outage
is related unintended changes to or
failures of software or firmware,
VerDate Sep<11>2014
18:07 Jul 11, 2016
Jkt 238001
unintended modifications to databases,
or attributed to a critical network
element. Reporting requirements would
align the reporting process and timing
with that of legacy reporting currently
required in the part 4 rules.
135. Further, the rules proposed in
the FNPRM would require
interconnected VoIP service providers
to submit Initial Reports, in addition to
the Notifications and Final Reports
currently required. These reporting
requirements would align the reporting
process and timing with that of legacy
reporting currently required in the part
4 rules.
136. Moreover, the rules proposed in
the FNPRM would require wireless and
wireline providers to report outages that
exceed proposed specified technical
thresholds in the wireless radio access
network and the wireline local access
network respectively. The rules
proposed in the FNPRM would also
require wireless providers serving rural
areas to file outage reports whenever
one-third or more of its macro cell sites
serving that area are disabled such that
communications services cannot be
handled through those sites, or are
substantially impaired due to the
outage(s) or other disruptions affecting
those sites.
137. Under the Commission’s current
outage reporting rules, which apply
only to legacy circuit-switched voice
and/or paging communications over
wireline, wireless, cable, and satellite
communications services and
interconnected VoIP, about 11,000
outage reports per year from all
reporting sources combined are filed
with the Commission. As a result of the
rules proposed, we anticipate that fewer
than 2,000 additional outage reports
will be filed annually. Hence, we
estimate that if the proposed rules are
adopted, the total number of reports
from all outage reporting sources filed,
pursuant to the current and proposed
rules, combined would be fewer than
13,000 annually. We note that,
occasionally, the proposed outage
reporting requirements could require
the use of professional skills, including
legal and engineering expertise. As a
consequence, we believe that in the
usual case, the only burden associated
with the proposed reporting
requirements contained in this FNPRM
would be the time required to complete
the initial and final reports. We
anticipate that electronic filing, through
the type of template that we are
proposing (similar to the type that other
service providers currently subject to
outage reporting requirements are
employing) should minimize the
amount of time and effort that will be
PO 00000
Frm 00047
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
required to comply with the rules that
we propose in this proceeding.
138. The FNPRM’s proposal to require
outage reporting would be useful in
refining voluntary best practices and in
developing new ones. In each case for
the reporting thresholds proposed, we
have chosen specific circumstances,
applicable to the specific service that, in
our view, warrant reporting as a
significant outage, leading to FCC
analysis and, possibly, the application
of existing best practices or the
development and refinement of best
practices in the future. There may be
additional thresholds that should also
be included to improve the process of
developing and improving best
practices. We encourage interested
parties to address these issues in the
context of the applicable technologies
and to develop their comments in the
context of ways in which the proposed
information collection would facilitate
best practices development and
increased communications security,
reliability and resiliency throughout the
United States and its Territories.
C. Steps Taken To Minimize Significant
Economic Impact on Small Entities, and
Significant Alternatives Considered
139. The RFA requires an agency to
describe any significant alternatives that
it has considered in reaching its
proposed approach, which may include
(among others) the following four
alternatives: (1) The establishment of
differing compliance or reporting
requirements or timetables that take into
account the resources available to small
entities; (2) the clarification,
consolidation, or simplification of
compliance or reporting requirements
under the rule for small entities; (3) the
use of performance, rather than design,
standards; and (4) an exemption from
coverage of the rule, or any part thereof,
for small entities.
140. Over the past decade, the
proportion of communications services
provided over a broadband platform has
increased dramatically, and the U.S.
increasingly relies on broadband-based
services not only for day-to-day
consumer use but also for Homeland
Defense and National Security. Over the
past three years, the number of outages
reported each year has remained
relatively steady at about 11,000. We
believe that the proposed outage
reporting requirements are the
minimum necessary to assure that we
receive adequate information to perform
our statutory responsibilities with
respect to 911 services and ensure the
reliability of communications and
critical infrastructures. Also, we believe
that the magnitude of the outages
E:\FR\FM\12JYP1.SGM
12JYP1
mstockstill on DSK3G9T082PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 133 / Tuesday, July 12, 2016 / Proposed Rules
needed to trigger the proposed reporting
requirements (e.g., outages of at least 30
minutes duration that potentially affect
at least 900,000 user minutes) is set
sufficiently high as to make it unlikely
that small businesses would be
impacted significantly by the proposed
rules. We also believe the choice of
performance-based, as opposed to
design-based, degradation
characteristics (e.g., packet loss and
round-trip latency) and the
corresponding thresholds chosen to
trigger the outage reporting will not
unduly burden smaller entities because
of their objective, readily ascertainable
nature. We have also carefully
considered the notion of a waiver for
small entities from coverage of the
proposed rules, but declined to propose
one, as a waiver of this type would
unduly frustrate the purpose of the
proposed requirements and run counter
to the objectives of the FNPRM. Further,
we believe that the proposed
requirement that outage reports be filed
electronically would significantly
reduce the burdens and costs currently
associated with manual filing processes.
141. The proposed rules in the
FNPRM are generally consistent with
current industry practices, so the costs
of compliance should be small. For a
number of reasons, we believe that the
costs of the reporting rules that we
propose in the FNPRM are outweighed
by the expected benefits (i.e., ensuring
communications reliability through
outage reporting, trend analysis and
network best practice development and
implementation). We have excluded
from the proposed requirements any
type of competitively sensitive
information, information that would
compromise network security, and
information that would undermine the
efficacy of reasonable network
management practices. We anticipate
that the record will suggest alternative
ways in which the Commission could
increase the overall benefits for, and
lessen the overall burdens on, small
entities.
142. We ask parties to include
comments on possible alternatives that
could satisfy the aims of the proceeding
in cost-effective ways that do not overly
burden providers, and we also seek
comment on appropriate legal
authority(ies) for the proposals under
consideration. Moreover, we also seek
comments on the relative costs and
benefits associated with the proposed
rules. We ask commenters to address
particularly the following concerns:
What are the costs, burdens, and
benefits associated with any proposed
rule? Entities, especially small
businesses and small entities, more
VerDate Sep<11>2014
18:07 Jul 11, 2016
Jkt 238001
generally, are encouraged to quantify
the costs and benefits of the proposed
reporting requirements. How could any
proposed rule be tailored to impose the
least cost and the least amount of
burden on those affected? What
potential regulatory approaches would
maximize the potential benefits to
society? To the extent feasible, what
explicit performance objectives should
the Commission specify? How can the
Commission best identify alternatives to
regulation, including fees, permits, or
other non-regulatory approaches?
143. Further, comments are sought on
all aspects of this proposal, including
the proposed extension of such
requirements, the definitions and
proposed reporting thresholds, and the
proposed reporting process that would
follow essentially the same approach
that currently applies to outage
reporting on legacy networks and
services. We ask that commenters
address whether the proposed rules
would satisfy the Commission’s
intended aims, described herein, and
would promote the reliability, resiliency
and security of interconnected VoIP,
broadband Internet access, and
dedicated services. We also ask for
comments on our tentative conclusions
that: Expanding part 4 outage reporting
requirements currently applicable to
interconnected VoIP service providers,
and extending part 4 reporting to BIAS
providers and dedicated service
providers, (i) would allow the
Commission to analyze outage trends
related to those services; (ii) would
provide an important tool for network
operators to use in preventing future
outages; and (iii) would help to enhance
and ensure the resiliency and reliability
of critical communications networks
and services.
144. In sum, we welcome comments
on: The proposed rules themselves;
whether they would achieve their
intended objectives; whether there are
performance objectives not mentioned
that we should address; whether better
alternatives exist that would accomplish
the proceeding’s objectives; the legal
premises for the actions contemplated;
and the costs, burdens and benefits of
our proposal.
D. Federal Rules That May Duplicate,
Overlap, or Conflict With the Proposed
Rule
145. None.
List of Subjects in 47 CFR Part 4
Airports, Communications common
carriers, Communications equipment,
Disruptions to communications,
Network outages, Reporting and
PO 00000
Frm 00048
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
45117
recordkeeping requirements,
Telecommunications.
Federal Communications Commission.
Gloria J. Miles,
Federal Register Liaison Officer, Office of the
Secretary.
Proposed Rules
For the reasons discussed in the
preamble, the Federal Communications
Commission proposes to amend 47 CFR
part 4 as follows:
PART 4—DISRUPTIONS TO
COMMUNICATIONS
1. The authority citation for part 4 is
revised to read as follows:
■
Authority: Sections 1, 4(i), 4(j), 4(o),
251(e)(3), 254, 301, 303(b), 303(g), 303(r),
307, 309(a), 309(j), 316, 332, 403, 615a-1, and
615c of Pub. L. 73–416, 48 Stat. 1064, as
amended, and section 706 of Pub. L. 104–
104, 110 Stat. 56; 47 U.S.C. 151, 154(i)-(j) &
(o), 251(e)(3), 254, 301, 303(b), 303(g), 303(r),
307, 309(a), 309(j), 316, 332, 403, 615a-1,
615c, and 1302, unless otherwise noted.
2. Section 4.3 is amended by
redesignating paragraph (i) as paragraph
(k) and adding new paragraphs (i) and
(j) to read as follows:
■
§ 4.3 Communications providers covered
by the requirements of this part.
*
*
*
*
*
(i) Broadband Internet access service
providers (BIAS) are providers of
broadband Internet access service, as
defined in § 8.2 of this chapter.
(j) Dedicated Service providers are
providers of service that transports data
between two or more designated points,
e.g., between an end user’s premises and
a point-of-presence, between the central
office of a local exchange carrier (LEC)
and a point-of-presence, or between two
end user premises, at a rate of at least
1.5 Mbps in both directions (upstream/
downstream) with prescribed
performance requirements that include
bandwidth, latency, or error-rate
guarantees or other parameters that
define delivery under a tariff or in a
service-level agreement.
*
*
*
*
*
■ 3. Section 4.7 is amended by revising
the section heading and paragraph
(e)(2), and adding paragraphs (g)
through (i) to read as follows:
§ 4.7 Definitions of metrics used to
determine reporting of outages and
disruptions to communications.
*
*
*
*
*
(e) * * *
(2) The mathematical result of
multiplying the duration of an outage,
expressed in minutes, by the number of
end-users potentially affected by the
E:\FR\FM\12JYP1.SGM
12JYP1
45118
Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 133 / Tuesday, July 12, 2016 / Proposed Rules
outage, for all other forms of
communications.
*
*
*
*
*
(g) Packet loss is defined as the loss
of one or more packets of data traveling
across a network, which after being
transmitted from a source, fail(s) to
reach the destination point designated
in the transmitting message.
(h) Latency is defined as the average
time delay for a packet to travel from a
source to a destination.
(i) Throughput is the amount of
information transferred within a system
in a given amount of time.
■ 4. Section 4.9 is amended by revising
the heading of paragraph (g), paragraphs
(g)(1)(ii), (g)(2) and adding paragraph (i)
to read as follows:
(2) Not later than 72 hours after
discovering the outage, BIAS providers
and Dedicated Service providers, as
defined in § 4.3, shall submit
electronically an Initial
Communications Outage Report to the
Commission. Not later than 30 days
after discovering the outage, the
broadband Internet access service
provider shall submit electronically a
Final Communications Outage Report to
the Commission. The Notification and
the Initial and Final reports shall
comply with the requirements of § 4.11.
[FR Doc. 2016–16273 Filed 7–8–16; 11:15 am]
BILLING CODE 6712–01–P
DEPARTMENT OF THE TREASURY
48 CFR Parts 1032 and 1052
*
mstockstill on DSK3G9T082PROD with PROPOSALS
§ 4.9 Outage reporting requirements—
threshold criteria.
Department of the Treasury
Acquisition Regulations; Incremental
Funding of Fixed-Price, Time-andMaterial or Labor-Hour Contracts
During a Continuing Resolution
*
*
*
*
(g) Interconnected VoIP Service. (1)
* * *
(ii) Within 120 minutes of discovering
that they have experienced on any
facilities that they own, operate, lease,
or otherwise utilize, an outage of at least
30 minutes duration that:
(A) Potentially affects at least 900,000
user minutes of Interconnected VoIP
service and results in complete loss of
service;
(B) Potentially affects 22,500 Gbps
user minutes; or
(C) Potentially affects any special
offices and facilities (in accordance with
paragraphs (a) through (d) of § 4.5).
(2) Not later than 72 hours after
discovering the outage, the provider
shall submit electronically an Initial
Communications Outage Report to the
Commission. Not later than 30 days
after discovering the outage, the
provider shall submit electronically a
Final Communications Outage Report to
the Commission. The Notification and
the Initial and Final reports shall
comply with the requirements of § 4.11.
*
*
*
*
*
(i) BIAS or Dedicated Service
providers. (1) All BIAS providers and
Dedicated Service providers, as defined
in § 4.3 shall submit electronically a
Notification to the Commission within
120 minutes of discovering that they
have experienced on any facilities that
they own, operate, lease, or otherwise
utilize, an outage of at least 30 minutes
duration that:
(A) Potentially affects at least 22,500
Gbps user minutes;
(B) Potentially affects any special
offices and facilities (in accordance with
paragraphs (a) through (d) of § 4.5); or
(C) Potentially affects a 911 special
facility (as defined in (e) of § 4.5).
VerDate Sep<11>2014
18:07 Jul 11, 2016
Jkt 238001
Department of the Treasury.
Proposed rule.
AGENCY:
ACTION:
This proposed rule would
amend the Department of Treasury
Acquisition Regulation (DTAR) for the
purposes of providing acquisition policy
for incremental funding of Fixed-Price,
Time-and-Material or Labor-Hour
contracts during a continuing
resolution.
SUMMARY:
Comment due date: September
12, 2016.
ADDRESSES: Treasury invites comments
on the topics addressed in this proposed
rule. Comments may be submitted to
Treasury by any of the following
methods: by submitting electronic
comments through the federal
government e-rulemaking portal,
www.regulations.gov, by email to
thomas.olinn@treasury.gov; or by
sending paper comments to Department
of the Treasury, Office of the
Procurement Executive, Attn: Thomas
O’Linn, 1722 I Street NW., Mezzanine—
M12C, Washington, DC 20006.
In general, Treasury will post all
comments to www.regulations.gov
without change, including any business
or personal information provided, such
as names, addresses, email addresses, or
telephone numbers. Treasury will also
make such comments available for
public inspection and copying in
Treasury’s Library, Department of the
Treasury, 1500 Pennsylvania Avenue
NW., Washington, DC 20220, on official
business days between the hours of
10:00 a.m. and 5:00 p.m. Eastern Time.
DATES:
PO 00000
Frm 00049
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
You can make an appointment to
inspect comments by telephoning (202)
622–0990. All comments, including
attachments and other supporting
materials received are part of the public
record and subject to public disclosure.
You should submit only information
that you wish to make publicly
available.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Thomas O’Linn, Procurement Analyst,
Office of the Procurement Executive, at
(202) 622–2092.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Background
The DTAR, which supplements the
Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR), is
codified at 48 CFR Chapter 10.
The Anti-Deficiency Act, 31 U.S.C
1341 and the FAR section 32.702, state
that no officer or employee of the
government may create or authorize an
obligation in excess of the funds
available, or in advance of
appropriations unless otherwise
authorized by law. A continuing
resolution (CR) provides funding for
continuing projects or activities that
were conducted in the prior fiscal year
for which appropriations, funds, or
other authority was previously made
available.
Each CR is governed by its specific
terms. However, amounts available
under a CR are frequently insufficient to
fully fund contract actions that may be
required during its term. No existing
contract clause permits partial funding
of a contract action awarded during a
CR. While other strategies are available
to address the need to take contract
actions during a CR, these strategies—
for example short-term awards—are
inefficient and may have other
disadvantages.
This proposal would establish
policies and procedures in order to
facilitate successful, timely, and
economical execution of Treasury
contractual actions during a CR.
Specifically, this proposed rule would
set forth procedures for using
incremental funding for fixed-price,
time-and-material and labor-hour
contracts during a period in which
funds are provided to Treasury
Departmental Offices or Bureaus under
a CR. Heads of contracting activities
may develop necessary supplemental
internal procedures as well as guidance
to advise potential offerors, offerors and
contractors of these policies and
procedures.
Regulatory Planning and Review
This rule is not a significant
regulatory action as defined in section
E:\FR\FM\12JYP1.SGM
12JYP1
Agencies
[Federal Register Volume 81, Number 133 (Tuesday, July 12, 2016)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 45095-45118]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2016-16273]
=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION
47 CFR Part 4
[PS Docket No. 15-80, 11-82; FCC 16-63]
Disruptions to Communications
AGENCY: Federal Communications Commission.
ACTION: Proposed rule.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: In this document, the Federal Communications Commission
(Commission) seeks comment on: A proposal to update the Commission's
outage reporting requirement rules to address broadband network
disruptions, including packet-based disruptions based on network
performance degradation; proposed changes to the rules governing
interconnected voice over Internet protocol (VoIP) outage reporting to
include disruptions based on network performance degradation, update
our outage definition to address incidents involving specified network
components; and modify the reporting process to make it consistent with
other services; reporting of call failures in the radio access network
and local access network, and on geography-based reporting of wireless
outages in rural areas; and, refining the covered critical
communications at airports subject to the Commission's outage reporting
requirements.
DATES: Submit comments on or before August 26, 2016, and reply comments
on or before September 12, 2016.
ADDRESSES: You may submit comments, identified by PS Docket No. 15-80
and 11-82, by any of the following methods:
Federal Communications Commission's Web site: https://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/ecfs2/. Follow the instructions for submitting
comments.
Filings can be sent by hand or messenger delivery, by
commercial overnight courier, or by first-class or overnight U.S.
Postal Service mail. See the SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION Section for more
instructions.
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: Brenda D. Villanueva, Attorney
Advisor, Public Safety and Homeland Security Bureau, (202) 418-7005, or
brenda.villanueva@fcc.gov.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: This is a summary of the Commission's
Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (FNPRM), FCC 16-63, adopted May
25, 2016, and released May 26, 2016. The full text of this document is
available for inspection and copying during normal business hours in
the FCC Reference Center (Room CY-A257), 445 12th Street SW.,
Washington, DC 20554 or
[[Page 45096]]
via ECFS at https://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/ecfs/ ecfs/. The full text may also be
downloaded at: https://apps.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-16-63A1.pdf.
Pursuant to sections 1.415 and 1.419 of the Commission's rules, 47
CFR 1.415, 1.419, interested parties may file comments and reply
comments on or before the dates indicated on the first page of this
document. Comments may be filed using the Commission's Electronic
Comment Filing System (ECFS). See Electronic Filing of Documents in
Rulemaking Proceedings, 63 FR 24121 (1998).
Electronic Filers: Comments may be filed electronically
using the Internet by accessing the ECFS: https://apps.fcc.gov/ecfs/.
Paper Filers: Parties who choose to file by paper must
file an original and one copy of each filing. If more than one docket
or rulemaking number appears in the caption of this proceeding, filers
must submit two additional copies for each additional docket or
rulemaking number.
Filings can be sent by hand or messenger delivery, by commercial
overnight courier, or by first-class or overnight U.S. Postal Service
mail. All filings must be addressed to the Commission's Secretary,
Office of the Secretary, Federal Communications Commission.
All hand-delivered or messenger-delivered paper filings
for the Commission's Secretary must be delivered to FCC Headquarters at
445 12th St. SW., Room TW-A325, Washington, DC 20554. The filing hours
are 8:00 a.m. to 7:00 p.m. All hand deliveries must be held together
with rubber bands or fasteners. Any envelopes and boxes must be
disposed of before entering the building.
Commercial overnight mail (other than U.S. Postal Service
Express Mail and Priority Mail) must be sent to 9300 East Hampton
Drive, Capitol Heights, MD 20743.
U.S. Postal Service first-class, Express, and Priority
mail must be addressed to 445 12th Street SW., Washington, DC 20554.
People with Disabilities: To request materials in accessible
formats for people with disabilities (braille, large print, electronic
files, audio format), send an email to fcc504@fcc.gov or call the
Consumer & Governmental Affairs Bureau at 202-418-0530 (voice), 202-
418-0432 (tty).
Synopsis of Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking
In this document, the Federal Communication Commission (Commission)
seeks comment on proposals to modernize its outage reporting rules to
increase its ability to detect adverse outage trends and facilitate
industrywide network improvements. The Commission seeks comment on
whether and how to update its part 4 outage reporting requirements to
address broadband, an increasingly essential element in our nation's
communications networks, along with other streamline proposals. This
action seeks to ensure that the outage reporting system keeps pace with
technological change and addresses evolving consumer preference impact
in order to be better equipped to promote the safety of life and
property through the use of wire and radio communication.
In a companion document, a Report and Order and Order on
Reconsideration in PS Docket No. 15-80, and ET Docket No. 04-35,
respectively, the Commission adopts several proposals in a Notice of
Proposed Rulemaking in 2015, and resolves several outstanding matters
related to its adoption of the part 4 rules in a Report and Order in
2004.
I. Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking
1. As service providers transition from legacy network facilities
to IP-based networks, the Commission must continue to safeguard the
reliability and resiliency of all of these interrelated systems. As we
have observed before, broadband networks and services increasingly
characterize the environment for the nation's 9-1-1 and NG911 emergency
communications and, thus, are central to the nation's emergency
preparedness, management of crises, and essential public safety-related
communications. To meet the challenge of assuring broadband networks in
order to carry out its foundational public safety mission, the
Commission must maintain visibility into TDM-based networks while
simultaneously ensuring similar visibility into commercial IP and
hybrid networks. Our current part 4 rules establish outage reporting
requirements that are in many ways centered on ``circuit-switched
telephony'' and circuits that involve a ``serving central office.'' The
proposals in this FNPRM, among other things, aim to update the part 4
rules to ensure reliability of broadband networks used to deploy
critical communications services, used both for emergency and non-
emergency purposes. As discussed below, we believe the part 4 rules can
likely provide the Commission with the necessary situational awareness
about these broadband networks by updating them to (1) extend their
application to broadband Internet access services (BIAS), and (2)
revising the manner in which they apply to existing and future
dedicated services to ensure a broadband emphasis. In this FNPRM, we
propose to use the term ``dedicated service'' to refer to those
services defined in 2013's Special Access Data Collection
Implementation Order, i.e., ``service that `transports data between two
or more designated points, e.g., between an End User's premises and a
point-of-presence, between the central office of a local exchange
carrier (LEC) and a point-of-presence, or between two End User
premises, at a rate of at least 1.5 Mbps in both directions (upstream/
downstream) with prescribed performance requirements that include
bandwidth, latency, or error-rate guarantees or other parameters that
define delivery under a Tariff or in a service-level agreement.'
'').These actions, we believe, will ensure that the Commission's
ability to monitor communications reliability and resiliency keeps pace
with technological change and the broadband-based capabilities and uses
of today's evolving networks.
2. More specifically, we: (i) Seek comment on proposed reporting
requirements, metrics, and narrative elements for both BIAS and
dedicated services outages and disruptions, including for network
performance degradation; and (ii) propose to amend the Commission's
existing outage reporting requirements for interconnected VoIP to
reflect disruptions resulting from network performance degradation. In
addition, we seek further comment on two proposals raised in the Notice
and aimed at increasing our awareness of certain outages: (i) Reporting
call failures in both the wireless and wireline/interconnected VoIP
access networks; and (ii) reporting outages that affect large
geographic areas but do not trigger the user-minute threshold because
of sparse population. We also seek comment on establishing outage
reporting triggers for certain airport communications assets (``special
offices and facilities'') designated as TSP Level 3 and Level 4
facilities. Finally, we seek to determine the most cost-effective
approaches to accomplish these objectives, and accordingly seek comment
on potential costs and benefits associated with each proposal in the
FNPRM. To that end, commenters should provide specific data and
information, such as actual or estimated dollar figures, and include
any supporting documents and descriptions
[[Page 45097]]
of how any data was gathered and analyzed.
3. The nation's transition from legacy (i.e., TDM-based)
communications platforms to IP for communications services has been
steadily progressing since the last time the Commission expanded its
outage reporting requirements to include ``newly emerging forms of
communication'' in 2004. For one thing, consumers have significantly
increased their dependence on broadband networks. Beyond consumer
technologies, important sectors are relying increasingly on
interconnected VoIP and broadband services. Indeed, in 2016, broadband
service is a central part of most Americans' lives.
4. Reliance by enterprise customers on dedicated services also
continues to increase, reflecting the rapid transition of the nation's
businesses and governmental institutions to broadband powered
communications. As we recently observed in the Special Access
proceedings, such services are ``an important building block for
creating private or virtual private networks across a wide geographic
area and enabling the secure and reliable transfer of data between
locations.'' They can also ``provide dedicated access to the Internet
and access to innovative broadband services.'' They are used by mobile
wireless providers to backhaul voice and data traffic from cell sites
to their mobile telephone switching offices. Branch banks and gas
stations use such connections for ATMs and credit card readers.
Businesses, governmental institutions, hospitals and medical offices,
and even schools and libraries use them to create their own private
networks and to access other services such as Voice over IP (VoIP),
Internet access, television, cloud-based hosting services, video
conferencing, and secure remote access. Carriers buy them as a critical
input for delivering their own customized, advanced service offerings
to end users. We believe it is critical that our outage reporting
rules, long applicable to communications services such as special
access, continue to provide an appropriate measure of network
resiliency, reliability and security assurance for today's and
tomorrow's broadband network services.
5. The Commission has long recognized the importance of these
trends for outage reporting. In 2010, the National Broadband Plan
called on the Commission to extend part 4 outage reporting rules to
broadband Internet service providers and interconnected VoIP service
providers, citing a ``lack of data [that] limited our understanding of
network operations and of how to prevent future outages.'' The
following year, the Commission proposed to safeguard reliable 911
service by extending outage reporting rules to broadband Internet
access service (BIAS) and backbone Internet service as well as
interconnected VoIP service. In the 2012 Part 4 VoIP Order, the
Commission adopted rules to extend reporting requirements to
interconnected VoIP service providers for outages resulting in a
complete loss of service, but deferred action on the remaining
proposals. At the time, the Commission indicated that its proposals to
extend outage reporting obligations to broadband providers ``deserve[d]
further study.''
6. Numerous commenters in this and other proceedings have urged the
Commission to closely monitor changes in network reliability as 911
networks migrate to IP, and others assert that some communities are
increasingly dependent upon robust mobile broadband connectivity to
deliver, in part, public safety services necessary for modern life. As
federal funds are spent to ensure deployment of broadband, e.g.,
through programs such as the Connect America Fund, we expect recipients
of these funds to build out networks that serve the public interest
through reliable access to critical communications, e.g., 911. The U.S.
Government Accountability Office (GAO) recognized that ``[t]he
communications sector is transitioning from legacy networks to an all-
Internet Protocol (IP) environment, leading consumer and public safety
groups, among others, to question how reliably the nation's
communications networks will function during times of crisis.'' Echoing
the Broadband Opportunity Council, in its 2015 report GAO questioned
whether the Commission can currently fulfill its information needs
through existing efforts to collect comprehensive, nationwide data on
technology transitions, and recommended that we develop a strategy and
gather information on the ``IP transition to assess its potential
effects on public safety and consumers.'' It also noted that this
``would help [the Commission] address these areas of uncertainty as it
oversees the IP transition,'' and enable ``data-driven decisions.'' We
agree and seek comment below on mechanisms to improve the quantity and
quality of data collected on the impact of increased broadband
availability and usage.
7. In the fulfillment of its public safety responsibilities, no
context is more important for the Commission to research and monitor
the technology transition than in the deployment of IP-based Next
Generation 911 (NG911) networks. NENA's i3 architecture has become the
de facto standard for NG911 network design, in which voice, text, and
data communications to, from, and between PSAPs operate over an
Emergency Services IP network (ESINet). The Commission has observed
that ``new capabilities will enhance the accessibility of 911 to the
public (e.g., by enabling video and text-to-911 for persons with speech
and hearing disabilities), and will provide PSAPs with enhanced
information that will enable emergency responders to assess and respond
to emergencies more quickly.'' Service providers typically market such
improvements to 911 as a way to offer better service at lower cost and
an opportunity to phase out obsolete technologies.
8. Nevertheless, we acknowledge that ``evolving technology, while
providing many benefits to PSAPs and the public, also has introduced
new and different risks.'' For example, 911 service can now be
disrupted by software malfunctions, database failures, and errors in
conversion from legacy to IP-based network protocols, and such
disruptions can occur in unique parts of the IP network that lack
analogous counterparts in legacy architecture. Moreover, the
consolidation of critical resources in a small number of databases
increases the risk of a 911 service failure that affects many PSAPs at
once, even across state lines or potentially impacting all of a service
provider's customers nationwide. Given the growing deployment of
ESINets and the Commission's specific interest in monitoring the
reliability and resiliency of PSAP connectivity, we believe that it is
critical for the Commission to have visibility into the networks of all
providers supporting ESINet service and other critical infrastructure
to fully understand reliability and resiliency factors associated with
public safety and critical infrastructure communications.
9. For both emergency and non-emergency services, broadband is now
(or rapidly is becoming) the communications sector's essential
transmission technology and, thus, ``an integral component of the U.S.
economy, underlying the operations of all businesses, public safety
organizations, and government.'' These communications sector
developments, both in NG911 deployment and in the nation's
communications sector more broadly, illustrate how important it is that
the Commission's outage reporting requirements evolve at a similar pace
as the communications sector. As 911 services evolve toward NG911
combinations of voice, data, and video,
[[Page 45098]]
and as voice and data are exchanged over the same infrastructure, it is
necessary for the Commission to refocus its lens for outage reporting
and re-examine its part 4 reporting metrics to ensure that they collect
the necessary data on the reliability of broadband networks. Access to
such objective information would ensure that the evolution of critical
communications services does not pose an obstacle to the Commission's
established consumer protection, public safety, and national security
statutory missions.
A. Broadband Network Outage Reporting
1. The Need for Updated Broadband Network Disruption and Outage
Reporting
10. Broadband networks now provide an expanding portion of today's
emergency and non-emergency communications and have technological
flexibility that allows service providers to offer both old and new
services over a single architecture. We observe that broadband networks
come with their own advantages and challenges; particularly, outages
and service disruptions can occur at both at the physical
infrastructure and the service levels. We recognize that network outage
or service disruptions at the application level in which various
services are provided (e.g., streaming video, video teleconferencing)
have different performance and network management requirements than
those at the physical network infrastructure level. Broadband networks
are just as vulnerable to physical outages and service disruptions as
the public-switched telephone network (PSTN), but are also susceptible
to attacks at the application layer, which may not affect the
underlying physical infrastructure. We seek comment on these
observations as they relate to our proposed broadband outage reporting
requirements.
11. We further observe that broadband networks' interrelated
architectural makeup renders them more susceptible to large-scale
service outages. Growing reliance on remote servers and software-
defined control has increased the scale of outages, as compared to
those in the legacy circuit switched-environment. Through news
accounts, we have observed recent outage events impacting customers
across several states. Moreover, broadband networks' architectural
efficiencies can actually magnify the impact of customer service-
affecting outages that do occur. For example, ``sunny day'' outages--
caused by technical issues rather than by environmental ones--have been
shown to jeopardize 911 communications services, sometimes across
several states. Indeed, broadband networks can support centralized
services, but, if not engineered well, they can harm resiliency
objectives. We believe that these challenges will likely become more
pronounced as broadband increasingly comes to define the nation's
communication networks. This new paradigm of larger, more impactful
outages suggests that there would be significant value in collecting
data on outages and disruptions to commercial broadband service
providers. We seek comment on this view.
12. Given the potential for broad-scale, highly-disruptive outages
in the broadband environment--and particularly those impacting 911
service--the adoption of updated broadband reporting requirements would
likely provide the Commission with more consistent and reliable data on
critical communications outages and enable it to perform its mission
more effectively in light of evolving technologies and service
offerings. Over the past decade, review and analysis of outage reports
have enabled the Commission to facilitate and promote systemic
improvements to reliability, both through industry outreach, the CSRIC,
and formal policy initiatives. The analysis of trends identified from
our authoritative outage report repository has proven to be a useful
tool for the Commission in working with providers to address outages
and facilitate sector-wide improvements. As NG911 functionality becomes
centralized within broadband networks, network vulnerabilities specific
to emergency services will emerge, and the Commission should be well-
informed of such vulnerabilities. We seek comment on this position.
a. Mandatory vs. Voluntary Reporting
13. In the 2011 Part 4 Notice, the Commission asked whether and how
outage reporting should to be extended to broadband. At the time
numerous commenters challenged the idea, with some suggesting that
mandatory outage reporting is not suitable for broadband packet-
switched networks given built in redundancies, and the complexity of
tracing disruptions to a single cause.
14. Where the Commission has required mandatory reporting of
disruptions to IP communications (such as interconnected VoIP
communications), 47 CFR 4.3(h), 4.9(g), we have found substantial value
from that reporting. We believe that the same is true for other IP-
based networks and services that have become such a typical feature of
our communications networks. Additionally, in the 2012 Part 4 Order,
the Commission observed that ``the record . . . reflect[ed] a
willingness on the part of broadband Internet service providers to
participate in a voluntary process'' to improve the Commission's
awareness of broadband outages and their impact on public safety. Over
the past four years, broadband providers have not come forward with
concrete proposals for such a process or even expressed such an
interest in voluntary reporting. As with previous attempts at voluntary
reporting, we are concerned that any voluntary regime for broadband
outages would be unsuccessful in achieving a level of participation
necessary to make the program effective. We seek comment on this
position, and how to apply the lessons learned from our previous
voluntary outage reporting regime. Finally, as the Commission observed
in 2011, ``even if incentives did motivate individual market
participants to optimize their own reliability, they do not necessarily
optimize systemic reliability.'' We believe that mandatory reporting of
broadband network outages would motivate such optimization, and, thus,
would advance the public interest. We seek comment on this view.
15. For the reasons set out above, we reaffirm our belief that
mandatory reporting requirements would have a positive effect on the
reliability and resiliency of broadband networks. Therefore, we
tentatively conclude that broadband network outage reporting should be
mandatory. We seek comment on this tentative conclusion and seek
further comment on the issues first raised generally in the 2011 Part 4
Notice.
2. Proposed Coverage of Broadband Outages
16. In proposing updated broadband outage reporting rules, we must
identify the appropriate set of broadband--and broadband-constituent--
services, facilities, and infrastructure that are reasonably
appropriate for reporting requirements. In the 2015 Open Internet
Order, we described the broadband communications environment to include
a number of different market segments and services, including
arrangements underlying those services. Among other things, we drew a
distinction between networks and services deploying broadband
capabilities provided to consumers, those deploying such capabilities
to businesses and other enterprises, and those providing Internet
backbone services. And we specifically excluded from broadband Internet
access service
[[Page 45099]]
(BIAS) enterprise service offerings such as ``special access services''
and their functional equivalents and other non-BIAS services, e.g.,
Internet access, interconnection, backbone service, traffic exchange,
non-BIAS data services.
17. In the Business Data Services/Special Access NPRM, including
its adjunct 2015 Data Collection, we further described the ``special
access'' or ``dedicated services'' that form critical portions of the
broadband ecosystem, i.e.,--links that ``enabl[e] secure and reliable
transfer of data between locations.'' Although such services are
already addressed in part 4 to some extent, which as noted above
broadly defines those ``communications services'' subject to these
rules, our part 4 reporting standards do not ensure that outage
reporting illuminates broadband issues critical to functionality of
these services. We believe that the public safety goals to be
accomplished through Part 4 assurance for today's broadband
communications world can best be advanced if we extend the scope of our
rules to BIAS, for the first time, and update and clarify those
requirements for dedicated services so that we receive broadband-
specific outage information for those services, and that we ensure our
requirements apply equally and neutrally regardless of technology or
provider type. We seek comment on this view.
18. For broadband outage reporting purposes, we believe developing
reporting metrics that clearly address this functionality to be
critical to our continued ability to obtain situational awareness with
respect to reliability of the Nation's most important communications
services. For the reasons set forth below, we tentatively conclude that
the public safety goals to be accomplished through Part 4 assurance for
today's broadband communications world can most reasonably be advanced
by extending those rules to cover BIAS, and by updating those
requirements for measuring the reliability of dedicated services. In
our view, these steps are likely to provide us with most if not all of
the information reasonably necessary for purposes of our Part 4
mission, while avoiding the need to subject other service providers
(such as Internet backbone providers) to these reporting requirements.
Our proposal will also ensure that our requirements apply equally and
neutrally regardless of technology or provider type. We seek comment on
these views. By taking the actions now proposed, we believe we will
have the ability to ensure greater broadband network reliability,
resiliency, and security. We believe, thus, that this approach would
ensure comprehensive outage reporting that, for BIAS and dedicated
services, would encompass: (i) All customer market segments to
include--mass market, small business, medium size business, specific
access services, and enterprise-class (including PSAPs, governmental
purchasers, carriers, critical infrastructure industries, large
academic institutional users, etc.); (ii) all providers of such
services on a technology neutral basis; and (iii) all purchasers (end
users) of those services without limitation. We seek comment on this
view.
a. Broadband Internet Access Service (BIAS)
19. The Commission defines BIAS in 47 CFR 8.2(a) as:
[a] mass-market retail service by wire or radio that provides the
capability to transmit data to and receive data from all or
substantially all Internet endpoints, including any capabilities
that are incidental to and enable the operation of the
communications service, but excluding dial-up Internet access
service. This term also encompasses any service that the Commission
finds to be providing a functional equivalent of the service
described in the previous sentence . . . .
BIAS includes those services offered over facilities leased or owned,
wireless or wireline, to residences and individuals, small businesses,
certain schools and libraries and rural health entities. BIAS does not
include enterprise service offerings, which are typically offered to
larger organizations through customized or individually-negotiated
arrangements, or special access (``dedicated'') services. Some NG911
systems use BIAS to support critical functions like transmission of
location information, making it of particular interest to the
Commission as NG911 is rolled out. BIAS is also increasingly integral
for everyday life; according to the Commission's latest broadband
subscribership data, over 250,000,000 Americans purchase wireline or
wireless (or both, typically) BIAS to meet an ever-expanding array of
their communications needs. These services are essential for work,
family and community activities, social engagements and leisure, and
are increasingly vital for emergency services communications whether as
voice, texting or other data transmission. Given BIAS' ubiquitous
penetration throughout the American landscape and the multiple
important emergency and non-emergency uses for which Americans consume
BIAS, we recognize the same, if not higher, need for assurance through
outage reporting under part 4 as we have long recognized for other
communications services. We seek comment on this understanding and
approach.
20. Existing part 4 rules define relevant providers to include
``affiliated and non-affiliated entities that maintain or provide
communications networks or services used by the provider,'' and require
reporting of ``all pertinent information on the outage.'' We seek
specific comment on whether BIAS providers could be used as a central
reporting point for all broadband network outages, i.e., whether our
part 4 assurance goals for broadband outage reporting can be
effectuated through, or should be limited to, an approach in which only
BIAS providers (as opposed to other entities providing networks or
services) would be required to report. We ask commenters to address
BIAS providers' services relationships with other providers (i.e.,
entities that provide IP transport underlying the BIAS offering), and
particularly whether, and the extent to which they share information
(formally or informally) relevant to outage reporting. Do providers
typically discuss or notify each other in the event of disruptions? Do
or can BIAS providers enter into service level or other agreements that
contain requirements that enable them to obtain adequate information
concerning the source of outages that originate with such other
providers? Should our rules impose an obligation on BIAS providers to
provide such information in their part 4 reports?
21. In what way is the Commission's experience with entities that
``maintain or provide communications networks or services used by the
provider'' (e.g., for legacy voice communications or interconnected
VoIP service) instructive in its consideration of these issues
associated with BIAS outage reporting? Or, are there sufficient
technical or operational differences between BIAS and entities already
covered by part 4 as to warrant a new approach? If so, what are those
differences and how should the Commission approach BIAS outage
reporting to address those differences in ways that promote effective
outage reporting? What actions could the Commission take to ensure that
BIAS providers can obtain sufficient information in the event of a
service outage about the source and cause of the outage? We also seek
comment on whether a BIAS-only approach would sufficiently capture
critical communications, i.e., communications involving critical
infrastructure, needed for NS/EP, or otherwise associated with public
safety or emergency preparedness. If it does not, should the
[[Page 45100]]
Commission extend its reporting requirements directly to other entities
that maintain or provide communications networks or services used by
the BIAS provider?
b. Dedicated Services
22. In our Dedicated Services/Special Access proceeding, we have
closely examined the evolving (in terms of scope, array and use of
services) and expanding (in terms of participants, including new
entrants) market for IP- and other data protocol-based packet services
to enterprises and other segments and purchasers not included within
the mass market level served by BIAS providers. These dedicated
services power the fullest range of large data pipe (high capacity)
services, e.g., circuit-based TDM facilities like DS3s, or data network
transmission (packet-based) facilities such as ``Ethernet'', and are
deployed without geographic restraint (i.e., in use for ``last mile'',
``middle mile'', ``long haul'', etc.). Although DS3s and DS1s, both of
which are longstanding dedicated services ``warhorses'', have always
been subject to outage reporting (as have other ``two-way voice and/or
data communications'', 47 CFR 4.3(b)), our reporting rules may provide
insufficient clarity as to non-TDM dedicated services such as
``Ethernet.'' We seek to provide both broadband-specific reporting
emphasis and scope of covered services clarity in this FNPRM. In the
past, our rules and reporting emphasis under part 4 have been framed
mostly by reference to legacy TDM special access circuits, which is
certainly a segment of the services and infrastructure properly
classified as ``dedicated services.'' In this FNPRM, we now place
clearer emphasis on broadband outages through new proposed metrics,
thresholds and triggers, and also take steps to ensure all dedicated
services providers--old and new--understand their compliance
obligations under our rules.
23. To achieve this clarity and emphasis, we first seek comment on
the following definition of ``dedicated services'' for outage reporting
purposes:
Services that transport data between two or more designated
points, e.g., between an end user's premises and a point-of-
presence, between the central office of a local exchange carrier
(LEC) and a point-of-presence, or between two end user premises, at
a rate of at least 1.5 Mbps in both directions (upstream/downstream)
with prescribed performance requirements that include bandwidth,
latency, or error-rate guarantees or other parameters that define
delivery under a Tariff or in a service-level agreement.
In addition to commenting on this proposed definition for part 4's
purposes, we ask commenters whether there are any other descriptors
needed to ensure both the clarity and breadth of the services that
should be included within dedicated services for part 4 reporting
assurance purposes.
24. Dedicated services are important components for creating
private or virtual private networks across a wide geographic area, and
for enabling the secure and reliable transfer of data between
locations, including the provision of dedicated Internet access and
access to innovative broadband services. Dedicated services, however,
[are] distinctly different from the mass marketed, ``best efforts''
[BIAS] provided to residential end users, such as AT&T's U-verse or
Comcast's XFINITY. Dedicated services typically provide dedicated
symmetrical transmission speeds with performance guarantees, such as
guarantees for traffic prioritization, guarantees against certain
levels of frame latency, loss, and jitter to support real-time IP
telephony and video applications, or guarantees on service
availability and resolving outages. As such, dedicated services
tends to cost substantially more than ``best efforts'' services and
are offered to businesses, non-profits, and government institutions
who need to support mission critical applications and have greater
demands for symmetrical bandwidth, increased reliability, security,
and service to more than one location.
25. As with BIAS, we seek comment on the extent to which those who
provide dedicated services are in a position to inform the Commission
of the source and cause of reportable outages. We believe that such
providers are reasonably likely to be well-informed about these
questions. Dedicated services providers also provision service
``solutions'' for other communications providers; for example, mobile
providers use dedicated services to backhaul voice and data traffic.
26. With respect to negotiated terms and conditions for assurance,
is it standard industry practice to inform dedicated services customers
about the nature of any particular outage or performance issue that
triggers assurance guarantees (i.e., credits)? Does this also extend to
inform such customers about any non-service impacting outages,
regardless of the seriousness of the outages, or to inform customers as
to the provider's overall performance using an established set of
metrics? For example, are dedicated service customers interested in
non-service impacting outages whose notification helps inform
resiliency decisions or helps inform predictive risk mitigation actions
based on a larger data set of observed failure modes? If so, how are
such customer needs addressed through contract negotiations or, post-
contract, through course of dealing between parties or by other means
(e.g., Industry Data Breach Annual Summaries, academic research, etc.)?
27. We recognize that variation between and among dedicated
services providers, the services they provide, their customers' service
needs and profiles, and other factors may indicate differences that we
should consider with respect to the benefits and burdens of dedicated
services outage reporting. Accordingly, we seek comment on such
differences, and particularly their impact on relative costs and
burdens for outage reporting.
28. In sum, to ensure the Commission can effectively discharge its
public safety mandates and mission with respect to the communications
networks and services upon which America's citizens, businesses and
governmental organizations rely, we propose that BIAS providers be
required to report outages pursuant to the Commission's part 4 rules,
and we propose to update existing outage reporting metrics to reflect
broadband disruptions involving dedicated services and provide clarity
as to scope of covered services. We recognize that this approach may
not capture the full scope of communications services, but we believe,
at this time, that the costs of extending our outage reporting
requirements beyond these services may exceed the benefits. We seek
comment on this view. To the extent commenters believe that there are
other communications providers that provide broadband-related services
warranting part 4 outage reporting, we invite commenters to elaborate
in detail.
3. Proposed Reporting Process for Broadband Providers
29. Three-part submission process. We seek comment on whether to
apply the three-part structure used by other reporting entities under
part 4 to covered broadband service providers. This process would
require the provider to file a notification to the Commission within
120 minutes of discovering a reportable outage as further defined in
Section V.B.; an initial report within 72 hours of discovery of the
reportable outage; and a final report within 30 days of discovering the
outage, similar to the process described in 47 CFR 4.9(a), (c)-(f) for
cable, satellite, SS7, wireless, and wireline providers. Covered
providers would submit all reports electronically to the Commission and
include all of the information required by Section 4.11 of the
Commission's rules. A notification would include: The name of
[[Page 45101]]
the reporting entity; the date and time of the onset of the outage; a
brief description of the problem, including root cause information and
whether there were any failures of critical network elements, if known;
service effects; the geographic area affected by the outage and a
contact name and telephone number for the Commission's technical staff.
We note that this notification requirement is distinct from a covered
911 service provider's obligation to notify PSAPs in the event of an
outage impacting 911 service, 47 CFR 4.9(h), and we defer discussion of
those notification requirements to PS Docket Nos. 13-75 and 14-193. The
initial reports would include the same information, and in addition,
any other pertinent information then available on the outage, as
submitted in good faith. Further, the provider's final report would
include all other pertinent information available on the outage,
including root cause information where available and anything that was
not contained in or changed from the initial report.
30. Reporting requirements concerning critical network elements.
Pursuant to the requirements of Section 4.11 of our rules, once an
outage triggers a reporting requirement, there is certain information
that we expect providers, acting in good faith, to include in their
reports to the extent such matters are at issue in a given reportable
event and the provider, through the exercise of reasonable due
diligence, knows or should know the facts. We believe our concept of
reportable outages must evolve as new events threaten the reliability
and resiliency of communications in ways that can expose end users to
serious risks, to that end we routinely update the NORS data fields to
reflect changes in technology and seek to do so here. Specifically, we
expect providers to include information in their reports concerning (1)
the failure of facilities that might be considered critical network
elements, and (2) unintended changes to software or firmware or
unintended modifications to a database to the extent relevant to a
given outage or service disruption that is otherwise reportable. We
seek comment on this approach.
31. We propose to consider a network element ``critical'' if its
failure would result in the loss of any user functionality that a
covered broadband provider's service provides to its end users. For
example, Call Agents, Session Border Controllers, Signaling Gateways,
Call Session Control Functions (CSCF), and Home Subscriber Server (HSS)
could be considered ``critical'' network elements. And, we believe that
information concerning such failures uniquely provides a sharper
network and service vulnerability focus that would further the
Commission's public safety and related missions by enhancing the
Commission's situational awareness and network operating status
awareness. We seek comment on this assessment. We seek comment on these
views and on this reporting approach. Additionally, we propose that to
the extent unintended changes to software or firmware or unintended
modifications to a database are revealed as part of reportable
disruptions, we should be apprised of those facts through the outage
reports providers submit.
32. As with events involving critical network element failure, we
propose to modify the NORS interface to support information regarding
outages and disruptions that are associated with unintended changes to
software or firmware or unintended modifications to a database. This is
consistent with our customary practice of updating NORS information
fields as technologies and services evolve. Thus, if unintended changes
to software or firmware or unintended modifications to a database
played a role in causing an otherwise reportable outage, we would
expect providers' reports to include specific detail about the nature
of the associated facts. The Commission seeks comment on what
information would be useful to understand these exploitations. Would it
be helpful for us to use open fields so that outages can be described
in terms defined by the provider acknowledging that these may differ
from provider to provider? We seek comment on this approach. We
recognize that unintended changes to software and firmware and
unintended modifications to a database may not always manifest
themselves in the form of reportable communications ``outages'' as
traditionally defined by the Commission or as we propose for broadband
outage reporting. Are there additional data drop-down menu fields we
should consider beyond those proposed above that would provide
significant information about broadband outages? Would it be useful to
establish pre-defined elements in the reporting metrics that would
provide the Commission with more consistent failure information that
would improve long-term analysis about unintended changes to software
and firmware or unintended modifications to a database that would not
otherwise be reported to the Commission? For example should the
Commission receive information on distributed denial of service (DDoS)
attacks in order to support an improved correlation should multiple
outages involve DDoS as a contributing factor?
33. Should we expand our definition of Part 4 outages to include
failures that are software-related or firmware-induced, or unintended
modifications to a database that otherwise do not trigger hard-down
outages or performance degradations as described below? For example,
should a route hijacking that diverts packets to another country, but
still delivers the packets to the consumer be a reportable outage? If
so, we seek comment on this position. What process should be followed
to make the Commission aware of such disruptions? Would such a
requirement be unnecessary were the Commission to adopt proposed data
breach reporting requirement proposed in the Broadband Privacy Notice
of Proposed Rulemaking, WC Docket No. 16-106?
34. We seek broad comment on updates to our traditional NORS
reporting processes and expectations when reportable broadband outages
involving unintended software or firmware changes or unintended
modifications to a database occur. We ask commenters to address whether
valid public safety, national security, economic security or other
reasons support the kind of granular reporting features we now describe
for broadband, and whether such reasons justify treating broadband
outage reporting differently from non-broadband outage reporting. Do
commenters believe that alternative approaches should be explored that
could ensure that the Commission receives all useful outage and
disruption causation information in a timely and cost-effective manner?
35. Also, as discussed below, we propose to adopt the same
reporting approach for interconnected VoIP providers as we have for
legacy service providers (i.e., a notification, interim report and
final report). We seek comment on this proposal. Alternatively, we seek
comment on whether all reporting (i.e., legacy, broadband and
interconnected VoIP) should be adjusted to a two-step process. Are
there other similar steps that we should consider that would ensure
adequate reporting in reasonable, appropriate time intervals across the
various technologies at issue for reporting?
36. We seek comment on other steps the Commission can take to make
providers' reporting obligations consistent across services or
otherwise streamline the process. As with other covered providers in
Sec. 4.9, we seek comment on whether 9-1-1 special facilities are
served by BIAS and dedicated services providers such that a
[[Page 45102]]
reporting requirement when 9-1-1 special facilities experiences a
reportable outage or communications disruption would be warranted.
Similarly, each covered provider in part 4 is required to report
outages and communications disruptions to special offices and
facilities (in accordance to Sec. 4.5(a) through (d)). We seek comment
on whether special offices and facilities are served by BIAS and
dedicated services providers such that a reporting requirement when
these experience a reportable outage or communications disruption would
be warranted. One potential benefit of the transition to more advanced
communications technologies is the ability to automate processes that
historically have required a significant amount of manual processing.
We seek comment on whether there are ways of automating the outage
reporting process beyond what has been possible or has been attempted
in the context of legacy communications services. How could such
automated reporting be accomplished? What are the advantages of such a
reporting mechanism? What are the disadvantages? What cost savings
would result from any such automation?
4. Proposed Metrics and Thresholds for Broadband Network Outage
Reporting
a. ``Hard Down'' Outage Events Metrics and Thresholds
37. By ``hard down'' outage events, we refer to outages that result
in loss of service, as opposed to performance degradations discussed
below. In determining the appropriate metrics and thresholds for our
broadband outage reporting proposals, we initially sought comment on
the method for calculating the ``user minutes'' potentially affected by
a broadband outage. In the 2011 Part 4 Notice, we proposed using
potentially-affected IP addresses as a proxy for the number of
potentially affected users. At least one commenter claimed using IP
addresses would tend to overstate the impact of an outage, and
advocated using subscriber counts instead. More recently, in response
to our proposal for major transport facility outage reporting, Comcast
recommended using a ``bandwidth-based standard'' as a potential
replacement for our user-minute metric used for major transport
facility outage reporting. In light of technological advances, we now
seek to revisit this issue.
38. We further propose a throughput-based metric and threshold for
``hard down'' outage events. We propose to define ``throughput'' as the
amount of information transferred within a system in a given amount of
time. In light of significant changes in technology and the
characteristics of broadband networks generally, we believe that it is
appropriate to tailor our approach with respect to the identification
of a threshold event for hard-down outages. Since part 4 was first
enacted, the communications network architecture and elements, and the
services carried over those networks, have grown more diverse and
require increased throughput. The Commission currently uses DS3 as the
unit of throughput with which to calibrate our reporting threshold for
major transport facility outages. The companion document, Report and
Order, adopts an updated metric, changing the standard from DS3 to OC3.
Given the accumulating amount of throughput required to deliver today's
broadband services, we believe that 1 Gbps would function as a modern-
day equivalent of the DS3 (45 Mbps) unit originally adopted in 2004, we
now calculate that a gigabit can support nearly 24DS3s or 16,000 DS0s
(64 Kbps voice or data circuits). This can be seen in the increased
deployments of residential communications services offering up to 1
Gbps in download speeds. As such, we tentatively conclude that the
threshold reporting criterion for outages should be based on the number
of Gbps minutes affected by the outage because Gb is a common
denominator used throughout the communications industry as a measure of
throughput for high bandwidth services. We further propose to introduce
a broadband metric calibrated with the current 900,000 user minute
threshold. In today's broadband environment, a typical user requesting
```advanced telecommunications capability' requires access to actual
download speeds of at least 25 Mbps.'' Accordingly, we calculate that
if a facility with throughput totaling 1 Gbps providing individual
users 25 Mbps of broadband capacity each, experienced a disruption to
communications resulting in a complete outage, 40 individual users
would be impacted. We calculate that 1Gbps in throughput total, which
is converted to 1,000 Mbps, is divided by 25 Mbps as the download speed
for each user, would result in a total of 40 individual users impacted
by an outage event. In establishing a gigabit per second user minute
threshold, we calculate that 900,000 user minutes divided by the 40
individual users impacted by the outage, results in 22,500 Gbps user
minutes. The 22,750 Gbps user minute figure was derived from the
current threshold-reporting criterion of ``900,000 user minutes.''
Assuming a 25 Mbps broadband user connection, as stated in the 2015
Broadband Progress America report, being delivered over a 1 Gbps
facility, we compute: 1 Gbps divided by 25 Mbps equals 40 broadband
user connections. Then, 900,000 user minutes divided by the number of
impacted broadband user connections, 40, equals 22,750 Gbps user
minutes. This means that an outage event would become reportable when
it resulted in 1 Gbps of throughput affected in which the event exceeds
22,500 Gbps user minutes. To determine whether an outage event is
reportable using this threshold, we multiply the size of the facility
measured in Gbps, by the duration of the event measured in minutes, and
this total generates a Gbps user minute number. If this user minute
number exceeds 22,500, then the outage event is reportable to the
Commission. So for example, if a 1 Tbps (terabits per second) facility
experienced a disruption for 45 minutes, we would multiply 1000 by 45
minutes to get 45,000 Gbps user minutes, and since this figure exceeds
22,500 Gbps user minutes, the outage event would be reportable. We seek
comment on the analysis presented, which would establish a reporting
threshold of an outage of 1 Gbps (gigabit per second) lasting for 30
minutes or more.
39. We seek comment on a throughput-based metric and its advantages
or disadvantages over a user-based metric, for example, a 900,000 user-
minute metric that treats broadband users for measurement purposes as
those broadband end users that have no service. We also seek comment on
whether a throughput-based metric would be more appropriate for some
networks rather others. For instance, would our proposed 1 Gbps
throughput threshold be appropriate for both BIAS and dedicated
services? If not, why not? Should we consider a throughput-based metric
for BIAS networks set at a lower threshold, such as 25 megabits per
second (Mbps)? Would this result in an unacceptably small number of
outages reports? How well would a threshold of 1 Gbps or greater
lasting for 30 minutes or more reflect the geographic scope and impact
of an outage and the number of subscribers impacted by an outage? Would
a user-minute based threshold better capture the geographic scope and
impact of an outage and the number of subscribers impacted? Does using
a throughput metric in lieu of potentially-affected IP addresses, or
that of subscriber count, as described below,
[[Page 45103]]
provide better information to the Commission? Would a throughput metric
be less or more burdensome for providers than a user-based one? If so,
why? How might the increasing availability of Gbps services affect the
usefulness of throughput as an outage indicator? Is there a better
throughput threshold than 1 Gbps or greater lasting for 30 minutes or
more? If so, what would it be?
40. In addition, we revisit the 2011 proposal to use potentially-
affected IP addresses as a proxy for the number of potentially affected
users. If we were to adopt the 2011 proposal, would the metric
overstate the impact of an outage? If so, by how much would the outage
impact be overstated? How well could a potentially-affected IP
addresses threshold effectively communicate the geographic scope and
impact of an outage and the numbers of subscribers impacted? Would the
increasing deployment of IPv6 addresses affect the utility or accuracy
of this proposed metric, and if so, how? Would using subscriber counts
as a proxy for number of users be a more accurate metric to determine
the impact of an outage? In what ways do providers measure the number
of subscribers now? Do providers measure broadband subscribers apart
from other types of subscribers? If so, why? Which new subscribers
would be counted under the proposed rules that were not previously
counted? Should we consider unique subscriber-based metrics for BIAS
and dedicated services provider? In instances of outage events lasting
less than 30 minutes, should we consider whether subscriber-based
metrics should be more indicative of a network outage impacting a large
metropolitan area or geographic region? What benefit would this add to
our proposed broadband outage reporting rules? Do current provider
subscriber counts measure the total number of subscribers served at any
given time? Are provider subscriber counts verified at the occurrence
of an outage or disruption? What difficulties, if any, would covered
broadband providers experience in applying a subscriber-based metric?
b. Performance Degradation Outage Events Metrics and Thresholds
41. The following section addresses requirements to report outage
events in cases of significant degradation of communication. We
tentatively conclude that outage events are reportable when there is a
loss of ``general useful availability and connectivity,'' even if not a
total loss of connectivity. We propose a series of metrics and
thresholds that we believe could identify outage events that
significantly degrade communications: (1) A combination of packet loss
and latency metrics and thresholds, and (2) a throughput-based metric
and threshold. Finally, we seek comment on the appropriate locations
for significant degradation of communication measurements.
(i) ``Generally Useful Availability and Connectivity''
42. Consistent with the part 4 definition of an ``outage,'' in 47
CFR 4.5(a) (defining an ``outage'' as ``a significant degradation in
the ability of an end user to establish and maintain a channel of
communications as a result of failure or degradation in the performance
of a communications provider's network), we again seek comment on
whether covered broadband providers should be required to report
disruptions that significantly degrade communications, including losses
of ``generally useful availability and connectivity'' as measured by
specific metrics. We propose to define ``generally useful availability
and connectivity'' to include the availability of functions that are
part of the service provided (i.e., ``service functionality''). We
tentatively conclude that outage events experiencing significantly
degraded communications include those events with a loss of generally
useful availability and connectivity, and seek comment on this
tentative conclusion.
43. In 2011, ATIS stated that losses of ``generally useful
availability and connectivity'' not resulting in a complete loss of
service should not be reportable under the part 4 rules, arguing that
such events are ``more akin to static/noise on legacy communications
systems or error rates in DS3 lines . . .'' However, the loss of
``generally useful availability and connectivity'' in the broadband
context would appear to be more akin to a legacy voice call during
which the users cannot hear or make themselves understood, tantamount
to a complete loss of service. This threshold may be even more
recognizable in a digital context where effective bandwidth minimums
are well understood. Accordingly, we reintroduce the Commission's 2011
proposal to require covered broadband providers to report on losses of
`generally-useful availability and connectivity' to capture analogous
incidents where customers are effectively unable to use their broadband
service. We seek comment on this proposal.
44. We also seek comment on possible alternatives or additional
metrics of generally-useful availability and connectivity. For
instance, should the Commission create a reporting metric based on loss
of network capacity? If so, how should the Commission quantify a loss
of a network capacity for reporting purposes, and what would be an
appropriate reporting threshold? Should we consider a metric measuring
the average relative bandwidth, where providers would compare the
active bandwidth against the provider's bandwidth advertised or
offered? Could such a metric be quantified for reporting purposes? If
so, what would be an appropriate reporting threshold? What other
metrics should the Commission consider?
(ii) Metrics for Performance Degradation
45. In addition to the metrics for generally-useful availability
and connectivity, we seek comment on potential broadband outage
reporting metrics to measure significant performance degradation in
communications. In this regard, we propose two sets of proposals. We
propose a throughput metric and seek comment on the appropriate
thresholds; or, propose an alternative metric based in a combination of
three core metrics, throughput, packet loss, and latency, and seek
comment on the appropriate thresholds. Moreover, we seek comment on the
extent potential metrics for generally-useful availability and
connectivity may overlap with the proposed metrics for significant
performance degradation in communications.
46. First, given that throughput is widely recognized as a key
metric for measuring network performance, we propose using a throughput
metric threshold at 1 Gbps for a network outage or service disruption
event lasting 30 minutes or more. In addition to the use of a
throughput metric for hard down outages described above, a throughput
metric can also determine when a significant degradation occurs in a
network, as transmission rates decline as network congestion increases.
In addition to throughput, we seek comment on the utility of two other
metrics to indicate broadband network performance degradation: Packet
loss and latency. Can a proposed 1 Gbps event lasting for 30 minutes
threshold capture instances in which the network suffers an outage or
experience degradation in network performance? Would it be more
appropriate to maintain the 900,000 user-minute threshold for
throughput? If so, why? How would it be determined and calculated to be
equivalent to a throughput-based metric of 1 Gbps threshold? How would
maintaining the
[[Page 45104]]
900,000 user-minute threshold capture and account for the complexities
found in broadband networks and the outages occurring on those
networks? We also seek comment on whether a throughput threshold for
performance degradation should require a carrier's average throughput
to drop a nominal percentage, say 25 percent, below normal levels. How
would such a threshold be measured and reported should this threshold
be reached? Would this effectively capture the impact to network
subscribers and facilities? Is a nominal drop of 25 percent in average
throughput thresholds indicative of noticeable network performance
degradation? We seek comment on this approach.
47. We seek comment on a second proposal looking at these proposed
core metrics--packet loss, latency, and throughput. To what extent do
covered broadband providers already collect information on packet loss,
latency, and throughput? Are any of the metrics better suited than
others at measuring loss of generally-useful availability and
connectivity of broadband service? Are there any alternate performance
metrics that would more effectively capture network outages or
performance degradation? If so, what are they and do these providers
already capture these metrics? Are any of the metrics more cost-
effective to monitor than others, and if so, which are they and why?
48. We further propose to limit the scope of outage filings to
those events that affect customer communications. We seek comment on
this approach. In addition to packet loss, latency, and throughput, we
seek comment on whether there are other metrics and thresholds that
would be indicative of events impacting customer communications, and
comment about other appropriate indicators that might better reflect
when these communication services are disrupted. Are there existing
measurement efforts regarding network performance and assurance
conducted by the Commission that would provide better guidance in
determining reporting thresholds for broadband network outage
reporting? How are these other performance and assurance measurements
aligned with our proven public safety and reliability efforts in our
current part 4 outage reporting efforts? How does the use of these
network performance metrics complement or conflict with other efforts
at the Commission? The Commission is providing guidance across a number
of areas regarding network performance metrics and measurements
ensuring users receive adequate and expected network performance from
their service subscriptions.
49. Alternatively, should we consider adopting more specific,
absolute thresholds for packet loss, latency, and throughput to measure
significant performance degradation of communications? In 2011, the
Commission proposed that service degradation occurs whenever there is a
noticeable decline in a network's average packet loss; or average
round-trip latency; or average throughput of 1 Gbps, with all packet
loss and latency measurements taken in each of at least six consecutive
five-minute intervals from source to destination host. If absolute
thresholds are preferable, how would these particular thresholds be
calculated and determined? Would an absolute threshold still be
appropriate with current broadband systems? How could the reporting
thresholds for packet loss, latency, and throughput be set at
appropriate levels? If any of these thresholds should be adjusted, what
is an appropriate threshold? Should the requirement to take performance
measurements in six consecutive five-minute intervals be modified? If
so, how?
50. We also seek comment on whether these metrics support a
consistent reporting standard across all broadband provider groups. The
Commission recognizes that there may be different metrics for
performance degradation for different services and that a ``one size
fits all'' approach to determining appropriate metrics and thresholds
indicating the health and performance of broadband networks and
services may not be appropriate depending on underlying quality of
service and network performance requirements. Are these metrics (packet
loss, latency, and throughput) appropriate to evaluate performance for
both BIAS and dedicated services? Alternatively, are these metrics
unique to either BIAS or dedicated services, but not appropriate for
both? We also seek comment on whether and how the proposed metrics
should differentiate mobile broadband from fixed broadband. Are there
unique attributes of mobile broadband that we should consider for our
outage reporting purposes? For example, will application of these
metrics to mobile broadband result in too many instances where,
although a threshold is passed, there is no major problem with the
network? Why or why not? Are other network performance metrics more
suitable for mobile broadband than fixed broadband, and if so, what are
they?
(iii) Measurement of Performance Degradation
51. We also seek comment on the end points from which covered
broadband providers would measure whether there is performance
degradation. In the case of BIAS providers, we believe that these
metrics should be measured from customer premises equipment to the
destination host. For dedicated services providers, we believe that the
metrics should be measured from the closest network aggregation point
in the access network (e.g., DSLAM serving DSL subscribers) to the
closest network facility routing communications traffic or exchanging
traffic with other networks (e.g., PoP, gateway).
52. We seek comment on these tentative conclusions, and on whether
these end-points for measurement are appropriate for their
corresponding services, as well as the use of the term ``destination
host'' for all providers. Does ``destination host'' appropriately cover
the various types of network facilities used by covered broadband
providers to connect to their customers and/or exchange traffic with
other networks? Where in a BIAS network should the measurements take
place to record the measurements most accurately? In a dedicated
services network? At what level of aggregation should the measurements
be taken in the BIAS and dedicated services networks? What is the best
way to determine the measurement clients and servers are correctly
chosen to accurately measure the proposed metrics? Are there other
terms that would better describe the point where network traffic is
routed and aggregated from several endpoints (e.g., network aggregation
point) for either type of service? For example, should we follow the
performance metrics established under the Measuring Broadband America
program or other broadband measurement metrics developed by the
Commission? We also seek comment on a scenario in which the
``destination host'' is on another BIAS provider's network. In that
case, how would the original BIAS provider detect an outage on its
network path? We seek comment on this scenario and anything else the
Commission should consider with respect to network end-points.
5. Broadband Reporting Confidentiality and Part 4 Information Sharing
53. Currently, outage reports filed in NORS are withheld from
routine public inspection and treated with a presumption of
confidentiality. We propose to extend this same presumptive
confidential treatment to
[[Page 45105]]
any reports filed under rules adopted pursuant to this FNPRM, including
broadband outage reporting filings. We recognize, however, that this
approach of presumed confidentiality may need to evolve as networks,
and consumer expectations about transparency, also evolve. Accordingly,
we seek comment on the value and risk of increased transparency with
respect to information about, or select elements of NORS reports filed
under the current part 4 rules and any additional rules adopted
pursuant to this FNPRM.
54. As noted in the Report and Order companion document, we believe
that the proposal of sharing NORS information with state and other
federal entities requires further investigation, including where state
law would need to be preempted to facilitate information sharing. The
Commission currently only shares access to the NORS database with DHS.
55. To assist the Commission, we direct the Bureau to study these
issues, and develop proposals for how information could be shared
appropriately with state entities and federal entities other than DHS.
Accordingly, we seek comment on the current reporting and information
sharing practices of broadband and interconnected VoIP providers with
state governments and other federal agencies. To which agencies and
States do providers already report? To what extent is reporting
mandatory? What information on outages or communications disruptions do
providers report to other federal and state government bodies? What
triggers the reporting process? What are the strengths and weaknesses
of any existing reporting and information sharing processes? Could any
such processes provide an avenue for the Commission to acquire data
that it would otherwise receive under the proposed rules? If so, how?
What else should the Commission consider regarding the current
reporting and information sharing practices of broadband or
interconnected VoIP providers? Commenters should address the impact of
any other information sharing activities on the part 4 mandates
proposed herein, and how these requirements might be tailored to ensure
compliance without undue imposition on those other information sharing
activities.
56. We seek comment on how the Commission can strike the right
balance between facilitating an optimal information sharing environment
and protecting proprietary information. Our goal is to foster
reciprocal sharing of information on broadband network outages with
federal and state partners, while maintaining confidentiality among
those partners and of information contained in the outage reports. To
ensure that the Commission benefits from information that providers
make available to other federal agencies or state governments, should
we encourage covered broadband and interconnected VoIP providers to
provide the Commission with copies of any outage reporting that they
currently provide to states or other federal agencies, to be treated in
the same manner (i.e., confidential or non-confidential) as the entity
receiving the original report? Are there alternative methods toward
sharing this information? Should we ask our federal and state
government partners to provide a preferred path toward sharing this
information? We recognize that other federal and state agencies may
have different requirements for licensees and FCC regulated entities,
and we seek comment on the wider regulatory landscape in which
broadband providers may or may not already be reporting outages. Are
there special considerations required for the new filings or
information collected that the Commission has not previously
accommodated for part 4 providers? If so, what adjustments to our
original information sharing proposals in the Notice should be made for
these new NORS filings and information collected?
6. Cost-Benefit Analysis for Broadband Network Outage Reporting
57. In the 2012 Part 4 Order, the Commission deferred action on
several broadband outage proposals because they were ``sharply opposed
by industry on several bases, but especially based on the expected
costs.'' In this FNPRM, we seek to update the record on the costs of
implementing broadband outage reporting, and also seek comment on the
costs of compliance with any additional reporting requirements
considered herein. We also seek comment on the costs associated with
any alternative proposals or unintended modifications to proposals set
out by commenters. Specifically, we invite comment on the incremental
costs of detecting and collecting information on the outage thresholds
described above; the costs of filing reports in NORS; and the costs
associated with any additional reporting or other requirements the
Commission may adopt to promote network reliability and security.
Comments in this area should not focus on new equipment but on the cost
of modifying existing outage detection systems to detect and notify the
Commission on observed outages meeting reporting thresholds proposed in
this FNPRM.
a. Costs of Detecting and Reporting Outages
58. We first consider the costs associated with detecting and
collecting information on reportable outages under the proposed rules.
As a general matter, we agree with the 2011 comments of the National
Association of State Utility Consumers Advocates (NASUCA) and the New
Jersey Division of Rate Counsel, who observe that VoIP and ``broadband
[providers] should already be collecting outage-related data in the
normal course of conducting their businesses and operations.'' We
believe this to be as true today as it was in 2011 in light of service
providers' public assurances of network performance and reliability. If
covered broadband providers already collect internal data to support
claims of high network reliability through advertising, we anticipate
that they would be able to provide the Commission with similar
information at minimal incremental cost. For this reason and others
discussed below, we do not believe that requiring covered broadband
providers to submit outage data would create an unreasonable burden.
(i) Outages Defined by Threshold Events
59. To begin, we note that nearly all providers already have
mechanisms in place for determining when an outage occurs and when it
surpasses a certain threshold, and if a provider does not, in today's
wired world it would not impose significant cost to install such a
mechanism. In fact, the record reflects that providers routinely
monitor the operational status of their network as part of the normal
course of business. Verizon, for instance, explained in 2011 that it
``has significant visibility into its broadband networks.'' We believe
that any provider with ``significant visibility'' into its network
already has the ability to detect network failures or degradations that
result in a total loss of service for a large number of customers.
Commenters appear to concede this view. Both ATIS and AT&T proposed
alternative reporting schemes that would require reporting on total
losses of broadband service, and AT&T submits that its proposed scheme
would be ``unambiguous and easy-to-apply.'' CenturyLink likewise admits
that ``reporting by a broadband Internet access service provider where
there is a loss of connectivity to the Internet by end-users is
reasonable.'' Comments like these, along with ubiquitous advertising on
network reliability and performance generally, suggest that the regime
[[Page 45106]]
described above to report total losses of broadband service would not
impose significant additional burdens on providers. We seek comment on
this discussion.
(ii) Outages of ``Generally Useful and Available Connectivity''
60. In 2011, industry commenters identified data collection costs
as the most significant cost burden of the proposed rules for
performance degradation events. However, we note that the proposed
reporting based on loss of ``generally-useful availability and
connectivity'' does not concern every degradation in performance an
individual user experiences, but is instead designed to capture
incidents in which service is effectively unusable for a large number
of users or when critical facilities are affected. We seek further
comment on the extent to which providers already collect performance
degradation data for internal business purposes. In 2011, covered VoIP
and broadband providers were already monitoring QoS metrics, like
packet loss, latency and jitter, to assess network performance for
certain customers. Today, providers collect network performance
information as a necessary part of fulfilling their SLA duties for
particular customers, and more generally, providers have significant
incentives to track these metrics as part of their network, service,
and business risk assurance models. In other words, providers' existing
approaches for network data collection for premium customers likely
already captures losses of ``generally-useful availability and
connectivity,'' and we believe similar techniques could be expanded to
monitor network performance on a broader scale. By building on existing
provider practices and harnessing technological developments in network
monitoring, we believe that the proposals for broadband reporting
requirements described herein would not be unduly costly.
61. Because providers already routinely collect much of this data,
we believe that the cost of compliance of additional rules would be
only the cost of filing additional reports. We seek comment on this
discussion. If providers do not collect this data, is there similar or
comparable data that providers already collect, or could collect at
minimal expense, that would be as cost-effective as data they would
report under the proposals outlined above? If so, what data, and would
it provide the Commission with adequate visibility into events that
cause a loss of generally-useful availability and connectivity for
significant numbers of broadband users? What would the cost be of this
comparable data?
62. We seek comment on whether we should implement a prototype
phase of two years whereby providers would be given significant
latitude to determine a qualifying threshold for the ``generally useful
availability and connectivity'' standard. While mandatory reporting
would remain, the data collected would positively inform standards in
this category that would be broadly applicable to the Commission's
needs in this area yet closer to what the reporting companies use for
their own operations, thereby reducing potential costs for providers.
We seek comment on this analysis.
b. Costs of Filing Outage Reports
63. While we anticipate that the costs of filing reports under the
proposed rules--i.e., of reformatting and uploading information in the
NORS database--would not impose an unreasonable burden on covered
broadband providers, we seek comment on the specific costs. Outage
reports are currently filed in the Commission's web-based NORS database
using simple and straightforward ``fill-in-the-blank'' templates. NORS
currently accepts reports for legacy service outages (wireline,
wireless, etc.), as well as interconnected VoIP ``hard down'' outages.
We expect that any reports from covered broadband providers pursuant to
rules ultimately adopted in this proceeding would adhere to the same
efficient and streamlined process.
64. In light of growing overlap in corporate ownership of
telecommunications network and service offerings, we expect that the
inclusion of broadband service under part 4 would largely extend
reporting obligations to providers already familiar with reporting via
NORS and with internal processes in place for filing reports. We
recognize that entities without prior experience reporting in NORS,
either themselves or through affiliates, may incur some startup costs,
i.e., of establishing a NORS account and training personnel in the use
of NORS. We seek comment on this analysis and what specific startup
costs would be.
65. Furthermore, we believe the overall cost to providers of filing
disruption reports is a function of the number of reports that are
filed and the costs of filing each report. Previously, the Commission
has estimated that the filing of each three-stage outage report (i.e.,
notification, initial report, and final report) requires two hours of
staff time, compensated at $80 per hour, amounting to a $160 total cost
for the provider. We believe that this estimate remains valid.
Moreover, we estimate that adoption of the proposed rules for covered
broadband providers would result in the filing of 1,083 reports per
year, based on the likely correlation of broadband Internet access
service outages with interconnected VoIP outages, in which there were
750 reports in 2015, and of broadband backbone outages with interoffice
blocking outages, in which there were 330 reports in 2015. In other
words, based on 2015 figures, we estimate that there would be
approximately 750 reportable VoIP outages, added to the 330 reportable
broadband outages independent of VoIP, results in 1,083 total reports.
Accordingly, we estimate that adoption of the rules proposed in this
FNPRM would create $173,280 in reporting costs; calculated by adding
the number of VoIP and broadband outages in 2015, and multiplying by
the expected cost of $160. We seek comment on this cost estimate.
c. Benefits of Proposed Network Outage Reporting
66. On balance, we believe that the proposals of this FNPRM would
ultimately produce substantial benefits for the public. As noted above,
the nation is increasingly reliant on broadband communications, and
disasters, pandemics, and cyber attacks can lead to sudden disruptions
of normal broadband traffic flows. Adopted prior to widespread adoption
of broadband, the current part 4 outage reporting rules have played a
significant role in the Commission's successful efforts to promote
reliable and resilient communications networks. The Commission's
receipt of data on broadband service (and expanded interconnected VoIP
service) disruptions would enable it to adapt this established practice
to a world in which IP-based networks are increasingly relied on for
critical communications--including 911 service--as well as for
financial transactions, health care delivery and management, and the
operation of our nation's critical infrastructure.
67. Given the large and rising volume of communications that occur
over broadband networks--and the overall economic value these
communications represent--even minor increases in network reliability
that result from outage reporting could have a significant public
benefit. We believe that the benefits of the proposed reporting
requirements will be substantial, as increases in network reliability
can improve not only business continuity, but also the availability of
emergency response,
[[Page 45107]]
thereby saving many lives. We therefore expect that, even if only a few
lives are saved each year, the annual benefit from these proposed
changes will far exceed the costs they impose on affected parties. We
have noted throughout this FNPRM that the harm from not requiring
broadband outage reporting could be substantial, and we believe that
the benefits of the proposals would far exceed the costs. We seek
comment on other harms that consumers or providers face currently or
may face in the future as a result of loss of connectivity that could
have been avoided if industry outage trends had been spotted earlier
and addressed more constructively through NORS reporting. We seek
comment on the total expected benefit of the proposed reporting
requirements for broadband providers.
B. Interconnected VoIP Outage Reporting
68. In 2012, the Commission adopted limited outage reporting
requirements for interconnected VoIP providers. The rules apply to both
facilities-based and non-facilities-based interconnected VoIP services.
Since extending outage reporting to interconnected VoIP, however, the
Commission has not received consistent, timely, or sufficiently
detailed reporting needed to promote greater interconnected VoIP
service. This causes us now to raise questions about how to stimulate
granular and consistent reporting for interconnected VoIP providers
that aids the Commission in its efforts to ensure reliable, resilient,
and secure interconnected VoIP service for America's consumers and
businesses. Accordingly, we propose to modify the existing reporting
process for interconnected VoIP to hew closer to the process for other
providers. Lastly, we seek comment on whether there are any differences
between interconnected VoIP services and other foregoing broadband
services that weigh in favor of establishing different outage reporting
rules for the two kinds of service providers.
1. Interconnected VoIP Outage Reporting Process
69. We propose to amend the reporting process for outages involving
interconnected VoIP service to harmonize it with the ``legacy''
services and the proposed reporting process for broadband outages.
However, because the current outage reporting rules for interconnected
VoIP allow a 24-hour notification period and do not require interim
reports, the Commission rarely learns of interconnected VoIP network
outages in near real time, and often has to wait almost a month until
the final report is submitted to get outage event root causes or other
useful information.
70. Under the part 4 rules for legacy services, specifically 47 CFR
4.11, initial reports provide the Commission with timely access to more
detailed information about an outage than was available to the provider
at the time of the notification, in many cases confirming the existence
of an outage that was only tentatively reported at the notification
stage. However, such initial reports are not required of interconnected
VoIP providers, and what's more, the 24-hour notification period has
resulted in notifications being filed well after an outage has
commenced, in some cases after the outage has concluded. In one recent
instance, an interconnected VoIP outage that affected close to 1
million users across nearly a dozen states was first reported to the
Commission twenty-three hours after its discovery. Consequently, for
certain interconnected VoIP outages, the Commission must wait until a
final report is filed--up to thirty days after the notification is
filed--to receive any information about the underlying cause of an
interconnected VoIP outage, or even to verify that a reportable outage
in fact occurred. Providers also do not report information on the
duration of the outage in the notification, and are currently only
required to give this information 30 days later in the final report.
Thus, we believe that the abridged reporting adopted for interconnected
VoIP ``hard down'' outages creates significant gaps in the Commission's
visibility into such outages and hinders its ability to take
appropriate remedial actions.
71. We recognize that a lack of visibility into underlying
broadband networks may pose challenges to interconnected VoIP
providers, in providing information as the cause of the outage. As with
BIAS and dedicated services providers, we seek comment on whether
interconnected VoIP providers can, do, or should take steps
contractually or otherwise to address these problems. At a minimum, we
believe that providers should make reasonable efforts to learn about
the causes of any reportable outages and thus to be in a position to
include such information in their reports, irrespective of whether the
affected facility is within their control. Moreover, because
interconnected VoIP services often rely on networks that provide BIAS
services, we believe that the proposed rules for broadband outage
reporting discussed supra largely eliminate this concern and
essentially place interconnected VoIP providers on the equal footing
with other part 4 entities. Accordingly, we propose to replace the
existing reporting structure for interconnected VoIP with the three-
report structure used by all other reporting entities, as originally
proposed in the 2011 Part 4 Notice. Specifically, we propose to tighten
the timeframe for interconnected VoIP providers to notify the
Commission of an outage from 24 hours to 120 minutes; to require
providers to file an initial report with additional information within
72 hours; and to file a final report within 30 days of the outage that
includes all pertinent information about the outage, including any
information available that was not contained in or changed from the
initial report. All reports would be filed electronically with the
Commission.
72. Furthermore, although not independent triggers for part 4
reporting, we expect providers to include information in their reports
concerning (1) the failure of facilities that might be considered
critical network elements (we consider a network element ``critical''
if the failure of that network element would result in the loss of any
user functionality that an interconnected VoIP provider provides to its
consumers, for example, Call Agents, Session Border Controllers,
Signaling Gateways, Call Session Control Functions (CSCF), and Home
Subscriber Server (HSS)), and (2) unintended changes to software or
firmware or unintended modifications to a database to the extent
relevant to a given outage or service disruption that is otherwise
reportable. As described fully in the broadband reporting process
above, reports should include specific details.
73. At this time we believe adopting a three-part reporting
structure for interconnected VoIP outages is appropriate, however, as
raised for broadband outage reporting above, we seek comment on other
steps the Commission can take to make providers' reporting obligations
consistent across services or otherwise streamline the process. We seek
comment on whether there are ways of automating the outage reporting
process for interconnected VoIP service providers beyond what has been
possible or has been attempted in the context of legacy communications
services. How could such automated reporting be accomplished? What are
the advantages of such a reporting mechanism? What are the
disadvantages? What cost savings would result from any such automation?
Alternatively, we seek comment on maintaining the two-step process for
interconnected VoIP outages.
[[Page 45108]]
2. Proposed Interconnected VoIP Outage Metrics
a. Outages Defined by Performance Degradation
(i) Metrics for Performance Degradation
74. We also propose to require interconnected VoIP providers to
report outages, per 47 CFR 4.5(a), that reflect losses of ``generally
useful availability and connectivity'' as defined by specific metrics.
Similar to our proposal for covered broadband providers, we propose to
base performance degradation on packet loss and latency for any network
facility used to provide interconnected VoIP service. We also seek
comment on whether it would be appropriate to adopt a throughput-based
outage metric for interconnected VoIP outage reporting in addition to
the throughput metric discussed above with respect to broadband
providers, i.e., providers would be required to report an outage of
1Gbps or more of interconnected VoIP service for 30 minutes or more.
Are the proposed metrics--relating to packet loss, latency and
throughput--well-suited for interconnected VoIP? Would this approach
provide better methods for detecting and reporting outages on
interconnected VoIP networks?
75. We recognize that adopting performance degradation metrics may
result in an increased burden on VoIP providers than their legacy voice
counterparts. We ask whether interconnected VoIP's unique technology
justifies a departure from a pure ``hard down'' reporting metric
currently required for interconnected VoIP providers and that of legacy
counterparts, to the adoption of significant performance degradation
reporting metrics? Are there throughput-related issues associated with
interconnected VoIP calling? For example, where the service might be up
and running, yet be degraded to a point that emergency call information
exchange is negatively impacted? Or, given interconnected VoIP's
dependence on broadband connectivity, are there vulnerabilities
associated with that technology that introduce threat scenarios (i.e.,
attack vectors) that justify the added reporting burden? Are there
other considerations we should take into account on the question of
adding a performance degradation element to interconnected VoIP
providers' obligations under part 4?
76. As with our current ``hard down'' outage reporting for
interconnected VoIP, we propose to apply any new rules to both
facilities-based and non-facilities-based interconnected VoIP. Do
interconnected VoIP providers have differing standards for network
performance? Are non-facilities-based interconnected VoIP providers
able to measure and/or access packet loss, latency, and/or throughput
measurements? If not, why? How are non-facilities-based interconnected
VoIP providers able to determine the network performance requirements
for their service? Should the Commission instead adopt a single metric
beyond which voice service is so degraded that it is no longer
functional? If so, what is that metric and how and where is it
measured? Would multiple metrics be required? If so, what would those
metrics and how and where would they be measured? We seek comment on
these proposals. We also seek comment on how the proposed metrics apply
to mobile VoIP. Will application of these metrics to mobile VoIP result
in too many instances where, although the threshold is passed, there is
no major problem with the network? Are there other metrics that are
better suited for mobile VoIP service? If so, why? Should the
monitoring period and metrics adopted for interconnected VoIP outage
reporting be consistent with the monitoring period and metrics adopted
for broadband outage reporting, or are there differences between the
two types of services that warrant different monitoring period and
metrics?
77. Alternatively, as with our proposed broadband outage reporting,
we could adopt more specific, absolute thresholds for performance
degradation, like those proposed in the 2011 Part 4 Notice for
broadband providers, e.g., service degradation occurs whenever there
is: (i) An average packet loss of 0.5 percent or greater; or (ii)
average round-trip latency of 100 ms or greater, with all measurements
taken in each of at least six consecutive five-minute intervals from
source to destination host. If absolute thresholds are preferable, are
these reporting thresholds for packet loss and latency set at
appropriate levels for interconnected VoIP service? Should the
Commission adjust any of these thresholds and, if so, what is an
appropriate threshold? Should the Commission modify the requirement to
take performance measurements in six consecutive five-minute intervals?
If so, how?
(ii) Measurement of Performance Degradation
78. Moreover, we seek comment on the end-points from which
interconnected VoIP providers will need to measure these metrics. We
recognize that it is important to consider the methods used to measure
the proposed metrics and account for the location of the network
elements within the interconnected VoIP networks. This will help to
ensure accurate and reliable measurements of the proposed metrics to
indicate network performance. We propose that these metrics be measured
from ``source to the destination host.'' The term ``source'' would
refer to the network elements responsible for the setting up the VoIP
call (e.g., call manager, user agent, client) while the term
``destination'' would refer to the endpoints routing and executing the
call (e.g., VoIP router, softphone). We seek comment on the use of the
terms ``source'' and ``destination host'' and ask if these terms
appropriately cover the various types of network facilities (e.g.,
CSCF, HSS, AAA servers, SIP servers, Session Border Controllers, Media
Gateway Controllers) used by interconnected VoIP providers to connect
to their customers and/or exchange network traffic with other
interconnected VoIP networks? Are there other terms that would better
convey the network elements from which interconnected VoIP providers
will need to measure the proposed reporting metrics?
b. Benefits and Costs of Proposed Reporting
79. We seek comment on whether the benefits of this additional
reporting would outweigh the incremental burden on providers. We
estimate that the three-part reporting of an outage--including the
filing of a notification, initial report, and final report--imposes
only a $300 cost burden on the provider. In 2015, the Commission
reviewed 750 interconnected VoIP outages. We expect to review an
additional 750 filings for the same number of outages received in 2015,
and an additional 75 filings as a result of our performance degradation
proposal discussed above. Therefore, 750 plus 75 initial reports
multiplied by 0.75 hours it takes to complete an initial report,
multiplied by the cost of $80 employee hourly rate, results in $49,500
added cost. We therefore do not believe that expanding the reporting
process from two reporting stages to three would significantly increase
burdens for providers. We seek comment on this tentative conclusion. To
the extent that commenters disagree, we seek comment on alternative,
least costly methods. Is there similar or comparable data that
providers already collect, or could collect at minimal expense given
current data collection practices, that would be more cost-effective to
report than the data they would report under the proposed rules? If so,
what data, and
[[Page 45109]]
would it provide the Commission with adequate visibility into events
that cause a loss of generally-useful availability and connectivity for
significant numbers of interconnected VoIP users? What would the cost
be of this comparable data?
80. We believe that the benefits of the proposed rules would exceed
the costs. Absent the rules proposed in this FNPRM, the Commission
lacks sufficient visibility into the reliability and security of
interconnected VoIP networks. We believe that relevant data is already
routinely collected by interconnected VoIP providers (in real time), so
the cost of compliance would be only the cost of filing additional
reports where necessary. Moreover, we believe that many of the proposed
outage reporting triggers for interconnected VoIP, including those
based on performance degradation, are likely to be covered by outages
to the underlying broadband networks. Therefore, we do not believe the
number of additional reports filed annually pursuant to the proposed
rules for interconnected VoIP to be significant. We seek comment on
this discussion.
C. Call Failures in Radio Access Networks
81. In the 2015 Part 4 Notice, we sought comment on the reporting
of call failures that result from congestion in wireless radio access
networks (RAN), and in non-wireless (i.e., wireline and VoIP) local
access networks. We noted that the inability of the access network to
support excess demand may not be considered reportable as a ``failure
or degradation'' under our current rules, but the inability of
consumers to make calls still undermines the reliability of networks.
Nevertheless, we are concerned about the impact of such events on the
reliability of 911 service. Because this appears to be predominantly an
issue with wireless networks, we proposed to amend our part 4 rules to
require reporting of systemic wireless call failures that results from
overloading in the RAN.
82. Requiring reporting of overloading in the access network
(wireless radio or non-wireless local access) should not be interpreted
to mean that providers must engineer their networks to account for
sporadic spikes in calls. Instead, the reports would provide the
Commission with data to identify any trends in network overloading.
This could include identifying, for example, a particular network
equipment that may be more susceptible to failure in mass calling
events. Moreover, analysis of this data allows the Commission to work
with industry to address situations where the network consistently
fails to address ``bursty'' call patterns similar to those generated
after disaster and wide-scale emergencies. While we recognize the point
made by several commenters that networks should not be engineered to be
able to transmit every single call if everyone in an area attempted to
use the network at once, we believe that it would be in the interest of
the public for the Commission to receive information on those
situations, so that we can determine if, when, and where, blocking is
consistently happening.
83. Verizon argues that such reporting that would be collecting
information ``for the sake of it,'' but that point ignores the premise
behind our outage reporting rules. Although situational awareness is
one goal of outage reporting, another key objective is to provide data
to the Commission so that it can detect adverse outage trends and
facilitate industry-wide network improvements. Moreover, even though we
continue to believe that outage reporting encourages providers to fix
problems in their networks, we note that many outage reports do not
always result in permanent fixes to the network, as the outage may be a
``one-off'' event. However, as Public Knowledge observes, we will not
know that such events are indeed ``one-off,'' if the Commission is not
aware of them in the first place.
84. Commenters also note that mass calling events are often
unpredictable and typically short-lived, so they question the value of
reporting on such events. However, because a mass calling event can be
the consequence of a widespread disaster, we see significant value in
collecting information on such events, as these are the incidents where
reliable, resilient communications are most needed. Indeed,
understanding failure patterns in moments of network saturation can
help identify best practices for network management, as well as help
certain communities realize a need for greater detail in emergency
management plans. We recognize that reporting on mass calling events
will not prevent them from occurring in the future, but we believe
there is substantial value in analyzing such events in hindsight, as
individual providers are unlikely to be able to see how such an event
fits into broader industry practices and performance levels. With such
data, the Commission would be in a better position to work with
providers to address industry-wide problems and share industry-wide
mitigation solutions.
85. With respect to wireless RANs, we propose to consider a cell
site to be ``out'' whenever a cell tower operates at full capacity
(i.e., is unable to process any additional calls) for 75 percent of the
time during a period of at least 30 minutes. If the number of
potentially-affected wireless user-minutes exceeds 900,000 for the cell
sites considered ``out,'' the outage would be reportable. Similarly,
for non-wireless local access networks, we propose to amend our outage
reporting rules to consider a loop carrier system or remote switch to
be ``out'' whenever a remote terminal or the group of channels
connecting a remote switch to a host operates at full capacity (i.e.,
is unable to process any additional calls) for 75 percent of the time
during a period of at least 30 minutes. If the number of user-minutes
exceeds 900,000 for the loop carrier systems and remote switches that
are considered ``out,'' the outage would be reportable.
86. We seek comment on these proposals. Is 30 minutes an
appropriate time period to measure call blockages? If not 30 minutes,
what should be the appropriate interval of measurement for averaging
purposes? Is 75 percent of that time at full capacity the right
percentage of time? Alternatively, what percentage of calls blocked
during that period constitutes congestion of the access network? To the
extent that commenters oppose our proposal, we encourage them to
propose an alternative, workable metric that addresses our concern. Is
there a better way to measure persistent, widespread call failures in
the RAN or local access network?
87. With respect to wireless RANs, we seek comment on how providers
currently measure call failures. Would providers know of, and therefore
have a way to measure, call attempts when a cell site is fully
congested and not accepting call origination information? Also, given
that wireless calls are constantly initiated and terminated within any
given cell site, could some percentage below full capacity constitute
congestive RAN failure for purposes of reporting? For congested cell
sites, should the usual methods for calculating the total number of
customers affected be used, or should some account be taken of the fact
that more than the usual number are trying to use the towers during
these periods?
88. In the Notice, we estimated that under our proposal for
reporting of widespread call failures in wireless RANs, providers would
need to file approximately 420 reports per year, thus increasing their
annual reporting costs by $67,200. We based this estimate on the
assumption that wireless networks and interoffice networks are
engineered to achieve comparably low rates of call
[[Page 45110]]
failure and would have a comparable rate of calls blocked.
89. We seek further comment on the specific costs to implement some
type of reporting on call failures in both the RAN and the local access
network. With regard to the RAN, CCA disagrees with an assumption in
the Notice that providers are already technically capable of tracking
call failures at each cell site, asserting that some of its members
``do not currently collect and preserve this information in an ongoing
manner.'' We seek more specific information about the data that
providers already have about call failures and the costs of adding
equipment to track call failures at cell sites. To what extent do
providers already track call failures in the RAN and the local access
network? What other parameters do operators use to determine when new
towers or equipment must be installed to meet increasing demand?
Commenters should be specific as to the information that their networks
can track. Commenters should be specific and realistic in their costs
estimates as well.
90. Moreover, we ask if some type of delayed implementation or
exemption for smaller and/or rural providers would be helpful,
particularly given that we expect network overloading is less likely to
be an issue in rural areas. If we were to delay implementation of this
type of reporting for a certain subset of providers, what would be a
reasonable amount of time? What definition of smaller and/or rural
carrier would be most appropriate?
D. Geography-Based Wireless Outage Reporting
91. In the 2015 Part 4 Notice, we sought comment on a separate and
additional wireless outage reporting requirement based on the
geographical scope of an outage, irrespective of the number of users
potentially affected. Wireless outages that may not meet our 900,000
user-minute threshold but cover large geographic areas may be important
because wireless service may be the only option in many areas,
particularly as the percentage of calls to 911 from wireless devices
continues to increase. It may be possible that large geographic areas
are regularly losing service, but we are not aware of them (other than
by press reports) because they do not meet the 900,000 user-minute
threshold. Nonetheless, these outages are especially important to areas
where service (wireless or otherwise) is minimal, and when an outage
occurs, those in an emergency would have to travel far to make a 911
call.
93. We propose to amend the part 4 reporting requirements to
include wireless outages significantly affecting rural areas. We seek
comment on this proposal. Specifically, we propose to require a
wireless provider serving a rural area to file outage reports whenever
one-third or more of its macro cell sites serving that area are
disabled such that communications services cannot be handled through
those sites, or are substantially impaired due to the outage(s) or
other disruptions affecting those sites. We seek comment on,
alternatively, requiring such reporting upon the disabling of one-half
of the macro cell sites in the rural area. In regard to the definition
of ``rural area,'' while the Communications Act does not include a
statutory definition of what constitutes a rural area, the Commission
has used a ``baseline'' definition of rural as a county with a
population density of 100 persons or fewer per square mile. We propose
to use this same definition for purposes of determining wireless
outages affecting predominantly rural areas. We ask, however, whether
other alternative definitions might be of better use in aiding our
visibility into rural-specific outages. For example, should we focus on
areas designated for the Universal Service Mobility Fund support? Are
there other rural area designation tools or proxies that should be
considered (e.g., defining areas by rural exchange operating carrier
designations--OCNs)? We seek comment on these questions and proposals.
94. Is there a geographic area designation other than ``rural
area,'' as defined above, that aligns better with the way wireless
providers measure their own service? For example, is there a subset of
any licensed service area (e.g., Cellular Market Area) that wireless
carriers could more easily use to identify outages in predominantly
rural areas? Or, would the use of zip codes, such as when one hundred
percent of a zip code is impacted be an appropriate measurement? Also,
we seek comment on whether an outage of at least one-third, or one-
half, of cell sites within the rural area would indicate an outage that
would be of a nature that it substantially affects wireless coverage
for a large geographic area.
95. We recognize that this issue may become less critical as
wireless providers begin to comply with the new standardized method,
adopted in the above Report and Order, for calculating the number of
potentially affected users during a wireless outage. By using a
national average to determine the potentially affected users per site,
will adoption and implementation of this new formula for the number of
potentially-affected users increase the reporting of outages in low
population areas? We also seek comment on alternative measurements for
outages in rural areas. For example, could we adopt a lower user-minute
threshold for rural areas to increase the reporting of events affecting
rural communities? For example, would a threshold of 300,000 user-
minutes in rural areas increase our chances of receiving information on
outages that affect rural communities? Conversely, for example, would
clear geographic criteria, such as a county-based threshold, for
wireless outage reporting simplify the M2M rules for automated outage
reporting and eliminate the need for manual interpretations of
thresholds?
96. In the Notice, we estimated that adoption of a geography-based
outage reporting requirement would result in the filing of an
additional 1,841 reports per year, thereby increasing reporting costs
by $294,560 (i.e., 1,841 reports x $160 staff costs per report). To
reach this estimate, we subtracted the number of additional outage
reports that would be generated by geography-based reporting from the
number of reports that would be submitted for outages that meet the
current 900,000 user-minute threshold. We estimated that geography-
based reporting would generate additional reports in counties where a
wireless provider has fifteen or fewer cell sites. The number of
counties with fifteen or fewer cell sites represents 2.7 percent of the
total number of cell sites nationwide, based on analysis of data
collected from companies given to the Commission during activations
from the Disaster Information Reporting System (DIRS) in 2012. Using as
a guide counties with fifteen or fewer cell sites, we calculated that a
disruption to communications would be reportable under a geographic
coverage standard if one or two cell sites in the county are down.
Based on historical NORS data, we then estimated that each cell site
has a 22.6 percent chance of experiencing an outage within a given
year, and using CTIA's estimate that 301,779 cell sites were in
operation nationwide as of the end of 2012, we tentatively conclude
that adoption of a geography-based reporting requirement would likely
result in the filing of 1,841 additional reports per year, creating an
estimate of $294,560 cost burden.
97. We seek further comment on the costs of implementing a new
geography-based outage reporting requirement for wireless carriers.
Sprint and Verizon argue that carriers would need to develop and deploy
additional automation tools and monitoring
[[Page 45111]]
mechanisms. We estimate that, based on our proposal here, our estimate
of 1,841 additional reports per year from the Notice will be the same.
We seek further comment on a way in which we could capture outages
affecting large geographic areas without being overly burdensome for
providers. If, for example, we were to adopt an outage reporting
requirement when 33 percent of cell sites become disabled within a
county, would such a calculation require additional tools or monitoring
mechanisms? We assume carriers would already know when (and why) their
cell sites become disabled, and would know the number of cell sites per
county. Therefore, we believe it would be a relatively easy and
inexpensive calculation for providers to determine if a certain
threshold of cell sites in a county have become disabled. Is one-third
(33 percent) the appropriate threshold?
98. NTCA comments that the burden would be greater on smaller
carriers, where the failure of one tower may trigger a reporting
obligation. While we could consider some type of exemption for smaller
carriers, we believe smaller and rural carriers cover precisely the
areas targeted by this proposal. Therefore, we do not propose to exempt
any carriers. We seek comment on this approach.
E. Refining the Definition of ``Critical Communications'' at Airports
99. Commercial aviation increasingly depends on information systems
that are not collocated with airport facilities, and that may carry
critical information. We seek comment on requiring reporting of outages
affecting critical aviation information facilities that are not
airport-based, either as a function of their status as TSP Level 3 or 4
facilities (facilities are eligible for TSP Level 3 or 4 prioritization
if they (3) support public health, safety, and maintenance of law and
order activities or (4) maintains the public welfare and the national
economic system), or upon some other basis. In particular, we seek
comment on whether it is correct to assume that some information
systems critical to safe commercial aviation are not located within an
airport's facility. If the assumption is accurate, we invite discussion
of the architecture of such external systems, including the safeguards
currently established for those systems. Were the Commission to explore
outage reporting requirements for these systems and facilities, what
reporting criteria should it establish? For outage reporting purposes,
should the Commission distinguish between facilities enrolled in the
TSP program and those facilities that are not? If so, on what basis
should the different treatment be premised? What, if any, additional
costs might be associated with expanding the reporting obligation to
such facilities, whether or not enrolled in TSP?
F. Legal Authority
1. 911 and Emergency Communications
101. Following the evolution in the country's commercial
communications networks, the nation's emergency communications systems
are in the process of a critical transition from legacy systems using
time-division multiplex (TDM)-based technologies to Next Generation 911
(NG911) systems that utilize IP-based technologies.
102. As a result of this transition, the nation's 911 system will
increasingly include the BIAS and dedicated services, which will
support a new generation of 911 call services that may be vulnerable to
a similarly new generation of disruptions that may not have existed on
legacy 911 networks. Indeed, as NG911 services are increasingly
provisioned through broadband network elements, disruptions to
broadband could impact the provision and reliability of local 911 voice
and other shared services essential to emergency response. Accordingly,
we believe that monitoring the resiliency of broadband networks
supporting that communication is vital to ensure the reliable
availability and functionality of 911 services.
103. Regarding our proposal to update the outage reporting rules
for interconnected VoIP service providers, 47 U.S.C. 615a-1 instructs
the Commission to ``take into account any technical, network security,
or information privacy requirements that are specific to IP-enabled
voice services'' and to update regulations ``as necessitated by changes
in the market or technology, to ensure the ability of an IP-enabled
voice service provider to comply with its obligations.'' The proposed
reporting process seeks to modernize the outage reporting system in
light of technology advances and greater consumer adoption of
interconnected VoIP service, considering the potential for degradations
of service to impact 911 call completion. We seek comment on how
Section 615a-1 provides authority to adopt such proposals with respect
to interconnected VoIP.
104. We also believe that our proposals to extend outage reporting
to the classes of broadband providers and services described in this
FNPRM are authorized by or reasonably ancillary to our statutorily
mandated responsibility under Section 615a-1 to ensure that ``IP-
enabled voice service provider[s] provide 9-1-1 service and enhanced 9-
1-1 service.'' As noted above, broadband services are now and will
continue to be key for delivery of 911 call information (including not
only voice but also data and video) from the end-user to a PSAP.
Therefore, to ensure broadband-enabled voice service providers comply
with their 911 obligations, we seek comment on how our proposals better
equip the Commission to meet its Section 615a-1 mandates. Moreover, in
light of our obligation to identify capabilities necessary to support
911 and E911 service for interconnected VoIP, 47 U.S.C. 615a-1(6)(c),
how would our proposals here enable us to determine if there are
capabilities currently not captured by our rules? We seek comment on
whether networks, facilities, databases or other components to the
extent these are elements that support a ``seamless transmission,
delivery, and completion of 911 and E-911 calls and associated E-911
information'' have changed sufficiently to warrant further
consideration, or because ``critical components of the 911
infrastructure may reside with an incumbent carrier, a PSAP, or some
other entity.'' How should the Commission analyze these considerations
in our Section 615a-1 analysis? In addition, we seek comment as to
whether these proposals are authorized by or reasonably ancillary to
our statutory mandates to develop best practices that promote
consistency and appropriate procedures for defining network diversity
requirements for IP-enabled 911 and E911 call delivery.
105. Additionally, under the Twenty-First Century Communications
and Video Accessibility Act of 2010 (CVAA), the Commission may
``promulgate regulations to implement the recommendations proposed by
the [Emergency Access Advisory Committee (EAAC)], as well as any other
regulations, technical standards, protocols, and procedures as are
necessary to achieve reliable, interoperable communication that ensures
access by individuals with disabilities to an Internet protocol-enabled
emergency network, where achievable and technically feasible.'' The
CVAA has served as the basis for Commission actions with respect to
text-to-911 and 911 relay services, and we now seek comment on the
application of the CVAA to our proposed disruption reporting rules for
broadband.
[[Page 45112]]
106. In this vein, the EAAC has recommended that the Commission
``issue regulations as necessary to require that target entities, in
the development and deployment of NG9-1-1 systems, take appropriate
steps to support features, functions and capabilities to enable
individuals with disabilities to make multimedia NG9-1-1 emergency
calls.'' The EAAC enumerated a list of goals for the Commission related
to 911 accessibility, including enabling consumers to call 911 using
different forms of data, text, video, voice, and/or captioned telephony
individually or any combination thereof; ensuring direct access to 911
using IP-based text communications (including real-time text, IM, and
email); and facilitating the use of video multimedia calls into a PSAP.
The EAAC also recommended that users have the option to call 911 via
voice or text service, as well as video and any other emerging
technology; that is, callers should be able to access 911 using both
old and new communications services--something that a single broadband
network can support. We note that these technologies are commonly
supported by broadband networks, and to ensure access to 911 for
individuals with disabilities, the Commission must be able to assess
how those technologies are performing. The EAAC also made clear that
its recommendations should evolve with the technology. Perhaps most
importantly, the EAAC recommended that the Commission ``adopt
requirements that ensure that the quality of video, text and voice
communications is sufficient to provide usability and accessibility to
individuals with disabilities based on industry standards for the
environment.''
107. Given that video, text, and voice communications to 911
already traverse broadband networks and will continue to do so as the
deployment of Real-Time Text and other NG911 multimedia applications
grows, we believe that the CVAA's mandate for ensuring equal access to
911 provides an additional legal basis for the broadband reporting
rules proposed herein. We seek comment on this tentative conclusion. Is
disruption reporting the optimal mechanism for the Commission to the
quality of video, text and voice communications is sufficient to
provide usability and accessibility to individuals with disabilities?
Are there alternative measures the Commission could take to ensure
broadband network availability for non-traditional 911 calls (i.e., 911
text messages or relay calls)? We believe the proposed reporting
requirements are an ``achievable and technically feasible'' way to
ensure access to 911 for the deaf and hard of hearing, as required
under the CVAA, and we seek comment on this approach.
2. Title II
108. The Commission has classified BIAS and dedicated services as
telecommunications services under Title II of the Act. As such, we
tentatively conclude that the Commission has ample authority under
Title II to support the outage reporting requirements proposed in this
FNPRM. We seek comment on this tentative conclusion, and on the
relevance of Sections 201, 202, 214, 218, and any other provisions of
Title II for supporting the outage reporting requirements proposed here
for BIAS and dedicated services.
As we observed in the 2015 Open Internet Order, [S]ection 201
imposes a duty ``on common carriers to furnish communications services
subject to Title II `upon reasonable request,' '' and to ensure that
their practices are ``just and reasonable.'' We also noted that the
general conduct standard ``represents our interpretation of [S]ections
201 and 202 in the broadband Internet access context.'' We seek comment
on the interplay between the 2015 Open Internet Order and the
Commission's authority under [S]ection 201 to ``prescribe rules and
regulations as may be necessary in the public interest to carry out the
provisions of this chapter'', as such authority relates to BIAS. We
also seek comment generally on other provisions of Title II and legal
theories under those provisions to support outage reporting in the
dedicated services and BIAS contexts.
3. Title III
109. With respect to the rules proposed herein for wireless voice
and broadband providers, we believe the Commission has further legal
authority to support the rules proposed herein under Title III of the
Communications Act. The Supreme Court has long recognized that Title
III grants the Commission ``expansive powers'' and a ``comprehensive
mandate'' to regulate the use of spectrum in the public interest, Nat'l
Broad. Co. v. United States, 319 U.S. 190, 219 (1943) (recognizing the
FCC's ``expansive powers'' and ``comprehensive mandate'').
110. We believe that 47 U.S.C. 303(b) and (r), and 316 provide the
Commission with authority to apply outage reporting requirements to
mobile BIAS and dedicated services providers and to CMRS providers in
instances of call failures in the radio access network. We seek comment
on this view.
111. For example, Section 303(b) authorizes the Commission to
``[p]rescribe the nature of the service to be rendered by each class of
licensed stations and each station within any class.'' Addressing the
scope of this provision in Cellco Partnership v. FCC, 700 F.3d 534
(D.C. Cir. 2012), the D.C. Circuit recognized that Section 303(b)
authorizes the Commission to ``lay[ ] down a rule about `the nature of
the service to be rendered' by entities licensed'' by the Commission.
The court further explained in Cellco that, while a provider may choose
not to offer a wireless service, Section 303(b) authorizes the
Commission to ``define[ ] the form'' that the ``service must take for
those who seek a license to offer it.''
112. We also believe 47 U.S.C. 316 authorizes the Commission to
impose new conditions on existing licenses if we think such action
``will promote the public interest, convenience, and necessity.'' The
D.C. Circuit in Celtronix Telemetry, Inc. v. FCC, 272 F.3d 585 (D.C.
Cir. 2001), recognized as ``undisputed that the Commission always
retain[s] the power to alter the term of existing licenses by
rulemaking.'' Accordingly, we believe that the outage reporting
requirements proposed here for mobile service providers of BIAS or
dedicated services, as conditions imposed on existing licenses, fall
within the Commission's Section 316 authority, and we seek comment on
this view.
4. Section 706 of the Telecommunications Act
113. It is the established policy of the United States to ``promote
the continued development of the Internet and other interactive
computer services and other interactive media . . . [and] to encourage
the development of technologies which maximize user control over what
information is received by individuals, families, and schools who use
the Internet and other interactive computer services, '' 47 U.S.C.
230(b). Furthering this policy, in 1996 Congress adopted Section 706 of
the Telecommunications Act of 1996, which instructs the Commission to
``encourage the deployment on a reasonable and timely basis of advanced
telecommunications capability to all Americans,'' and further provides
if the Commission finds advanced telecommunications capability is not
being deployed on a reasonable and timely basis, it must ``take
immediate action to accelerate deployment of such capability.''
Advanced telecommunications capability, as
[[Page 45113]]
defined in the statute, 47 U.S.C. 1302(d)(1), includes a subset of
broadband Internet access. Thus, under Section 706(b), the Commission
conducts an annual inquiry as to whether advanced telecommunications
capability is being deployed to all Americans on a reasonable and
timely basis.
114. We seek comment on the contours of Section 706 as the basis
for broadband-related outage reporting under part 4. We believe
broadband network reliability, resiliency, and security are germane to
the Commission's effort to achieve Section 706's policy objectives.
Mandatory outage reporting could provide the Commission with a
dependable stream of objective data to further inform its annual
inquiry under Section 706. We seek comment on the value of the proposed
broadband outage reporting to our annual Section 706 inquiry, and on
our more general view that such disruption and outage data may aid the
Commission's efforts to ensure the deployment of advanced
telecommunications capabilities to all Americans.
115. Further, the 2016 Broadband Progress Report found that
advanced telecommunications capability is not being deployed to all
Americans in a reasonable and timely fashion, requiring the Commission
to take immediate action to accelerate broadband deployment by removing
barriers to infrastructure investment and promoting competition. We
seek comment on whether broadband outage reporting would aid the
Commission in its efforts to identify where infrastructure investment
and effective competition may be lacking and thus enable the Commission
to take steps to remove any barriers to infrastructure investment that
may prevail or otherwise to promote competition in affected areas. For
instance, we observed in the 2016 Broadband Progress Report that there
are indications of a ``correlation between non-adoption of broadband
and security and privacy concerns.'' We also have stated that ``privacy
and network security are among the factors that can affect the quality
and reliability of broadband services,'' and that ``[c]ommunications
security, integrity, and reliability must be maintained as providers
transition to IP-supported networks.'' Does the proposed disruption
reporting facilitate the 706(b) mandate to take immediate action to
accelerate broadband deployment by providing valuable information on
broadband infrastructure and service vulnerabilities, risks and
disruptions that dampen consumer adoption and, thus, dis-incent
broadband investment and deployment? Would the proposed reporting guide
us to remove barriers to infrastructure investment and promote
competition? Would broadband reporting promote Section 706's goals by
enabling us to view sustained availability over time, providing a
comprehensive view of performance-related metrics data? Of long-term
advanced capability deployment? Could the Commission use the proposed
outage reporting to spot areas of decreased investment or barriers to
competition that we might need to stimulate or remove? We seek comment
on whether the reliability of broadband service and its underlying
network infrastructure can advance Section 706 availability goals as
well as bring a real-time measure of the services that are available in
a given area. For example, Form 477 supports Section 706 goals through
non-outage data submitted by providers on a semiannual basis. Although
those collections facilitate Section 706 availability driven
considerations, we ask whether more granular data submitted in Part 4's
time intervals may be of additional value to the Commission in the
execution of Section 706's mandates. We think that these insights can
be added to our Broadband Progress Report analyses without compromising
the objectives now achieved through Part 4's confidentiality treatment
(as further discussed below), and we seek comment on this view.
5. Universal Service Fund Mandates Under Section 254
116. In addition, we believe that the Commission's universal
service funding mandates, underlying principles and goals, as set forth
in Section 254 of the Act, authorize us to require broadband disruption
and outage reporting, as proposed, where the data from such reports
could promote, or provide assurance (e.g., of ``maximum value'') to,
the Commission's universal service funding efforts under Section 254.
Sections 254 and 1 operate dynamically to ensure an appropriately broad
scope of Commission authority to promote and safeguard universal
service, thus, Section 1, as a policy statement, ``illuminates''
Section 254 which, in turn, ``builds upon'' Section 1. Comcast, 600
F.3d at 654. We seek comment on this observation and analysis.
117. Certain broadband providers receive significant federal
universal service high-cost broadband funding support through the USF's
Connect America Fund (CAF) program. To the extent that covered
broadband providers receive (or have received) such funding, it is
logical to require a certain level of assurance in behalf of the end
users who fund it. Accordingly, we tentatively conclude that such part
4 reporting is an appropriate assurance expectation from CAF
recipients, and we seek comment on this tentative conclusion.
118. On that basis, we now ask how part 4 disruption reporting
concerning the broadband services funded through CAF support can best
be used to assure these services and infrastructure? Specifically,
should such assurance measurements be sought through our part 4
disruption reporting, or through some other mechanism? How might the
collection and analysis of CAF recipient outage information help inform
our Section 254-related considerations and assist us in achieving our
universal service goals? Should the Commission adopt standards for
network health to be made part of CAF funding considerations? If so,
what mechanisms should be used by the Commission to effectuate that
approach? Should the Commission, for example, condition CAF support on
standards that take into account a provider's network health as
revealed through outage reporting?
119. Section 4(o). As noted above, Section 4(o), 47 U.S.C. 154(o),
states that ``[f]or the purpose of obtaining maximum effectiveness from
the use of radio and wire communications in connection with safety of
life and property, the Commission shall investigate and study all
phases of the problem and the best methods of obtaining the cooperation
and coordination of these systems.'' We believe that in order for the
Commission to fulfill this mandate in today's transitioning world and
beyond, it must be able to obtain relevant data--including BIAS and
dedicated services outage reporting--to investigate and study all
aspects of broadband communications. We also believe Section 4(o)
authorizes the Commission to gather broadband network outage data to
help ensure NS/EP communications continue to obtain maximum
effectiveness, e.g., to receive appropriate levels of priority, be
delivered over robust and resilient infrastructure, and function as
required. Indeed, we believe that the ability to collect information on
major disruptions to broadband communications supporting NS/EP priority
services is essential to the Commission in fulfilling its national
security/defense assurance role under the Act. We seek comment on these
views.
[[Page 45114]]
II. Procedural Matters
120. As required by the Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980 (RFA),
the Commission has prepared an Initial Regulatory Flexibility Analysis
(IRFA) of the possible significant economic impact on small entities of
the proposals addressed in the FNPRM. Written public comments are
requested on the IRFA. Comments must be identified as responses to the
IRFA and must be filed by the deadlines for comments indicated on the
first page of this FNPRM. In addition, the FNPRM and its IRFA (or
summaries thereof) will be published in the Federal Register.
121. The proceeding this FNPRM 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 rule 1.1206(b). In proceedings governed by
rule 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.
III. Initial Regulatory Flexibility Analysis
122. As required by the Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980, as
amended (RFA), the Commission has prepared this present Initial
Regulatory Flexibility Analysis (IRFA) of the possible significant
economic impact on a substantial number of small entities by the
policies and rules proposed in this Further Notice of Proposed Rule
Making (FNPRM). Written public comments are requested on this IRFA.
Comments must be identified as responses to the IRFA and must be filed
by the deadlines for comments provided in ``Comment Period and
Procedures'' of this FNPRM. The Commission will send a copy of this
FNPRM, including this IRFA, to the Chief Counsel for Advocacy of the
Small Business Administration (SBA). In addition, the FNPRM and IRFA
(or summaries thereof) will be published in the Federal Register.
123. The FNPRM seeks additional comment on various proposals first
issued in a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking in PS Docket 11-80, adopted
in 2011 and in a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking in PS Docket No. 15-80,
adopted in 2015.
124. The FNPRM seeks comment on:
A proposal to require the filing of outage reports for
broadband network disruptions (BIAS and dedicated service), including
disruptions based on network performance degradation;
proposed updates to the rules governing interconnected
VoIP outage reporting to (i) include disruptions based on network
performance degradation, and (ii) modify the VoIP outage reporting
process to make it consistent with other services;
reporting of call failures in wireless radio access
networks and wireline local access networks, and on geography-based
reporting of wireless outages in rural areas;
refining the definition of ``critical communications'' at
airports.
125. The Commission traditionally has addressed network resiliency
and reliability issues by working with communications service providers
to develop and promote best practices that address network
vulnerabilities, and by measuring the effectiveness of best practices
through outage reporting. Under the Commission's current rules, the
outage reporting process has been effective in improving the
reliability, resiliency and security of legacy networks and the
services delivered over them. Commission staff collaborate with
individual providers and industry organizations to review outage
results and address areas of concern. These efforts have resulted in
significant reductions in outages affecting legacy services, including
interconnected VoIP. The aim of extending outage reporting to cover
broadband providers is to achieve a similar result: Enhance the
reliability, resiliency and security of their services utilizing an
approach--tailored as appropriate to account for broadband's unique
aspects--that has produced significant benefits with respect to legacy
networks and services.
126. The legal bases for the rule changes proposed in this FNPRM
are contained in sections 1, 4(i), 4(j), 4(o), 201(b), 214(d), 218,
222, 251(e)(3), 254, 301, 303(b), 303(g), 303(r), 307, 309(a), 309(j),
316, 332, 403, 615a-1, and 615c, 706 of the Communications Act of 1934,
as amended, 47 U.S.C. 151, 154(i)-(j) & (o), 201(b), 214(d), 218, 222,
251(e)(3), 254, 301, 303(b), 303(g), 303(r), 307, 309(a), 309(j), 316,
332, 403, 615a-1, and 615c, 1302(a) and 1302(b).
A. Description and Estimate of the Number of Small Entities to Which
Rules Will Apply
127. The RFA directs agencies to provide a description of, and,
where feasible, an estimate of, the number of small entities that may
be affected by the proposed rules adopted herein. The RFA generally
defines the term ``small entity'' the same 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, 5 U.S.C. 601(3). 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), Small Business Act, 15 U.S.C. 632.
1. Total Small Entities
128. Our action may, over time, affect small entities that are not
easily categorized at present. We therefore describe here, at the
outset, three comprehensive, statutory small entity size standards.
First, nationwide, there are a total of approximately 28.2 million
small businesses, according to the SBA. In addition, a ``small
organization'' is generally ``any not-for-profit enterprise which is
independently owned and operated and is not dominant in its field.''
Nationwide, as of 2007, there were approximately 1, 621,315 small
organizations. Finally, the term ``small governmental jurisdiction'' is
defined generally as ``governments of cities, towns, townships,
villages, school districts, or special districts, with a
[[Page 45115]]
population of less than fifty thousand.'' Census Bureau data for 2011
indicate that there were 89,476 local governmental jurisdictions in the
United States. We estimate that, of this total, as many as 88,506
entities may qualify as ``small governmental jurisdictions.'' Thus, we
estimate that most governmental jurisdictions are small.
2. Interconnected VoIP and Broadband ISPs Services
129. The 2007 Economic Census places Internet Service Providers,
the services of which might include Voice over Internet protocol
(VoIP), in either of two categories, depending on whether the service
is provided over the provider's own telecommunications facilities
(e.g., cable and DSL ISPs), which are considered within the Wired
Telecommunications Carriers category. Or, depending on whether the VoIP
service is provided over client-supplied telecommunications connections
(e.g., dial-up ISPs), which are considered within the All Other
Telecommunications category. To ensure that this IRFA describes the
universe of small entities that our action might affect, we discuss
several different types of entities that might be currently providing
interconnected VoIP service, broadband Internet access service, or
business data services. In the document, https://apps.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-16-63A1.pdf, we provide a thorough
discussion of VoIP service provided over the provider's own
telecommunications facilities; and VoIP service provided over client-
supplied telecommunications connections, and to the extent applicable,
whether each listed are considered ``small businesses.''
3. Wireline Providers
130. Neither the Commission nor the SBA has developed a small
business size standard specifically for incumbent local exchange
services, providers of interexchange services, or operator service
providers. The appropriate size standard under SBA rules is for the
category Wired Telecommunications Carriers. This industry comprises
establishments primarily engaged in operating and/or providing access
to transmission facilities and infrastructure that they own and/or
lease for the transmission of voice, data, text, sound, and video using
wired telecommunications networks. Transmission facilities may be based
on a single technology or a combination of technologies. Establishments
in this industry use the wired telecommunications network facilities
that they operate to provide a variety of services, such as wired
telephony services, including VoIP services; wired (cable) audio and
video programming distribution; and wired broadband Internet services.
By exception, establishments providing satellite television
distribution services using facilities and infrastructure that they
operate are included in this industry.'' In the document, https://apps.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-16-63A1.pdf, we provide a
thorough discussion of Incumbent Local Exchange Services, Providers of
Interexchange Services, or Operator Service Providers, and to the
extent applicable, whether each of these listed are considered ``small
businesses.''
4. Wireless Providers--Fixed and Mobile
131. To the extent the wireless services listed below are used by
wireless firms for fixed and mobile broadband Internet access services,
the NPRM's proposed rules may have an impact on those small businesses
as set forth above and further below. Accordingly, for those services
subject to auctions, we note that, as a general matter, the number of
winning bidders that claim to qualify as small businesses at the close
of an auction does not necessarily represent the number of small
businesses currently in service. Also, the Commission does not
generally track subsequent business size unless, in the context of
assignments and transfers or reportable eligibility events, unjust
enrichment issues are implicated. In the document, https://apps.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-16-63A1.pdf, we provide a
thorough discussion of Wireless Telecommunications Carriers (except
Satellite); Wireless Communications Services (WCS); 1670-1675 MHz
Services; Wireless Telephony; Broadband Personal Communications
Service; Specialized Mobile Radio Licenses; Lower 700 MHz Band
Licenses; Upper 700 MHz Band Licenses; 700 Mhz Guard Band Licensees;
Air-Ground Radiotelephone Service; AWS Services (1710-1755 Mhz and
2110-2155 Mhz Bands (AWS-1); 1915-1920 Mhz, 1995-2000 Mhz, 2020-2025
Mhz and 2175-2180 Mhz Bands (AWS-2); 2155-2175 Mhz Band (AWS-3)); 3650-
3700 MHz Band; Fixed Microwave Services; Local Multipoint Distribution
Service; Broadband Radio Service and Educational Broadband Service; and
to the extent applicable, whether each of these listed are considered
``small businesses.''
5. Satellite Service Providers
132. Two economic census categories address the satellite industry.
The first category has a small business size standard of $32.5 million
or less in average annual receipts, under SBA rules. The category of
Satellite Telecommunications category comprises firms ``primarily
engaged in providing telecommunications services to other
establishments in the telecommunications and broadcasting industries by
forwarding and receiving communications signals via a system of
satellites or reselling satellite telecommunications.'' The second
category has a size standard of $32.5 million or less in annual
receipts. The second category, i.e., ``All Other Telecommunications''
``comprises establishments primarily engaged in providing specialized
telecommunications services, such as satellite tracking, communications
telemetry, and radar station operation. This industry also includes
establishments primarily engaged in providing satellite terminal
stations and associated facilities connected with one or more
terrestrial systems and capable of transmitting telecommunications to,
and receiving telecommunications from, satellite systems.
Establishments providing Internet services or voice over Internet
protocol (VoIP) services via client-supplied telecommunications
connections are also included in this industry.'' In the document,
https://apps.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-16-63A1.pdf, we
provide a thorough discussion of Satellite Telecommunications firms,
and All Other Telecommunications establishments; and to the extent
applicable, whether each of these listed are considered ``small
businesses.''
6. Cable Service Providers
133. Because Section 706 requires us to monitor the deployment of
broadband regardless of technology or transmission media employed, we
know that some broadband service providers do not provide voice
telephony service. Accordingly, we describe below other types of firms
that may provide broadband services, including cable companies, MDS
providers, and utilities, among others. Wired Telecommunications
Carriers comprise of establishments primarily engaged in operating and/
or providing access to transmission facilities and infrastructure that
they own and/or lease for the transmission of voice, data, text, sound,
and video using wired telecommunications networks. Transmission
facilities may be based on
[[Page 45116]]
a single technology or a combination of technologies. Establishments in
this industry use the wired telecommunications network facilities that
they operate to provide a variety of services, such as wired telephony
services, including VoIP services; wired (cable) audio and video
programming distribution; and wired broadband Internet services. By
exception, establishments providing satellite television distribution
services using facilities and infrastructure that they operate are
included in this industry.'' For Cable Companies and Systems, the
Commission has also developed its own small business size standards,
for the purpose of cable rate regulation. Under the Commission's rules,
a ``small cable company'' is one serving 400,000 or fewer subscribers
nationwide. Industry data indicate that all but ten cable operators
nationwide are small under this size standard. In addition, under the
Commission's rules, a ``small system'' is a cable system serving 15,000
or fewer subscribers. For Cable System Operators, the Communications
Act of 1934, as amended, also contains a size standard for small cable
system operators, which is ``a cable operator that, directly or through
an affiliate, serves in the aggregate fewer than 1 percent of all
subscribers in the United States and is not affiliated with any entity
or entities whose gross annual revenues in the aggregate exceed
$250,000,000.'' The Commission has determined that an operator serving
fewer than 677,000 subscribers shall be deemed a small operator, if its
annual revenues, when combined with the total annual revenues of all
its affiliates, do not exceed $250 million in the aggregate. In the
document, https://apps.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-16-63A1.pdf, we provide a thorough discussion of Wired Telecommunications
Carriers; Cable Companies and Systems; and Cable System Operators; and
to the extent applicable, whether each of these listed are considered
``small businesses.''
B. Description of Projected Reporting, Recordkeeping, and Other
Compliance Requirements
134. The rules proposed in the FNPRM would require broadband
Internet access providers and dedicated service providers as well as
interconnected VoIP providers, to report outages or disruptions to
communications according to specified metrics and thresholds, of at
least 30 minutes. These providers as proposed, would need to specify
when the outage is related unintended changes to or failures of
software or firmware, unintended modifications to databases, or
attributed to a critical network element. Reporting requirements would
align the reporting process and timing with that of legacy reporting
currently required in the part 4 rules.
135. Further, the rules proposed in the FNPRM would require
interconnected VoIP service providers to submit Initial Reports, in
addition to the Notifications and Final Reports currently required.
These reporting requirements would align the reporting process and
timing with that of legacy reporting currently required in the part 4
rules.
136. Moreover, the rules proposed in the FNPRM would require
wireless and wireline providers to report outages that exceed proposed
specified technical thresholds in the wireless radio access network and
the wireline local access network respectively. The rules proposed in
the FNPRM would also require wireless providers serving rural areas to
file outage reports whenever one-third or more of its macro cell sites
serving that area are disabled such that communications services cannot
be handled through those sites, or are substantially impaired due to
the outage(s) or other disruptions affecting those sites.
137. Under the Commission's current outage reporting rules, which
apply only to legacy circuit-switched voice and/or paging
communications over wireline, wireless, cable, and satellite
communications services and interconnected VoIP, about 11,000 outage
reports per year from all reporting sources combined are filed with the
Commission. As a result of the rules proposed, we anticipate that fewer
than 2,000 additional outage reports will be filed annually. Hence, we
estimate that if the proposed rules are adopted, the total number of
reports from all outage reporting sources filed, pursuant to the
current and proposed rules, combined would be fewer than 13,000
annually. We note that, occasionally, the proposed outage reporting
requirements could require the use of professional skills, including
legal and engineering expertise. As a consequence, we believe that in
the usual case, the only burden associated with the proposed reporting
requirements contained in this FNPRM would be the time required to
complete the initial and final reports. We anticipate that electronic
filing, through the type of template that we are proposing (similar to
the type that other service providers currently subject to outage
reporting requirements are employing) should minimize the amount of
time and effort that will be required to comply with the rules that we
propose in this proceeding.
138. The FNPRM's proposal to require outage reporting would be
useful in refining voluntary best practices and in developing new ones.
In each case for the reporting thresholds proposed, we have chosen
specific circumstances, applicable to the specific service that, in our
view, warrant reporting as a significant outage, leading to FCC
analysis and, possibly, the application of existing best practices or
the development and refinement of best practices in the future. There
may be additional thresholds that should also be included to improve
the process of developing and improving best practices. We encourage
interested parties to address these issues in the context of the
applicable technologies and to develop their comments in the context of
ways in which the proposed information collection would facilitate best
practices development and increased communications security,
reliability and resiliency throughout the United States and its
Territories.
C. Steps Taken To Minimize Significant Economic Impact on Small
Entities, and Significant Alternatives Considered
139. The RFA requires an agency to describe any significant
alternatives that it has considered in reaching its proposed approach,
which may include (among others) the following four alternatives: (1)
The establishment of differing compliance or reporting requirements or
timetables that take into account the resources available to small
entities; (2) the clarification, consolidation, or simplification of
compliance or reporting requirements under the rule for small entities;
(3) the use of performance, rather than design, standards; and (4) an
exemption from coverage of the rule, or any part thereof, for small
entities.
140. Over the past decade, the proportion of communications
services provided over a broadband platform has increased dramatically,
and the U.S. increasingly relies on broadband-based services not only
for day-to-day consumer use but also for Homeland Defense and National
Security. Over the past three years, the number of outages reported
each year has remained relatively steady at about 11,000. We believe
that the proposed outage reporting requirements are the minimum
necessary to assure that we receive adequate information to perform our
statutory responsibilities with respect to 911 services and ensure the
reliability of communications and critical infrastructures. Also, we
believe that the magnitude of the outages
[[Page 45117]]
needed to trigger the proposed reporting requirements (e.g., outages of
at least 30 minutes duration that potentially affect at least 900,000
user minutes) is set sufficiently high as to make it unlikely that
small businesses would be impacted significantly by the proposed rules.
We also believe the choice of performance-based, as opposed to design-
based, degradation characteristics (e.g., packet loss and round-trip
latency) and the corresponding thresholds chosen to trigger the outage
reporting will not unduly burden smaller entities because of their
objective, readily ascertainable nature. We have also carefully
considered the notion of a waiver for small entities from coverage of
the proposed rules, but declined to propose one, as a waiver of this
type would unduly frustrate the purpose of the proposed requirements
and run counter to the objectives of the FNPRM. Further, we believe
that the proposed requirement that outage reports be filed
electronically would significantly reduce the burdens and costs
currently associated with manual filing processes.
141. The proposed rules in the FNPRM are generally consistent with
current industry practices, so the costs of compliance should be small.
For a number of reasons, we believe that the costs of the reporting
rules that we propose in the FNPRM are outweighed by the expected
benefits (i.e., ensuring communications reliability through outage
reporting, trend analysis and network best practice development and
implementation). We have excluded from the proposed requirements any
type of competitively sensitive information, information that would
compromise network security, and information that would undermine the
efficacy of reasonable network management practices. We anticipate that
the record will suggest alternative ways in which the Commission could
increase the overall benefits for, and lessen the overall burdens on,
small entities.
142. We ask parties to include comments on possible alternatives
that could satisfy the aims of the proceeding in cost-effective ways
that do not overly burden providers, and we also seek comment on
appropriate legal authority(ies) for the proposals under consideration.
Moreover, we also seek comments on the relative costs and benefits
associated with the proposed rules. We ask commenters to address
particularly the following concerns: What are the costs, burdens, and
benefits associated with any proposed rule? Entities, especially small
businesses and small entities, more generally, are encouraged to
quantify the costs and benefits of the proposed reporting requirements.
How could any proposed rule be tailored to impose the least cost and
the least amount of burden on those affected? What potential regulatory
approaches would maximize the potential benefits to society? To the
extent feasible, what explicit performance objectives should the
Commission specify? How can the Commission best identify alternatives
to regulation, including fees, permits, or other non-regulatory
approaches?
143. Further, comments are sought on all aspects of this proposal,
including the proposed extension of such requirements, the definitions
and proposed reporting thresholds, and the proposed reporting process
that would follow essentially the same approach that currently applies
to outage reporting on legacy networks and services. We ask that
commenters address whether the proposed rules would satisfy the
Commission's intended aims, described herein, and would promote the
reliability, resiliency and security of interconnected VoIP, broadband
Internet access, and dedicated services. We also ask for comments on
our tentative conclusions that: Expanding part 4 outage reporting
requirements currently applicable to interconnected VoIP service
providers, and extending part 4 reporting to BIAS providers and
dedicated service providers, (i) would allow the Commission to analyze
outage trends related to those services; (ii) would provide an
important tool for network operators to use in preventing future
outages; and (iii) would help to enhance and ensure the resiliency and
reliability of critical communications networks and services.
144. In sum, we welcome comments on: The proposed rules themselves;
whether they would achieve their intended objectives; whether there are
performance objectives not mentioned that we should address; whether
better alternatives exist that would accomplish the proceeding's
objectives; the legal premises for the actions contemplated; and the
costs, burdens and benefits of our proposal.
D. Federal Rules That May Duplicate, Overlap, or Conflict With the
Proposed Rule
145. None.
List of Subjects in 47 CFR Part 4
Airports, Communications common carriers, Communications equipment,
Disruptions to communications, Network outages, Reporting and
recordkeeping requirements, Telecommunications.
Federal Communications Commission.
Gloria J. Miles,
Federal Register Liaison Officer, Office of the Secretary.
Proposed Rules
For the reasons discussed in the preamble, the Federal
Communications Commission proposes to amend 47 CFR part 4 as follows:
PART 4--DISRUPTIONS TO COMMUNICATIONS
0
1. The authority citation for part 4 is revised to read as follows:
Authority: Sections 1, 4(i), 4(j), 4(o), 251(e)(3), 254, 301,
303(b), 303(g), 303(r), 307, 309(a), 309(j), 316, 332, 403, 615a-1,
and 615c of Pub. L. 73-416, 48 Stat. 1064, as amended, and section
706 of Pub. L. 104-104, 110 Stat. 56; 47 U.S.C. 151, 154(i)-(j) &
(o), 251(e)(3), 254, 301, 303(b), 303(g), 303(r), 307, 309(a),
309(j), 316, 332, 403, 615a-1, 615c, and 1302, unless otherwise
noted.
0
2. Section 4.3 is amended by redesignating paragraph (i) as paragraph
(k) and adding new paragraphs (i) and (j) to read as follows:
Sec. 4.3 Communications providers covered by the requirements of this
part.
* * * * *
(i) Broadband Internet access service providers (BIAS) are
providers of broadband Internet access service, as defined in Sec. 8.2
of this chapter.
(j) Dedicated Service providers are providers of service that
transports data between two or more designated points, e.g., between an
end user's premises and a point-of-presence, between the central office
of a local exchange carrier (LEC) and a point-of-presence, or between
two end user premises, at a rate of at least 1.5 Mbps in both
directions (upstream/downstream) with prescribed performance
requirements that include bandwidth, latency, or error-rate guarantees
or other parameters that define delivery under a tariff or in a
service-level agreement.
* * * * *
0
3. Section 4.7 is amended by revising the section heading and paragraph
(e)(2), and adding paragraphs (g) through (i) to read as follows:
Sec. 4.7 Definitions of metrics used to determine reporting of
outages and disruptions to communications.
* * * * *
(e) * * *
(2) The mathematical result of multiplying the duration of an
outage, expressed in minutes, by the number of end-users potentially
affected by the
[[Page 45118]]
outage, for all other forms of communications.
* * * * *
(g) Packet loss is defined as the loss of one or more packets of
data traveling across a network, which after being transmitted from a
source, fail(s) to reach the destination point designated in the
transmitting message.
(h) Latency is defined as the average time delay for a packet to
travel from a source to a destination.
(i) Throughput is the amount of information transferred within a
system in a given amount of time.
0
4. Section 4.9 is amended by revising the heading of paragraph (g),
paragraphs (g)(1)(ii), (g)(2) and adding paragraph (i) to read as
follows:
Sec. 4.9 Outage reporting requirements--threshold criteria.
* * * * *
(g) Interconnected VoIP Service. (1) * * *
(ii) Within 120 minutes of discovering that they have experienced
on any facilities that they own, operate, lease, or otherwise utilize,
an outage of at least 30 minutes duration that:
(A) Potentially affects at least 900,000 user minutes of
Interconnected VoIP service and results in complete loss of service;
(B) Potentially affects 22,500 Gbps user minutes; or
(C) Potentially affects any special offices and facilities (in
accordance with paragraphs (a) through (d) of Sec. 4.5).
(2) Not later than 72 hours after discovering the outage, the
provider shall submit electronically an Initial Communications Outage
Report to the Commission. Not later than 30 days after discovering the
outage, the provider shall submit electronically a Final Communications
Outage Report to the Commission. The Notification and the Initial and
Final reports shall comply with the requirements of Sec. 4.11.
* * * * *
(i) BIAS or Dedicated Service providers. (1) All BIAS providers and
Dedicated Service providers, as defined in Sec. 4.3 shall submit
electronically a Notification to the Commission within 120 minutes of
discovering that they have experienced on any facilities that they own,
operate, lease, or otherwise utilize, an outage of at least 30 minutes
duration that:
(A) Potentially affects at least 22,500 Gbps user minutes;
(B) Potentially affects any special offices and facilities (in
accordance with paragraphs (a) through (d) of Sec. 4.5); or
(C) Potentially affects a 911 special facility (as defined in (e)
of Sec. 4.5).
(2) Not later than 72 hours after discovering the outage, BIAS
providers and Dedicated Service providers, as defined in Sec. 4.3,
shall submit electronically an Initial Communications Outage Report to
the Commission. Not later than 30 days after discovering the outage,
the broadband Internet access service provider shall submit
electronically a Final Communications Outage Report to the Commission.
The Notification and the Initial and Final reports shall comply with
the requirements of Sec. 4.11.
[FR Doc. 2016-16273 Filed 7-8-16; 11:15 am]
BILLING CODE 6712-01-P