Establishing the Digital Opportunity Data Collection and Modernizing the FCC Form 477 Data Program, 43764-43783 [2019-18062]
Download as PDF
43764
Federal Register / Vol. 84, No. 163 / Thursday, August 22, 2019 / Proposed Rules
I. Executive Order 13211: Actions That
Significantly Affect Energy Supply,
Distribution or Use
This action is not subject to Executive
Order 13211 because it is not a
significant regulatory action under
Executive Order 12866.
J. National Technology Transfer and
Advancement Act (NTTAA)
This rulemaking does not involve
technical standards.
K. 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 (59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994).
The documentation for this
determination is contained in Section IV
of this preamble, ‘‘Environmental
Justice Concerns.’’
List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 81
Harvey D. Fort, Acting Director,
Division of Policy and Program
Development, Office of Federal Contract
Compliance Programs, 200 Constitution
Avenue NW, Room C–3325,
Washington, DC 20210. Telephone:
(202) 693–0104 (voice) or (202) 693–
1337 (TTY).
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The
following correction is made to the
document that published in the Federal
Register on August 15, 2019:
On page 41687, the first line of Table
2. Quantifiable Costs ‘‘First-Year Costs
$24,197,500’’ is corrected to read ‘‘FirstYear Costs $20,325,900’’.
Craig E. Leen,
Director, OFCCP.
[FR Doc. 2019–18060 Filed 8–21–19; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4510–45–P
FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS
COMMISSION
47 CFR Parts 1 and 54
Establishing the Digital Opportunity
Data Collection and Modernizing the
FCC Form 477 Data Program
Dated: August 13, 2019.
Anne L. Idsal,
Acting Assistant Administrator.
Federal Communications
Commission.
ACTION: Proposed rule.
AGENCY:
[FR Doc. 2019–18048 Filed 8–21–19; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560–50–P
DEPARTMENT OF LABOR
Office of Federal Contract Compliance
Programs
41 CFR Part 60–1
RIN 1250–AA09
Implementing Legal Requirements
Regarding the Equal Opportunity
Clause’s Religious Exemption
Office of Federal Contract
Compliance Programs; Labor.
ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking;
correction.
AGENCY:
SUMMARY: On August 15, 2019, the
Office of Federal Contract Compliance
Programs (OFCCP) published a
proposed rule to clarify the scope and
application of the religious exemption
contained in section 204(c) of Executive
Order 11246, as amended. That
document included incorrect
information for the quantifiable costs
that appear in Table 2. This document
corrects Table 2 in the proposed rule.
16:22 Aug 21, 2019
August 22, 2019.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
[WC Docket Nos. 11–10 and 19–195, FCC
No. 19–79]
Environmental protection, Air
pollution control, National parks,
Wilderness areas.
VerDate Sep<11>2014
DATES:
Jkt 247001
SUMMARY: In this document, the Federal
Communications Commission
(Commission) adopts a Report and
Order and Second Further Notice of
Proposed Rulemaking (Second FNPRM).
This document seeks comment on
certain aspects of the Digital
Opportunity Data Collection to enhance
its accuracy and usefulness. The Second
FNPRM seeks comment on ways to
develop location-specific data that
could be used in conjunction with the
polygon-based data in the new
collection to precisely identify the
homes and small businesses that have
and do not have access to broadband
services. With respect to mobile
wireless coverage, the Second FNPRM
seeks comment on how to align the
Digital Opportunity Data Collection
with changes in mobile broadband
deployment technology, markets, and
policy needs. The Second FNPRM also
seeks comment on how to improve
satellite broadband deployment data
given the unique characteristics of
satellites.
DATES: For the Second FNPRM
comments are due on or before
PO 00000
Frm 00036
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
September 23, 2019, and reply
comments are due on or before October
7, 2019. Written comments on the
Paperwork Reduction Act information
collection requirements must be
submitted by the public, OMB, and
other interested parties on or before
October 21, 2019.
ADDRESSES: In addition to filing
comments with the Commission’s Office
of the Secretary, as set forth below, a
copy of any comments on the
Paperwork Reduction Act information
collection requirements contained
herein should be submitted to the
Commission via email to PRA@fcc.gov
and to Nicole Ongele, FCC, via email to
Nicole.Ongele@fcc.gov.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Wireline Competition Bureau, Kirk
Burgee, at (202) 418–1599, Kirk.Burgee@
fcc.gov, or, Wireless
Telecommunications Bureau, Garnet
Hanly, at (202) 418–0995,
Garnet.Hanly@fcc.gov. For additional
information concerning the Paperwork
Reduction Act information collection
requirements contained in this
document, send an email to PRA@
fcc.gov or contact Nicole Ongele at (202)
418–2991.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: This is a
summary of the Commission’s Report
and Order and Second Further Notice of
Proposed Rulemaking in WC Docket
Nos. 11–10 and 19–195, FCC 19–79,
adopted August 1, 2019 and released
August 6, 2019. The full text of this
document is available for public
inspection during regular business
hours in the FCC Reference Information
Center, Portals II, 445 12th Street SW,
Room CY–A257, Washington, DC 20554.
It also is available on the Commission’s
website at https://www.fcc.gov/
document/fcc-improves-broadbandmapping-0.
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 in
response to the Second FNPRM on or
before the dates indicated on the first
page of this document. Comments may
be filed using the Commission’s
Electronic Filing System (ECFS). See
Electronic Filing of Documents in
Rulemaking Proceedings, 63 FR 24121
(1998).
D Electronic Filers: Comments may be
filed electronically using the internet by
accessing the ECFS: https://
www.fcc.gov/ecfs/.
D Paper Filers: Parties who choose to
file by paper must file an original and
one copy of each filing. If more than one
docket or rulemaking number appears in
the caption of this proceeding, filers
E:\FR\FM\22AUP1.SGM
22AUP1
Federal Register / Vol. 84, No. 163 / Thursday, August 22, 2019 / Proposed Rules
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 9050
Junction Drive, Annapolis Junction, MD
20701. U.S. Postal Service first-class,
Express, and Priority mail must be
addressed to 445 12th Street SW,
Washington, DC 20554.
D 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
I. Introduction
1. Accurate broadband deployment
data is critical to the Commission’s
efforts to bridge the digital divide.
Effectively targeting federal and state
spending efforts to bring broadband to
those areas most in need of it means
understanding where broadband is
available and where it is not. The
census-block level fixed broadband
service availability reporting the
Commission currently requires has been
an effective tool for helping the
Commission target universal service
support to the least-served areas of the
country, but has made it difficult for the
Commission to direct funding to the
‘‘gaps’’ in broadband coverage—those
areas where some, but not all, homes
and businesses have access to modern
communications services.
2. We therefore initiate a new data
collection, the Digital Opportunity Data
Collection, that is distinct from the
existing Form 477 collection and that
will gather geospatial broadband service
availability data specifically targeted
toward advancing our universal service
goals. Pursuant to the Digital
Opportunity Data Collection, we require
VerDate Sep<11>2014
16:22 Aug 21, 2019
Jkt 247001
all broadband service providers to
submit granular maps of the areas where
they have broadband-capable networks
and make service available. Given the
Commission’s ongoing investigation
into the coverage maps of one or more
major mobile operators, we limit the
new data collection obligations to fixed
broadband providers at present and seek
comment on how best to incorporate
mobile wireless coverage data into the
Digital Opportunity Data Collection.
3. Service providers—who are
uniquely situated to know where their
own networks are deployed—must
determine in the first instance the
availability of broadband in their service
areas, taking into account their
individual circumstances and their onthe-ground knowledge and experience.
At the same time, to complement this
granular broadband availability data, we
adopt a process to begin collecting
public input, sometimes known as
‘‘crowdsourcing,’’ on the accuracy of
service providers’ broadband
deployment data. Through this new
tool, State, local, and Tribal
governmental entities and members of
the public will be able to submit fixed
broadband availability data, leveraging
their experience concerning service
availability. In addition, because we
leave in place for now the existing Form
477 data collection, we make targeted
changes to reduce reporting burdens for
all providers by removing and clarifying
certain requirements and modifying the
collection.
4. In the Second FNPRM, we seek
comment on certain aspects of the
Digital Opportunity Data Collection to
enhance the accuracy and usefulness of
broadband deployment reporting. We
also seek comment on ways that we can
develop location-specific data that
could be overlaid onto the polygonbased data in this new data collection to
precisely identify the homes and small
businesses that have and do not have
access to broadband services. With
respect to mobile wireless coverage, we
seek comment on how to align the
Digital Opportunity Data Collection
with changes in mobile broadband
deployment technology, markets, and
policy needs. The questions asked, and
proposals made, in the Second FNPRM
build a framework for addressing these
and other issues. Finally, the Second
FNPRM seeks comment on how we can
improve the satellite broadband
deployment data given the unique
characteristics of satellites.
II. Background
5. First established in 2000, the
Commission’s Form 477 began as a
collection of subscription and
PO 00000
Frm 00037
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
43765
connection data for local telephone and
broadband services that helped the
Commission to, among other things,
meet statutory annual reporting
obligations and monitor local voice
competition. Over time, the Form 477
data collection has evolved into the
primary data source for many
Commission actions, including
reporting to Congress and the public
about the availability of broadband
services, informing transaction reviews,
and supporting our universal service
policies. At the same time, it has
become increasingly clear that the fixed
and mobile broadband deployment data
collected on the Form 477 are not
sufficient to understanding where
universal service support should be
targeted and supporting the imperative
of our broadband-deployment policy
goals.
6. For purposes of broadband
deployment reporting, the Commission
currently requires fixed providers to
report the census blocks in which their
broadband service is available. Fixed
broadband connections are available in
a census block ‘‘if the provider does, or
could, within a service interval that is
typical for that kind of connection—that
is, without an extraordinary
commitment of resources—provision
two-way data transmission to and from
the internet with advertised speeds
exceeding 200 kbps in at least one
direction to end-user premises in the
census block.’’ However, census-block
based fixed deployment data have
limitations—providers report whether
or not fixed broadband service is
available in at least some part of each
census block, but not whether there is
availability at all areas within a block.
7. Providers of fixed voice and
broadband service report on their enduser subscriptions by submitting the
total number of connections in each
census tract in which they provide
service. Providers of mobile voice and
broadband service report their total
subscribers for each state in which they
provide service to customers. Facilitiesbased providers of mobile broadband
service report on deployment by
submitting, for each technology and
frequency band employed, polygons in
geographic information system (GIS)
mapping files that digitally represent
the geographic areas in which a
customer could expect to receive the
minimum speed the service provider
advertises for that area. In addition,
mobile service providers must report the
census tracts in which their service is
advertised and available to potential
customers.
8. In establishing the Form 477 as its
primary vehicle for collecting
E:\FR\FM\22AUP1.SGM
22AUP1
43766
Federal Register / Vol. 84, No. 163 / Thursday, August 22, 2019 / Proposed Rules
information about the deployment of
broadband services, the Commission
predicted that the data from the Form
477 would ‘‘materially improve’’ its
ability to develop, evaluate, and revise
broadband policy, as well as provide
valuable benchmarks for Congress, the
Commission, other policymakers, and
consumers. In its comments in this
proceeding, the National
Telecommunications and Information
Administration (NTIA) states that its
analysts ‘‘routinely refer to the
Commission’s Form 477 data, including
both deployment and subscription data,
to help inform policymakers and
enhance [its] technical support of
broadband infrastructure investment.’’
The Commission has used aggregate
broadband data reported by providers
on Form 477 to, among other things: (1)
Meet our statutory obligation to
annually report on the state of
broadband availability; (2) update our
universal service policies and monitor
whether our universal service goals are
being achieved in a cost-effective
manner; (3) meet our public safety
obligations; and (4) maintain coverage
maps to inform stakeholders, including
industry and the public.
9. In an effort to collect and develop
better quality, more useful, and more
granular broadband deployment data,
the Commission adopted the 2017 Data
Collection Improvement FNPRM in
August 2017. In the 2017 Data
Collection Improvement FNPRM, the
Commission sought comment on: (1)
Ways in which the Commission might
increase the quality and accuracy of the
broadband information we collect; and
(2) ways in which the Commission
might streamline its broadband
reporting requirements and thereby
reduce the burdens on filers. The
Commission also noted that one of its
primary objectives is to ensure that the
data collected will be closely aligned
with the uses to which they will be put,
and sought comment on those uses to
inform our analysis. In response, we
received a voluminous amount of
comments, reply comments, and ex
parte presentations with specific
recommendations on how best to
improve our broadband reporting
process.
III. Second Further Notice of Proposed
Rulemaking
10. We take steps today in the Report
and Order to improve our broadband
data collection and reporting by
directing USAC, under the supervision
of OEA, to undertake establishing the
online portal for the Digital Opportunity
Data Collection, an entirely new
collection targeted specifically at
VerDate Sep<11>2014
16:22 Aug 21, 2019
Jkt 247001
identifying unserved areas with greater
precision in order to advance our
universal service goals. In this Second
FNPRM, we seek comment on
additional issues to continue our
ongoing efforts to ensure that the Digital
Opportunity Data Collection will evolve
to align with changes to technology,
markets, and policy needs.
A. Improving Broadband Data
11. Even with public input to improve
the quality of the Digital Opportunity
Data Collection over time, it is essential
that we receive reliable fixed broadband
availability data from filers of this new
collection at the outset. Although we are
cognizant of the potential burdens that
greater precision in reporting can entail,
commenters have indicated in the
record that the approach we adopt
today—to collect coverage polygons of
fixed-broadband service availability—
will allow providers to submit more
precise data with reasonable burdens.
Nonetheless, we seek comment on steps
the Commission can take to improve the
quality of fixed broadband coverage
polygons while minimizing the
associated reporting burdens.
1. Additional Technical Standards for
Fixed Broadband Reporting
12. As part of the Digital Opportunity
Data Collection, the Commission is
directing OEA to provide guidance to
fixed providers regarding how to
develop the polygons depicting fixed
broadband coverage. Connected Nation
expresses concern that small service
providers in particular will struggle to
comply with the new reporting
requirements in the Digital Opportunity
Data Collection unless they get
assistance in creating their broadband
coverage polygons. In the Report and
Order, we identify help-desk support
and clear instructions as ways we will
assist fixed broadband providers with
meeting the new filing obligations. We
seek comment on what other steps the
Commission and USAC can take to help
fixed providers file accurate data as part
of the new collection.
13. We seek comment on whether
Commission staff should prescribe rules
for reporting fixed wired broadband
deployment that will provide
consistently reliable results for
similarly-situated filers? For example,
should we establish fixed buffers
around network facilities to define
coverage for specific fixed technologies
(e.g., 200-meter buffers around the
location of distribution or coaxial
plant)? Would this promote consistency
and reliability among submissions? We
note that applying such buffers or other
constraints may foreclose consideration
PO 00000
Frm 00038
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
of individual network characteristics.
Are there ways to mitigate or address
this risk? What other methodologies for
developing polygons should we permit
fixed providers to use? For example,
would polygons based on homes passed
or addresses served by the fixed
provider produce equally reliable
polygons? How much flexibility should
we afford fixed providers in selecting a
methodology to creating broadband
coverage polygons? Would any globallyapplied constraint be too likely to overor under-state service availability? How
should broadband coverage polygons
account for transport capacity? That is,
how should we ensure that fixed
providers are capable of serving every
location covered by a polygon? We
recognize that determining the area
served by a broadband network is highly
idiosyncratic and determined by
multiple factors. For example, different
companies might take different
approaches in the same circumstance,
while a single company might take a
different approach in different markets
depending on the level of local
government regulation (e.g., local
franchise agreements that include buildout requirements). In addition, coverage
can depend on very local conditions
like access to rights-of-way along one
route and not another or the ability to
serve the edge of franchise or service
areas. With the end goal of creating a
single cohesive dataset and map
representation of where coverage is and
is not located, what measures, methods,
and mechanisms should be
implemented to ensure the greatest
interoperability and least postprocessing of the submitted data?
14. We also seek comment on
establishing standards for reporting
coverage polygons for terrestrial fixed
wireless broadband service. In the 2017
Data Collection Improvement FNPRM,
the Commission sought comment on
setting standards for mobile coverage
polygons. Separately, it adopted a set of
standards for determining mobile
coverage using a propagation model for
the Mobility Fund Phase-II (MF–II) LTE
data collection. If the Commission
adopts standards for reporting mobile
broadband deployment, should we
require terrestrial-fixed wireless
providers to report broadband
deployment using similar standards?
Are there fundamental differences
between fixed wireless and mobile
technologies that would caution against
using mobile wireless standards for
fixed wireless deployment reporting
(e.g., fixed wireless use of fixed, highpowered antennas that could result in a
different link budget than for mobile
E:\FR\FM\22AUP1.SGM
22AUP1
Federal Register / Vol. 84, No. 163 / Thursday, August 22, 2019 / Proposed Rules
service, or the use of unlicensed
spectrum by some fixed wireless
providers)? If so, would it be
appropriate to adopt different standards
(e.g., probability of cell-edge
throughput) or parameters (e.g., a
different utilization rate for unlicensed
spectrum) for fixed wireless? Further,
what factors should Commission staff
consider to independently validate the
fixed wireless mapping methodology
(e.g., cell-site and receive-site
engineering and technical details and
locations, RF propagation
characteristics, signal strength)?
15. We also seek comment on whether
fixed broadband providers should
include latency levels along with the
other parameters in reporting their
coverage polygons. Latency is the time
it takes for a data packet to travel across
a network from one point on the
network to another. The Commission
considers latency levels as relevant in
the provision of universal service
support. If latency is to be included in
reporting fixed broadband coverage,
how should it be included? For
instance, how and at what point in the
network should the provider measure
latency? Would we need to be more
specific than how we considered
latency in the context of awarding
Connect America Fund Phase II support
or would the same approach be
appropriate?
16. We seek comment on what steps
the Commission can or should take to
support the production of high-quality
data and ways the Commission can
provide incentives to improve the
quality of the data filed. Are there steps
that fixed providers can take to ensure
better quality broadband deployment
data and, if so, what will the cost of
those steps likely be? Does the
technology deployed or the size of the
fixed provider matter? If so, how? Is
there a size or type of fixed provider
that will be able to file high-quality data
without any additional support or
added cost? Are there unique burdens
on smaller fixed providers that would
not be burdens for larger fixed
providers? In general, what will the cost
be on the fixed broadband industry to
produce reliable deployment data? Also,
is there anything that can be done to
lessen reporting burdens on all filers as
part of the new collection, especially
ways to harmonize filing procedures
and requirements from other collections
to reduce duplication of efforts? In
addition, are there other relevant data
that we should gather as part of a new
collection of broadband deployment
data?
17. We emphasize that the
introduction of crowdsourced data does
VerDate Sep<11>2014
16:22 Aug 21, 2019
Jkt 247001
not alleviate a fixed provider’s
obligation to conduct thorough
assessments of service availability
before submitting broadband
deployment data. We propose to use a
variety of methods, including audits and
statistical analyses, to confirm that the
fixed broadband deployment data
submitted by providers are accurate. Put
simply, if a location falls within the
coverage polygon submitted by a fixed
provider, then it must either already
receive fixed broadband service or be
capable of receiving such service within
ten business days and without
extraordinary expense. We seek
comment on the best method (or mix of
methods) to ensure the submission of
accurate fixed broadband deployment
data, including the plans that USAC
must develop for corroborating and
spot-checking data submitted by fixed
providers. What penalties would be
appropriate upon a finding of inaccurate
data and should there be more severe
penalties for chronic filers of bad data?
Should the Commission treat differently
those coverage polygons submitted by
providers that have a certain number of
public filings disputing their accuracy?
Is there an appropriate threshold or
methodology to identify unreliable
filings that should be treated differently,
and if so, how should the Commission
treat those filings? ACA argues that
providers should not be sanctioned for
submitting inaccurate data ‘‘unless there
is clear evidence the provider
intentionally and persistently did so.’’
We seek comment on this approach, as
well as how to handle situations in
which the filer is negligent (but not
intentional) in submitting inaccurate
data.
18. The Digital Opportunity Data
Collection will significantly improve
our understanding of broadband
deployment, and we want to ensure that
its value is fully realized by the
Commission, stakeholders, and
ratepayers. We therefore seek comment
on additional measures we can adopt to
meet this objective. Can the maps and
datasets derived from the Digital
Opportunity Data Collection be used in
connection with the other universal
service programs, in particular E-Rate
and Rural Health Care, to the extent
they provide support for infrastructure
build-out, to promote efficiency,
minimize waste, and help avoid
duplicative funding within the Fund? If
so, how? Should we combine the Digital
Opportunity Data Collection datasets
with other datasets, for example,
locations where funding has been
committed in Commission and other
federal agency programs, even where
PO 00000
Frm 00039
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
43767
deployment may not have occurred? We
believe that the Digital Opportunity
Data Collection represents a unique
opportunity for integrating related but
distinct data resources to produce a
unified picture of broadband data. What
data would be appropriate to include in
this effort and how can it be used most
effectively? What other issues should
we consider as we evaluate this
possibility?
19. Improving Satellite Broadband
Data. We seek comment on how, for
purposes of the Digital Opportunity
Data Collection, we can improve upon
the existing satellite broadband data
collection to reflect more accurately
current satellite broadband service
availability. The Commission has
recognized there are issues with the
quality of the satellite broadband data
that are currently reported under the
existing Form 477. For instance,
according to currently reported data,
satellite service offering 25 Mbps/3
Mbps speeds is available to all but
0.03% of the U.S. population. However,
while satellite signal coverage may
enable operators to offer services to
wide swaths of the country, overall
satellite capacity may limit the number
of consumers that can actually subscribe
to satellite service at any one time.
Given that the coverage geographies
reported by satellite providers based on
satellite beams are likely to remain
larger than those reported by terrestrial
fixed providers based on their network
facilities, we seek comment generally on
how to improve the satellite broadband
data reported in the new data collection.
Geostationary orbit (GSO) satellites are
unique in that they have the relatively
large beam coverage area over which
service is provided, have inherent
flexibility in using wide-area beams and
spot beams, and face relative difficulty
in adding new capacity. For instance,
given these characteristics of GSO
satellite service, should the Commission
require GSO satellite providers to report
network capacity as well? Would
additional information, including the
number and location of satellite beams,
the capacity used to provide service by
individual satellite to consumers at
various speeds, and the number of
subscribers served at those levels,
improve the quality and usefulness of
the satellite broadband availability data?
20. We also seek comment on whether
we could rely on other data to improve
the reliability of the satellite broadband
availability data reported in the new
data collection. For example, would
examining the presence of existing
subscribers provide greater insight into
where satellite broadband service is
available than does satellite beam
E:\FR\FM\22AUP1.SGM
22AUP1
43768
Federal Register / Vol. 84, No. 163 / Thursday, August 22, 2019 / Proposed Rules
coverage data alone? Could we
meaningfully validate a satellite
provider’s availability data based on the
presence of subscribers above a de
minimis level in the census tract in
which the census block is located? For
instance, should we use an absolute
number and/or percentage of
households or subscribers in a census
tract? We seek comment on these
methods and any other analysis to
obtain a more meaningful representation
of the deployment of satellite capacity
in a geographic area.
21. We also seek comment on whether
there are any other limitations that we
should place on the reporting of fixed
satellite broadband service. Current
fixed satellite broadband service relies
on GSO satellites, and customers’
satellite earth stations therefore need a
clear view of the southern sky to
connect to such services. Should
satellite broadband providers that rely
on GSO satellites exclude from their
reported coverage polygons any area
where terrain blocks a clear view of
their satellites (i.e., where it is not
physically possible to deliver the
service)? We note that the Commission
has recently authorized several nongeostationary satellite constellations
(NGSOs) that contemplate providing
low-earth-orbit, low latency satellite
broadband services in the future. What
issues should be addressed for these
satellite services in the new data
collection as they begin to be offered?
2. Use of Crowdsourcing
22. In the Report and Order, the
Commission directs USAC to begin
collecting information from state
governments, including state public
utility commissions, and local and
Tribal governmental entities, as well as
members of the public, about the
accuracy of the coverage polygons
gathered from fixed providers and to
make certain data publicly available. In
this section, we seek comment about
steps the Commission and USAC can
take to make the best use of such data
to improve the quality of the serviceavailability dataset going forward.
23. At a high level, we propose that
USAC track coverage disputes, followup with providers to ascertain whether
there is agreement that there is a
problem with the data and ensure that
providers refile updated and corrected
data in a timely fashion. We propose
that USAC create a system to track
complaints about the accuracy of fixed
broadband coverage polygons. This
functionality could be similar to the
Commission’s existing consumercomplaints database. Having a tracking
system would allow USAC to pass the
VerDate Sep<11>2014
16:22 Aug 21, 2019
Jkt 247001
complaints along to the appropriate
provider and track whether the person
filing the complaint received a response.
In instances where the provider agrees
that its original filing was in error,
USAC could track the error and ensure
that the provider corrects its data.
Alternatively, USAC could simply
publish the complaints it receives and
require providers to periodically check
complaints about their filings. Is this a
reasonable burden to place on
providers? How could USAC efficiently
track which of the complaints should be
and ultimately are addressed through
data corrections?
24. We also seek comment on the
appropriate time period (if any) for fixed
providers to respond to a complaint.
ACA argues that it would be ‘‘onerous
if a smaller provider had to respond
immediately to each and every
submission from an individual or
government entity’’ and recommends
that small providers be allowed to
account for any inaccurate data at its
next Digital Opportunity Data Collection
filing. Connected Nation recommends
that there be ‘‘a cyclical, scheduled
feedback process in which there are
defined windows for receiving feedback,
analyzing and validating feedback, and
updating the map after feedback has
been adjudicated.’’ We seek comment
on the best approach to timing for the
crowdsourcing process, not only for
small providers but for all filers.
25. We propose to have USAC collect
the following data from entities
disputing coverage: The address of the
location at which coverage is disputed
and/or its coordinates (latitude and
longitude); the fixed provider whose
service coverage is in dispute; the
download and upload speeds available
for subscription; the technology
reported at that location by the provider;
and contact information from the
submitting party (email address and/or
phone number). Are these types of data
appropriate for this collection and are
there other types of data USAC should
ask for to make this collection an
effective tool for USAC, the
Commission, industry, and the public?
We also propose to require that
individuals disputing coverage certify
that they have requested service from
the provider and that the provider either
refused, or failed, to provide service
within the applicable 10-business day
period. Would this establish a
reasonable threshold for disputing
coverage? Are there other requirements
we could establish to ensure that
disputes raise a valid question about
coverage in individual locations? How
should we handle disputes that do not
meet these criteria (such as those
PO 00000
Frm 00040
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
admitting availability but alleging that a
service falls short of expectations based
on service provider’s reported
coverage)? Would it be helpful to gather
information about nearby areas where
service is available (if the individual
knows)?
26. The Commission has noted that
overall broadband deployment in Indian
country remains significantly behind
deployment on non-Tribal lands due to
several long-recognized barriers to
broadband deployment on Tribal lands.
Given these additional challenges, we
recognize the importance of Tribal
participation in the Digital Opportunity
Data Collection’s public feedback
mechanism. We seek comment on how
best to incorporate input of Tribal
governments on broadband coverage
maps, given the special importance of
collecting accurate and complete
broadband availability information for
Tribal lands. For example, we propose
to have USAC or Commission staff
conduct outreach directly with Tribal
governments to facilitate their
involvement in the dispute process and
to provide technical assistance to them
as needed. We seek comment on these
proposals and how we could implement
them most effectively. We also seek
comment on any additional issues
specific to Tribal governments that we
should take into account in connection
with any disputes concerning coverage
data. Finally, we seek comment on
whether we should expand these
proposals to include other Tribal
entities, such as inter-Tribal
organizations.
27. We seek comment about how
quickly fixed providers should be
required to correct any data where they
do not refute the alleged lack of
coverage. Should USAC require that
fixed providers either establish coverage
or file updated coverage polygons
within a specific number of days
following submission of an uncontested
dispute? If so, what number of days
would provide a reasonable balance
between the burden placed on fixed
providers and the need for policymakers to have the most accurate data
possible? On the other hand, would it be
overly burdensome for fixed providers
to re-file data addressing each
individual error, particularly if the
provider’s coverage is the subject of
multiple pending complaints? Should
USAC allow for fixed providers to batch
any corrections into weekly or monthly
updates, as needed? How can USAC
balance the need for corrected data
against provider burden? We note that
NCTA proposes that fixed providers
would correct the data in the next filing
opportunity, which could leave the
E:\FR\FM\22AUP1.SGM
22AUP1
Federal Register / Vol. 84, No. 163 / Thursday, August 22, 2019 / Proposed Rules
original data possibly in place for many
months even after an agreement that the
original filing was in error. Is that
approach reasonable?
28. When the public files a complaint
about the fixed broadband coverage
polygons, there is a time lag between the
date of the filing under the new
collection and the date that the
complaint is filed. We believe there are
only very limited circumstances in
which a provider would have
previously had broadband service of a
given quality (technology, upload speed
and download speed) but removed it
(e.g., copper retirement). Thus, if there
is a complaint that the fixed broadband
coverage polygons are incorrect, we
believe it is likely that the data are
incorrect for earlier time periods as
well. Is this a reasonable assumption
and should we require providers to
resubmit all earlier datasets for the
affected areas to conform to any
corrections? Doing so would provide a
more accurate view on the evolution of
service-availability coverage over time.
On the other hand, it will also involve
a greater burden for providers. In
addition, it is unclear whether the timeseries data would be useful in targeting
USF support. We seek comment on the
relative benefit (better time series data)
compared to the provider burden.
29. We also seek comment on what
standards and processes the
Commission should establish to govern
the resolution of cases in which
providers and the stakeholders disagree
about whether the broadband coverage
polygons are correct—that is, whether
service is actually available at a given
location. NTCA argues that
crowdsourced reports should not be
treated the same as general consumer
complaints, requiring a provider
response in all cases. NTCA suggests
that providers should be required to
respond to reports or adjust their maps
only in situations where ‘‘material
trends develop in vetted information
that indicate a systemic problem with a
provider’s reporting in a given area.’’
Are these reasonable approaches? What
dispute resolution process would be
appropriate? Providers should have a
period of time within which to refute
any complaint and, in the absence of a
timely and compelling response, USAC
could require the fixed provider to
submit a coverage polygon that excludes
the disputed location. What types of
evidence would be appropriate for
providers to submit? What framework
should the Commission establish to
ensure that USAC reliably and
efficiently adjudicates conflicting claims
in such circumstances? What
evidentiary standard should the
VerDate Sep<11>2014
16:22 Aug 21, 2019
Jkt 247001
Commission establish to resolve such
disputes: Preponderance of evidence,
clear and convincing evidence, or
another standard? In situations
indicating pervasive reporting errors,
bad faith, or a refusal to refile a coverage
polygon that has been found to contain
an inaccurate location, USAC could take
additional steps, such as referring the
matter to the FCC for enforcement
action. What remedies would be
appropriate in such an enforcement
action? If one possibility were monetary
forfeitures, what would be an
appropriate base forfeiture amount and
what would be appropriate increments
in the case of repeated or more
egregious violations? Are there other
approaches the Commission should take
to areas where there is disagreement?
30. We believe there could be
instances of dispute between a member
of the public filing a complaint and a
fixed provider where both parties can
credibly claim that they are correct. For
example, a consumer may find a fixed
provider is not available in its building
because the building owner is not
allowing that provider entry into the
building. If the excluded provider could
meet the service-reporting requirements
(e.g., with respect to time to service),
should the Commission consider such a
location as served by that provider or
not? Would it be beneficial to identify,
as part of any tracking process for public
feedback on the data collection,
instances where a provider is willing
and able to provide service but is not
able to do so due to circumstances
beyond its control? Would USAC need
to verify or validate such claims and, if
so, how? Or, in the alternative, should
the Commission require that providers
remove from the coverage polygons they
file small areas to represent those
buildings in which they are prohibited
from offering service for any reason?
31. Finally, we seek comment on
whether the Commission should direct
USAC to accept the upload of bulk
complaints data. We want to avoid badfaith or malicious challenges to coverage
data, such as a dispute to every address
in a fixed provider’s footprint via an
automated tool or bot. In order for this
tool to be effective, it is essential that we
safeguard the integrity of the data
submitted through it. On the other hand,
we can see there could be value in
allowing Tribal, local, or state
governments to provide data in bulk
where they have already investigated
and so want to consider whether and
how to permit USAC to allow for the
collection of bulk data. Would
establishing a certification requirement,
similar to what we have proposed for
PO 00000
Frm 00041
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
43769
individuals, help to ensure the validity
of bulk challenge data?
32. To address these issues, should
the Commission limit permissible bulk
filings to certain authenticated users,
such as states or state commissions,
local governments, and Tribal entities?
If so, how should it approach
authentication? What entities should be
entitled to become authenticated
users—for example, should the
Commission limit it to just state
government entities? Are there parts of
state governments, like public-utility
commissions, or mapping or broadband
offices, that would be more likely to
provide meaningful input? Should
USAC track and resolve disputes
involving bulk complaints in the same
manner as individual complaints? Or, in
the alternative, should USAC accept
complaints as accurate and shift the
burden of proof onto providers to
submit convincing data to refute the
crowdsourced data? We seek comment
on these issues.
3. Incorporating Location Information
Into the Digital Opportunity Data
Collection
33. In the accompanying Report and
Order, we adopt the reporting of
coverage polygons for fixed-broadband
services, a step that will result in more
precise deployment data. Parties have
correctly pointed out, however, that
simply knowing what parts of a census
block lack broadband service does not
provide enough information by itself to
identify the specific locations within
that census block that lack fixed
broadband availability. We agree that
there are likely benefits to incorporating
nationwide location data into the Digital
Opportunity Data Collection and we
propose to adopt such an approach,
informed by comments on how USAC
can collect and incorporate such data.
What data does USAC need and how
could it get access to them? We believe
that broadband coverage polygons
submitted by service providers could be
overlaid on nationwide location data in
order to precisely identify the homes
and small businesses that have and do
not have access to broadband services,
and seek comment on this view.
34. We note that the first step in
incorporating location data is to
establish a process where all broadbandserviceable locations (e.g., houses,
businesses, structures) are mapped
using a single methodology, providing a
harmonized reference point for fixed
broadband reporting. Toward that end,
the Broadband Mapping Coalition is in
the process of testing a ‘‘Broadband
Serviceable Location Fabric’’ to
demonstrate the viability of a location-
E:\FR\FM\22AUP1.SGM
22AUP1
43770
Federal Register / Vol. 84, No. 163 / Thursday, August 22, 2019 / Proposed Rules
based proposal. The Broadband
Mapping Coalition’s testing represents a
concrete effort to identify the issues
facing USAC in moving to a locationbased collection.
35. We propose to create and integrate
a broadband-serviceable location tool
into the Digital Opportunity Data
Collection. As an initial matter, we seek
comment on Alexicon’s claim that a
broad definition of location lowers both
the reporting burden for providers and
the underlying cost of identifying
locations. We also seek comment on
what kinds of locations we should
include as broadband-serviceable. For
example, we could designate a parcel as
the definition of a location on the theory
that a fixed provider that offers service
to one part of the parcel would be
willing to serve anywhere on that
parcel. We seek comment on how to
define the location of a parcel (e.g., as
the centroid of a parcel or as the
location of a building on a parcel).
Alternatively, we could determine that
a broadband addressable location
should be defined as a building. The
Broadband Mapping Coalition work has
shown that it is generally possible to
identify individual buildings as
locations. We note, however, that there
can be multiple buildings on a parcel
and question whether it would be
advisable to treat each of those
buildings as a distinct location. We
believe a provider is likely to run a
single connection (drop) from its
network to, for example, a farm, rather
than individual connections to all of the
structures on the parcel (e.g., the
farmhouse and each garage, barn,
chicken coop, storage shed, etc.). We
seek comment on alternatives for
defining a broadband-serviceable
location.
36. Should we decide that, for
residential users, the location would be
the individual housing unit? For
residential Multi-Tenant Environments
(e.g., apartment buildings), this could
mean treating each individual
apartment or unit as a separate
broadband-serviceable location. We do
not believe this approach is appropriate
for determining fixed broadband
coverage in a Multi-Tenant
Environment—fixed providers likely
would not offer service only to some
units in a Multi-Tenant Environment.
Additionally, we are concerned that the
added complexity—far more locations
and the need to differentiate not just
latitude and longitude, but also
potentially altitude—would outweigh
any benefits. We seek comment on this
assumption.
37. With regard to defining a location,
we propose to have the database record
VerDate Sep<11>2014
16:22 Aug 21, 2019
Jkt 247001
a single point, defined by latitude and
longitude, for that location. We
anticipate that this would be the
coordinates of a building on a parcel.
We believe that recording each location
as a single point has an advantage over
reporting the outlines of each building
(i.e., a polygon for each location), the
latter of which will increase the
difficulty of creating the database and
the amount of data required, without
meaningfully improving the quality of
the database. We seek comment on this
approach.
38. We also seek comment on how we
would approach the quality of such a
broadband-serviceable location
database. We note that there are
different types of errors possible in such
a database, for example incorrectly
counting a structure that does not need
a broadband connection as a broadbandserviceable location, such as an
abandoned house or a shed. Including
such locations might lead us to
mistakenly direct USF support to a
location that does not need broadband
service. Another type of error could be
to exclude locations that should be
included, such as a home in a heavily
forested area that does not appear on
satellite imagery. Such missed locations
would not appear in the data collection
at all and could be excluded from any
USF support. Finally, there also could
be errors about the characteristics of a
location, for example, designating a
residential location as a business or
identifying the wrong building from
among several on a given property. We
seek comment on how best to account
for these and other possible challenges
in building an accurate location-based
database.
39. We note that there are a limited
number of data sources against which
USAC could check such a dataset. The
U.S. Census Bureau publishes blocklevel data, including the number of
housing units, but only every ten years
and Census data do not generally
include business locations. We seek
comment on whether the less granular
county-level housing estimates the
Census publishes yearly could be used
as a data source for dataset verification.
Furthermore, if we define a location as
a parcel or building (rather than a
housing unit), we would not expect the
counts to match the Census data. The
National Address Database and Open
Address Database each provide a list of
addresses and point locations for areas
where they have coverage. Neither is a
complete nationwide dataset, though
they could be useful for checking areas
where they have data. Each of these
datasets has challenges, however. For
example, the data in the National
PO 00000
Frm 00042
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
Address Database do not appear to be
updated on a regular schedule and often
have multiple points for a given address
(e.g., from state, county and local
government), making it hard to get a
count of points in a given area. We seek
comment on whether or how we can
make use of such data sources. We also
seek input on whether there are other
sources we should be aware of that
could be useful as a check of a
broadband-addressable location
database.
40. As an alternative, we could take
a statistically valid sample of the data
points as a way to keep the database
updated and accurate. We seek
comment on how to stratify such a
sample (are there distinct categories in
the data—urban, suburban, rural,
residential, business, Tribal, nonTribal—that warrant distinct samples?).
We also seek comment about how to
evaluate the quality of the sampled data.
Is it sufficient to look at satellite
imagery or would we need to inspect
locations in person?
41. In addition, the Commission must
consider the level of quality that it seeks
to attain in using any database. How
should the Commission consider the
trade-off between the time to improve
the database’s accuracy against the risks
posed by any inaccuracies in the data?
Would any of these approaches or
sources identified above, or others, be
helpful in determining particular types
of errors in the location database?
Should we incorporate public feedback,
as we are doing with regard to
broadband service availability polygons,
in order to improve the accuracy of such
a broadband-serviceable location
database? And if so, how should we
incorporate that data effectively?
42. With regard to the Broadband
Mapping Coalition’s proposal to
integrate location data into the Digital
Opportunity Data Collection, we seek
comment on the use of two distinct data
products used by the Broadband
Mapping Coalition: a database of
broadband-serviceable locations and a
‘‘lookup’’ tool for integrating provider
addresses data into the locations
database. We seek comment on whether
the lookup tool would be necessary
given our adoption of availability-map
reporting in the accompanying Report
and Order. In other words, if fixed
providers have invested the resources to
create accurate polygons that depict the
areas where their service is available, is
an address-based lookup necessary at
all? In the event such a lookup is
necessary, should USAC be responsible
for creating that lookup? And if USAC
does develop a lookup, how can it
ensure its accuracy? The Broadband
E:\FR\FM\22AUP1.SGM
22AUP1
Federal Register / Vol. 84, No. 163 / Thursday, August 22, 2019 / Proposed Rules
Mapping Coalition has noted that there
are reliability problems with geocoders,
particularly in rural areas. What steps
can USAC take to ensure that this
lookup avoids some of the pitfalls the
Broadband Mapping Coalition has
observed? For example, matching a
provider’s address data to the
Broadband Mapping Coalition’s address
data might require matching several
data fields, such as the street number
and name, any prefix or suffix, the city
or town, state, and zip code, each with
substantial possible variations. Should
USAC accept only strict matches in
order to avoid making mistakes, such as
suggesting that a provider offers service
in a location where it does not because
of a too-loose matching approach? Is the
risk greater of accepting low-quality
matches, that is, identifying that service
is available when it is not, or in
rejecting too many matches for failing to
meet quality criteria, potentially
understating providers’ reach? If USAC
is matching only a relatively small
fraction of provider addresses to the
Broadband Mapping Coalition’s
database, should it be USAC’s
responsibility to improve the lookup or
the providers’ responsibility to improve
their source data?
43. The Broadband Mapping Coalition
pilot also raises several methodological
and technical questions. For example,
the Broadband Mapping Coalition chose
which data sources to use, including
negotiating the data rights associated
with those sources; the fields from those
data sources used to help make
determinations about what constitutes a
location in the database; and the logic
used. For purposes of its pilot program,
the Broadband Mapping Coalition also
established, for example, a method for
determining if a single structure that
spans multiple parcels is a row house
that should be split into multiple
locations and how to choose which
building location to use as part of the
database, when there are multiple
buildings on a parcel, or whether there
are certain circumstances when one
might have more than one building,
such as in a trailer park. Are there
determinations made by the Broadband
Mapping Coalition as part of its pilot
that the Commission should approach
differently?
44. We also seek comment on
whether, when, and how, after
establishing a location-based fabric,
USAC should implement incorporating
the fabric into the Digital Opportunity
Data Collection. We seek comment on
USTelecom’s proposal that the creation
of a location-based fabric run in parallel
with the establishment of the online
portal for our polygon-based approach.
VerDate Sep<11>2014
16:22 Aug 21, 2019
Jkt 247001
Is this a reasonable approach or would
it be more reasonable to adopt a
different transition time for
implementation? Will collecting
locations for use as part of the Digital
Opportunity Data Collection impose
additional burdens on filers, especially
smaller providers, and (if so) would
such burdens be outweighed by the
benefits of using locations as part of the
new collection? In addition, ACA argues
that fixed providers not accepting
Universal Service support should not be
required to ‘‘publicly disclose
individual location information since
such information is considered to be
competitively-sensitive.’’ We seek
comment on ACA’s proposal.
45. In addition, we seek comment on
the extent to which any location-based
database should be fully accessible by
the public. Should the full dataset be
made available to the public or just the
aggregate results from the filings? To
what extent should such location
information be shared with all
providers? Would full disclosure aid the
Commission and USAC in gathering
location-specific information from the
public? Would securing such rights lead
to higher costs for the Commission than
for the Broadband Mapping Coalition?
Are there some data sources or fields
that should not be made public? Should
members of the public be granted access
to the actual database? Should there be
restrictions on who should be granted
such access (e.g., governmental entities,
other providers)? We seek comment on
these issues.
B. Improving Mobile Broadband and
Voice Data
46. We seek comment on
incorporating mobile wireless voice and
broadband coverage into the Digital
Opportunity Data Collection and what
additional steps the Commission should
take to obtain more accurate and reliable
mobile broadband deployment data.
Obtaining accurate mobile broadband
deployment data is challenging because
measuring performance on mobile
broadband networks is inherently
variable even though coverage is
generally reliable. Mobile network
speed at a particular location and the
coverage area of any specific cell site
can vary depending on a wide variety of
factors, including: (1) The spectrum
band employed; (2) cell traffic loading
and network capacity in different
locations; (3) the availability and quality
of cell site backhaul; (4) the capability
of consumers’ devices; (5) whether a
consumer is using a device indoors or
outdoors; (6) terrain and the presence of
obstacles between a consumer’s device
and the provider’s nearest cell site (e.g.,
PO 00000
Frm 00043
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
43771
buildings, trees, and other local
structures); and (7) weather conditions.
This inherent variability has two
dimensions—temporal and spatial. For
example, a consumer’s handset may not
receive a strong enough signal at a given
location to maintain a reliable
broadband speed, or the network may be
overloaded at one moment, and then
suddenly acquire a signal strong
enough, or the network traffic load
lightens enough, to maintain a
connection at speeds of 5 Mbps or more.
This makes the measurement of mobile
broadband service at any specific
location complex, as many factors can
affect a user’s experience, making it
difficult to develop a coverage map that
provides the exact mobile coverage and
speed that a consumer experiences.
Although no mobile broadband map
will consistently reflect consumer
experience with complete accuracy,
wireless service providers must improve
the quality of the data they submit.
47. Standardized Predictive
Propagation Maps. In the 2017 Data
Collection Improvement FNPRM, the
Commission sought comment on
requiring the submission of coverage
maps generated by propagation
modeling software using standardized
parameters for 4G LTE and latergeneration technologies. It also sought
comment on whether to specify possible
eligible models and to standardize to
some extent the output of those models
and certain input parameters, with the
goal of allowing more meaningful
comparisons among providers’ mobile
broadband deployment. The
Commission asked, for instance,
whether it should require deployment
maps to represent coverage at median
speeds as well as speeds at the cell edge
and, if so, how it should determine
those speeds. The Commission inquired
about a range of potential input
parameters, including: (1) The location
of cells in decimal degrees latitude and
longitude; (2) channel bandwidth in
megahertz; (3) signal strength; (4) signal
quality with signal to noise ratio; (5) cell
loading factors; and (6) terrain provided
at a minimum resolution of three arcseconds.
48. In response to the 2017 Data
Collection Improvement FNPRM, several
commenters expressed support for
requiring providers to submit coverage
maps based on standardized technical
parameters. AT&T, for example,
recommended requiring parameters
‘‘with a standard cell edge probability of
attaining specific download speeds for
each technology (3G/4G, 4G LTE and
5G),’’ and a ‘‘standard cell loading factor
based on the geographic service area
(e.g., 30% for rural areas; 50% for
E:\FR\FM\22AUP1.SGM
22AUP1
43772
Federal Register / Vol. 84, No. 163 / Thursday, August 22, 2019 / Proposed Rules
urban/suburban areas).’’ AT&T further
argued that the reporting of other
parameters, such as signal strength and
clutter factors, was unnecessary. The
City of New York supported
standardized parameters for median and
edge speeds and stated that a median
download speed of 10 Mbps with an
edge speed of 3 Mbps ‘‘may be sufficient
for current 4G LTE deployments, but is
unlikely to be sufficient for futuregeneration deployments.’’ Deere &
Company commented that propagation
models should reflect ‘‘a signal strength
of ¥85 dBm RSSI (Relative Signal
Strength Indicator),’’ because a signal
strength parameter would ‘‘accurately
[reveal] where service quality is
insufficient.’’ Other commenters urged
the Commission to adopt the same
parameters that it adopted for data
collected in the Mobility Fund Phase II
(MF–II) proceeding.
49. In 2017, in the MF–II proceeding,
the Commission separately instituted a
new, one-time collection of data to
determine the deployment of 4G LTE for
purposes of establishing the areas
eligible for universal service support in
the MF–II auction. Broadly consistent
with an industry consensus proposal,
the Commission standardized a number
of technical parameters for the data
collection to be used for MF–II. In
December 2018, the Commission
suspended the subsequent phase of the
MF–II challenge process, in which
providers that filed coverage maps and
data regarding their 4G LTE coverage
could respond to challenges, and
launched an investigation into potential
violations of MF–II challenge process
rules by one or more major providers.
The investigation remains ongoing.
50. We ask commenters to refresh the
record on the potential use of RF signal
prediction, including the mutual use (by
the Commission and stakeholders) of a
standardized RF propagation prediction
model, and standardized coverage maps
for mobile services. We observe that at
least one other national regulator is
considering a standardized RF
propagation prediction method as a
basis for verifying geographic coverage.
Commenters should specifically discuss
their experience in the MF–II
proceeding. Do commenters believe that
requiring the submission of coverage
maps using standardized RF
propagation model(s) and parameters
was or would be useful in
demonstrating mobile broadband
coverage? What insights should the
Commission draw from the
standardized parameters it established
in that proceeding? Do commenters
view standardized RF signal strength
prediction and technical parameters
VerDate Sep<11>2014
16:22 Aug 21, 2019
Jkt 247001
regarding download speed, cell loading,
probability of coverage or confidence
intervals as sufficient to demonstrate
coverage? If not, what additional
parameters would generate better data
that will allow meaningful comparisons
of coverage between providers? Should
the Commission, for example, specify an
upload speed parameter? Should it
specify a standardized signal strength
level? Alternatively, should the
Commission establish fewer or different
parameters? Would 5G technology
require different standardized
parameters? Given that cell traffic
loading and network capacity varies
with time and in different locations,
how representative of loading do
commenters view the 30% loading
factor for rural areas established in the
context of the MF–II proceeding as
compared to standard network loading
conditions at various locations? Should
we adopt a higher standard loading
factor for urban areas? Should we
instead require mobile wireless service
providers to maintain and report
historical cell loading over a given
reporting period?
51. Coverage models predict speed
and coverage using assumptions that are
based on a combination of geographical
and network information, including the
location of network infrastructure and
the power and capacity of network
equipment. Although providers
continually refine models by adding
additional data, the inherent variability
of mobile broadband performance will
always affect their ability to predict an
individual consumer’s experience at a
particular time and location. We seek
commenters’ views on how best to
specify technical parameters that would
account for the variability of mobile
broadband performance. Do commenters
agree that all parameters must be subject
to a specified probability standard or
confidence interval? Assuming a
probability factor is necessary for
describing coverage, do commenters
view the 80% probability factor at the
cell edge established in the context of
the MF–II proceeding as reasonable or
would a higher probability parameter
such as 90% be more appropriate?
52. GIS Data Format. We ask
commenters to refresh the record on
whether providers should submit
coverage maps as vector-formatted or
raster-formatted GIS data. In the 2017
Data Collection Improvement FNPRM,
the Commission sought comment on
requiring the submission of raster data,
noting that because deployment maps
are typically developed in raster format
and then converted into vectorformatted GIS data, the submission of
raster data would appear to be less
PO 00000
Frm 00044
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
burdensome for filers than the
submission of vector data. The
Commission also stated that, unlike
vector data, raster data would allow the
Commission to ‘‘check the resolution of
the submissions and to apply standard
parameters, including simplified
outputs and smoothing, when
converting the rasters to shapefiles for
analysis.’’ Some commenters supporting
such an approach argued that allowing
the submission of raster data instead of
vector data would help reduce the
burdens associated with broadband data
collection by allowing providers to skip
the step of converting deployment data
into vector format. We seek additional
comment on whether requiring the
submission of raster-formatted rather
than vector-formatted data would
improve the ability to verify the
accuracy of deployment data, and what
file format is the least burdensome.
Would raster-formatted or vectorformatted data be preferable if the
Commission decides to require
providers to submit standardized
coverage maps? Should the Commission
require, or in the alternative, permit
filers to submit data using another file
format, such as ESRI Geodatabase?
Additionally, we seek comment as to
what GIS standards, file formats, and
technical specifications should be used
to facilitate the most efficient and
effective collection of data.
53. Infrastructure Information. We
propose to require that, upon the
Commission’s request, providers submit
infrastructure information sufficient to
allow for verification of the accuracy of
providers’ broadband data. A growing
number of parties have suggested that
mobile broadband coverage maps are
inaccurate and have urged the
Commission to implement mechanisms
to verify provider data. To date,
however, the Commission has not had
the information necessary to examine
the methodologies used by providers in
generating coverage data, or whether
these propagation models reflect actual
consumer experience. In light of issues
raised about the accuracy of coverage
maps even after the Commission
standardized some technical parameters
in the MF–II proceeding, we anticipate
that collecting accurate and recent
network infrastructure information
would be necessary to independently
verify providers’ data. Therefore, we
propose to require that the provider
submit, upon Commission request, the
following information: (1) The
geographic location of cell sites; (2) the
height (above ground and sea level),
type, and directional orientation of all
transmit antennas at each cell site; (3)
E:\FR\FM\22AUP1.SGM
22AUP1
Federal Register / Vol. 84, No. 163 / Thursday, August 22, 2019 / Proposed Rules
operating radiated transmit power of the
radio equipment at each cell site; (4) the
capacity and type of backhaul used at
each cell site; (5) all deployed spectrum
bands and channel bandwidth in
megahertz; (6) throughput and
associated required signal strength and
signal to noise ratio; (7) cell loading
factors; (8) deployed technologies (e.g.,
LTE Release 13) and (9) any terrain and
land use information used in deriving
clutter factors or other losses associated
with each cell site. We propose to
require that a provider submit its
infrastructure information within 30
days of receiving a request from the
Commission. We ask for commenters’
views on our proposal.
54. At the outset, we recognize that
providers may view the infrastructure
information we propose to collect as
commercially sensitive information and
we agree that such information should
be treated as highly confidential. We
seek comment on this view. Do
commenters agree that collecting
network infrastructure information
would be necessary to verify the
accuracy of provider coverage map
filings? If not, without such data, what
mechanisms are available to validate
that providers’ coverage maps reflect
reasonable predictions of consumer
experience? Do commenters view the
infrastructure information included in
our proposal as sufficient to evaluate
providers’ mobile coverage and speed
claims? If not, we ask commenters to
discuss any additional infrastructure
information we should require.
Alternatively, does our proposal include
any information that is not necessary?
We seek comment on the potential
burden associated with requiring such
information, particularly for small
providers, and on steps we could take
to minimize the potential burden.
55. Supplement Data Collections with
On-The-Ground Data. In addition to
seeking comment on whether to require
the submission of coverage maps based
on standardized parameters, the 2017
Data Collection Improvement FNPRM
sought comment on whether to require
the submission of ‘‘on-the-ground’’ data
as part of the broadband data collection.
The Commission asked whether
collecting on-the-ground data from
providers, such as drive test data or tests
taken from stationary points, would
allow it to better evaluate consumer
experience. It noted that collection of
on-the-ground data could supplement
the model-based data, improving the
understanding of how the theoretical
data relates to actual consumer
experience. The Commission asked
whether it should require speed test
data, how it could impose such a
VerDate Sep<11>2014
16:22 Aug 21, 2019
Jkt 247001
requirement without being unduly
burdensome to small providers, and
whether providers generate data of this
kind during their ordinary course of
business.
56. We ask commenters to refresh the
record on these questions. In their
comments on the 2017 Data Collection
Improvement FNPRM, some
commenters supported a requirement
that providers supplement their current
broadband data with on-the-ground
data. Other providers opposed
collecting on-the-ground data; they
argued that such a requirement would
impose unnecessary burdens on
providers, especially since the
Commission already had access to such
information from third-party providers.
Some also argued that speed test data
generally had limited value given
variations in providers’ speed test
methodologies. What steps could the
Commission take to address concerns
about the meaningfulness and statistical
validity of providers’ on-the-ground
data? Should the Commission specify
the methodology that providers must
use to collect and provide on-theground mobile network performance
data? If so, what parameters should the
Commission establish for specific
methodologies? Should the Commission
consider requiring use of a specific set
of measurement equipment or software
applications enabling measurement of
mobile broadband speeds? What
measurement scenarios (i.e., indoor,
outdoor, in-vehicle, stationary, mobile,
height, etc.) should the Commission
specify? To what extent do providers
already collect any such data in their
ordinary course of business?
57. Crowdsourced Data. Consistent
with the public feedback mechanism we
adopt for fixed providers in the Digital
Opportunity Data Collection, we
propose to collect similar crowdsourced
data for purposes of improving the
quality of mobile broadband
deployment data and seek comment on
how to incorporate such data into data
quality analysis. Crowdsourced data are
generated by mobile broadband users
who voluntarily download speed test
apps on their mobile devices. The
Commission has used crowdsourced
data in assessing service availability and
in various Commission reports. For
example, in its most recent Broadband
Deployment Report, the Commission
supplemented Form 477 data with
Ookla crowdsourced speed test data in
assessing the deployment of advanced
telecommunications capability for
mobile services. Crowdsourced data can
serve as an inexpensive tool to validate
speed and coverage claims by providing
independent measurements of actual
PO 00000
Frm 00045
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
43773
consumer experience on a mobile
network across a variety of times and
locations. Crowdsourced data have
certain limitations, however. For
example, speed tests that consumers
usually initiate manually and perform
only at specific times or places may
introduce bias into the data and provide
a less accurate picture of overall
broadband performance. More generally,
the methods by which different speed
test apps collect data vary and may not
use techniques that control for
geographic location, type of device,
whether the test is performed indoors or
outdoors, and traffic along the network
path not controlled by the wireless
provider. In addition, there may be a
small sample problem with respect to
some crowdsourced data, especially in
rural areas where there may sometimes
be very few speed tests. And, given the
probabilistic nature of mobile wireless
service in general, we note that
crowdsourced data may not indicate an
inaccuracy in the data from the coverage
map as much as a difference in
conditions.
58. We seek comment on
developments in crowdsourcing
applications and on ways in which the
Commission can make greater use of
third-party crowdsourced data to create
more accurate and reliable mobile
broadband maps. While we recognize
the potential limitations, we
nonetheless believe that crowdsourced
data can serve as an important
supplement to the information we
collect from providers by independently
measuring mobile broadband speed and
availability. We ask parties to discuss
potential sources of crowdsourced data
as well as alternatives to crowdsourced
data that can provide similar benefits.
How should the Commission make
greater use of third-party crowdsourced
data? How should the Commission
determine which data to use, what
limitations affect the use of such data,
and how can they be resolved? How can
we best make use of the Commission’s
own crowdsourcing application—the
Measuring Mobile Broadband speed
test? Are there particular areas, such as
rural areas, Tribal areas, or urban areas,
or situations, such as hours of peak
capacity, in which the Measuring
Mobile Broadband speed test app would
perform particularly well? How else can
the FCC’s own crowdsourcing
application be better used? How can the
Commission make greater use of
crowdsourced data collected by local,
state, or Tribal governmental entities?
What steps should the Commission take
to ensure that the crowdsourced data it
uses are statistically valid and provide
E:\FR\FM\22AUP1.SGM
22AUP1
43774
Federal Register / Vol. 84, No. 163 / Thursday, August 22, 2019 / Proposed Rules
accurate information? How should the
Commission handle cases in which
crowdsourced data show that service is
unavailable in an area where a provider
claims broadband availability?
59. Sampling Methodologies. We also
seek comment on other potential
approaches for verifying submitted
mobile broadband deployment data.
Should the Commission establish a
structured sampling process to verify
the information it collects from
providers? The Commission has used
third-party structured sample data to
assess service availability in its analysis
of the mobile wireless industry.
Structured sample data help ensure
statistical validity by controlling for the
location and time of the tests as well as
for the devices used in the test and may
be collected using stationary indoor or
outdoor tests or drive tests. But
structured sample data can be expensive
and involve judgments about when and
where to run tests. Structured sample
data may not include sufficient testing
at indoor locations or in rural areas. We
seek comment on whether the
Commission should expand the use of
structured sample data or even establish
its own structured sample testing
program to verify provider filings
regarding mobile broadband coverage
and speed? If so, then how can the
Commission create a program that will
produce a rich and useful dataset?
60. In response to the 2017 Data
Collection Improvement FNPRM, the
California PUC supported the
Commission’s adoption of a structured
sample approach. It argued that
collecting drive test data at the state
level provides ‘‘the most effective
measure of actual mobile broadband
service speeds.’’ It suggested that the
Commission designate a defined set of
points nationwide and contract with a
third party to deliver speed test data
from those locations. We seek
commenters’ views on such an
approach. Assuming the Commission
establishes its own testing process, how
should it design a process that will
produce a useful dataset? Should the
Commission establish partnerships to
collect drive test information? For
example, should the Commission
explore creating a pilot program with
the United States Postal Service or other
delivery organization with a nationwide
fleet, to gather mobile performance
data? Under such an approach, postal
trucks could be equipped to collect
mobile deployment and speed data as
they travel on their routes in rural areas.
We seek comment on the feasibility of
creating such a program. What other
partnerships should the Commission
explore?
VerDate Sep<11>2014
16:22 Aug 21, 2019
Jkt 247001
61. Drones and Other Testing
Technologies. We seek comment on the
use of aerial drone testing, and other
technologies, such as satellites, to verify
data accuracy, with a particular
emphasis on using such technologies to
conduct sample audits of providersubmitted mobile deployment data. For
example, drone testing, like drive
testing, measures signal strength and
coverage using various software
solutions (e.g., crowdsourcing and
network performance applications)
loaded onto smartphones mounted to a
testing platform. Service providers have
begun using drones to measure coverage
and signal strength of their networks,
demonstrating that drones are a viable
mobile network performance testing
method. We note that both drive and
drone testing have significant
limitations due to the inherent
probabilistic nature of mobile network
performance testing.
62. We seek comment generally on the
cost elements of drone and other types
of testing technologies and the relative
contribution of each element to overall
cost. For instance, drones may need fuel
or battery replacements more frequently
than vehicles used in drive testing
platforms. Are these costs significant?
How do roadway density, population,
weather and natural and man-made
terrain features affect the cost of drone
testing? How does flight duration affect
costs? Are there cost-effective ways to
mitigate survey time? What proportion
of costs are attributable to the drone
operator? What other costs are
significant?
63. We also seek comment on unique
barriers that may affect the usefulness
and practicality of conducting network
performance testing using drones and
other technologies. USAC recently
performed drone and drive tests to
measure mobile wireless coverage and
quality in Puerto Rico post-hurricanes.
USAC’s initial analysis shows that
drone and drive-tests can provide a
comparable picture of network coverage
and service quality in a given area,
although drone tests are subject to
specific variables that the test design
should take into account. What specific
testing parameters should apply to
drone data collection compared to drive
testing, satellites, and crowdsourcing to
ensure uniform results across methods?
Are there any specific technical
requirements (e.g., antenna, on-board
processing) necessary to ensure uniform
results across testing methods? Are
there places and/or terrain where
specific technologies are either uniquely
suited to surveying or, alternatively,
currently unable to perform a valid
PO 00000
Frm 00046
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
network performance test, regardless of
the cost?
64. We seek comment on future
technological advances that may
increase drone efficiency. Are advanced
drone technologies ready and available
today, at sufficiently low costs, to use
widely? If not, what is a likely
timeframe for their widespread
adoption? Finally, we seek comment on
whether there are other technologies in
addition to drones that can be used to
measure signal strength and data
accuracy.
65. Availability of Mobile Broadband
Deployment Data. Finally, we seek
comment on ways we can make mobile
broadband deployment data more
available to the public. Currently, the
Commission makes available on its
website both coverage shapefiles, by
provider and technology, as well as the
deployment data represented in those
shapefiles disaggregated to census
blocks, based on two different
methodologies. In addition, the
Commission has created a limited
number of visualizations of the mobile
deployment data including a map of
nationwide mobile wireless coverage
and a map of LTE coverage by number
of providers. As the Commission works
to improve its data collection, we seek
comment on whether we should provide
additional visualizations of mobile
broadband deployment data. Now that
we have determined in the Report and
Order that, going forward, we will
publish nationwide provider-specific
coverage maps that depict minimum
advertised or expected speed data, what
additional maps or other visualizations
would help provide useful information
to the public? Should we make this data
available to the public in any other
formats? We seek comment on how the
proposals described in this Second
FNPRM would affect the Commission’s
ability to provide additional
visualizations of mobile broadband data.
66. Changes to the Collection of
Mobile Voice and Broadband
Subscription Data. We seek comment on
other changes to improve the collection
of subscription data. For example,
should we combine the mobile voice
and broadband subscription data filing
requirements? Consolidating these data
could provide a better understanding of
the marketplace, as consumers
increasingly subscribe to both
broadband and voice service. In the
current form, providers are required to
include subscriptions to mobile
broadband plans purchased ‘‘on a
standalone basis, as an add-on feature to
a voice subscription, or bundled with a
voice subscription.’’ We propose to
require providers to report whether
E:\FR\FM\22AUP1.SGM
22AUP1
Federal Register / Vol. 84, No. 163 / Thursday, August 22, 2019 / Proposed Rules
subscriptions are data only, voice only,
or provided as a bundle. These data
could provide us with a better
understanding of whether and how
consumers purchase and use mobile
services, in addition to allowing us to
continue to track those who only
subscribe to voice service.
67. We propose to require facilitiesbased mobile broadband and/or voice
service providers to report whether
subscriptions are enterprise,
government, wholesale, prepaid retail,
or postpaid retail. These data serve an
important purpose in understanding the
marketplace for mobile services, that aid
in competitive analysis, particularly in
transaction review. Should we require
providers to submit data about Internet
of Things (IoT) or Machine-to-Machine
(M2M) subscriptions? Do these
subscriptions make up enough of the
marketplace for mobile services that
they should be tracked? Would a
combined subscription filing—as
opposed to the current separate filings—
likely reduce or increase the burden on
filers? We also propose to eliminate the
requirement to report mobile broadband
subscription data by minimum upload
and download speed given that this
information is already submitted with
broadband deployment data.
68. We also seek comment on how
best to assign prepaid and reseller
subscribers to a particular census tract.
CTIA observes that, while place of
primary use address is technically
feasible for postpaid-customer
subscription data at the census-tract
level, the primary place of use
methodology is ‘‘challenging for mobile
providers when applied to prepaid
customer and reseller data.’’ CTIA states
that the Mobile Telecommunications
Sourcing Act, which defines primary
place of use, does not apply to prepaid
customers, as those customers are taxed
at the point of sale, and using place of
primary use for prepaid customers is
likely infeasible. We seek comment
regarding how best to assign prepaid
subscribers to census tracts, based on
CTIA’s concern. In the Report and
Order, we require mobile providers, on
an interim basis, to assign prepaid and
resold mobile voice and broadband
subscribers to a census tract, based on
their telephone number. Is there a
methodology that can measure more
accurately where these customers use
their service, particularly for those
mobile broadband subscribers that may
only have an IP address? Should we
require providers to attribute prepaid
subscribers to the census tract where
they purchased the service? Is this
approach feasible, and does it increase
the accuracy of the data? Could mobile
VerDate Sep<11>2014
16:22 Aug 21, 2019
Jkt 247001
providers submit aggregated data that
samples where the device is primarily
used without raising privacy or other
concerns? Is there another consistent
methodology that could be applied to
postpaid and prepaid subscribers that
accurately attributes those subscribers to
a census tract?
C. Sunsetting the Form 477 Broadband
Deployment Data Collection
69. Over the long term, we expect the
Digital Opportunity Data Collection will
largely displace the Form 477 process,
at least with respect to the collection of
granular deployment data. We therefore
seek comment on discontinuing the
broadband deployment data collection
that is part of Form 477 at some point
after the new collection has been
established. Under what conditions
would eliminating that part of the
broadband data collection be
appropriate? What would be an
appropriate timetable for sunsetting
both the mobile and fixed Form 477
broadband data collections? Are there
other portions of the Form 477
collection we should consider
sunsetting as well?
IV. Initial Regulatory Flexibility
Analysis
70. As required by the Regulatory
Flexibility Act of 1980, as amended
(RFA), the Commission has prepared
this Initial Regulatory Flexibility
Analysis (IRFA) of the possible
significant economic impact on a
substantial number of small entities
from the policies and rules proposed in
this Second FNPRM. The Commission
requests written public comment on this
IRFA. Comments must be identified as
responses to the IRFA and must be filed
by the deadlines for comments on the
Second FNPRM. The Commission will
send a copy of the Second FNPRM,
including this IRFA, to the Chief
Counsel for Advocacy of the Small
Business Administration (SBA). In
addition, the Second FNPRM and IRFA
(or summaries thereof) will be
published in the Federal Register.
A. Need for, and Objectives of, the
Proposed Rules
71. The Commission continues its
ongoing efforts to ensure that the new
collection for fixed broadband
deployment reporting and
crowdsourcing of that reporting as
adopted in the Report and Order and
the Form 477 collection will evolve to
align with changes to technology,
markets, and policy needs. In the
Second FNPRM, the Commission raises
issues for consideration and seeks
comment on additional steps we can
PO 00000
Frm 00047
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
43775
take to obtain more accurate and reliable
fixed and mobile broadband
deployment data. The probabilistic
nature of mobile networks and the many
factors that impact a user’s experience
make it difficult to predict with
precision mobile coverage and speed or
to develop a coverage map that always
provides predictability for consumers.
Although no mobile broadband map
will consistently reflect consumer
experience with complete accuracy, we
recognize that we must take steps to
improve the quality of the data we
collect. Therefore, we seek further
comment on the tradeoffs among
different potential approaches for
developing more accurate and reliable
mobile broadband data. We also seek
comment on additional technical
standards for fixed broadband reporting
as part of the Digital Opportunity Data
Collection, steps that USAC and the
Commission can take to make the best
use of crowdsourced data, and ways that
we can incorporate the filing of
location-specific fixed broadband
deployment data in the Digital
Opportunity Data Collection.
B. Legal Basis
72. The proposed action is authorized
pursuant to Sections 1–5, 201–206, 214,
218–220, 251, 252, 254, 256, 303(r), 332,
403, and 405 of the Communications
Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. 151–
155, 201–206, 214, 218–220, 251, 252,
254, 256, 303(r), 332, 403, and 405.
C. Description and Estimate of the
Number of Small Entities to Which the
Proposed Rules Would Apply
73. 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, if adopted. The RFA
generally defines the term ‘‘small
entity’’ as having the same meaning as
the terms ‘‘small business,’’ ‘‘small
organization,’’ and ‘‘small governmental
jurisdiction.’’ In addition, the term
‘‘small business’’ has the same meaning
as the term ‘‘small-business concern’’
under the Small Business Act. A smallbusiness 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).
1. Total Small Entities
74. Small Businesses, Small
Organizations, Small Governmental
Jurisdictions. Our actions, over time,
may affect small entities that are not
easily categorized at present. We
therefore describe here, at the outset,
E:\FR\FM\22AUP1.SGM
22AUP1
43776
Federal Register / Vol. 84, No. 163 / Thursday, August 22, 2019 / Proposed Rules
three broad groups of small entities that
could be directly affected herein. First,
while there are industry-specific size
standards for small businesses that are
used in the regulatory flexibility
analysis, according to data from the
SBA’s Office of Advocacy, in general a
small business is an independent
business having fewer than 500
employees. These types of small
businesses represent 99.9% of all
businesses in the United States, which
translates to 28.8 million businesses.
75. Next, the type of small entity
described as 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 August 2016,
there were approximately 356,494 small
organizations based on registration and
tax data filed by nonprofits with the
Internal Revenue Service (IRS).
76. Finally, the small entity described
as a ‘‘small governmental jurisdiction’’
is defined generally as ‘‘governments of
cities, counties, towns, townships,
villages, school districts, or special
districts, with a population of less than
fifty thousand.’’ U.S. Census Bureau
data from the 2012 Census of
Governments indicate that there were
90,056 local governmental jurisdictions
consisting of general purpose
governments and special purpose
governments in the United States. Based
on this data, we estimate that at least
49,316 local government jurisdictions
fall in the category of ‘‘small
governmental jurisdictions.’’
2. Broadband Internet Access Service
Providers
77. To ensure that this IRFA describes
the universe of small entities that our
action might affect, we discuss in turn
several different types of entities that
might be providing broadband internet
access service.
78. Internet Service Providers
(Broadband). Broadband internet
service providers include wired (e.g.,
cable, DSL) and VoIP service providers
using their own operated wired
telecommunications infrastructure fall
in the category of Wired
Telecommunication Carriers. Wired
Telecommunications Carriers are
comprised 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
a single technology or a combination of
technologies. The SBA size standard for
this category classifies a business as
VerDate Sep<11>2014
16:22 Aug 21, 2019
Jkt 247001
small if it has 1,500 or fewer employees.
U.S. Census Bureau data for 2012 show
that there were 3,117 firms that operated
that year. Of this total, 3,083 operated
with fewer than 1,000 employees.
Consequently, under this size standard
the majority of firms in this industry can
be considered small.
79. Internet Service Providers (NonBroadband). Internet access service
providers such as Dial-up internet
service providers, VoIP service
providers using client-supplied
telecommunications connections, and
internet service providers using clientsupplied telecommunications
connections (e.g., dial-up ISPs) fall in
the category of All Other
Telecommunications. The SBA has
developed a small business size
standard for All Other
Telecommunications, which consists of
all such firms with gross annual receipts
of $32.5 million or less. For this
category, U.S. Census Bureau data for
2012 show that there were 1,442 firms
that operated for the entire year. Of
these firms, a total of 1,400 had gross
annual receipts of less than $25 million.
Consequently, under this size standard,
a majority of firms in this industry can
be considered small.
3. Wireline Providers
80. Wired Telecommunications
Carriers. The U.S. Census Bureau
defines this industry as ‘‘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 communications 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.’’
The SBA has developed a small
business size standard for Wired
Telecommunications Carriers, which
consists of all such companies having
1,500 or fewer employees. U.S. Census
Bureau data for 2012 show that there
were 3,117 firms that operated that year.
Of this total, 3,083 operated with fewer
than 1,000 employees. Thus, under this
size standard, the majority of firms in
this industry can be considered small.
PO 00000
Frm 00048
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
81. Local Exchange Carriers (LECs).
Neither the Commission nor the SBA
has developed a size standard for small
businesses specifically applicable to
local exchange services. The closest
applicable NAICS Code category is
Wired Telecommunications Carriers.
Under the applicable SBA size standard,
such a business is small if it has 1,500
or fewer employees. According to
Commission data, U.S. Census data for
2012 show that there were 3,117 firms
that operated that year. Of this total,
3,083 operated with fewer than 1,000
employees. Thus, under this category
and the associated size standard, the
Commission estimates that the majority
of local exchange carriers are small
entities.
82. Incumbent Local Exchange
Carriers (Incumbent LECs). Neither the
Commission nor the SBA has developed
a small business size standard
specifically for incumbent local
exchange services. The closest
applicable NAICS Code category is
Wired Telecommunications Carriers.
Under the applicable SBA size standard,
such a business is small if it has 1,500
or fewer employees. According U.S.
Census Bureau data for 2012, 3,117
firms operated in that year. Of this total,
3,083 operated with fewer than 1,000
employees. Consequently, the
Commission estimates that most
providers of incumbent local exchange
service are small businesses that may be
affected by our actions. According to
Commission data, 1,307 Incumbent
LECs reported that they were incumbent
local exchange service providers. Of this
total, an estimated 1,006 have 1,500 or
fewer employees. Thus, using the SBA’s
size standard, the majority of Incumbent
LECs can be considered small entities.
83. Competitive Local Exchange
Carriers (Competitive LECs),
Competitive Access Providers (CAPs),
Shared-Tenant Service Providers, and
Other Local Service Providers. Neither
the Commission nor the SBA has
developed a small business size
standard specifically for these service
providers. The appropriate NAICS Code
category is Wired Telecommunications
Carriers and under that size standard,
such a business is small if it has 1,500
or fewer employees. U.S. Census Bureau
data for 2012 indicate that 3,117 firms
operated during that year. Of that
number, 3,083 operated with fewer than
1,000 employees. Based on these data,
the Commission concludes that the
majority of Competitive LECs, CAPs,
Shared-Tenant Service Providers, and
Other Local Service Providers, are small
entities. According to Commission data,
1,442 carriers reported that they were
engaged in the provision of either
E:\FR\FM\22AUP1.SGM
22AUP1
Federal Register / Vol. 84, No. 163 / Thursday, August 22, 2019 / Proposed Rules
competitive local exchange services or
competitive access provider services. Of
these 1,442 carriers, an estimated 1,256
have 1,500 or fewer employees. In
addition, 17 carriers have reported that
they are Shared-Tenant Service
Providers, and all 17 are estimated to
have 1,500 or fewer employees. Also, 72
carriers have reported that they are
Other Local Service Providers. Of this
total, 70 have 1,500 or fewer employees.
Consequently, based on internally
researched FCC data, the Commission
estimates that most providers of
competitive local exchange service,
competitive access providers, SharedTenant Service Providers, and Other
Local Service Providers are small
entities.
84. Interexchange Carriers (IXCs).
Neither the Commission nor the SBA
has developed a definition for
Interexchange Carriers. The closest
NAICS Code category is Wired
Telecommunications Carriers. The
applicable size standard under SBA
rules consists of all such companies
having 1,500 or fewer employees. U.S.
Census Bureau data for 2012 indicate
that 3,117 firms operated during that
year. Of that number, 3,083 operated
with fewer than 1,000 employees.
According to internally developed
Commission data, 359 companies
reported that their primary
telecommunications service activity was
the provision of interexchange services.
Of this total, an estimated 317 have
1,500 or fewer employees.
Consequently, the Commission
estimates that the majority of
interexchange service providers are
small entities.
85. Operator Service Providers (OSPs).
Neither the Commission nor the SBA
has developed a small business size
standard specifically for operator
service providers. The closest applicable
size standard under SBA rules is the
category of Wired Telecommunications
Carriers. Under the size standard for
Wired Telecommunications Carriers,
such a business is small if it has 1,500
or fewer employees. U.S. Census Bureau
data for 2012 show that there were 3,117
firms that operated that year. Of this
total, 3,083 operated with fewer than
1,000 employees. Thus, under this size
standard, the majority of firms in this
industry can be considered small.
86. According to Commission data, 33
carriers have reported that they are
engaged in the provision of operator
services. Of these, an estimated 31 have
1,500 or fewer employees and two have
more than 1,500 employees.
Consequently, the Commission
estimates that the majority of OSPs are
small entities.
VerDate Sep<11>2014
16:22 Aug 21, 2019
Jkt 247001
87. Other Toll Carriers. Neither the
Commission nor the SBA has developed
a definition for small businesses
specifically applicable to Other Toll
Carriers. This category includes toll
carriers that do not fall within the
categories of interexchange carriers,
operator service providers, prepaid
calling card providers, satellite service
carriers, or toll resellers. The closest
applicable size standard under SBA
rules is for Wired Telecommunications
Carriers and the applicable small
business size standard under SBA rules
consists of all such companies having
1,500 or fewer employees. U.S. Census
data for 2012 indicate that 3,117 firms
operated during that year. Of that
number, 3,083 operated with fewer than
1,000 employees. According to
Commission data, 284 companies
reported that their primary
telecommunications service activity was
the provision of other toll carriage. Of
these, an estimated 279 have 1,500 or
fewer employees. Consequently, the
Commission estimates that most Other
Toll Carriers are small entities.
4. Wireless Providers—Fixed and
Mobile
88. The broadband internet access
service provider category covered by
this Order may cover multiple wireless
firms and categories of wireless services.
Thus, to the extent the wireless services
listed below are used by wireless firms
for broadband internet access service,
the proposed actions may have an
impact on those small businesses as set
forth above and further below. In
addition, 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.
89. Wireless Telecommunications
Carriers (except Satellite). This industry
comprises establishments engaged in
operating and maintaining switching
and transmission facilities to provide
communications via the airwaves.
Establishments in this industry have
spectrum licenses and provide services
using that spectrum, such as cellular
services, paging services, wireless
internet access, and wireless video
services. The appropriate size standard
under SBA rules is that such a business
is small if it has 1,500 or fewer
employees. For this industry, U.S.
PO 00000
Frm 00049
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
43777
Census data for 2012 show that there
were 967 firms that operated for the
entire year. Of this total, 955 firms had
employment of 999 or fewer employees
and 12 had employment of 1,000
employees or more. Thus, under this
category and the associated size
standard, the Commission estimates that
the majority of wireless
telecommunications carriers (except
satellite) are small entities.
90. The Commission’s own data—
available in its Universal Licensing
System—indicate that, as of August 31,
2018, there are 265 Cellular licensees
that will be affected by our actions. The
Commission does not know how many
of these licensees are small, as the
Commission does not collect that
information for these types of entities.
Similarly, according to internallydeveloped Commission data, 413
carriers reported that they were engaged
in the provision of wireless telephony,
including cellular service, Personal
Communications Service (PCS), and
Specialized Mobile Radio (SMR)
Telephony services. Of this total, an
estimated 261 have 1,500 or fewer
employees, and 152 have more than
1,500 employees. Thus, using available
data, we estimate that the majority of
wireless firms can be considered small.
91. Wireless Communications
Services. This service can be used for
fixed, mobile, radiolocation, and digital
audio broadcasting satellite uses. The
Commission defined ‘‘small business’’
for the wireless communications
services (WCS) auction as an entity with
average gross revenues of $40 million
for each of the three preceding years,
and a ‘‘very small business’’ as an entity
with average gross revenues of $15
million for each of the three preceding
years. The SBA approved these small
business size standards. In the
Commission’s auction for geographic
area licenses in the WCS there were
seven winning bidders that qualified as
‘‘very small business’’ entities, and one
that qualified as a ‘‘small business’’
entity.
92. 1670–1675 MHz Services. This
service can be used for fixed and mobile
uses, except aeronautical mobile. An
auction for one license in the 1670–1675
MHz band was conducted in 2003. One
license was awarded. The winning
bidder was not a small entity.
93. Wireless Telephony. Wireless
telephony includes cellular, personal
communications services, and
specialized mobile radio telephony
carriers. The closest applicable SBA
category is Wireless
Telecommunications Carriers (except
Satellite). Under the SBA small business
size standard, a business is small if it
E:\FR\FM\22AUP1.SGM
22AUP1
43778
Federal Register / Vol. 84, No. 163 / Thursday, August 22, 2019 / Proposed Rules
has 1,500 or fewer employees. For this
industry, U.S. Census Bureau data for
2012 show that there were 967 firms
that operated for the entire year. Of this
total, 955 firms had fewer than 1,000
employees and 12 firms had 1,000
employees or more. Thus, under this
category and the associated size
standard, the Commission estimates that
a majority of these entities can be
considered small. According to
Commission data, 413 carriers reported
that they were engaged in wireless
telephony. Of these, an estimated 261
have 1,500 or fewer employees and 152
have more than 1,500 employees.
Therefore, more than half of these
entities can be considered small.
94. Broadband Personal
Communications Service. The
broadband personal communications
services (PCS) spectrum is divided into
six frequency blocks designated A
through F, and the Commission has held
auctions for each block. The
Commission initially defined a ‘‘small
business’’ for C- and F-Block licenses as
an entity that has average gross revenues
of $40 million or less in the three
previous calendar years. For F-Block
licenses, an additional small business
size standard for ‘‘very small business’’
was added and is defined as an entity
that, together with its affiliates, has
average gross revenues of not more than
$15 million for the preceding three
calendar years. These small business
size standards, in the context of
broadband PCS auctions, have been
approved by the SBA. No small
businesses within the SBA-approved
small business size standards bid
successfully for licenses in Blocks A
and B. There were 90 winning bidders
that claimed small business status in the
first two C-Block auctions. A total of 93
bidders that claimed small business
status won approximately 40% of the
1,479 licenses in the first auction for the
D, E, and F Blocks. On April 15, 1999,
the Commission completed the
reauction of 347 C-, D-, E-, and F-Block
licenses in Auction No. 22. Of the 57
winning bidders in that auction, 48
claimed small business status and won
277 licenses.
95. On January 26, 2001, the
Commission completed the auction of
422 C and F Block Broadband PCS
licenses in Auction No. 35. Of the 35
winning bidders in that auction, 29
claimed small business status.
Subsequent events concerning Auction
35, including judicial and agency
determinations, resulted in a total of 163
C and F Block licenses being available
for grant. On February 15, 2005, the
Commission completed an auction of
242 C-, D-, E-, and F-Block licenses in
VerDate Sep<11>2014
16:22 Aug 21, 2019
Jkt 247001
Auction No. 58. Of the 24 winning
bidders in that auction, 16 claimed
small business status and won 156
licenses. On May 21, 2007, the
Commission completed an auction of 33
licenses in the A, C, and F Blocks in
Auction No. 71. Of the 12 winning
bidders in that auction, five claimed
small business status and won 18
licenses. On August 20, 2008, the
Commission completed the auction of
20 C-, D-, E-, and F-Block Broadband
PCS licenses in Auction No. 78. Of the
eight winning bidders for Broadband
PCS licenses in that auction, six claimed
small business status and won 14
licenses.
96. Specialized Mobile Radio
Licenses. The Commission awards
‘‘small entity’’ bidding credits in
auctions for Specialized Mobile Radio
(SMR) geographic area licenses in the
800 MHz and 900 MHz bands to firms
that had revenues of no more than $15
million in each of the three previous
calendar years. The Commission awards
‘‘very small entity’’ bidding credits to
firms that had revenues of no more than
$3 million in each of the three previous
calendar years. The SBA approved these
small business size standards for the
900 MHz Service. The Commission held
auctions for geographic area licenses in
the 800 MHz and 900 MHz bands. The
900 MHz SMR auction began on
December 5, 1995, and closed on April
15, 1996. Sixty bidders claiming that
they qualified as small businesses under
the $15 million size standard won 263
geographic area licenses in the 900 MHz
SMR band. The 800 MHz SMR auction
for the upper 200 channels began on
October 28, 1997, and was completed on
December 8, 1997. Ten bidders claiming
that they qualified as small businesses
under the $15 million size standard won
38 geographic area licenses for the
upper 200 channels in the 800 MHz
SMR band. A second auction for the 800
MHz band was held on January 10,
2002, and closed on January 17, 2002,
and included 23 BEA licenses. One
bidder claiming small business status
won five licenses.
97. The auction of the 1,053 800 MHz
SMR geographic area licenses for the
General Category channels was
conducted in 2000. Eleven bidders won
108 geographic area licenses for the
General Category channels in the 800
MHz SMR band and qualified as small
businesses under the $15 million size
standard. In an auction completed in
2000, a total of 2,800 Economic Area
licenses in the lower 80 channels of the
800 MHz SMR service were awarded. Of
the 22 winning bidders, 19 claimed
small business status and won 129
licenses. Thus, combining all four
PO 00000
Frm 00050
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
auctions, 41 winning bidders for
geographic licenses in the 800 MHz
SMR band claimed status as small
businesses.
98. In addition, there are numerous
incumbent site-by-site SMR licenses and
licensees with extended implementation
authorizations in the 800 and 900 MHz
bands. We do not know how many firms
provide 800 MHz or 900 MHz
geographic area SMR service pursuant
to extended implementation
authorizations, nor how many of these
providers have annual revenues of no
more than $15 million. One firm has
over $15 million in revenues. In
addition, we do not know how many of
these firms have 1,500 or fewer
employees, which is the SBAdetermined size standard. We assume,
for purposes of this analysis, that all of
the remaining extended implementation
authorizations are held by small
entities, as defined by the SBA.
99. Lower 700 MHz Band Licenses.
The Commission previously adopted
criteria for defining three groups of
small businesses for purposes of
determining their eligibility for special
provisions such as bidding credits. The
Commission defined a ‘‘small business’’
as an entity that, together with its
affiliates and controlling principals, has
average gross revenues not exceeding
$40 million for the preceding three
years. A ‘‘very small business’’ is
defined as an entity that, together with
its affiliates and controlling principals,
has average gross revenues that are not
more than $15 million for the preceding
three years. Additionally, the lower 700
MHz Service had a third category of
small business status for Metropolitan/
Rural Service Area (MSA/RSA)
licenses—‘‘entrepreneur’’—which is
defined as an entity that, together with
its affiliates and controlling principals,
has average gross revenues that are not
more than $3 million for the preceding
three years. The SBA approved these
small size standards. An auction of 740
licenses (one license in each of the 734
MSAs/RSAs and one license in each of
the six Economic Area Groupings
(EAGs)) commenced on August 27,
2002, and closed on September 18,
2002. Of the 740 licenses available for
auction, 484 licenses were won by 102
winning bidders. Seventy-two of the
winning bidders claimed small
business, very small business, or
entrepreneur status and won a total of
329 licenses. A second auction
commenced on May 28, 2003, closed on
June 13, 2003, and included 256
licenses: 5 EAG licenses and 476
Cellular Market Area licenses.
Seventeen winning bidders claimed
small or very small business status and
E:\FR\FM\22AUP1.SGM
22AUP1
Federal Register / Vol. 84, No. 163 / Thursday, August 22, 2019 / Proposed Rules
won 60 licenses, and nine winning
bidders claimed entrepreneur status and
won 154 licenses. On July 26, 2005, the
Commission completed an auction of
five licenses in the Lower 700 MHz
band (Auction No. 60). There were three
winning bidders for the five licenses.
All three winning bidders claimed small
business status.
100. In 2007, the Commission
reexamined its rules governing the 700
MHz band in the 700 MHz Second
Report and Order. An auction of 700
MHz licenses commenced January 24,
2008, and closed on March 18, 2008,
which included 176 Economic Area
licenses in the A Block, 734 Cellular
Market Area licenses in the B Block, and
176 EA licenses in the E Block. Twenty
winning bidders, claiming small
business status (those with attributable
average annual gross revenues that
exceed $15 million and do not exceed
$40 million for the preceding three
years) won 49 licenses. Thirty-three
winning bidders claiming very small
business status (those with attributable
average annual gross revenues that do
not exceed $15 million for the preceding
three years) won 325 licenses.
101. Upper 700 MHz Band Licenses.
In the 700 MHz Second Report and
Order, the Commission revised its rules
regarding Upper 700 MHz licenses. On
January 24, 2008, the Commission
commenced Auction 73 in which
several licenses in the Upper 700 MHz
band were available for licensing: 12
Regional Economic Area Grouping
licenses in the C Block, and one
nationwide license in the D Block. The
auction concluded on March 18, 2008,
with 3 winning bidders claiming very
small business status (those with
attributable average annual gross
revenues that do not exceed $15 million
for the preceding three years) and
winning five licenses.
102. 700 MHz Guard Band Licensees.
In 2000, in the 700 MHz Guard Band
Order, the Commission adopted size
standards for ‘‘small businesses’’ and
‘‘very small businesses’’ for purposes of
determining their eligibility for special
provisions such as bidding credits and
installment payments. A small business
in this service is an entity that, together
with its affiliates and controlling
principals, has average gross revenues
not exceeding $40 million for the
preceding three years. Additionally, a
very small business is an entity that,
together with its affiliates and
controlling principals, has average gross
revenues that are not more than $15
million for the preceding three years.
SBA approval of these definitions is not
required. An auction of 52 Major
Economic Area licenses commenced on
VerDate Sep<11>2014
16:22 Aug 21, 2019
Jkt 247001
September 6, 2000, and closed on
September 21, 2000. Of the 104 licenses
auctioned, 96 licenses were sold to nine
bidders. Five of these bidders were
small businesses that won a total of 26
licenses. A second auction of 700 MHz
Guard Band licenses commenced on
February 13, 2001, and closed on
February 21, 2001. All eight of the
licenses auctioned were sold to three
bidders. One of these bidders was a
small business that won a total of two
licenses.
103. Air-Ground Radiotelephone
Service. The Commission previously
used the SBA’s small business size
standard applicable to Wireless
Telecommunications Carriers (except
Satellite) for this service. The
appropriate size standard under SBA
rules is that such a business is small if
it has 1,500 or fewer employees. For this
industry, U.S. Census Bureau data for
2012 show that there were 967 firms
that operated for the entire year. Of this
total, 955 firms had fewer than 1,000
employees and 12 had employment of
1,000 employees or more. There are
approximately 100 licensees in the AirGround Radiotelephone Service, and we
estimate that almost all of them qualify
as small entities under the SBA
definition.
104. For purposes of assigning AirGround Radiotelephone Service licenses
through competitive bidding, the
Commission has defined ‘‘small
business’’ as an entity that, together
with controlling interests and affiliates,
has average annual gross revenues for
the preceding three years not exceeding
$40 million. A ‘‘very small business’’ is
defined as an entity that, together with
controlling interests and affiliates, has
average annual gross revenues for the
preceding three years not exceeding $15
million. The SBA approved these
definitions. In May 2006, the
Commission completed an auction of
nationwide commercial Air-Ground
Radiotelephone Service licenses in the
800 MHz band (Auction No. 65). On
June 2, 2006, the auction closed with
two winning bidders winning two AirGround Radiotelephone Services
licenses. Neither of the winning bidders
claimed small business status.
105. Advanced Wireless Services
(AWS) (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)). For the
AWS–1 bands, the Commission defined
a ‘‘small business’’ as an entity with
average annual gross revenues for the
preceding three years not exceeding $40
million, and a ‘‘very small business’’ as
an entity with average annual gross
PO 00000
Frm 00051
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
43779
revenues for the preceding three years
not exceeding $15 million. For AWS–2
and AWS–3, although we do not know
for certain which entities are likely to
apply for these frequencies, we note that
the AWS–1 bands are comparable to
those used for cellular service and
personal communications service. The
Commission has not yet adopted size
standards for the AWS–2 or AWS–3
bands but proposes to treat both AWS–
2 and AWS–3 similarly to broadband
PCS service and AWS–1 service due to
the comparable capital requirements
and other factors, such as issues
involved in relocating incumbents and
developing markets, technologies, and
services.
106. 3650–3700 MHz band. In March
2005, the Commission released a Report
and Order and Memorandum Opinion
and Order that provides for nationwide,
non-exclusive licensing of terrestrial
operations, using contention-based
technologies, in the 3650 MHz band
(i.e., 3650–3700 MHz). As of April 2010,
more than 1,270 licenses have been
granted and more than 7,433 sites have
been registered. The Commission has
not developed a definition of small
entities applicable to 3650–3700 MHz
band nationwide, non-exclusive
licensees. However, we estimate that the
majority of these licensees are internet
Access Service Providers (ISPs) and that
most of those licensees are small
businesses.
107. Fixed Microwave Services.
Microwave services include common
carrier, private-operational fixed, and
broadcast auxiliary radio services. They
also include the Local Multipoint
Distribution Service (LMDS), the Digital
Electronic Message Service (DEMS), and
the 24 GHz Service, where licensees can
choose between common carrier and
non-common carrier status. At present,
there are approximately 36,708 common
carrier fixed licensees and 59,291
private operational-fixed licensees and
broadcast auxiliary radio licensees in
the microwave services. There are
approximately 135 LMDS licensees,
three DEMS licensees, and three 24 GHz
licensees. The Commission has not yet
defined a small business with respect to
microwave services. The closest
applicable SBA category is Wireless
Telecommunications Carriers (except
Satellite), and the appropriate size
standard for this category under SBA
rules is that such a business is small if
it has 1,500 or fewer employees. For this
industry, U.S. Census Bureau data for
2012 show that there were 967 firms
that operated for the entire year. Of this
total, 955 firms had fewer than 1,000
employees and 12 had employment of
1,000 employees or more. Thus, under
E:\FR\FM\22AUP1.SGM
22AUP1
43780
Federal Register / Vol. 84, No. 163 / Thursday, August 22, 2019 / Proposed Rules
this SBA category and the associated
size standard, the Commission estimates
that a majority of fixed microwave
service licensees can be considered
small.
108. The Commission does not have
data specifying the number of these
licensees that have more than 1,500
employees, and thus is unable at this
time to estimate with greater precision
the number of fixed microwave service
licensees that would qualify as small
business concerns under the SBA’s
small business size standard.
Consequently, the Commission
estimates that there are up to 36,708
common carrier fixed licensees and up
to 59,291 private operational-fixed
licensees and broadcast auxiliary radio
licensees in the microwave services that
may be small and may be affected by the
rules and policies adopted herein. We
note, however, that the common carrier
microwave fixed licensee category does
include some large entities.
109. Broadband Radio Service and
Educational Broadband Service.
Broadband Radio Service systems,
previously referred to as Multipoint
Distribution Service (MDS) and
Multichannel Multipoint Distribution
Service (MMDS) systems and ‘‘wireless
cable,’’ transmit video programming to
subscribers and provide two-way high
speed data operations using the
microwave frequencies of the
Broadband Radio Service (BRS) and
Educational Broadband Service (EBS)
(previously referred to as the
Instructional Television Fixed Service
(ITFS)). In connection with the 1996
BRS auction, the Commission
established a small business size
standard as an entity that had annual
average gross revenues of no more than
$40 million in the previous three
calendar years. The BRS auctions
resulted in 67 successful bidders
obtaining licensing opportunities for
493 Basic Trading Areas (BTAs). Of the
67 auction winners, 61 met the
definition of a small business. BRS also
includes licensees of stations authorized
prior to the auction. At this time, we
estimate that of the 61 small business
BRS auction winners, 48 remain small
business licensees. In addition to the 48
small businesses that hold BTA
authorizations, there are approximately
392 incumbent BRS licensees that are
considered small entities. After adding
the number of small business auction
licensees to the number of incumbent
licensees not already counted, we find
that there are currently approximately
440 BRS licensees that are defined as
small businesses under either the SBA
or the Commission’s rules.
VerDate Sep<11>2014
16:22 Aug 21, 2019
Jkt 247001
110. In 2009, the Commission
conducted Auction 86, the sale of 78
licenses in the BRS areas. The
Commission offered three levels of
bidding credits: (1) A bidder with
attributed average annual gross revenues
that exceed $15 million and do not
exceed $40 million for the preceding
three years (small business) received a
15% discount on its winning bid; (2) a
bidder with attributed average annual
gross revenues that exceed $3 million
and do not exceed $15 million for the
preceding three years (very small
business) received a 25% discount on
its winning bid; and (3) a bidder with
attributed average annual gross revenues
that do not exceed $3 million for the
preceding three years (entrepreneur)
received a 35% discount on its winning
bid. Auction 86 concluded in 2009 with
the sale of 61 licenses. Of the ten
winning bidders, two bidders that
claimed small business status won 4
licenses; one bidder that claimed very
small business status won three
licenses; and two bidders that claimed
entrepreneur status won six licenses.
111. In addition, the SBA’s Cable
Television Distribution Services small
business size standard is applicable to
EBS. There are presently 2,436 EBS
licensees. All but 100 of these licenses
are held by educational institutions.
Educational institutions are included in
this analysis as small entities. Thus, we
estimate that at least 2,336 licensees are
small businesses. Since 2007, Cable
Television Distribution Services have
been defined within the broad economic
census category of Wired
Telecommunications Carriers; that
category is defined as follows: ‘‘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.’’ The SBA has developed
a small business size standard for this
category, which is: All such firms
having 1,500 or fewer employees. To
gauge small business prevalence for
these cable services we must, however,
use the most current census data that
are based on the previous category of
Cable and Other Program Distribution
and its associated size standard: All
such firms having $13.5 million or less
in annual receipts. For this industry,
U.S. Census data for 2012 show that
there were 3,117 firms that operated that
year. Of this total, 3,083 operated with
fewer than 1,000 employees. Thus, the
PO 00000
Frm 00052
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
majority of these firms can be
considered small.
5. Satellite Service Providers
112. Satellite Telecommunications
Providers. This 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.’’ Satellite
telecommunications service providers
include satellite and earth station
operators. The category has a small
business size standard of $32.5 million
or less in average annual receipts, under
SBA rules. For this category, U.S.
Census Bureau data for 2012 show that
there were a total of 333 firms that
operated for the entire year. Of this
total, 299 firms had annual receipts of
less than $25 million. Consequently, we
estimate that the majority of satellite
telecommunications providers are small
entities.
113. All Other Telecommunications.
The ‘‘All Other Telecommunications’’
category is comprised of entities that are
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 clientsupplied telecommunications
connections are also included in this
industry. The SBA has developed a
small business size standard for ‘‘All
Other Telecommunications,’’ which
consists of all such firms with gross
annual receipts of $32.5 million or less.
For this category, U.S. Census Bureau
data for 2012 show that there were 1,442
firms that operated for the entire year.
Of these firms, a total of 1,400 had gross
annual receipts of less than $25 million.
Consequently, a majority of ‘‘All Other
Telecommunications’’ firms potentially
affected by our action can be considered
small.
6. Cable Service Providers
114. Because Section 706 of the Act
requires us to monitor the deployment
of broadband using any technology, we
anticipate that some broadband service
providers may not provide telephone
E:\FR\FM\22AUP1.SGM
22AUP1
Federal Register / Vol. 84, No. 163 / Thursday, August 22, 2019 / Proposed Rules
service. Accordingly, we describe below
other types of firms that may provide
broadband services, including cable
companies, MDS providers, and
utilities, among others.
115. Cable and Other Subscription
Programming. This industry comprises
establishments primarily engaged in
operating studios and facilities for the
broadcasting of programs on a
subscription or fee basis. The broadcast
programming is typically narrowcast in
nature (e.g., limited format, such as
news, sports, education, or youthoriented). These establishments produce
programming in their own facilities or
acquire programming from external
sources. The programming material is
usually delivered to a third party, such
as cable systems or direct-to-home
satellite systems, for transmission to
viewers. The SBA size standard for this
industry establishes as small, any
company in this category which has
annual receipts of $38.5 million or less.
According to 2012 U.S. Census Bureau
data, 367 firms operated for the entire
year. Of that number, 319 operated with
annual receipts of less than $25 million
a year and 48 firms operated with
annual receipts of $25 million or more.
Based on this data, the Commission
estimates that the majority of firms
operating in this industry are small.
116. Cable Companies and Systems
(Rate Regulation). The Commission has
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
there are currently 4,600 active cable
systems in the United States. Of this
total, all but nine cable operators
nationwide are small under the 400,000subscriber size standard. In addition,
under the Commission’s rate regulation
rules, a ‘‘small system’’ is a cable system
serving 15,000 or fewer subscribers.
Current Commission records show 4,600
cable systems nationwide. Of this total,
3,900 cable systems have fewer than
15,000 subscribers, and 700 systems
have 15,000 or more subscribers, based
on the same records. Thus, under this
standard as well, we estimate that most
cable systems are small entities.
117. Cable System Operators
(Telecom Act Standard). 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% of all
subscribers in the United States and is
not affiliated with any entity or entities
whose gross annual revenues in the
VerDate Sep<11>2014
16:22 Aug 21, 2019
Jkt 247001
aggregate exceed $250,000,000.’’ There
are approximately 52,403,705 cable
video subscribers in the United States
today. Accordingly, an operator serving
fewer than 524,037 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. Based on available data, we
find that all but nine incumbent cable
operators are small entities under this
size standard. We note that the
Commission neither requests nor
collects information on whether cable
system operators are affiliated with
entities whose gross annual revenues
exceed $250 million. Although it seems
certain that some of these cable system
operators are affiliated with entities
whose gross annual revenues exceed
$250 million, we are unable at this time
to estimate with greater precision the
number of cable system operators that
would qualify as small cable operators
under the definition in the
Communications Act.
7. All Other Telecommunications
118. Electric Power Generators,
Transmitters, and Distributors. This
U.S. industry is comprised of
establishments that are primarily
engaged in providing specialized
telecommunications services, such as
satellite tracking, communications
telemetry, and radar station operation.
This industry also includes entities
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. Entities providing
internet services or voice over internet
protocol (VoIP) services via clientsupplied telecommunications
connections are also included in this
industry. The closest applicable SBA
category is ‘‘All Other
Telecommunications’’. The SBA’s small
business size standard for ‘‘All Other
Telecommunications,’’ consists of all
such firms with gross annual receipts of
$32.5 million or less. For this category,
U.S. Census data for 2012 show that
there were 1,442 firms that operated for
the entire year. Of these firms, a total of
1,400 had gross annual receipts of less
than $25 million. Consequently, we
estimate that under this category and
the associated size standard the majority
of these firms can be considered small
entities.
PO 00000
Frm 00053
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
43781
D. Description of Projected Reporting,
Recordkeeping, and Other Compliance
Requirements for Small Entities
119. The potential modifications
proposed in the Second FNPRM if
adopted, could, at least initially, impose
some new reporting, recordkeeping, or
other compliance requirements on some
small entities. Small entities and other
providers could potentially be required
to submit coverage maps based on
standardized parameters. Commenters
have been asked to refresh the record
from the 2017 Data Collection
Improvement FNPRM on the potential
use of standardized coverage maps for
mobile services in the context of Form
477 and to specifically discuss their
experience with the approach used in
the MF–II proceeding. Commenters also
have been asked to refresh the record on
whether to require on-the-ground data
as part of the Form 477 data collection.
In particular, the Commission asked
whether it should require some actual
speed test data, how it could impose
such a requirement without being
unduly burdensome to small providers,
and the extent to which providers
already collect on-the-ground data in
their ordinary course of business.
120. In the Second FNPRM, the
Commission also seeks comment on a
requirement for providers to submit
infrastructure information sufficient to
allow us to verify the accuracy of
providers’ Form 477 filings.
Anticipating that the collection of
accurate and recent network
infrastructure information would help
the Commission to verify providers’
filings, we propose to require small
entities and other providers to submit,
as part of their Form 477 filing, the
following information: (1) The location
of cell sites in decimal degrees; (2) the
height (above ground and sea level),
type, and directional orientation of
transmit antennas at each cell site; (3)
maximum radiated transmit power of
the radio equipment at each cell site; (4)
the capacity and type of backhaul used
at each cell site; (5) deployed spectrum
band and channel bandwidth in MHz;
(6) throughput and the required signal
strength and signal to noise ratio; (7)
cell loading factors; (8) deployed
technologies (e.g., LTE Release 13) and;
(9) any terrain and land use information
used in deriving clutter factors or other
losses associated with each cell site.
Additionally, the Commission also
requests updated comments on adopting
a requirement that coverage maps be
submitted in raster format, noting that
such a requirement might be less
burdensome than shapefiles.
E:\FR\FM\22AUP1.SGM
22AUP1
43782
Federal Register / Vol. 84, No. 163 / Thursday, August 22, 2019 / Proposed Rules
121. As means of improving accuracy
and reliability of mobile broadband
filings, the Commission seeks comment
on whether we should establish a
challenge process similar to the MF–II
challenge process to verify Form 477
filings. The adoption of such a process
would allow states, local governments,
Tribal entities, or other interested
parties an opportunity to challenge
providers’ mobile broadband filings and
could subject small entities and other
providers to additional submission and
compliance requirements. In addition,
while the Commission has adopted the
GIS reporting format for fixed
broadband services, the Commission
seeks comments on how to move to a
location-based data requirement for
small entities and other providers.
122. In addition, we seek comment on
how best to ensure the collection of
high-quality fixed broadband coverage
data as part of the Digital Opportunity
Data Collection. Although we are
cognizant of the potential burdens that
greater precision in reporting can entail,
commenters have indicated in the
record that the approach we adopt
today—to collect coverage polygons of
fixed-broadband service availability—
will allow providers to submit more
precise data with reasonable burdens.
Nonetheless, we seek comment on steps
the Commission can take to improve the
quality of fixed broadband coverage
polygons while minimizing the
associated reporting burdens. In
addition, as part of the Digital
Opportunity Data Collection, the
Commission is directing OEA, in
consultation with WCB, WTB, and IB, to
provide guidance to fixed providers
regarding how to develop the polygons
depicting fixed broadband coverage.
Connected Nation expresses concern
that small service providers in
particular will struggle to comply with
the new reporting requirements in the
Digital Opportunity Data Collection
unless they get assistance in creating
their broadband coverage polygons. In
the Report and Order, we identify helpdesk support and clear instructions as
ways we will assist fixed broadband
providers with meeting the new filing
obligations, and we seek comment on
what other steps the Commission and
USAC can take to help small fixed
providers file accurate data as part of
the new collection.
123. We also seek comment on
whether to require fixed providers to
provide latency reports, whether to
impose penalties for entities that
chronically file bad data, and how we
can improve the existing satellite
broadband collection to reflect more
accurately current satellite broadband
VerDate Sep<11>2014
16:22 Aug 21, 2019
Jkt 247001
coverage availability. Additionally, we
seek comment on how best to collect
information relating to service
availability data gathered from fixed
providers. For example, we seek
comment on how to establish a
crowdsourced tracking system through
USAC, how quickly fixed providers
should be required to correct any data
where they do not refute the alleged
lack of coverage, and how we should
instruct USAC to handle cases in which
providers and the stakeholders disagree
about whether service is actually
available at a given location. ACA
argues that it would be ‘‘onerous if a
smaller provider had to respond
immediately to each and every
submission from an individual or
government entity’’ and recommends
that small providers be allowed to
account for any inaccurate data at its
next Digital Opportunity Data Collection
filing. As a result, we seek comment on
the best approach to timing for the
crowdsourcing process, not only for
small providers but for all filers. Finally,
if a location-based process is adopted
for fixed broadband deployment
reporting, we ask about an appropriate
transition time, especially for smaller
providers.
124. The issues raised for
consideration and comment in the
Second FNPRM may require small
entities to hire attorneys, engineers,
consultants, or other professionals. At
this time, however, the Commission
cannot quantify the cost of compliance
with any potential rule changes and
compliance obligations for small entities
that may result from the Second
FNPRM. We expect our requests for
information on potential burdens on
small entities associated with matters
raised in the Second FNPRM will
provide us with information to assist
with our evaluation of the cost of
compliance on small entities of any
reporting, recordkeeping, or other
compliance requirements we adopt.
E. Steps Taken To Minimize the
Significant Economic Impact on Small
Entities and Significant Alternatives
Considered
125. The RFA requires an agency to
describe any significant, specifically
small business, 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
PO 00000
Frm 00054
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
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.
126. To assist the Commission’s
evaluation of the economic impact on
small entities, as a result of actions that
may result from proposals and issues
raised for consideration in the Second
FNPRM, and to better explore options
and alternatives, the Commission has
sought comment from the public. More
specifically, the Commission seeks
comment on what burdens are
associated with the potential
requirements discussed in the preceding
section and how such burdens can be
minimized for small entities. For
example, the Commission has sought
comment on the potential burdens
associated with requiring providers to
submit on-the-ground data and/or
mobile broadband and voice
subscription data at the census tract
level, particularly for small providers,
and on steps the Commission could take
to minimize the potential burdens.
127. In addressing possible changes to
the Digital Opportunity Data Collection,
we seek comment on lessening the
burdens associated with the stringent
timeliness and completeness
requirements for the broadband
coverage data to be submitted by smaller
broadband providers. In addition, we
seek comment on the burdens of a
proposal for USAC to publish
crowdsourced complaint data without
directly informing the affected
providers, which would require the
provider to regularly check for pertinent
complaints. Further, any requirement to
timely submit corrected broadband
deployment data may impose a burden
on small providers, so we seek comment
on ways to ease that burden. Finally, the
creation of a new online portal for use
with the Digital Opportunity Data
Collection, generally, has the potential
for errors to the disadvantage of small
providers seeking USF funds, and we
seek comment on how to lessen the
potential for such errors.
128. More generally, the proposals
and questions laid out in the Second
FNPRM were designed to enable the
Commission to understand the benefits,
impact, and potential burdens
associated with the different approaches
that the Commission can pursue to
achieve its objective of improving
accuracy and reliability of its data
collections. Before reaching its final
conclusions and taking action in this
proceeding, the Commission expects to
review the comments filed in response
to the Second FNPRM and more fully
consider the economic impact on small
E:\FR\FM\22AUP1.SGM
22AUP1
Federal Register / Vol. 84, No. 163 / Thursday, August 22, 2019 / Proposed Rules
entities and how any impact can be
minimized.
F. Federal Rules That May Duplicate,
Overlap, or Conflict With the Proposed
Rules
129. None.
V. Procedural Matters
130. Ex Parte Rules. This proceeding
shall be treated as a ‘‘permit-butdisclose’’ 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, then 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 47 CFR 1.1206(b). In
proceedings governed 47 CFR 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.
131. Paperwork Reduction Act. The
Second FNPRM contains proposed new
and modified information collection
requirements subject to the Paperwork
Reduction Act of 1995 (PRA), Public
Law 104–13. The Commission, as part of
its continuing effort to reduce
paperwork burdens, invites the general
VerDate Sep<11>2014
16:22 Aug 21, 2019
Jkt 247001
public and the Office of Management
and Budget to comment on the
information collection requirements
contained in the Second FNPRM, as
required by the PRA. In addition,
pursuant to the Small Business
Paperwork Relief Act of 2002, Public
Law 107–198 (44 U.S.C. 3506(c)(4)), we
seek specific comment on how we might
further reduce the information
collection burden for small business
concerns with fewer than 25 employees.
132. Initial Regulatory Flexibility
Analysis. Pursuant to the Regulatory
Flexibility Act (RFA), the Commission
has prepared an Initial Regulatory
Flexibility Analysis (IRFA) of the
possible significant economic impact on
small entities of the policies and actions
considered in this NPRM. The IRFA is
set forth above. 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 on the
Second FNPRM. The Commission’s
Consumer and Governmental Affairs
Bureau, Reference Information Center,
will send a copy of the Second FNPRM,
including the IRFA, to the Chief
Counsel for Advocacy of the Small
Business Administration.
133. 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).
VI. Clauses
134. Accordingly, it is ordered that,
pursuant to Sections 1–4, 7, 201, 254,
301, 303, 309, 319, and 332 of the
Communications Act of 1934, as
amended, 47 U.S.C. 151–154, 157, 201,
254, 301, 303, 309, 319, and 332, this
Report and Order and Second Further
Notice of Proposed Rulemaking is
adopted.
135. It is further ordered that the
Commission’s Consumer &
Governmental Affairs Bureau, Reference
Information Center, shall send a copy of
this Report and Order and Second
Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking,
including the Initial Regulatory
Flexibility Analysis, to the Chief
Counsel for Advocacy of the Small
Business Administration.
Federal Communications Commission.
Marlene Dortch,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2019–18062 Filed 8–21–19; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6712–01–P
PO 00000
Frm 00055
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
43783
DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
National Oceanic and Atmospheric
Administration
50 CFR Part 679
RIN 0648–BJ03
Fisheries of the Exclusive Economic
Zone Off Alaska; Rockfish
Management in the Groundfish
Fisheries of the Bering Sea and
Aleutian Islands and the Gulf of Alaska
National Marine Fisheries
Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and
Atmospheric Administration (NOAA),
Commerce.
ACTION: Notice of availability of fishery
management plan amendment; request
for comments.
AGENCY:
SUMMARY: The North Pacific Fishery
Management Council has submitted
Amendment 119 to the Fishery
Management Plan for Groundfish of the
Bering Sea and Aleutian Islands
Management Area (BSAI FMP) and
Amendment 107 to the Fishery
Management Plan for Groundfish of the
Gulf of Alaska (GOA FMP) (collectively
Amendments 119/107) to the Secretary
of Commerce (Secretary) for review. If
approved, Amendments 119/107 would
require that the operator of a catcher
vessel required to have a federal fishery
permit using hook-and-line, pot, or jig
in the EEZ of the Bering Sea and
Aleutian Islands (BSAI) and Gulf of
Alaska (GOA) to retain and land all
rockfish (Sebastes and Sebastolobus
species) caught while fishing for
groundfish or for Pacific halibut and
establish a limit on the amount of
rockfish caught as incidental catch
allowed to enter commerce through
barter, sale or trade. Amendments 119/
107 are necessary to improve
identification of rockfish species,
improve data collection by providing
more accurate estimates of total catch,
reduce incentives to discard rockfish,
reduce waste, reduce overall
enforcement burden, and provide
regulatory consistency. Amendments
119/107 are intended to promote the
goals and objectives of the MagnusonStevens Fishery Conservation and
Management Act, the BSAI FMP, the
GOA FMP, and other applicable laws.
DATES: Comments must be received no
later than October 21, 2019.
ADDRESSES: You may submit comments
on this document, identified by NOAA–
NMFS–2019–0068, by any of the
following methods:
• Electronic Submission: Submit all
electronic public comments via the
E:\FR\FM\22AUP1.SGM
22AUP1
Agencies
[Federal Register Volume 84, Number 163 (Thursday, August 22, 2019)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 43764-43783]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2019-18062]
=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION
47 CFR Parts 1 and 54
[WC Docket Nos. 11-10 and 19-195, FCC No. 19-79]
Establishing the Digital Opportunity Data Collection and
Modernizing the FCC Form 477 Data Program
AGENCY: Federal Communications Commission.
ACTION: Proposed rule.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: In this document, the Federal Communications Commission
(Commission) adopts a Report and Order and Second Further Notice of
Proposed Rulemaking (Second FNPRM). This document seeks comment on
certain aspects of the Digital Opportunity Data Collection to enhance
its accuracy and usefulness. The Second FNPRM seeks comment on ways to
develop location-specific data that could be used in conjunction with
the polygon-based data in the new collection to precisely identify the
homes and small businesses that have and do not have access to
broadband services. With respect to mobile wireless coverage, the
Second FNPRM seeks comment on how to align the Digital Opportunity Data
Collection with changes in mobile broadband deployment technology,
markets, and policy needs. The Second FNPRM also seeks comment on how
to improve satellite broadband deployment data given the unique
characteristics of satellites.
DATES: For the Second FNPRM comments are due on or before September 23,
2019, and reply comments are due on or before October 7, 2019. Written
comments on the Paperwork Reduction Act information collection
requirements must be submitted by the public, OMB, and other interested
parties on or before October 21, 2019.
ADDRESSES: In addition to filing comments with the Commission's Office
of the Secretary, as set forth below, a copy of any comments on the
Paperwork Reduction Act information collection requirements contained
herein should be submitted to the Commission via email to [email protected]
and to Nicole Ongele, FCC, via email to [email protected].
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Wireline Competition Bureau, Kirk
Burgee, at (202) 418-1599, [email protected], or, Wireless
Telecommunications Bureau, Garnet Hanly, at (202) 418-0995,
[email protected]. For additional information concerning the
Paperwork Reduction Act information collection requirements contained
in this document, send an email to [email protected] or contact Nicole Ongele
at (202) 418-2991.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: This is a summary of the Commission's Report
and Order and Second Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking in WC Docket
Nos. 11-10 and 19-195, FCC 19-79, adopted August 1, 2019 and released
August 6, 2019. The full text of this document is available for public
inspection during regular business hours in the FCC Reference
Information Center, Portals II, 445 12th Street SW, Room CY-A257,
Washington, DC 20554. It also is available on the Commission's website
at https://www.fcc.gov/document/fcc-improves-broadband-mapping-0.
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 in response to the Second FNPRM on or before the dates
indicated on the first page of this document. Comments may be filed
using the Commission's Electronic Filing System (ECFS). See Electronic
Filing of Documents in Rulemaking Proceedings, 63 FR 24121 (1998).
[ssquf] Electronic Filers: Comments may be filed electronically
using the internet by accessing the ECFS: https://www.fcc.gov/ecfs/.
[ssquf] Paper Filers: Parties who choose to file by paper must file
an original and one copy of each filing. If more than one docket or
rulemaking number appears in the caption of this proceeding, filers
[[Page 43765]]
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
9050 Junction Drive, Annapolis Junction, MD 20701. U.S. Postal Service
first-class, Express, and Priority mail must be addressed to 445 12th
Street SW, Washington, DC 20554.
[ssquf] People With Disabilities: To request materials in
accessible formats for people with disabilities (Braille, large print,
electronic files, audio format), send an email to [email protected] or
call the Consumer & Governmental Affairs Bureau at 202-418-0530
(voice), 202-418-0432 (tty).
Synopsis
I. Introduction
1. Accurate broadband deployment data is critical to the
Commission's efforts to bridge the digital divide. Effectively
targeting federal and state spending efforts to bring broadband to
those areas most in need of it means understanding where broadband is
available and where it is not. The census-block level fixed broadband
service availability reporting the Commission currently requires has
been an effective tool for helping the Commission target universal
service support to the least-served areas of the country, but has made
it difficult for the Commission to direct funding to the ``gaps'' in
broadband coverage--those areas where some, but not all, homes and
businesses have access to modern communications services.
2. We therefore initiate a new data collection, the Digital
Opportunity Data Collection, that is distinct from the existing Form
477 collection and that will gather geospatial broadband service
availability data specifically targeted toward advancing our universal
service goals. Pursuant to the Digital Opportunity Data Collection, we
require all broadband service providers to submit granular maps of the
areas where they have broadband-capable networks and make service
available. Given the Commission's ongoing investigation into the
coverage maps of one or more major mobile operators, we limit the new
data collection obligations to fixed broadband providers at present and
seek comment on how best to incorporate mobile wireless coverage data
into the Digital Opportunity Data Collection.
3. Service providers--who are uniquely situated to know where their
own networks are deployed--must determine in the first instance the
availability of broadband in their service areas, taking into account
their individual circumstances and their on-the-ground knowledge and
experience. At the same time, to complement this granular broadband
availability data, we adopt a process to begin collecting public input,
sometimes known as ``crowdsourcing,'' on the accuracy of service
providers' broadband deployment data. Through this new tool, State,
local, and Tribal governmental entities and members of the public will
be able to submit fixed broadband availability data, leveraging their
experience concerning service availability. In addition, because we
leave in place for now the existing Form 477 data collection, we make
targeted changes to reduce reporting burdens for all providers by
removing and clarifying certain requirements and modifying the
collection.
4. In the Second FNPRM, we seek comment on certain aspects of the
Digital Opportunity Data Collection to enhance the accuracy and
usefulness of broadband deployment reporting. We also seek comment on
ways that we can develop location-specific data that could be overlaid
onto the polygon-based data in this new data collection to precisely
identify the homes and small businesses that have and do not have
access to broadband services. With respect to mobile wireless coverage,
we seek comment on how to align the Digital Opportunity Data Collection
with changes in mobile broadband deployment technology, markets, and
policy needs. The questions asked, and proposals made, in the Second
FNPRM build a framework for addressing these and other issues. Finally,
the Second FNPRM seeks comment on how we can improve the satellite
broadband deployment data given the unique characteristics of
satellites.
II. Background
5. First established in 2000, the Commission's Form 477 began as a
collection of subscription and connection data for local telephone and
broadband services that helped the Commission to, among other things,
meet statutory annual reporting obligations and monitor local voice
competition. Over time, the Form 477 data collection has evolved into
the primary data source for many Commission actions, including
reporting to Congress and the public about the availability of
broadband services, informing transaction reviews, and supporting our
universal service policies. At the same time, it has become
increasingly clear that the fixed and mobile broadband deployment data
collected on the Form 477 are not sufficient to understanding where
universal service support should be targeted and supporting the
imperative of our broadband-deployment policy goals.
6. For purposes of broadband deployment reporting, the Commission
currently requires fixed providers to report the census blocks in which
their broadband service is available. Fixed broadband connections are
available in a census block ``if the provider does, or could, within a
service interval that is typical for that kind of connection--that is,
without an extraordinary commitment of resources--provision two-way
data transmission to and from the internet with advertised speeds
exceeding 200 kbps in at least one direction to end-user premises in
the census block.'' However, census-block based fixed deployment data
have limitations--providers report whether or not fixed broadband
service is available in at least some part of each census block, but
not whether there is availability at all areas within a block.
7. Providers of fixed voice and broadband service report on their
end-user subscriptions by submitting the total number of connections in
each census tract in which they provide service. Providers of mobile
voice and broadband service report their total subscribers for each
state in which they provide service to customers. Facilities-based
providers of mobile broadband service report on deployment by
submitting, for each technology and frequency band employed, polygons
in geographic information system (GIS) mapping files that digitally
represent the geographic areas in which a customer could expect to
receive the minimum speed the service provider advertises for that
area. In addition, mobile service providers must report the census
tracts in which their service is advertised and available to potential
customers.
8. In establishing the Form 477 as its primary vehicle for
collecting
[[Page 43766]]
information about the deployment of broadband services, the Commission
predicted that the data from the Form 477 would ``materially improve''
its ability to develop, evaluate, and revise broadband policy, as well
as provide valuable benchmarks for Congress, the Commission, other
policymakers, and consumers. In its comments in this proceeding, the
National Telecommunications and Information Administration (NTIA)
states that its analysts ``routinely refer to the Commission's Form 477
data, including both deployment and subscription data, to help inform
policymakers and enhance [its] technical support of broadband
infrastructure investment.'' The Commission has used aggregate
broadband data reported by providers on Form 477 to, among other
things: (1) Meet our statutory obligation to annually report on the
state of broadband availability; (2) update our universal service
policies and monitor whether our universal service goals are being
achieved in a cost-effective manner; (3) meet our public safety
obligations; and (4) maintain coverage maps to inform stakeholders,
including industry and the public.
9. In an effort to collect and develop better quality, more useful,
and more granular broadband deployment data, the Commission adopted the
2017 Data Collection Improvement FNPRM in August 2017. In the 2017 Data
Collection Improvement FNPRM, the Commission sought comment on: (1)
Ways in which the Commission might increase the quality and accuracy of
the broadband information we collect; and (2) ways in which the
Commission might streamline its broadband reporting requirements and
thereby reduce the burdens on filers. The Commission also noted that
one of its primary objectives is to ensure that the data collected will
be closely aligned with the uses to which they will be put, and sought
comment on those uses to inform our analysis. In response, we received
a voluminous amount of comments, reply comments, and ex parte
presentations with specific recommendations on how best to improve our
broadband reporting process.
III. Second Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking
10. We take steps today in the Report and Order to improve our
broadband data collection and reporting by directing USAC, under the
supervision of OEA, to undertake establishing the online portal for the
Digital Opportunity Data Collection, an entirely new collection
targeted specifically at identifying unserved areas with greater
precision in order to advance our universal service goals. In this
Second FNPRM, we seek comment on additional issues to continue our
ongoing efforts to ensure that the Digital Opportunity Data Collection
will evolve to align with changes to technology, markets, and policy
needs.
A. Improving Broadband Data
11. Even with public input to improve the quality of the Digital
Opportunity Data Collection over time, it is essential that we receive
reliable fixed broadband availability data from filers of this new
collection at the outset. Although we are cognizant of the potential
burdens that greater precision in reporting can entail, commenters have
indicated in the record that the approach we adopt today--to collect
coverage polygons of fixed-broadband service availability--will allow
providers to submit more precise data with reasonable burdens.
Nonetheless, we seek comment on steps the Commission can take to
improve the quality of fixed broadband coverage polygons while
minimizing the associated reporting burdens.
1. Additional Technical Standards for Fixed Broadband Reporting
12. As part of the Digital Opportunity Data Collection, the
Commission is directing OEA to provide guidance to fixed providers
regarding how to develop the polygons depicting fixed broadband
coverage. Connected Nation expresses concern that small service
providers in particular will struggle to comply with the new reporting
requirements in the Digital Opportunity Data Collection unless they get
assistance in creating their broadband coverage polygons. In the Report
and Order, we identify help-desk support and clear instructions as ways
we will assist fixed broadband providers with meeting the new filing
obligations. We seek comment on what other steps the Commission and
USAC can take to help fixed providers file accurate data as part of the
new collection.
13. We seek comment on whether Commission staff should prescribe
rules for reporting fixed wired broadband deployment that will provide
consistently reliable results for similarly-situated filers? For
example, should we establish fixed buffers around network facilities to
define coverage for specific fixed technologies (e.g., 200-meter
buffers around the location of distribution or coaxial plant)? Would
this promote consistency and reliability among submissions? We note
that applying such buffers or other constraints may foreclose
consideration of individual network characteristics. Are there ways to
mitigate or address this risk? What other methodologies for developing
polygons should we permit fixed providers to use? For example, would
polygons based on homes passed or addresses served by the fixed
provider produce equally reliable polygons? How much flexibility should
we afford fixed providers in selecting a methodology to creating
broadband coverage polygons? Would any globally-applied constraint be
too likely to over- or under-state service availability? How should
broadband coverage polygons account for transport capacity? That is,
how should we ensure that fixed providers are capable of serving every
location covered by a polygon? We recognize that determining the area
served by a broadband network is highly idiosyncratic and determined by
multiple factors. For example, different companies might take different
approaches in the same circumstance, while a single company might take
a different approach in different markets depending on the level of
local government regulation (e.g., local franchise agreements that
include build-out requirements). In addition, coverage can depend on
very local conditions like access to rights-of-way along one route and
not another or the ability to serve the edge of franchise or service
areas. With the end goal of creating a single cohesive dataset and map
representation of where coverage is and is not located, what measures,
methods, and mechanisms should be implemented to ensure the greatest
interoperability and least post-processing of the submitted data?
14. We also seek comment on establishing standards for reporting
coverage polygons for terrestrial fixed wireless broadband service. In
the 2017 Data Collection Improvement FNPRM, the Commission sought
comment on setting standards for mobile coverage polygons. Separately,
it adopted a set of standards for determining mobile coverage using a
propagation model for the Mobility Fund Phase-II (MF-II) LTE data
collection. If the Commission adopts standards for reporting mobile
broadband deployment, should we require terrestrial-fixed wireless
providers to report broadband deployment using similar standards? Are
there fundamental differences between fixed wireless and mobile
technologies that would caution against using mobile wireless standards
for fixed wireless deployment reporting (e.g., fixed wireless use of
fixed, high-powered antennas that could result in a different link
budget than for mobile
[[Page 43767]]
service, or the use of unlicensed spectrum by some fixed wireless
providers)? If so, would it be appropriate to adopt different standards
(e.g., probability of cell-edge throughput) or parameters (e.g., a
different utilization rate for unlicensed spectrum) for fixed wireless?
Further, what factors should Commission staff consider to independently
validate the fixed wireless mapping methodology (e.g., cell-site and
receive-site engineering and technical details and locations, RF
propagation characteristics, signal strength)?
15. We also seek comment on whether fixed broadband providers
should include latency levels along with the other parameters in
reporting their coverage polygons. Latency is the time it takes for a
data packet to travel across a network from one point on the network to
another. The Commission considers latency levels as relevant in the
provision of universal service support. If latency is to be included in
reporting fixed broadband coverage, how should it be included? For
instance, how and at what point in the network should the provider
measure latency? Would we need to be more specific than how we
considered latency in the context of awarding Connect America Fund
Phase II support or would the same approach be appropriate?
16. We seek comment on what steps the Commission can or should take
to support the production of high-quality data and ways the Commission
can provide incentives to improve the quality of the data filed. Are
there steps that fixed providers can take to ensure better quality
broadband deployment data and, if so, what will the cost of those steps
likely be? Does the technology deployed or the size of the fixed
provider matter? If so, how? Is there a size or type of fixed provider
that will be able to file high-quality data without any additional
support or added cost? Are there unique burdens on smaller fixed
providers that would not be burdens for larger fixed providers? In
general, what will the cost be on the fixed broadband industry to
produce reliable deployment data? Also, is there anything that can be
done to lessen reporting burdens on all filers as part of the new
collection, especially ways to harmonize filing procedures and
requirements from other collections to reduce duplication of efforts?
In addition, are there other relevant data that we should gather as
part of a new collection of broadband deployment data?
17. We emphasize that the introduction of crowdsourced data does
not alleviate a fixed provider's obligation to conduct thorough
assessments of service availability before submitting broadband
deployment data. We propose to use a variety of methods, including
audits and statistical analyses, to confirm that the fixed broadband
deployment data submitted by providers are accurate. Put simply, if a
location falls within the coverage polygon submitted by a fixed
provider, then it must either already receive fixed broadband service
or be capable of receiving such service within ten business days and
without extraordinary expense. We seek comment on the best method (or
mix of methods) to ensure the submission of accurate fixed broadband
deployment data, including the plans that USAC must develop for
corroborating and spot-checking data submitted by fixed providers. What
penalties would be appropriate upon a finding of inaccurate data and
should there be more severe penalties for chronic filers of bad data?
Should the Commission treat differently those coverage polygons
submitted by providers that have a certain number of public filings
disputing their accuracy? Is there an appropriate threshold or
methodology to identify unreliable filings that should be treated
differently, and if so, how should the Commission treat those filings?
ACA argues that providers should not be sanctioned for submitting
inaccurate data ``unless there is clear evidence the provider
intentionally and persistently did so.'' We seek comment on this
approach, as well as how to handle situations in which the filer is
negligent (but not intentional) in submitting inaccurate data.
18. The Digital Opportunity Data Collection will significantly
improve our understanding of broadband deployment, and we want to
ensure that its value is fully realized by the Commission,
stakeholders, and ratepayers. We therefore seek comment on additional
measures we can adopt to meet this objective. Can the maps and datasets
derived from the Digital Opportunity Data Collection be used in
connection with the other universal service programs, in particular E-
Rate and Rural Health Care, to the extent they provide support for
infrastructure build-out, to promote efficiency, minimize waste, and
help avoid duplicative funding within the Fund? If so, how? Should we
combine the Digital Opportunity Data Collection datasets with other
datasets, for example, locations where funding has been committed in
Commission and other federal agency programs, even where deployment may
not have occurred? We believe that the Digital Opportunity Data
Collection represents a unique opportunity for integrating related but
distinct data resources to produce a unified picture of broadband data.
What data would be appropriate to include in this effort and how can it
be used most effectively? What other issues should we consider as we
evaluate this possibility?
19. Improving Satellite Broadband Data. We seek comment on how, for
purposes of the Digital Opportunity Data Collection, we can improve
upon the existing satellite broadband data collection to reflect more
accurately current satellite broadband service availability. The
Commission has recognized there are issues with the quality of the
satellite broadband data that are currently reported under the existing
Form 477. For instance, according to currently reported data, satellite
service offering 25 Mbps/3 Mbps speeds is available to all but 0.03% of
the U.S. population. However, while satellite signal coverage may
enable operators to offer services to wide swaths of the country,
overall satellite capacity may limit the number of consumers that can
actually subscribe to satellite service at any one time. Given that the
coverage geographies reported by satellite providers based on satellite
beams are likely to remain larger than those reported by terrestrial
fixed providers based on their network facilities, we seek comment
generally on how to improve the satellite broadband data reported in
the new data collection. Geostationary orbit (GSO) satellites are
unique in that they have the relatively large beam coverage area over
which service is provided, have inherent flexibility in using wide-area
beams and spot beams, and face relative difficulty in adding new
capacity. For instance, given these characteristics of GSO satellite
service, should the Commission require GSO satellite providers to
report network capacity as well? Would additional information,
including the number and location of satellite beams, the capacity used
to provide service by individual satellite to consumers at various
speeds, and the number of subscribers served at those levels, improve
the quality and usefulness of the satellite broadband availability
data?
20. We also seek comment on whether we could rely on other data to
improve the reliability of the satellite broadband availability data
reported in the new data collection. For example, would examining the
presence of existing subscribers provide greater insight into where
satellite broadband service is available than does satellite beam
[[Page 43768]]
coverage data alone? Could we meaningfully validate a satellite
provider's availability data based on the presence of subscribers above
a de minimis level in the census tract in which the census block is
located? For instance, should we use an absolute number and/or
percentage of households or subscribers in a census tract? We seek
comment on these methods and any other analysis to obtain a more
meaningful representation of the deployment of satellite capacity in a
geographic area.
21. We also seek comment on whether there are any other limitations
that we should place on the reporting of fixed satellite broadband
service. Current fixed satellite broadband service relies on GSO
satellites, and customers' satellite earth stations therefore need a
clear view of the southern sky to connect to such services. Should
satellite broadband providers that rely on GSO satellites exclude from
their reported coverage polygons any area where terrain blocks a clear
view of their satellites (i.e., where it is not physically possible to
deliver the service)? We note that the Commission has recently
authorized several non-geostationary satellite constellations (NGSOs)
that contemplate providing low-earth-orbit, low latency satellite
broadband services in the future. What issues should be addressed for
these satellite services in the new data collection as they begin to be
offered?
2. Use of Crowdsourcing
22. In the Report and Order, the Commission directs USAC to begin
collecting information from state governments, including state public
utility commissions, and local and Tribal governmental entities, as
well as members of the public, about the accuracy of the coverage
polygons gathered from fixed providers and to make certain data
publicly available. In this section, we seek comment about steps the
Commission and USAC can take to make the best use of such data to
improve the quality of the service-availability dataset going forward.
23. At a high level, we propose that USAC track coverage disputes,
follow-up with providers to ascertain whether there is agreement that
there is a problem with the data and ensure that providers refile
updated and corrected data in a timely fashion. We propose that USAC
create a system to track complaints about the accuracy of fixed
broadband coverage polygons. This functionality could be similar to the
Commission's existing consumer-complaints database. Having a tracking
system would allow USAC to pass the complaints along to the appropriate
provider and track whether the person filing the complaint received a
response. In instances where the provider agrees that its original
filing was in error, USAC could track the error and ensure that the
provider corrects its data. Alternatively, USAC could simply publish
the complaints it receives and require providers to periodically check
complaints about their filings. Is this a reasonable burden to place on
providers? How could USAC efficiently track which of the complaints
should be and ultimately are addressed through data corrections?
24. We also seek comment on the appropriate time period (if any)
for fixed providers to respond to a complaint. ACA argues that it would
be ``onerous if a smaller provider had to respond immediately to each
and every submission from an individual or government entity'' and
recommends that small providers be allowed to account for any
inaccurate data at its next Digital Opportunity Data Collection filing.
Connected Nation recommends that there be ``a cyclical, scheduled
feedback process in which there are defined windows for receiving
feedback, analyzing and validating feedback, and updating the map after
feedback has been adjudicated.'' We seek comment on the best approach
to timing for the crowdsourcing process, not only for small providers
but for all filers.
25. We propose to have USAC collect the following data from
entities disputing coverage: The address of the location at which
coverage is disputed and/or its coordinates (latitude and longitude);
the fixed provider whose service coverage is in dispute; the download
and upload speeds available for subscription; the technology reported
at that location by the provider; and contact information from the
submitting party (email address and/or phone number). Are these types
of data appropriate for this collection and are there other types of
data USAC should ask for to make this collection an effective tool for
USAC, the Commission, industry, and the public? We also propose to
require that individuals disputing coverage certify that they have
requested service from the provider and that the provider either
refused, or failed, to provide service within the applicable 10-
business day period. Would this establish a reasonable threshold for
disputing coverage? Are there other requirements we could establish to
ensure that disputes raise a valid question about coverage in
individual locations? How should we handle disputes that do not meet
these criteria (such as those admitting availability but alleging that
a service falls short of expectations based on service provider's
reported coverage)? Would it be helpful to gather information about
nearby areas where service is available (if the individual knows)?
26. The Commission has noted that overall broadband deployment in
Indian country remains significantly behind deployment on non-Tribal
lands due to several long-recognized barriers to broadband deployment
on Tribal lands. Given these additional challenges, we recognize the
importance of Tribal participation in the Digital Opportunity Data
Collection's public feedback mechanism. We seek comment on how best to
incorporate input of Tribal governments on broadband coverage maps,
given the special importance of collecting accurate and complete
broadband availability information for Tribal lands. For example, we
propose to have USAC or Commission staff conduct outreach directly with
Tribal governments to facilitate their involvement in the dispute
process and to provide technical assistance to them as needed. We seek
comment on these proposals and how we could implement them most
effectively. We also seek comment on any additional issues specific to
Tribal governments that we should take into account in connection with
any disputes concerning coverage data. Finally, we seek comment on
whether we should expand these proposals to include other Tribal
entities, such as inter-Tribal organizations.
27. We seek comment about how quickly fixed providers should be
required to correct any data where they do not refute the alleged lack
of coverage. Should USAC require that fixed providers either establish
coverage or file updated coverage polygons within a specific number of
days following submission of an uncontested dispute? If so, what number
of days would provide a reasonable balance between the burden placed on
fixed providers and the need for policy-makers to have the most
accurate data possible? On the other hand, would it be overly
burdensome for fixed providers to re-file data addressing each
individual error, particularly if the provider's coverage is the
subject of multiple pending complaints? Should USAC allow for fixed
providers to batch any corrections into weekly or monthly updates, as
needed? How can USAC balance the need for corrected data against
provider burden? We note that NCTA proposes that fixed providers would
correct the data in the next filing opportunity, which could leave the
[[Page 43769]]
original data possibly in place for many months even after an agreement
that the original filing was in error. Is that approach reasonable?
28. When the public files a complaint about the fixed broadband
coverage polygons, there is a time lag between the date of the filing
under the new collection and the date that the complaint is filed. We
believe there are only very limited circumstances in which a provider
would have previously had broadband service of a given quality
(technology, upload speed and download speed) but removed it (e.g.,
copper retirement). Thus, if there is a complaint that the fixed
broadband coverage polygons are incorrect, we believe it is likely that
the data are incorrect for earlier time periods as well. Is this a
reasonable assumption and should we require providers to resubmit all
earlier datasets for the affected areas to conform to any corrections?
Doing so would provide a more accurate view on the evolution of
service-availability coverage over time. On the other hand, it will
also involve a greater burden for providers. In addition, it is unclear
whether the time-series data would be useful in targeting USF support.
We seek comment on the relative benefit (better time series data)
compared to the provider burden.
29. We also seek comment on what standards and processes the
Commission should establish to govern the resolution of cases in which
providers and the stakeholders disagree about whether the broadband
coverage polygons are correct--that is, whether service is actually
available at a given location. NTCA argues that crowdsourced reports
should not be treated the same as general consumer complaints,
requiring a provider response in all cases. NTCA suggests that
providers should be required to respond to reports or adjust their maps
only in situations where ``material trends develop in vetted
information that indicate a systemic problem with a provider's
reporting in a given area.'' Are these reasonable approaches? What
dispute resolution process would be appropriate? Providers should have
a period of time within which to refute any complaint and, in the
absence of a timely and compelling response, USAC could require the
fixed provider to submit a coverage polygon that excludes the disputed
location. What types of evidence would be appropriate for providers to
submit? What framework should the Commission establish to ensure that
USAC reliably and efficiently adjudicates conflicting claims in such
circumstances? What evidentiary standard should the Commission
establish to resolve such disputes: Preponderance of evidence, clear
and convincing evidence, or another standard? In situations indicating
pervasive reporting errors, bad faith, or a refusal to refile a
coverage polygon that has been found to contain an inaccurate location,
USAC could take additional steps, such as referring the matter to the
FCC for enforcement action. What remedies would be appropriate in such
an enforcement action? If one possibility were monetary forfeitures,
what would be an appropriate base forfeiture amount and what would be
appropriate increments in the case of repeated or more egregious
violations? Are there other approaches the Commission should take to
areas where there is disagreement?
30. We believe there could be instances of dispute between a member
of the public filing a complaint and a fixed provider where both
parties can credibly claim that they are correct. For example, a
consumer may find a fixed provider is not available in its building
because the building owner is not allowing that provider entry into the
building. If the excluded provider could meet the service-reporting
requirements (e.g., with respect to time to service), should the
Commission consider such a location as served by that provider or not?
Would it be beneficial to identify, as part of any tracking process for
public feedback on the data collection, instances where a provider is
willing and able to provide service but is not able to do so due to
circumstances beyond its control? Would USAC need to verify or validate
such claims and, if so, how? Or, in the alternative, should the
Commission require that providers remove from the coverage polygons
they file small areas to represent those buildings in which they are
prohibited from offering service for any reason?
31. Finally, we seek comment on whether the Commission should
direct USAC to accept the upload of bulk complaints data. We want to
avoid bad-faith or malicious challenges to coverage data, such as a
dispute to every address in a fixed provider's footprint via an
automated tool or bot. In order for this tool to be effective, it is
essential that we safeguard the integrity of the data submitted through
it. On the other hand, we can see there could be value in allowing
Tribal, local, or state governments to provide data in bulk where they
have already investigated and so want to consider whether and how to
permit USAC to allow for the collection of bulk data. Would
establishing a certification requirement, similar to what we have
proposed for individuals, help to ensure the validity of bulk challenge
data?
32. To address these issues, should the Commission limit
permissible bulk filings to certain authenticated users, such as states
or state commissions, local governments, and Tribal entities? If so,
how should it approach authentication? What entities should be entitled
to become authenticated users--for example, should the Commission limit
it to just state government entities? Are there parts of state
governments, like public-utility commissions, or mapping or broadband
offices, that would be more likely to provide meaningful input? Should
USAC track and resolve disputes involving bulk complaints in the same
manner as individual complaints? Or, in the alternative, should USAC
accept complaints as accurate and shift the burden of proof onto
providers to submit convincing data to refute the crowdsourced data? We
seek comment on these issues.
3. Incorporating Location Information Into the Digital Opportunity Data
Collection
33. In the accompanying Report and Order, we adopt the reporting of
coverage polygons for fixed-broadband services, a step that will result
in more precise deployment data. Parties have correctly pointed out,
however, that simply knowing what parts of a census block lack
broadband service does not provide enough information by itself to
identify the specific locations within that census block that lack
fixed broadband availability. We agree that there are likely benefits
to incorporating nationwide location data into the Digital Opportunity
Data Collection and we propose to adopt such an approach, informed by
comments on how USAC can collect and incorporate such data. What data
does USAC need and how could it get access to them? We believe that
broadband coverage polygons submitted by service providers could be
overlaid on nationwide location data in order to precisely identify the
homes and small businesses that have and do not have access to
broadband services, and seek comment on this view.
34. We note that the first step in incorporating location data is
to establish a process where all broadband-serviceable locations (e.g.,
houses, businesses, structures) are mapped using a single methodology,
providing a harmonized reference point for fixed broadband reporting.
Toward that end, the Broadband Mapping Coalition is in the process of
testing a ``Broadband Serviceable Location Fabric'' to demonstrate the
viability of a location-
[[Page 43770]]
based proposal. The Broadband Mapping Coalition's testing represents a
concrete effort to identify the issues facing USAC in moving to a
location-based collection.
35. We propose to create and integrate a broadband-serviceable
location tool into the Digital Opportunity Data Collection. As an
initial matter, we seek comment on Alexicon's claim that a broad
definition of location lowers both the reporting burden for providers
and the underlying cost of identifying locations. We also seek comment
on what kinds of locations we should include as broadband-serviceable.
For example, we could designate a parcel as the definition of a
location on the theory that a fixed provider that offers service to one
part of the parcel would be willing to serve anywhere on that parcel.
We seek comment on how to define the location of a parcel (e.g., as the
centroid of a parcel or as the location of a building on a parcel).
Alternatively, we could determine that a broadband addressable location
should be defined as a building. The Broadband Mapping Coalition work
has shown that it is generally possible to identify individual
buildings as locations. We note, however, that there can be multiple
buildings on a parcel and question whether it would be advisable to
treat each of those buildings as a distinct location. We believe a
provider is likely to run a single connection (drop) from its network
to, for example, a farm, rather than individual connections to all of
the structures on the parcel (e.g., the farmhouse and each garage,
barn, chicken coop, storage shed, etc.). We seek comment on
alternatives for defining a broadband-serviceable location.
36. Should we decide that, for residential users, the location
would be the individual housing unit? For residential Multi-Tenant
Environments (e.g., apartment buildings), this could mean treating each
individual apartment or unit as a separate broadband-serviceable
location. We do not believe this approach is appropriate for
determining fixed broadband coverage in a Multi-Tenant Environment--
fixed providers likely would not offer service only to some units in a
Multi-Tenant Environment. Additionally, we are concerned that the added
complexity--far more locations and the need to differentiate not just
latitude and longitude, but also potentially altitude--would outweigh
any benefits. We seek comment on this assumption.
37. With regard to defining a location, we propose to have the
database record a single point, defined by latitude and longitude, for
that location. We anticipate that this would be the coordinates of a
building on a parcel. We believe that recording each location as a
single point has an advantage over reporting the outlines of each
building (i.e., a polygon for each location), the latter of which will
increase the difficulty of creating the database and the amount of data
required, without meaningfully improving the quality of the database.
We seek comment on this approach.
38. We also seek comment on how we would approach the quality of
such a broadband-serviceable location database. We note that there are
different types of errors possible in such a database, for example
incorrectly counting a structure that does not need a broadband
connection as a broadband-serviceable location, such as an abandoned
house or a shed. Including such locations might lead us to mistakenly
direct USF support to a location that does not need broadband service.
Another type of error could be to exclude locations that should be
included, such as a home in a heavily forested area that does not
appear on satellite imagery. Such missed locations would not appear in
the data collection at all and could be excluded from any USF support.
Finally, there also could be errors about the characteristics of a
location, for example, designating a residential location as a business
or identifying the wrong building from among several on a given
property. We seek comment on how best to account for these and other
possible challenges in building an accurate location-based database.
39. We note that there are a limited number of data sources against
which USAC could check such a dataset. The U.S. Census Bureau publishes
block-level data, including the number of housing units, but only every
ten years and Census data do not generally include business locations.
We seek comment on whether the less granular county-level housing
estimates the Census publishes yearly could be used as a data source
for dataset verification. Furthermore, if we define a location as a
parcel or building (rather than a housing unit), we would not expect
the counts to match the Census data. The National Address Database and
Open Address Database each provide a list of addresses and point
locations for areas where they have coverage. Neither is a complete
nationwide dataset, though they could be useful for checking areas
where they have data. Each of these datasets has challenges, however.
For example, the data in the National Address Database do not appear to
be updated on a regular schedule and often have multiple points for a
given address (e.g., from state, county and local government), making
it hard to get a count of points in a given area. We seek comment on
whether or how we can make use of such data sources. We also seek input
on whether there are other sources we should be aware of that could be
useful as a check of a broadband-addressable location database.
40. As an alternative, we could take a statistically valid sample
of the data points as a way to keep the database updated and accurate.
We seek comment on how to stratify such a sample (are there distinct
categories in the data--urban, suburban, rural, residential, business,
Tribal, non-Tribal--that warrant distinct samples?). We also seek
comment about how to evaluate the quality of the sampled data. Is it
sufficient to look at satellite imagery or would we need to inspect
locations in person?
41. In addition, the Commission must consider the level of quality
that it seeks to attain in using any database. How should the
Commission consider the trade-off between the time to improve the
database's accuracy against the risks posed by any inaccuracies in the
data? Would any of these approaches or sources identified above, or
others, be helpful in determining particular types of errors in the
location database? Should we incorporate public feedback, as we are
doing with regard to broadband service availability polygons, in order
to improve the accuracy of such a broadband-serviceable location
database? And if so, how should we incorporate that data effectively?
42. With regard to the Broadband Mapping Coalition's proposal to
integrate location data into the Digital Opportunity Data Collection,
we seek comment on the use of two distinct data products used by the
Broadband Mapping Coalition: a database of broadband-serviceable
locations and a ``lookup'' tool for integrating provider addresses data
into the locations database. We seek comment on whether the lookup tool
would be necessary given our adoption of availability-map reporting in
the accompanying Report and Order. In other words, if fixed providers
have invested the resources to create accurate polygons that depict the
areas where their service is available, is an address-based lookup
necessary at all? In the event such a lookup is necessary, should USAC
be responsible for creating that lookup? And if USAC does develop a
lookup, how can it ensure its accuracy? The Broadband
[[Page 43771]]
Mapping Coalition has noted that there are reliability problems with
geocoders, particularly in rural areas. What steps can USAC take to
ensure that this lookup avoids some of the pitfalls the Broadband
Mapping Coalition has observed? For example, matching a provider's
address data to the Broadband Mapping Coalition's address data might
require matching several data fields, such as the street number and
name, any prefix or suffix, the city or town, state, and zip code, each
with substantial possible variations. Should USAC accept only strict
matches in order to avoid making mistakes, such as suggesting that a
provider offers service in a location where it does not because of a
too-loose matching approach? Is the risk greater of accepting low-
quality matches, that is, identifying that service is available when it
is not, or in rejecting too many matches for failing to meet quality
criteria, potentially understating providers' reach? If USAC is
matching only a relatively small fraction of provider addresses to the
Broadband Mapping Coalition's database, should it be USAC's
responsibility to improve the lookup or the providers' responsibility
to improve their source data?
43. The Broadband Mapping Coalition pilot also raises several
methodological and technical questions. For example, the Broadband
Mapping Coalition chose which data sources to use, including
negotiating the data rights associated with those sources; the fields
from those data sources used to help make determinations about what
constitutes a location in the database; and the logic used. For
purposes of its pilot program, the Broadband Mapping Coalition also
established, for example, a method for determining if a single
structure that spans multiple parcels is a row house that should be
split into multiple locations and how to choose which building location
to use as part of the database, when there are multiple buildings on a
parcel, or whether there are certain circumstances when one might have
more than one building, such as in a trailer park. Are there
determinations made by the Broadband Mapping Coalition as part of its
pilot that the Commission should approach differently?
44. We also seek comment on whether, when, and how, after
establishing a location-based fabric, USAC should implement
incorporating the fabric into the Digital Opportunity Data Collection.
We seek comment on USTelecom's proposal that the creation of a
location-based fabric run in parallel with the establishment of the
online portal for our polygon-based approach. Is this a reasonable
approach or would it be more reasonable to adopt a different transition
time for implementation? Will collecting locations for use as part of
the Digital Opportunity Data Collection impose additional burdens on
filers, especially smaller providers, and (if so) would such burdens be
outweighed by the benefits of using locations as part of the new
collection? In addition, ACA argues that fixed providers not accepting
Universal Service support should not be required to ``publicly disclose
individual location information since such information is considered to
be competitively-sensitive.'' We seek comment on ACA's proposal.
45. In addition, we seek comment on the extent to which any
location-based database should be fully accessible by the public.
Should the full dataset be made available to the public or just the
aggregate results from the filings? To what extent should such location
information be shared with all providers? Would full disclosure aid the
Commission and USAC in gathering location-specific information from the
public? Would securing such rights lead to higher costs for the
Commission than for the Broadband Mapping Coalition? Are there some
data sources or fields that should not be made public? Should members
of the public be granted access to the actual database? Should there be
restrictions on who should be granted such access (e.g., governmental
entities, other providers)? We seek comment on these issues.
B. Improving Mobile Broadband and Voice Data
46. We seek comment on incorporating mobile wireless voice and
broadband coverage into the Digital Opportunity Data Collection and
what additional steps the Commission should take to obtain more
accurate and reliable mobile broadband deployment data. Obtaining
accurate mobile broadband deployment data is challenging because
measuring performance on mobile broadband networks is inherently
variable even though coverage is generally reliable. Mobile network
speed at a particular location and the coverage area of any specific
cell site can vary depending on a wide variety of factors, including:
(1) The spectrum band employed; (2) cell traffic loading and network
capacity in different locations; (3) the availability and quality of
cell site backhaul; (4) the capability of consumers' devices; (5)
whether a consumer is using a device indoors or outdoors; (6) terrain
and the presence of obstacles between a consumer's device and the
provider's nearest cell site (e.g., buildings, trees, and other local
structures); and (7) weather conditions. This inherent variability has
two dimensions--temporal and spatial. For example, a consumer's handset
may not receive a strong enough signal at a given location to maintain
a reliable broadband speed, or the network may be overloaded at one
moment, and then suddenly acquire a signal strong enough, or the
network traffic load lightens enough, to maintain a connection at
speeds of 5 Mbps or more. This makes the measurement of mobile
broadband service at any specific location complex, as many factors can
affect a user's experience, making it difficult to develop a coverage
map that provides the exact mobile coverage and speed that a consumer
experiences. Although no mobile broadband map will consistently reflect
consumer experience with complete accuracy, wireless service providers
must improve the quality of the data they submit.
47. Standardized Predictive Propagation Maps. In the 2017 Data
Collection Improvement FNPRM, the Commission sought comment on
requiring the submission of coverage maps generated by propagation
modeling software using standardized parameters for 4G LTE and later-
generation technologies. It also sought comment on whether to specify
possible eligible models and to standardize to some extent the output
of those models and certain input parameters, with the goal of allowing
more meaningful comparisons among providers' mobile broadband
deployment. The Commission asked, for instance, whether it should
require deployment maps to represent coverage at median speeds as well
as speeds at the cell edge and, if so, how it should determine those
speeds. The Commission inquired about a range of potential input
parameters, including: (1) The location of cells in decimal degrees
latitude and longitude; (2) channel bandwidth in megahertz; (3) signal
strength; (4) signal quality with signal to noise ratio; (5) cell
loading factors; and (6) terrain provided at a minimum resolution of
three arc-seconds.
48. In response to the 2017 Data Collection Improvement FNPRM,
several commenters expressed support for requiring providers to submit
coverage maps based on standardized technical parameters. AT&T, for
example, recommended requiring parameters ``with a standard cell edge
probability of attaining specific download speeds for each technology
(3G/4G, 4G LTE and 5G),'' and a ``standard cell loading factor based on
the geographic service area (e.g., 30% for rural areas; 50% for
[[Page 43772]]
urban/suburban areas).'' AT&T further argued that the reporting of
other parameters, such as signal strength and clutter factors, was
unnecessary. The City of New York supported standardized parameters for
median and edge speeds and stated that a median download speed of 10
Mbps with an edge speed of 3 Mbps ``may be sufficient for current 4G
LTE deployments, but is unlikely to be sufficient for future-generation
deployments.'' Deere & Company commented that propagation models should
reflect ``a signal strength of -85 dBm RSSI (Relative Signal Strength
Indicator),'' because a signal strength parameter would ``accurately
[reveal] where service quality is insufficient.'' Other commenters
urged the Commission to adopt the same parameters that it adopted for
data collected in the Mobility Fund Phase II (MF-II) proceeding.
49. In 2017, in the MF-II proceeding, the Commission separately
instituted a new, one-time collection of data to determine the
deployment of 4G LTE for purposes of establishing the areas eligible
for universal service support in the MF-II auction. Broadly consistent
with an industry consensus proposal, the Commission standardized a
number of technical parameters for the data collection to be used for
MF-II. In December 2018, the Commission suspended the subsequent phase
of the MF-II challenge process, in which providers that filed coverage
maps and data regarding their 4G LTE coverage could respond to
challenges, and launched an investigation into potential violations of
MF-II challenge process rules by one or more major providers. The
investigation remains ongoing.
50. We ask commenters to refresh the record on the potential use of
RF signal prediction, including the mutual use (by the Commission and
stakeholders) of a standardized RF propagation prediction model, and
standardized coverage maps for mobile services. We observe that at
least one other national regulator is considering a standardized RF
propagation prediction method as a basis for verifying geographic
coverage. Commenters should specifically discuss their experience in
the MF-II proceeding. Do commenters believe that requiring the
submission of coverage maps using standardized RF propagation model(s)
and parameters was or would be useful in demonstrating mobile broadband
coverage? What insights should the Commission draw from the
standardized parameters it established in that proceeding? Do
commenters view standardized RF signal strength prediction and
technical parameters regarding download speed, cell loading,
probability of coverage or confidence intervals as sufficient to
demonstrate coverage? If not, what additional parameters would generate
better data that will allow meaningful comparisons of coverage between
providers? Should the Commission, for example, specify an upload speed
parameter? Should it specify a standardized signal strength level?
Alternatively, should the Commission establish fewer or different
parameters? Would 5G technology require different standardized
parameters? Given that cell traffic loading and network capacity varies
with time and in different locations, how representative of loading do
commenters view the 30% loading factor for rural areas established in
the context of the MF-II proceeding as compared to standard network
loading conditions at various locations? Should we adopt a higher
standard loading factor for urban areas? Should we instead require
mobile wireless service providers to maintain and report historical
cell loading over a given reporting period?
51. Coverage models predict speed and coverage using assumptions
that are based on a combination of geographical and network
information, including the location of network infrastructure and the
power and capacity of network equipment. Although providers continually
refine models by adding additional data, the inherent variability of
mobile broadband performance will always affect their ability to
predict an individual consumer's experience at a particular time and
location. We seek commenters' views on how best to specify technical
parameters that would account for the variability of mobile broadband
performance. Do commenters agree that all parameters must be subject to
a specified probability standard or confidence interval? Assuming a
probability factor is necessary for describing coverage, do commenters
view the 80% probability factor at the cell edge established in the
context of the MF-II proceeding as reasonable or would a higher
probability parameter such as 90% be more appropriate?
52. GIS Data Format. We ask commenters to refresh the record on
whether providers should submit coverage maps as vector-formatted or
raster-formatted GIS data. In the 2017 Data Collection Improvement
FNPRM, the Commission sought comment on requiring the submission of
raster data, noting that because deployment maps are typically
developed in raster format and then converted into vector-formatted GIS
data, the submission of raster data would appear to be less burdensome
for filers than the submission of vector data. The Commission also
stated that, unlike vector data, raster data would allow the Commission
to ``check the resolution of the submissions and to apply standard
parameters, including simplified outputs and smoothing, when converting
the rasters to shapefiles for analysis.'' Some commenters supporting
such an approach argued that allowing the submission of raster data
instead of vector data would help reduce the burdens associated with
broadband data collection by allowing providers to skip the step of
converting deployment data into vector format. We seek additional
comment on whether requiring the submission of raster-formatted rather
than vector-formatted data would improve the ability to verify the
accuracy of deployment data, and what file format is the least
burdensome. Would raster-formatted or vector-formatted data be
preferable if the Commission decides to require providers to submit
standardized coverage maps? Should the Commission require, or in the
alternative, permit filers to submit data using another file format,
such as ESRI Geodatabase? Additionally, we seek comment as to what GIS
standards, file formats, and technical specifications should be used to
facilitate the most efficient and effective collection of data.
53. Infrastructure Information. We propose to require that, upon
the Commission's request, providers submit infrastructure information
sufficient to allow for verification of the accuracy of providers'
broadband data. A growing number of parties have suggested that mobile
broadband coverage maps are inaccurate and have urged the Commission to
implement mechanisms to verify provider data. To date, however, the
Commission has not had the information necessary to examine the
methodologies used by providers in generating coverage data, or whether
these propagation models reflect actual consumer experience. In light
of issues raised about the accuracy of coverage maps even after the
Commission standardized some technical parameters in the MF-II
proceeding, we anticipate that collecting accurate and recent network
infrastructure information would be necessary to independently verify
providers' data. Therefore, we propose to require that the provider
submit, upon Commission request, the following information: (1) The
geographic location of cell sites; (2) the height (above ground and sea
level), type, and directional orientation of all transmit antennas at
each cell site; (3)
[[Page 43773]]
operating radiated transmit power of the radio equipment at each cell
site; (4) the capacity and type of backhaul used at each cell site; (5)
all deployed spectrum bands and channel bandwidth in megahertz; (6)
throughput and associated required signal strength and signal to noise
ratio; (7) cell loading factors; (8) deployed technologies (e.g., LTE
Release 13) and (9) any terrain and land use information used in
deriving clutter factors or other losses associated with each cell
site. We propose to require that a provider submit its infrastructure
information within 30 days of receiving a request from the Commission.
We ask for commenters' views on our proposal.
54. At the outset, we recognize that providers may view the
infrastructure information we propose to collect as commercially
sensitive information and we agree that such information should be
treated as highly confidential. We seek comment on this view. Do
commenters agree that collecting network infrastructure information
would be necessary to verify the accuracy of provider coverage map
filings? If not, without such data, what mechanisms are available to
validate that providers' coverage maps reflect reasonable predictions
of consumer experience? Do commenters view the infrastructure
information included in our proposal as sufficient to evaluate
providers' mobile coverage and speed claims? If not, we ask commenters
to discuss any additional infrastructure information we should require.
Alternatively, does our proposal include any information that is not
necessary? We seek comment on the potential burden associated with
requiring such information, particularly for small providers, and on
steps we could take to minimize the potential burden.
55. Supplement Data Collections with On-The-Ground Data. In
addition to seeking comment on whether to require the submission of
coverage maps based on standardized parameters, the 2017 Data
Collection Improvement FNPRM sought comment on whether to require the
submission of ``on-the-ground'' data as part of the broadband data
collection. The Commission asked whether collecting on-the-ground data
from providers, such as drive test data or tests taken from stationary
points, would allow it to better evaluate consumer experience. It noted
that collection of on-the-ground data could supplement the model-based
data, improving the understanding of how the theoretical data relates
to actual consumer experience. The Commission asked whether it should
require speed test data, how it could impose such a requirement without
being unduly burdensome to small providers, and whether providers
generate data of this kind during their ordinary course of business.
56. We ask commenters to refresh the record on these questions. In
their comments on the 2017 Data Collection Improvement FNPRM, some
commenters supported a requirement that providers supplement their
current broadband data with on-the-ground data. Other providers opposed
collecting on-the-ground data; they argued that such a requirement
would impose unnecessary burdens on providers, especially since the
Commission already had access to such information from third-party
providers. Some also argued that speed test data generally had limited
value given variations in providers' speed test methodologies. What
steps could the Commission take to address concerns about the
meaningfulness and statistical validity of providers' on-the-ground
data? Should the Commission specify the methodology that providers must
use to collect and provide on-the-ground mobile network performance
data? If so, what parameters should the Commission establish for
specific methodologies? Should the Commission consider requiring use of
a specific set of measurement equipment or software applications
enabling measurement of mobile broadband speeds? What measurement
scenarios (i.e., indoor, outdoor, in-vehicle, stationary, mobile,
height, etc.) should the Commission specify? To what extent do
providers already collect any such data in their ordinary course of
business?
57. Crowdsourced Data. Consistent with the public feedback
mechanism we adopt for fixed providers in the Digital Opportunity Data
Collection, we propose to collect similar crowdsourced data for
purposes of improving the quality of mobile broadband deployment data
and seek comment on how to incorporate such data into data quality
analysis. Crowdsourced data are generated by mobile broadband users who
voluntarily download speed test apps on their mobile devices. The
Commission has used crowdsourced data in assessing service availability
and in various Commission reports. For example, in its most recent
Broadband Deployment Report, the Commission supplemented Form 477 data
with Ookla crowdsourced speed test data in assessing the deployment of
advanced telecommunications capability for mobile services.
Crowdsourced data can serve as an inexpensive tool to validate speed
and coverage claims by providing independent measurements of actual
consumer experience on a mobile network across a variety of times and
locations. Crowdsourced data have certain limitations, however. For
example, speed tests that consumers usually initiate manually and
perform only at specific times or places may introduce bias into the
data and provide a less accurate picture of overall broadband
performance. More generally, the methods by which different speed test
apps collect data vary and may not use techniques that control for
geographic location, type of device, whether the test is performed
indoors or outdoors, and traffic along the network path not controlled
by the wireless provider. In addition, there may be a small sample
problem with respect to some crowdsourced data, especially in rural
areas where there may sometimes be very few speed tests. And, given the
probabilistic nature of mobile wireless service in general, we note
that crowdsourced data may not indicate an inaccuracy in the data from
the coverage map as much as a difference in conditions.
58. We seek comment on developments in crowdsourcing applications
and on ways in which the Commission can make greater use of third-party
crowdsourced data to create more accurate and reliable mobile broadband
maps. While we recognize the potential limitations, we nonetheless
believe that crowdsourced data can serve as an important supplement to
the information we collect from providers by independently measuring
mobile broadband speed and availability. We ask parties to discuss
potential sources of crowdsourced data as well as alternatives to
crowdsourced data that can provide similar benefits. How should the
Commission make greater use of third-party crowdsourced data? How
should the Commission determine which data to use, what limitations
affect the use of such data, and how can they be resolved? How can we
best make use of the Commission's own crowdsourcing application--the
Measuring Mobile Broadband speed test? Are there particular areas, such
as rural areas, Tribal areas, or urban areas, or situations, such as
hours of peak capacity, in which the Measuring Mobile Broadband speed
test app would perform particularly well? How else can the FCC's own
crowdsourcing application be better used? How can the Commission make
greater use of crowdsourced data collected by local, state, or Tribal
governmental entities? What steps should the Commission take to ensure
that the crowdsourced data it uses are statistically valid and provide
[[Page 43774]]
accurate information? How should the Commission handle cases in which
crowdsourced data show that service is unavailable in an area where a
provider claims broadband availability?
59. Sampling Methodologies. We also seek comment on other potential
approaches for verifying submitted mobile broadband deployment data.
Should the Commission establish a structured sampling process to verify
the information it collects from providers? The Commission has used
third-party structured sample data to assess service availability in
its analysis of the mobile wireless industry. Structured sample data
help ensure statistical validity by controlling for the location and
time of the tests as well as for the devices used in the test and may
be collected using stationary indoor or outdoor tests or drive tests.
But structured sample data can be expensive and involve judgments about
when and where to run tests. Structured sample data may not include
sufficient testing at indoor locations or in rural areas. We seek
comment on whether the Commission should expand the use of structured
sample data or even establish its own structured sample testing program
to verify provider filings regarding mobile broadband coverage and
speed? If so, then how can the Commission create a program that will
produce a rich and useful dataset?
60. In response to the 2017 Data Collection Improvement FNPRM, the
California PUC supported the Commission's adoption of a structured
sample approach. It argued that collecting drive test data at the state
level provides ``the most effective measure of actual mobile broadband
service speeds.'' It suggested that the Commission designate a defined
set of points nationwide and contract with a third party to deliver
speed test data from those locations. We seek commenters' views on such
an approach. Assuming the Commission establishes its own testing
process, how should it design a process that will produce a useful
dataset? Should the Commission establish partnerships to collect drive
test information? For example, should the Commission explore creating a
pilot program with the United States Postal Service or other delivery
organization with a nationwide fleet, to gather mobile performance
data? Under such an approach, postal trucks could be equipped to
collect mobile deployment and speed data as they travel on their routes
in rural areas. We seek comment on the feasibility of creating such a
program. What other partnerships should the Commission explore?
61. Drones and Other Testing Technologies. We seek comment on the
use of aerial drone testing, and other technologies, such as
satellites, to verify data accuracy, with a particular emphasis on
using such technologies to conduct sample audits of provider-submitted
mobile deployment data. For example, drone testing, like drive testing,
measures signal strength and coverage using various software solutions
(e.g., crowdsourcing and network performance applications) loaded onto
smartphones mounted to a testing platform. Service providers have begun
using drones to measure coverage and signal strength of their networks,
demonstrating that drones are a viable mobile network performance
testing method. We note that both drive and drone testing have
significant limitations due to the inherent probabilistic nature of
mobile network performance testing.
62. We seek comment generally on the cost elements of drone and
other types of testing technologies and the relative contribution of
each element to overall cost. For instance, drones may need fuel or
battery replacements more frequently than vehicles used in drive
testing platforms. Are these costs significant? How do roadway density,
population, weather and natural and man-made terrain features affect
the cost of drone testing? How does flight duration affect costs? Are
there cost-effective ways to mitigate survey time? What proportion of
costs are attributable to the drone operator? What other costs are
significant?
63. We also seek comment on unique barriers that may affect the
usefulness and practicality of conducting network performance testing
using drones and other technologies. USAC recently performed drone and
drive tests to measure mobile wireless coverage and quality in Puerto
Rico post-hurricanes. USAC's initial analysis shows that drone and
drive-tests can provide a comparable picture of network coverage and
service quality in a given area, although drone tests are subject to
specific variables that the test design should take into account. What
specific testing parameters should apply to drone data collection
compared to drive testing, satellites, and crowdsourcing to ensure
uniform results across methods? Are there any specific technical
requirements (e.g., antenna, on-board processing) necessary to ensure
uniform results across testing methods? Are there places and/or terrain
where specific technologies are either uniquely suited to surveying or,
alternatively, currently unable to perform a valid network performance
test, regardless of the cost?
64. We seek comment on future technological advances that may
increase drone efficiency. Are advanced drone technologies ready and
available today, at sufficiently low costs, to use widely? If not, what
is a likely timeframe for their widespread adoption? Finally, we seek
comment on whether there are other technologies in addition to drones
that can be used to measure signal strength and data accuracy.
65. Availability of Mobile Broadband Deployment Data. Finally, we
seek comment on ways we can make mobile broadband deployment data more
available to the public. Currently, the Commission makes available on
its website both coverage shapefiles, by provider and technology, as
well as the deployment data represented in those shapefiles
disaggregated to census blocks, based on two different methodologies.
In addition, the Commission has created a limited number of
visualizations of the mobile deployment data including a map of
nationwide mobile wireless coverage and a map of LTE coverage by number
of providers. As the Commission works to improve its data collection,
we seek comment on whether we should provide additional visualizations
of mobile broadband deployment data. Now that we have determined in the
Report and Order that, going forward, we will publish nationwide
provider-specific coverage maps that depict minimum advertised or
expected speed data, what additional maps or other visualizations would
help provide useful information to the public? Should we make this data
available to the public in any other formats? We seek comment on how
the proposals described in this Second FNPRM would affect the
Commission's ability to provide additional visualizations of mobile
broadband data.
66. Changes to the Collection of Mobile Voice and Broadband
Subscription Data. We seek comment on other changes to improve the
collection of subscription data. For example, should we combine the
mobile voice and broadband subscription data filing requirements?
Consolidating these data could provide a better understanding of the
marketplace, as consumers increasingly subscribe to both broadband and
voice service. In the current form, providers are required to include
subscriptions to mobile broadband plans purchased ``on a standalone
basis, as an add-on feature to a voice subscription, or bundled with a
voice subscription.'' We propose to require providers to report whether
[[Page 43775]]
subscriptions are data only, voice only, or provided as a bundle. These
data could provide us with a better understanding of whether and how
consumers purchase and use mobile services, in addition to allowing us
to continue to track those who only subscribe to voice service.
67. We propose to require facilities-based mobile broadband and/or
voice service providers to report whether subscriptions are enterprise,
government, wholesale, prepaid retail, or postpaid retail. These data
serve an important purpose in understanding the marketplace for mobile
services, that aid in competitive analysis, particularly in transaction
review. Should we require providers to submit data about Internet of
Things (IoT) or Machine-to-Machine (M2M) subscriptions? Do these
subscriptions make up enough of the marketplace for mobile services
that they should be tracked? Would a combined subscription filing--as
opposed to the current separate filings--likely reduce or increase the
burden on filers? We also propose to eliminate the requirement to
report mobile broadband subscription data by minimum upload and
download speed given that this information is already submitted with
broadband deployment data.
68. We also seek comment on how best to assign prepaid and reseller
subscribers to a particular census tract. CTIA observes that, while
place of primary use address is technically feasible for postpaid-
customer subscription data at the census-tract level, the primary place
of use methodology is ``challenging for mobile providers when applied
to prepaid customer and reseller data.'' CTIA states that the Mobile
Telecommunications Sourcing Act, which defines primary place of use,
does not apply to prepaid customers, as those customers are taxed at
the point of sale, and using place of primary use for prepaid customers
is likely infeasible. We seek comment regarding how best to assign
prepaid subscribers to census tracts, based on CTIA's concern. In the
Report and Order, we require mobile providers, on an interim basis, to
assign prepaid and resold mobile voice and broadband subscribers to a
census tract, based on their telephone number. Is there a methodology
that can measure more accurately where these customers use their
service, particularly for those mobile broadband subscribers that may
only have an IP address? Should we require providers to attribute
prepaid subscribers to the census tract where they purchased the
service? Is this approach feasible, and does it increase the accuracy
of the data? Could mobile providers submit aggregated data that samples
where the device is primarily used without raising privacy or other
concerns? Is there another consistent methodology that could be applied
to postpaid and prepaid subscribers that accurately attributes those
subscribers to a census tract?
C. Sunsetting the Form 477 Broadband Deployment Data Collection
69. Over the long term, we expect the Digital Opportunity Data
Collection will largely displace the Form 477 process, at least with
respect to the collection of granular deployment data. We therefore
seek comment on discontinuing the broadband deployment data collection
that is part of Form 477 at some point after the new collection has
been established. Under what conditions would eliminating that part of
the broadband data collection be appropriate? What would be an
appropriate timetable for sunsetting both the mobile and fixed Form 477
broadband data collections? Are there other portions of the Form 477
collection we should consider sunsetting as well?
IV. Initial Regulatory Flexibility Analysis
70. As required by the Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980, as
amended (RFA), the Commission has prepared this Initial Regulatory
Flexibility Analysis (IRFA) of the possible significant economic impact
on a substantial number of small entities from the policies and rules
proposed in this Second FNPRM. The Commission requests written public
comment on this IRFA. Comments must be identified as responses to the
IRFA and must be filed by the deadlines for comments on the Second
FNPRM. The Commission will send a copy of the Second FNPRM, including
this IRFA, to the Chief Counsel for Advocacy of the Small Business
Administration (SBA). In addition, the Second FNPRM and IRFA (or
summaries thereof) will be published in the Federal Register.
A. Need for, and Objectives of, the Proposed Rules
71. The Commission continues its ongoing efforts to ensure that the
new collection for fixed broadband deployment reporting and
crowdsourcing of that reporting as adopted in the Report and Order and
the Form 477 collection will evolve to align with changes to
technology, markets, and policy needs. In the Second FNPRM, the
Commission raises issues for consideration and seeks comment on
additional steps we can take to obtain more accurate and reliable fixed
and mobile broadband deployment data. The probabilistic nature of
mobile networks and the many factors that impact a user's experience
make it difficult to predict with precision mobile coverage and speed
or to develop a coverage map that always provides predictability for
consumers. Although no mobile broadband map will consistently reflect
consumer experience with complete accuracy, we recognize that we must
take steps to improve the quality of the data we collect. Therefore, we
seek further comment on the tradeoffs among different potential
approaches for developing more accurate and reliable mobile broadband
data. We also seek comment on additional technical standards for fixed
broadband reporting as part of the Digital Opportunity Data Collection,
steps that USAC and the Commission can take to make the best use of
crowdsourced data, and ways that we can incorporate the filing of
location-specific fixed broadband deployment data in the Digital
Opportunity Data Collection.
B. Legal Basis
72. The proposed action is authorized pursuant to Sections 1-5,
201-206, 214, 218-220, 251, 252, 254, 256, 303(r), 332, 403, and 405 of
the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. 151-155, 201-206,
214, 218-220, 251, 252, 254, 256, 303(r), 332, 403, and 405.
C. Description and Estimate of the Number of Small Entities to Which
the Proposed Rules Would Apply
73. 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, if adopted. The RFA generally defines
the term ``small entity'' as having the same meaning as the terms
``small business,'' ``small organization,'' and ``small governmental
jurisdiction.'' In addition, the term ``small business'' has the same
meaning as the term ``small-business concern'' under the Small Business
Act. A small-business concern'' is one which: (1) Is independently
owned and operated; (2) is not dominant in its field of operation; and
(3) satisfies any additional criteria established by the Small Business
Administration (SBA).
1. Total Small Entities
74. Small Businesses, Small Organizations, Small Governmental
Jurisdictions. Our actions, over time, may affect small entities that
are not easily categorized at present. We therefore describe here, at
the outset,
[[Page 43776]]
three broad groups of small entities that could be directly affected
herein. First, while there are industry-specific size standards for
small businesses that are used in the regulatory flexibility analysis,
according to data from the SBA's Office of Advocacy, in general a small
business is an independent business having fewer than 500 employees.
These types of small businesses represent 99.9% of all businesses in
the United States, which translates to 28.8 million businesses.
75. Next, the type of small entity described as 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 August 2016, there were approximately 356,494 small
organizations based on registration and tax data filed by nonprofits
with the Internal Revenue Service (IRS).
76. Finally, the small entity described as a ``small governmental
jurisdiction'' is defined generally as ``governments of cities,
counties, towns, townships, villages, school districts, or special
districts, with a population of less than fifty thousand.'' U.S. Census
Bureau data from the 2012 Census of Governments indicate that there
were 90,056 local governmental jurisdictions consisting of general
purpose governments and special purpose governments in the United
States. Based on this data, we estimate that at least 49,316 local
government jurisdictions fall in the category of ``small governmental
jurisdictions.''
2. Broadband Internet Access Service Providers
77. To ensure that this IRFA describes the universe of small
entities that our action might affect, we discuss in turn several
different types of entities that might be providing broadband internet
access service.
78. Internet Service Providers (Broadband). Broadband internet
service providers include wired (e.g., cable, DSL) and VoIP service
providers using their own operated wired telecommunications
infrastructure fall in the category of Wired Telecommunication
Carriers. Wired Telecommunications Carriers are comprised 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 a single technology or a combination of technologies. The SBA size
standard for this category classifies a business as small if it has
1,500 or fewer employees. U.S. Census Bureau data for 2012 show that
there were 3,117 firms that operated that year. Of this total, 3,083
operated with fewer than 1,000 employees. Consequently, under this size
standard the majority of firms in this industry can be considered
small.
79. Internet Service Providers (Non-Broadband). Internet access
service providers such as Dial-up internet service providers, VoIP
service providers using client-supplied telecommunications connections,
and internet service providers using client-supplied telecommunications
connections (e.g., dial-up ISPs) fall in the category of All Other
Telecommunications. The SBA has developed a small business size
standard for All Other Telecommunications, which consists of all such
firms with gross annual receipts of $32.5 million or less. For this
category, U.S. Census Bureau data for 2012 show that there were 1,442
firms that operated for the entire year. Of these firms, a total of
1,400 had gross annual receipts of less than $25 million. Consequently,
under this size standard, a majority of firms in this industry can be
considered small.
3. Wireline Providers
80. Wired Telecommunications Carriers. The U.S. Census Bureau
defines this industry as ``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 communications
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.'' The SBA has developed a small business size standard
for Wired Telecommunications Carriers, which consists of all such
companies having 1,500 or fewer employees. U.S. Census Bureau data for
2012 show that there were 3,117 firms that operated that year. Of this
total, 3,083 operated with fewer than 1,000 employees. Thus, under this
size standard, the majority of firms in this industry can be considered
small.
81. Local Exchange Carriers (LECs). Neither the Commission nor the
SBA has developed a size standard for small businesses specifically
applicable to local exchange services. The closest applicable NAICS
Code category is Wired Telecommunications Carriers. Under the
applicable SBA size standard, such a business is small if it has 1,500
or fewer employees. According to Commission data, U.S. Census data for
2012 show that there were 3,117 firms that operated that year. Of this
total, 3,083 operated with fewer than 1,000 employees. Thus, under this
category and the associated size standard, the Commission estimates
that the majority of local exchange carriers are small entities.
82. Incumbent Local Exchange Carriers (Incumbent LECs). Neither the
Commission nor the SBA has developed a small business size standard
specifically for incumbent local exchange services. The closest
applicable NAICS Code category is Wired Telecommunications Carriers.
Under the applicable SBA size standard, such a business is small if it
has 1,500 or fewer employees. According U.S. Census Bureau data for
2012, 3,117 firms operated in that year. Of this total, 3,083 operated
with fewer than 1,000 employees. Consequently, the Commission estimates
that most providers of incumbent local exchange service are small
businesses that may be affected by our actions. According to Commission
data, 1,307 Incumbent LECs reported that they were incumbent local
exchange service providers. Of this total, an estimated 1,006 have
1,500 or fewer employees. Thus, using the SBA's size standard, the
majority of Incumbent LECs can be considered small entities.
83. Competitive Local Exchange Carriers (Competitive LECs),
Competitive Access Providers (CAPs), Shared-Tenant Service Providers,
and Other Local Service Providers. Neither the Commission nor the SBA
has developed a small business size standard specifically for these
service providers. The appropriate NAICS Code category is Wired
Telecommunications Carriers and under that size standard, such a
business is small if it has 1,500 or fewer employees. U.S. Census
Bureau data for 2012 indicate that 3,117 firms operated during that
year. Of that number, 3,083 operated with fewer than 1,000 employees.
Based on these data, the Commission concludes that the majority of
Competitive LECs, CAPs, Shared-Tenant Service Providers, and Other
Local Service Providers, are small entities. According to Commission
data, 1,442 carriers reported that they were engaged in the provision
of either
[[Page 43777]]
competitive local exchange services or competitive access provider
services. Of these 1,442 carriers, an estimated 1,256 have 1,500 or
fewer employees. In addition, 17 carriers have reported that they are
Shared-Tenant Service Providers, and all 17 are estimated to have 1,500
or fewer employees. Also, 72 carriers have reported that they are Other
Local Service Providers. Of this total, 70 have 1,500 or fewer
employees. Consequently, based on internally researched FCC data, the
Commission estimates that most providers of competitive local exchange
service, competitive access providers, Shared-Tenant Service Providers,
and Other Local Service Providers are small entities.
84. Interexchange Carriers (IXCs). Neither the Commission nor the
SBA has developed a definition for Interexchange Carriers. The closest
NAICS Code category is Wired Telecommunications Carriers. The
applicable size standard under SBA rules consists of all such companies
having 1,500 or fewer employees. U.S. Census Bureau data for 2012
indicate that 3,117 firms operated during that year. Of that number,
3,083 operated with fewer than 1,000 employees. According to internally
developed Commission data, 359 companies reported that their primary
telecommunications service activity was the provision of interexchange
services. Of this total, an estimated 317 have 1,500 or fewer
employees. Consequently, the Commission estimates that the majority of
interexchange service providers are small entities.
85. Operator Service Providers (OSPs). Neither the Commission nor
the SBA has developed a small business size standard specifically for
operator service providers. The closest applicable size standard under
SBA rules is the category of Wired Telecommunications Carriers. Under
the size standard for Wired Telecommunications Carriers, such a
business is small if it has 1,500 or fewer employees. U.S. Census
Bureau data for 2012 show that there were 3,117 firms that operated
that year. Of this total, 3,083 operated with fewer than 1,000
employees. Thus, under this size standard, the majority of firms in
this industry can be considered small.
86. According to Commission data, 33 carriers have reported that
they are engaged in the provision of operator services. Of these, an
estimated 31 have 1,500 or fewer employees and two have more than 1,500
employees. Consequently, the Commission estimates that the majority of
OSPs are small entities.
87. Other Toll Carriers. Neither the Commission nor the SBA has
developed a definition for small businesses specifically applicable to
Other Toll Carriers. This category includes toll carriers that do not
fall within the categories of interexchange carriers, operator service
providers, prepaid calling card providers, satellite service carriers,
or toll resellers. The closest applicable size standard under SBA rules
is for Wired Telecommunications Carriers and the applicable small
business size standard under SBA rules consists of all such companies
having 1,500 or fewer employees. U.S. Census data for 2012 indicate
that 3,117 firms operated during that year. Of that number, 3,083
operated with fewer than 1,000 employees. According to Commission data,
284 companies reported that their primary telecommunications service
activity was the provision of other toll carriage. Of these, an
estimated 279 have 1,500 or fewer employees. Consequently, the
Commission estimates that most Other Toll Carriers are small entities.
4. Wireless Providers--Fixed and Mobile
88. The broadband internet access service provider category covered
by this Order may cover multiple wireless firms and categories of
wireless services. Thus, to the extent the wireless services listed
below are used by wireless firms for broadband internet access service,
the proposed actions may have an impact on those small businesses as
set forth above and further below. In addition, 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.
89. Wireless Telecommunications Carriers (except Satellite). This
industry comprises establishments engaged in operating and maintaining
switching and transmission facilities to provide communications via the
airwaves. Establishments in this industry have spectrum licenses and
provide services using that spectrum, such as cellular services, paging
services, wireless internet access, and wireless video services. The
appropriate size standard under SBA rules is that such a business is
small if it has 1,500 or fewer employees. For this industry, U.S.
Census data for 2012 show that there were 967 firms that operated for
the entire year. Of this total, 955 firms had employment of 999 or
fewer employees and 12 had employment of 1,000 employees or more. Thus,
under this category and the associated size standard, the Commission
estimates that the majority of wireless telecommunications carriers
(except satellite) are small entities.
90. The Commission's own data--available in its Universal Licensing
System--indicate that, as of August 31, 2018, there are 265 Cellular
licensees that will be affected by our actions. The Commission does not
know how many of these licensees are small, as the Commission does not
collect that information for these types of entities. Similarly,
according to internally-developed Commission data, 413 carriers
reported that they were engaged in the provision of wireless telephony,
including cellular service, Personal Communications Service (PCS), and
Specialized Mobile Radio (SMR) Telephony services. Of this total, an
estimated 261 have 1,500 or fewer employees, and 152 have more than
1,500 employees. Thus, using available data, we estimate that the
majority of wireless firms can be considered small.
91. Wireless Communications Services. This service can be used for
fixed, mobile, radiolocation, and digital audio broadcasting satellite
uses. The Commission defined ``small business'' for the wireless
communications services (WCS) auction as an entity with average gross
revenues of $40 million for each of the three preceding years, and a
``very small business'' as an entity with average gross revenues of $15
million for each of the three preceding years. The SBA approved these
small business size standards. In the Commission's auction for
geographic area licenses in the WCS there were seven winning bidders
that qualified as ``very small business'' entities, and one that
qualified as a ``small business'' entity.
92. 1670-1675 MHz Services. This service can be used for fixed and
mobile uses, except aeronautical mobile. An auction for one license in
the 1670-1675 MHz band was conducted in 2003. One license was awarded.
The winning bidder was not a small entity.
93. Wireless Telephony. Wireless telephony includes cellular,
personal communications services, and specialized mobile radio
telephony carriers. The closest applicable SBA category is Wireless
Telecommunications Carriers (except Satellite). Under the SBA small
business size standard, a business is small if it
[[Page 43778]]
has 1,500 or fewer employees. For this industry, U.S. Census Bureau
data for 2012 show that there were 967 firms that operated for the
entire year. Of this total, 955 firms had fewer than 1,000 employees
and 12 firms had 1,000 employees or more. Thus, under this category and
the associated size standard, the Commission estimates that a majority
of these entities can be considered small. According to Commission
data, 413 carriers reported that they were engaged in wireless
telephony. Of these, an estimated 261 have 1,500 or fewer employees and
152 have more than 1,500 employees. Therefore, more than half of these
entities can be considered small.
94. Broadband Personal Communications Service. The broadband
personal communications services (PCS) spectrum is divided into six
frequency blocks designated A through F, and the Commission has held
auctions for each block. The Commission initially defined a ``small
business'' for C- and F-Block licenses as an entity that has average
gross revenues of $40 million or less in the three previous calendar
years. For F-Block licenses, an additional small business size standard
for ``very small business'' was added and is defined as an entity that,
together with its affiliates, has average gross revenues of not more
than $15 million for the preceding three calendar years. These small
business size standards, in the context of broadband PCS auctions, have
been approved by the SBA. No small businesses within the SBA-approved
small business size standards bid successfully for licenses in Blocks A
and B. There were 90 winning bidders that claimed small business status
in the first two C-Block auctions. A total of 93 bidders that claimed
small business status won approximately 40% of the 1,479 licenses in
the first auction for the D, E, and F Blocks. On April 15, 1999, the
Commission completed the reauction of 347 C-, D-, E-, and F-Block
licenses in Auction No. 22. Of the 57 winning bidders in that auction,
48 claimed small business status and won 277 licenses.
95. On January 26, 2001, the Commission completed the auction of
422 C and F Block Broadband PCS licenses in Auction No. 35. Of the 35
winning bidders in that auction, 29 claimed small business status.
Subsequent events concerning Auction 35, including judicial and agency
determinations, resulted in a total of 163 C and F Block licenses being
available for grant. On February 15, 2005, the Commission completed an
auction of 242 C-, D-, E-, and F-Block licenses in Auction No. 58. Of
the 24 winning bidders in that auction, 16 claimed small business
status and won 156 licenses. On May 21, 2007, the Commission completed
an auction of 33 licenses in the A, C, and F Blocks in Auction No. 71.
Of the 12 winning bidders in that auction, five claimed small business
status and won 18 licenses. On August 20, 2008, the Commission
completed the auction of 20 C-, D-, E-, and F-Block Broadband PCS
licenses in Auction No. 78. Of the eight winning bidders for Broadband
PCS licenses in that auction, six claimed small business status and won
14 licenses.
96. Specialized Mobile Radio Licenses. The Commission awards
``small entity'' bidding credits in auctions for Specialized Mobile
Radio (SMR) geographic area licenses in the 800 MHz and 900 MHz bands
to firms that had revenues of no more than $15 million in each of the
three previous calendar years. The Commission awards ``very small
entity'' bidding credits to firms that had revenues of no more than $3
million in each of the three previous calendar years. The SBA approved
these small business size standards for the 900 MHz Service. The
Commission held auctions for geographic area licenses in the 800 MHz
and 900 MHz bands. The 900 MHz SMR auction began on December 5, 1995,
and closed on April 15, 1996. Sixty bidders claiming that they
qualified as small businesses under the $15 million size standard won
263 geographic area licenses in the 900 MHz SMR band. The 800 MHz SMR
auction for the upper 200 channels began on October 28, 1997, and was
completed on December 8, 1997. Ten bidders claiming that they qualified
as small businesses under the $15 million size standard won 38
geographic area licenses for the upper 200 channels in the 800 MHz SMR
band. A second auction for the 800 MHz band was held on January 10,
2002, and closed on January 17, 2002, and included 23 BEA licenses. One
bidder claiming small business status won five licenses.
97. The auction of the 1,053 800 MHz SMR geographic area licenses
for the General Category channels was conducted in 2000. Eleven bidders
won 108 geographic area licenses for the General Category channels in
the 800 MHz SMR band and qualified as small businesses under the $15
million size standard. In an auction completed in 2000, a total of
2,800 Economic Area licenses in the lower 80 channels of the 800 MHz
SMR service were awarded. Of the 22 winning bidders, 19 claimed small
business status and won 129 licenses. Thus, combining all four
auctions, 41 winning bidders for geographic licenses in the 800 MHz SMR
band claimed status as small businesses.
98. In addition, there are numerous incumbent site-by-site SMR
licenses and licensees with extended implementation authorizations in
the 800 and 900 MHz bands. We do not know how many firms provide 800
MHz or 900 MHz geographic area SMR service pursuant to extended
implementation authorizations, nor how many of these providers have
annual revenues of no more than $15 million. One firm has over $15
million in revenues. In addition, we do not know how many of these
firms have 1,500 or fewer employees, which is the SBA-determined size
standard. We assume, for purposes of this analysis, that all of the
remaining extended implementation authorizations are held by small
entities, as defined by the SBA.
99. Lower 700 MHz Band Licenses. The Commission previously adopted
criteria for defining three groups of small businesses for purposes of
determining their eligibility for special provisions such as bidding
credits. The Commission defined a ``small business'' as an entity that,
together with its affiliates and controlling principals, has average
gross revenues not exceeding $40 million for the preceding three years.
A ``very small business'' is defined as an entity that, together with
its affiliates and controlling principals, has average gross revenues
that are not more than $15 million for the preceding three years.
Additionally, the lower 700 MHz Service had a third category of small
business status for Metropolitan/Rural Service Area (MSA/RSA)
licenses--``entrepreneur''--which is defined as an entity that,
together with its affiliates and controlling principals, has average
gross revenues that are not more than $3 million for the preceding
three years. The SBA approved these small size standards. An auction of
740 licenses (one license in each of the 734 MSAs/RSAs and one license
in each of the six Economic Area Groupings (EAGs)) commenced on August
27, 2002, and closed on September 18, 2002. Of the 740 licenses
available for auction, 484 licenses were won by 102 winning bidders.
Seventy-two of the winning bidders claimed small business, very small
business, or entrepreneur status and won a total of 329 licenses. A
second auction commenced on May 28, 2003, closed on June 13, 2003, and
included 256 licenses: 5 EAG licenses and 476 Cellular Market Area
licenses. Seventeen winning bidders claimed small or very small
business status and
[[Page 43779]]
won 60 licenses, and nine winning bidders claimed entrepreneur status
and won 154 licenses. On July 26, 2005, the Commission completed an
auction of five licenses in the Lower 700 MHz band (Auction No. 60).
There were three winning bidders for the five licenses. All three
winning bidders claimed small business status.
100. In 2007, the Commission reexamined its rules governing the 700
MHz band in the 700 MHz Second Report and Order. An auction of 700 MHz
licenses commenced January 24, 2008, and closed on March 18, 2008,
which included 176 Economic Area licenses in the A Block, 734 Cellular
Market Area licenses in the B Block, and 176 EA licenses in the E
Block. Twenty winning bidders, claiming small business status (those
with attributable average annual gross revenues that exceed $15 million
and do not exceed $40 million for the preceding three years) won 49
licenses. Thirty-three winning bidders claiming very small business
status (those with attributable average annual gross revenues that do
not exceed $15 million for the preceding three years) won 325 licenses.
101. Upper 700 MHz Band Licenses. In the 700 MHz Second Report and
Order, the Commission revised its rules regarding Upper 700 MHz
licenses. On January 24, 2008, the Commission commenced Auction 73 in
which several licenses in the Upper 700 MHz band were available for
licensing: 12 Regional Economic Area Grouping licenses in the C Block,
and one nationwide license in the D Block. The auction concluded on
March 18, 2008, with 3 winning bidders claiming very small business
status (those with attributable average annual gross revenues that do
not exceed $15 million for the preceding three years) and winning five
licenses.
102. 700 MHz Guard Band Licensees. In 2000, in the 700 MHz Guard
Band Order, the Commission adopted size standards for ``small
businesses'' and ``very small businesses'' for purposes of determining
their eligibility for special provisions such as bidding credits and
installment payments. A small business in this service is an entity
that, together with its affiliates and controlling principals, has
average gross revenues not exceeding $40 million for the preceding
three years. Additionally, a very small business is an entity that,
together with its affiliates and controlling principals, has average
gross revenues that are not more than $15 million for the preceding
three years. SBA approval of these definitions is not required. An
auction of 52 Major Economic Area licenses commenced on September 6,
2000, and closed on September 21, 2000. Of the 104 licenses auctioned,
96 licenses were sold to nine bidders. Five of these bidders were small
businesses that won a total of 26 licenses. A second auction of 700 MHz
Guard Band licenses commenced on February 13, 2001, and closed on
February 21, 2001. All eight of the licenses auctioned were sold to
three bidders. One of these bidders was a small business that won a
total of two licenses.
103. Air-Ground Radiotelephone Service. The Commission previously
used the SBA's small business size standard applicable to Wireless
Telecommunications Carriers (except Satellite) for this service. The
appropriate size standard under SBA rules is that such a business is
small if it has 1,500 or fewer employees. For this industry, U.S.
Census Bureau data for 2012 show that there were 967 firms that
operated for the entire year. Of this total, 955 firms had fewer than
1,000 employees and 12 had employment of 1,000 employees or more. There
are approximately 100 licensees in the Air-Ground Radiotelephone
Service, and we estimate that almost all of them qualify as small
entities under the SBA definition.
104. For purposes of assigning Air-Ground Radiotelephone Service
licenses through competitive bidding, the Commission has defined
``small business'' as an entity that, together with controlling
interests and affiliates, has average annual gross revenues for the
preceding three years not exceeding $40 million. A ``very small
business'' is defined as an entity that, together with controlling
interests and affiliates, has average annual gross revenues for the
preceding three years not exceeding $15 million. The SBA approved these
definitions. In May 2006, the Commission completed an auction of
nationwide commercial Air-Ground Radiotelephone Service licenses in the
800 MHz band (Auction No. 65). On June 2, 2006, the auction closed with
two winning bidders winning two Air-Ground Radiotelephone Services
licenses. Neither of the winning bidders claimed small business status.
105. Advanced Wireless Services (AWS) (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)). For the AWS-1
bands, the Commission defined a ``small business'' as an entity with
average annual gross revenues for the preceding three years not
exceeding $40 million, and a ``very small business'' as an entity with
average annual gross revenues for the preceding three years not
exceeding $15 million. For AWS-2 and AWS-3, although we do not know for
certain which entities are likely to apply for these frequencies, we
note that the AWS-1 bands are comparable to those used for cellular
service and personal communications service. The Commission has not yet
adopted size standards for the AWS-2 or AWS-3 bands but proposes to
treat both AWS-2 and AWS-3 similarly to broadband PCS service and AWS-1
service due to the comparable capital requirements and other factors,
such as issues involved in relocating incumbents and developing
markets, technologies, and services.
106. 3650-3700 MHz band. In March 2005, the Commission released a
Report and Order and Memorandum Opinion and Order that provides for
nationwide, non-exclusive licensing of terrestrial operations, using
contention-based technologies, in the 3650 MHz band (i.e., 3650-3700
MHz). As of April 2010, more than 1,270 licenses have been granted and
more than 7,433 sites have been registered. The Commission has not
developed a definition of small entities applicable to 3650-3700 MHz
band nationwide, non-exclusive licensees. However, we estimate that the
majority of these licensees are internet Access Service Providers
(ISPs) and that most of those licensees are small businesses.
107. Fixed Microwave Services. Microwave services include common
carrier, private-operational fixed, and broadcast auxiliary radio
services. They also include the Local Multipoint Distribution Service
(LMDS), the Digital Electronic Message Service (DEMS), and the 24 GHz
Service, where licensees can choose between common carrier and non-
common carrier status. At present, there are approximately 36,708
common carrier fixed licensees and 59,291 private operational-fixed
licensees and broadcast auxiliary radio licensees in the microwave
services. There are approximately 135 LMDS licensees, three DEMS
licensees, and three 24 GHz licensees. The Commission has not yet
defined a small business with respect to microwave services. The
closest applicable SBA category is Wireless Telecommunications Carriers
(except Satellite), and the appropriate size standard for this category
under SBA rules is that such a business is small if it has 1,500 or
fewer employees. For this industry, U.S. Census Bureau data for 2012
show that there were 967 firms that operated for the entire year. Of
this total, 955 firms had fewer than 1,000 employees and 12 had
employment of 1,000 employees or more. Thus, under
[[Page 43780]]
this SBA category and the associated size standard, the Commission
estimates that a majority of fixed microwave service licensees can be
considered small.
108. The Commission does not have data specifying the number of
these licensees that have more than 1,500 employees, and thus is unable
at this time to estimate with greater precision the number of fixed
microwave service licensees that would qualify as small business
concerns under the SBA's small business size standard. Consequently,
the Commission estimates that there are up to 36,708 common carrier
fixed licensees and up to 59,291 private operational-fixed licensees
and broadcast auxiliary radio licensees in the microwave services that
may be small and may be affected by the rules and policies adopted
herein. We note, however, that the common carrier microwave fixed
licensee category does include some large entities.
109. Broadband Radio Service and Educational Broadband Service.
Broadband Radio Service systems, previously referred to as Multipoint
Distribution Service (MDS) and Multichannel Multipoint Distribution
Service (MMDS) systems and ``wireless cable,'' transmit video
programming to subscribers and provide two-way high speed data
operations using the microwave frequencies of the Broadband Radio
Service (BRS) and Educational Broadband Service (EBS) (previously
referred to as the Instructional Television Fixed Service (ITFS)). In
connection with the 1996 BRS auction, the Commission established a
small business size standard as an entity that had annual average gross
revenues of no more than $40 million in the previous three calendar
years. The BRS auctions resulted in 67 successful bidders obtaining
licensing opportunities for 493 Basic Trading Areas (BTAs). Of the 67
auction winners, 61 met the definition of a small business. BRS also
includes licensees of stations authorized prior to the auction. At this
time, we estimate that of the 61 small business BRS auction winners, 48
remain small business licensees. In addition to the 48 small businesses
that hold BTA authorizations, there are approximately 392 incumbent BRS
licensees that are considered small entities. After adding the number
of small business auction licensees to the number of incumbent
licensees not already counted, we find that there are currently
approximately 440 BRS licensees that are defined as small businesses
under either the SBA or the Commission's rules.
110. In 2009, the Commission conducted Auction 86, the sale of 78
licenses in the BRS areas. The Commission offered three levels of
bidding credits: (1) A bidder with attributed average annual gross
revenues that exceed $15 million and do not exceed $40 million for the
preceding three years (small business) received a 15% discount on its
winning bid; (2) a bidder with attributed average annual gross revenues
that exceed $3 million and do not exceed $15 million for the preceding
three years (very small business) received a 25% discount on its
winning bid; and (3) a bidder with attributed average annual gross
revenues that do not exceed $3 million for the preceding three years
(entrepreneur) received a 35% discount on its winning bid. Auction 86
concluded in 2009 with the sale of 61 licenses. Of the ten winning
bidders, two bidders that claimed small business status won 4 licenses;
one bidder that claimed very small business status won three licenses;
and two bidders that claimed entrepreneur status won six licenses.
111. In addition, the SBA's Cable Television Distribution Services
small business size standard is applicable to EBS. There are presently
2,436 EBS licensees. All but 100 of these licenses are held by
educational institutions. Educational institutions are included in this
analysis as small entities. Thus, we estimate that at least 2,336
licensees are small businesses. Since 2007, Cable Television
Distribution Services have been defined within the broad economic
census category of Wired Telecommunications Carriers; that category is
defined as follows: ``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.'' The SBA has developed a small
business size standard for this category, which is: All such firms
having 1,500 or fewer employees. To gauge small business prevalence for
these cable services we must, however, use the most current census data
that are based on the previous category of Cable and Other Program
Distribution and its associated size standard: All such firms having
$13.5 million or less in annual receipts. For this industry, U.S.
Census data for 2012 show that there were 3,117 firms that operated
that year. Of this total, 3,083 operated with fewer than 1,000
employees. Thus, the majority of these firms can be considered small.
5. Satellite Service Providers
112. Satellite Telecommunications Providers. This 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.'' Satellite telecommunications service providers
include satellite and earth station operators. The category has a small
business size standard of $32.5 million or less in average annual
receipts, under SBA rules. For this category, U.S. Census Bureau data
for 2012 show that there were a total of 333 firms that operated for
the entire year. Of this total, 299 firms had annual receipts of less
than $25 million. Consequently, we estimate that the majority of
satellite telecommunications providers are small entities.
113. All Other Telecommunications. The ``All Other
Telecommunications'' category is comprised of entities that are
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. The
SBA has developed a small business size standard for ``All Other
Telecommunications,'' which consists of all such firms with gross
annual receipts of $32.5 million or less. For this category, U.S.
Census Bureau data for 2012 show that there were 1,442 firms that
operated for the entire year. Of these firms, a total of 1,400 had
gross annual receipts of less than $25 million. Consequently, a
majority of ``All Other Telecommunications'' firms potentially affected
by our action can be considered small.
6. Cable Service Providers
114. Because Section 706 of the Act requires us to monitor the
deployment of broadband using any technology, we anticipate that some
broadband service providers may not provide telephone
[[Page 43781]]
service. Accordingly, we describe below other types of firms that may
provide broadband services, including cable companies, MDS providers,
and utilities, among others.
115. Cable and Other Subscription Programming. This industry
comprises establishments primarily engaged in operating studios and
facilities for the broadcasting of programs on a subscription or fee
basis. The broadcast programming is typically narrowcast in nature
(e.g., limited format, such as news, sports, education, or youth-
oriented). These establishments produce programming in their own
facilities or acquire programming from external sources. The
programming material is usually delivered to a third party, such as
cable systems or direct-to-home satellite systems, for transmission to
viewers. The SBA size standard for this industry establishes as small,
any company in this category which has annual receipts of $38.5 million
or less. According to 2012 U.S. Census Bureau data, 367 firms operated
for the entire year. Of that number, 319 operated with annual receipts
of less than $25 million a year and 48 firms operated with annual
receipts of $25 million or more. Based on this data, the Commission
estimates that the majority of firms operating in this industry are
small.
116. Cable Companies and Systems (Rate Regulation). The Commission
has 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 there are currently 4,600 active cable
systems in the United States. Of this total, all but nine cable
operators nationwide are small under the 400,000-subscriber size
standard. In addition, under the Commission's rate regulation rules, a
``small system'' is a cable system serving 15,000 or fewer subscribers.
Current Commission records show 4,600 cable systems nationwide. Of this
total, 3,900 cable systems have fewer than 15,000 subscribers, and 700
systems have 15,000 or more subscribers, based on the same records.
Thus, under this standard as well, we estimate that most cable systems
are small entities.
117. Cable System Operators (Telecom Act Standard). 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%
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.'' There are approximately 52,403,705 cable video
subscribers in the United States today. Accordingly, an operator
serving fewer than 524,037 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. Based
on available data, we find that all but nine incumbent cable operators
are small entities under this size standard. We note that the
Commission neither requests nor collects information on whether cable
system operators are affiliated with entities whose gross annual
revenues exceed $250 million. Although it seems certain that some of
these cable system operators are affiliated with entities whose gross
annual revenues exceed $250 million, we are unable at this time to
estimate with greater precision the number of cable system operators
that would qualify as small cable operators under the definition in the
Communications Act.
7. All Other Telecommunications
118. Electric Power Generators, Transmitters, and Distributors.
This U.S. industry is comprised of establishments that are primarily
engaged in providing specialized telecommunications services, such as
satellite tracking, communications telemetry, and radar station
operation. This industry also includes entities 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. Entities providing internet services or voice
over internet protocol (VoIP) services via client-supplied
telecommunications connections are also included in this industry. The
closest applicable SBA category is ``All Other Telecommunications''.
The SBA's small business size standard for ``All Other
Telecommunications,'' consists of all such firms with gross annual
receipts of $32.5 million or less. For this category, U.S. Census data
for 2012 show that there were 1,442 firms that operated for the entire
year. Of these firms, a total of 1,400 had gross annual receipts of
less than $25 million. Consequently, we estimate that under this
category and the associated size standard the majority of these firms
can be considered small entities.
D. Description of Projected Reporting, Recordkeeping, and Other
Compliance Requirements for Small Entities
119. The potential modifications proposed in the Second FNPRM if
adopted, could, at least initially, impose some new reporting,
recordkeeping, or other compliance requirements on some small entities.
Small entities and other providers could potentially be required to
submit coverage maps based on standardized parameters. Commenters have
been asked to refresh the record from the 2017 Data Collection
Improvement FNPRM on the potential use of standardized coverage maps
for mobile services in the context of Form 477 and to specifically
discuss their experience with the approach used in the MF-II
proceeding. Commenters also have been asked to refresh the record on
whether to require on-the-ground data as part of the Form 477 data
collection. In particular, the Commission asked whether it should
require some actual speed test data, how it could impose such a
requirement without being unduly burdensome to small providers, and the
extent to which providers already collect on-the-ground data in their
ordinary course of business.
120. In the Second FNPRM, the Commission also seeks comment on a
requirement for providers to submit infrastructure information
sufficient to allow us to verify the accuracy of providers' Form 477
filings. Anticipating that the collection of accurate and recent
network infrastructure information would help the Commission to verify
providers' filings, we propose to require small entities and other
providers to submit, as part of their Form 477 filing, the following
information: (1) The location of cell sites in decimal degrees; (2) the
height (above ground and sea level), type, and directional orientation
of transmit antennas at each cell site; (3) maximum radiated transmit
power of the radio equipment at each cell site; (4) the capacity and
type of backhaul used at each cell site; (5) deployed spectrum band and
channel bandwidth in MHz; (6) throughput and the required signal
strength and signal to noise ratio; (7) cell loading factors; (8)
deployed technologies (e.g., LTE Release 13) and; (9) any terrain and
land use information used in deriving clutter factors or other losses
associated with each cell site. Additionally, the Commission also
requests updated comments on adopting a requirement that coverage maps
be submitted in raster format, noting that such a requirement might be
less burdensome than shapefiles.
[[Page 43782]]
121. As means of improving accuracy and reliability of mobile
broadband filings, the Commission seeks comment on whether we should
establish a challenge process similar to the MF-II challenge process to
verify Form 477 filings. The adoption of such a process would allow
states, local governments, Tribal entities, or other interested parties
an opportunity to challenge providers' mobile broadband filings and
could subject small entities and other providers to additional
submission and compliance requirements. In addition, while the
Commission has adopted the GIS reporting format for fixed broadband
services, the Commission seeks comments on how to move to a location-
based data requirement for small entities and other providers.
122. In addition, we seek comment on how best to ensure the
collection of high-quality fixed broadband coverage data as part of the
Digital Opportunity Data Collection. Although we are cognizant of the
potential burdens that greater precision in reporting can entail,
commenters have indicated in the record that the approach we adopt
today--to collect coverage polygons of fixed-broadband service
availability--will allow providers to submit more precise data with
reasonable burdens. Nonetheless, we seek comment on steps the
Commission can take to improve the quality of fixed broadband coverage
polygons while minimizing the associated reporting burdens. In
addition, as part of the Digital Opportunity Data Collection, the
Commission is directing OEA, in consultation with WCB, WTB, and IB, to
provide guidance to fixed providers regarding how to develop the
polygons depicting fixed broadband coverage. Connected Nation expresses
concern that small service providers in particular will struggle to
comply with the new reporting requirements in the Digital Opportunity
Data Collection unless they get assistance in creating their broadband
coverage polygons. In the Report and Order, we identify help-desk
support and clear instructions as ways we will assist fixed broadband
providers with meeting the new filing obligations, and we seek comment
on what other steps the Commission and USAC can take to help small
fixed providers file accurate data as part of the new collection.
123. We also seek comment on whether to require fixed providers to
provide latency reports, whether to impose penalties for entities that
chronically file bad data, and how we can improve the existing
satellite broadband collection to reflect more accurately current
satellite broadband coverage availability. Additionally, we seek
comment on how best to collect information relating to service
availability data gathered from fixed providers. For example, we seek
comment on how to establish a crowdsourced tracking system through
USAC, how quickly fixed providers should be required to correct any
data where they do not refute the alleged lack of coverage, and how we
should instruct USAC to handle cases in which providers and the
stakeholders disagree about whether service is actually available at a
given location. ACA argues that it would be ``onerous if a smaller
provider had to respond immediately to each and every submission from
an individual or government entity'' and recommends that small
providers be allowed to account for any inaccurate data at its next
Digital Opportunity Data Collection filing. As a result, we seek
comment on the best approach to timing for the crowdsourcing process,
not only for small providers but for all filers. Finally, if a
location-based process is adopted for fixed broadband deployment
reporting, we ask about an appropriate transition time, especially for
smaller providers.
124. The issues raised for consideration and comment in the Second
FNPRM may require small entities to hire attorneys, engineers,
consultants, or other professionals. At this time, however, the
Commission cannot quantify the cost of compliance with any potential
rule changes and compliance obligations for small entities that may
result from the Second FNPRM. We expect our requests for information on
potential burdens on small entities associated with matters raised in
the Second FNPRM will provide us with information to assist with our
evaluation of the cost of compliance on small entities of any
reporting, recordkeeping, or other compliance requirements we adopt.
E. Steps Taken To Minimize the Significant Economic Impact on Small
Entities and Significant Alternatives Considered
125. The RFA requires an agency to describe any significant,
specifically small business, 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.
126. To assist the Commission's evaluation of the economic impact
on small entities, as a result of actions that may result from
proposals and issues raised for consideration in the Second FNPRM, and
to better explore options and alternatives, the Commission has sought
comment from the public. More specifically, the Commission seeks
comment on what burdens are associated with the potential requirements
discussed in the preceding section and how such burdens can be
minimized for small entities. For example, the Commission has sought
comment on the potential burdens associated with requiring providers to
submit on-the-ground data and/or mobile broadband and voice
subscription data at the census tract level, particularly for small
providers, and on steps the Commission could take to minimize the
potential burdens.
127. In addressing possible changes to the Digital Opportunity Data
Collection, we seek comment on lessening the burdens associated with
the stringent timeliness and completeness requirements for the
broadband coverage data to be submitted by smaller broadband providers.
In addition, we seek comment on the burdens of a proposal for USAC to
publish crowdsourced complaint data without directly informing the
affected providers, which would require the provider to regularly check
for pertinent complaints. Further, any requirement to timely submit
corrected broadband deployment data may impose a burden on small
providers, so we seek comment on ways to ease that burden. Finally, the
creation of a new online portal for use with the Digital Opportunity
Data Collection, generally, has the potential for errors to the
disadvantage of small providers seeking USF funds, and we seek comment
on how to lessen the potential for such errors.
128. More generally, the proposals and questions laid out in the
Second FNPRM were designed to enable the Commission to understand the
benefits, impact, and potential burdens associated with the different
approaches that the Commission can pursue to achieve its objective of
improving accuracy and reliability of its data collections. Before
reaching its final conclusions and taking action in this proceeding,
the Commission expects to review the comments filed in response to the
Second FNPRM and more fully consider the economic impact on small
[[Page 43783]]
entities and how any impact can be minimized.
F. Federal Rules That May Duplicate, Overlap, or Conflict With the
Proposed Rules
129. None.
V. Procedural Matters
130. Ex Parte Rules. This proceeding 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, then 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 47 CFR 1.1206(b). In proceedings governed
47 CFR 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.
131. Paperwork Reduction Act. The Second FNPRM contains proposed
new and modified information collection requirements subject to the
Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (PRA), Public Law 104-13. The
Commission, as part of its continuing effort to reduce paperwork
burdens, invites the general public and the Office of Management and
Budget to comment on the information collection requirements contained
in the Second FNPRM, as required by the PRA. In addition, pursuant to
the Small Business Paperwork Relief Act of 2002, Public Law 107-198 (44
U.S.C. 3506(c)(4)), we seek specific comment on how we might further
reduce the information collection burden for small business concerns
with fewer than 25 employees.
132. Initial Regulatory Flexibility Analysis. Pursuant to the
Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA), the Commission has prepared an
Initial Regulatory Flexibility Analysis (IRFA) of the possible
significant economic impact on small entities of the policies and
actions considered in this NPRM. The IRFA is set forth above. 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 on the Second FNPRM. The Commission's Consumer and
Governmental Affairs Bureau, Reference Information Center, will send a
copy of the Second FNPRM, including the IRFA, to the Chief Counsel for
Advocacy of the Small Business Administration.
133. People with Disabilities: To request materials in accessible
formats for people with disabilities (braille, large print, electronic
files, audio format), send an email to [email protected] or call the
Consumer & Governmental Affairs Bureau at 202-418-0530 (voice), 202-
418-0432 (tty).
VI. Clauses
134. Accordingly, it is ordered that, pursuant to Sections 1-4, 7,
201, 254, 301, 303, 309, 319, and 332 of the Communications Act of
1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. 151-154, 157, 201, 254, 301, 303, 309, 319,
and 332, this Report and Order and Second Further Notice of Proposed
Rulemaking is adopted.
135. It is further ordered that the Commission's Consumer &
Governmental Affairs Bureau, Reference Information Center, shall send a
copy of this Report and Order and Second Further Notice of Proposed
Rulemaking, including the Initial Regulatory Flexibility Analysis, to
the Chief Counsel for Advocacy of the Small Business Administration.
Federal Communications Commission.
Marlene Dortch,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2019-18062 Filed 8-21-19; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6712-01-P