Establishing the Digital Opportunity Data Collection and Modernizing the FCC Form 477 Data Program, 43705-43725 [2019-18063]

Agencies

• FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION

[Federal Register Volume 84, Number 163 (Thursday, August 22, 2019)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 43705-43725]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2019-18063]


=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION

47 CFR Parts 1, 43, 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: Final rule.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

SUMMARY: In this document, the Federal Communications Commission

[[Page 43706]]

(Commission) adopts the Digital Opportunity Data Collection, which 
requires all fixed broadband providers to submit granular maps of the 
areas where they have broadband-capable networks and make service 
available. To complement this granular broadband availability data, the 
Report and Order also adopts a process to begin collecting public 
input, sometimes known as ``crowdsourcing,'' on the accuracy of fixed 
providers' broadband deployment data. In addition, the Report and Order 
leaves in place for now the existing Form 477 data collection, but 
makes targeted changes to reduce reporting burdens for all providers by 
removing and clarifying certain requirements and modifying the 
collection.

DATES: Effective September 23, 2019, except for paragraphs 44 through 
51 and 57 through 65 of the Report and Order and the addition of 47 CFR 
54.1401 and 54.1402(b) and (c), (d)(2), and (e), which are delayed. The 
Commission will publish a document in the Federal Register announcing 
the delayed effective date

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 Report and Order as 
part 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. This document contains new and 
modified information collection requirements. The Commission, as part 
of its continuing effort to reduce paperwork burdens, will invite the 
general public to comment on the information collection requirements 
contained herein as required by the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, 
Public Law 104-13. The effective date for paragraphs 44 through 51 and 
57 through 65 of the Report and Order and the addition of 47 CFR 
54.1401 and 54.1402(b) and (c), (d)(2), and (e), will be effective 30 
days after the announcement in the Federal Register of Office of 
Management and Budget (OMB) approval of information collection 
requirements modified in the Report and Order and the effective date 
for the CFR additions.

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.

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

[[Page 43707]]

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 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. Report and Order

    10. As the record in this proceeding amply demonstrates, there is a 
compelling and immediate need to develop granular, high-quality fixed 
broadband deployment data to improve our ability to target support from 
our Universal Service Fund (USF) programs. It has become increasingly 
clear that the fixed and mobile broadband deployment data collected on 
the Form 477 are not sufficient to support the specific imperative of 
our USF policy goals. We conclude that in order to continue to advance 
our statutory universal service obligations, it is necessary to create 
a new data collection, calculated to produce broadband deployment maps 
that will allow the Commission to precisely target scarce universal 
service dollars to where broadband service is lacking. In the 2017 Data 
Collection Improvement FNPRM, the Commission sought comment on 
requiring more granularity in fixed broadband deployment data, noting 
that it collected location-level data from recipients of USF funding to 
assess whether they are meeting their buildout requirements, and that 
this more granular data had been ``extremely useful'' in understanding 
issues surrounding fixed broadband deployment in these contexts. We 
find that establishing a new collection requiring fixed providers to 
submit maps of the areas in which their service is available is the 
best way to meet those needs expeditiously.
    11. We therefore direct the Universal Service Administrative 
Company (USAC), under the oversight of the Commission's Office of 
Economics and Analytics (OEA), the Wireline Competition Bureau (WCB), 
Wireless Telecommunications Bureau (WTB), and the International Bureau 
(IB), to develop a new portal to accept broadband coverage maps 
(polygons) from fixed providers, as well as public feedback on the 
accuracy of these broadband maps. For the time being, we leave the 
current Form 477 in place, subject to several modifications that 
eliminate collection of unnecessary data, and seek comment on whether 
we should sunset some or all of the Form 477 deployment collection. We 
believe the Form 477 deployment data will continue to be a useful 
reference point for its existing purposes as well as in relation to the 
new Digital Opportunity Data Collection. Accordingly, we generally 
preserve the Form 477 instructions for submitting fixed broadband 
deployment data, except as may be required to implement the 
streamlining and other changes set forth below.

A. Establishing Granular Maps of Fixed Broadband Service Availability

    12. We require all fixed providers to submit broadband coverage 
polygons depicting the areas where they actually have broadband-capable 
networks and make fixed broadband service available to end-user 
locations. The filings must reflect the maximum download and upload 
speeds actually made available in each area, the technology used to 
provide the service, and a differentiation between residential-only, 
business-only, or residential-and-business broadband services. Fixed 
providers in the new collection must submit a broadband coverage 
polygon for each combination of download speed, upload speed, and 
technology. Where fixed providers offer different maximum speeds to 
residential and business customers, even if using the same network 
facilities, they must file separate polygons. Where the offered speed 
varies by location or distance from network facilities, fixed providers 
must submit separate polygons to reflect those differing maximum 
offered speeds.
    13. For purposes of the Digital Opportunity Data Collection, 
service is actually available in an area if the reporting fixed 
provider has a current broadband connection or it could provide such a 
connection within ten business days of a customer request, without an 
extraordinary commitment of resources, and without construction charges 
or fees exceeding an ordinary service activation fee. The filer must be 
able to establish a connection within this timeframe to every end-user 
location contained in the reported broadband coverage polygon. Under 
this standard, a fixed provider must have fiber or cable in place 
proximate, if not connected, to the locations within its reported 
polygons--for example, we expect a residence would be included only if 
the utility pole or conduit on the right of way adjacent to the 
residence is already wired and awaiting just a drop cable; additional 
buildout of the network would represent an extraordinary commitment of 
resources. A fixed wireless provider must have already installed enough 
base stations to cover and meet reasonably anticipated customer 
capacity demands; the installation of an additional base

[[Page 43708]]

station, for example, would constitute an extraordinary commitment of 
resources. Fixed broadband services are not actually available for 
purposes of the Digital Opportunity Data Collection in any area where 
the filer does not meet this standard.
    14. Although we agree with commenters that it would be ideal for 
providers to have more precise technical standards to follow in 
determining whether fixed broadband is available in an area (for 
example, defining availability based on specific proximity to network 
facilities), we find insufficient evidence currently in the record to 
prescribe such technical standards. Without additional information, we 
risk setting under- and over-inclusive technical standards, likely to 
result in the drawing of less accurate maps. We therefore seek comment 
in the Second Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (Second FNPRM) in 
this item about what standards fixed providers should use to establish 
the broadband coverage polygons.
    15. We direct OEA to oversee USAC in developing the new online 
portal and the filing processes that will enable fixed providers to 
submit broadband coverage polygons. We also direct OEA, in consultation 
with WCB, IB, WTB, and USAC, to carry out the implementation details of 
the new collection including (but not limited to): (1) Publishing 
complete instructions for filing data and issuing an order, based on 
the record received in response to the Second FNPRM, that designates 
the precise specifications for the broadband coverage polygons, subject 
to the constraints laid out herein; (2) modifying (as needed) the list 
of fixed-broadband technologies that should be reported in the new 
collection; and (3) defining the GIS compatible file format(s) in which 
fixed providers will be required to submit their polygons, taking into 
account any potential burdens on filers.
    16. This new data collection will take effect after the release of 
the order designating the specifications for the coverage polygons, and 
after OEA issues a public notice announcing the availability of the new 
collection platform and the reporting deadlines. Fixed broadband 
service providers must file initial service availability reports within 
six months of the public notice announcing availability of the new 
collection platform. Fixed providers also must submit updates within 
six months of completing new broadband deployments; making changes to 
(including upgrading or discontinuing) existing offerings; or otherwise 
acquiring new, or selling existing, broadband-capable network 
facilities that affect the data submitted on their Digital Opportunity 
Data Collection filings. Service providers that become subject to 
filing requirements subsequent to the initial filing deadline must file 
initial service availability reports within six months of becoming so 
obligated and must report data from that initial period. Failure to 
timely file the new collection data may lead to enforcement action and/
or penalties as set forth in the Communications Act and other 
applicable laws. In addition, fixed providers must revise their filings 
any time they discover a significant reporting error in the original 
broadband deployment data that they submit. An appropriate official of 
each filer must include with any filing a certification that the 
filer's service availability data is true and accurate to the best of 
the certifying official's knowledge and must report the title of the 
certifying official. Filers must additionally certify on or before June 
30 of each calendar year that as of December 31 of the previous year, 
all of the filer's service availability data continues to be accurate, 
taking into account the filer's data that has been updated during the 
calendar year.
    17. In order to ensure an accurate and detailed picture of 
broadband deployment, we require all fixed providers to make the 
required Digital Opportunity Data Collection filings, although we 
direct WCB, in coordination with OEA, WTB, and IB, to determine whether 
any category of very small fixed providers (e.g., those with less than 
250 subscribers and who are not eligible telecommunications carriers 
(ETCs) under the USF program) should have additional time in filing 
their initial reports. We note that any service provider must 
nevertheless timely file in order to be eligible to participate in any 
USF program and those that fail to file in a timely manner risk their 
service areas being deemed unserved in future USF decisions.
    18. Incorporating Public Input into Broadband Coverage Maps. 
Collecting broadband coverage polygons will allow fixed providers to 
apply their expertise concerning their networks and service areas to 
define their service coverages in the first instance. However, input 
from the people who live and work in the areas that a service provider 
purports to serve also plays a vital role in ensuring the quality of 
these maps, helping to identify areas where the data submitted do not 
align with the reality on the ground. We therefore direct OEA to work 
with USAC to create an online portal for local, state, and Tribal 
governmental entities and members of the public to review and dispute 
the broadband coverage polygons filed by fixed providers under the new 
collection. This input will identify locations where a member of the 
public or a governmental entity indicates that the fixed provider is 
not able to provision broadband service despite the location being 
within a broadband coverage polygon. We also seek comment in the Second 
FNPRM about the types of data to be collected through this portal, how 
to treat crowdsourced data, and the procedures that fixed providers 
should follow if their broadband coverage polygons are disputed.
    19. We believe that public input on fixed broadband service 
coverage will be most effective if some types of data collected in this 
process are routinely made available to the public. We therefore direct 
USAC to make public the information about the location that is the 
subject of the dispute--including the street address and/or coordinates 
(latitude and longitude) provided by the complainant, along with the 
name of the service provider(s) and any relevant details concerning the 
basis for challenging the reported fixed broadband coverage.
    20. We direct USAC to make the crowdsourced data publicly available 
as soon as is practical after submission and direct OEA to work with 
USAC to establish an appropriate method for doing so. We do not specify 
a timeline for making such data publicly available but expect that 
there will be regular releases of crowdsourcing data. We direct USAC 
not to make publicly available private information submitted with the 
challenges. USAC may share such information (for example with the fixed 
provider about whom the dispute is being made) only to the extent it 
will be helpful to improve the quality of fixed broadband data 
reporting. We also direct USAC to develop mechanisms in the new 
platform to prevent malicious or unreliable filings, including 
automated mass filings.
    21. Benefits of Reporting Service Availability Maps Clearly 
Outweigh the Filing Burdens on Fixed Providers. In establishing the 
Digital Opportunity Data Collection, we are cognizant of the need to 
ensure that the benefits resulting from use of the data outweigh the 
reporting burdens imposed on filers. We agree with commenters who 
contend that broadband coverage polygons will allow more granular 
analysis than the census-block data currently collected in the Form 
477--and will do so with reasonable costs and burdens on fixed 
providers. We find that the approach we adopt, in which

[[Page 43709]]

fixed providers will create broadband coverage polygons that depict 
their actual service areas, would, as NCTA asserts, ``be a significant 
improvement over census-block reporting because unserved areas within 
served census blocks would no longer be counted as served.'' In turn, 
more granular data about areas where broadband is available will enable 
us to target unserved locations more precisely, especially in many 
rural areas that continue to lack broadband service.
    22. For now, we continue to maintain the collection of fixed 
broadband deployment data on Form 477 in census-block format. While 
there will be additional reporting burdens for fixed providers to 
supply broadband deployment data as part of the new collection and 
through the Form 477, this approach will ensure that we have continuous 
access to consistent broadband deployment data for the purposes for 
which we require it. Given that service providers are already 
accustomed to submitting census-block level data, and the census-block 
data is much less detailed than their Digital Opportunity Data 
Collection filings will be, the burden of continuing to also file 
census-block level data will be minimal.
    23. We find that any additional burdens imposed by our new 
reporting approach will be relatively light for fixed providers in 
comparison to the significant benefit to be gained from more precise 
broadband deployment data. As an initial matter, many fixed providers 
already are familiar with the use of geospatial data because of its use 
in other contexts by the Commission and other federal and state 
agencies, thus making the transition reasonably simple. As Connected 
Nation notes, some fixed providers already have either internal GIS 
capabilities or have vendor relationships for the production of GIS 
files. In addition, Connected Nation suggests several online resources 
that can help fixed providers ``create their own polygons of service 
availability, such as ESRI's ArcGIS software.'' Connected Nation 
expresses concern, however, that small service providers will struggle 
to comply with the new polygon-based reporting requirements unless they 
get some assistance in the generation of accurate broadband coverage 
polygons. To lessen the burdens on all fixed providers, we direct OEA 
to oversee USAC in making service-desk help available, as well as 
providing clear instructions on the form for the new collection, to aid 
filers in preparing their broadband coverage polygons. We disagree with 
commenters, such as the Broadband Mapping Coalition, who contend that a 
map-based approach is a burdensome and insufficient fix to the problem 
of fixed broadband mapping. We also disagree with Alexicon, which 
argues that small fixed providers be allowed to report broadband 
deployment subject to a certain margin of error. Although we recognize 
the burdens imposed on small fixed providers (and all fixed providers) 
as a result of the Digital Opportunity Data Collection, we find that 
such burdens are outweighed by the need for more granular and precise 
fixed broadband deployment data--especially in rural areas where 
smaller providers are more likely to be providing service.
    24. With regard to the benefits to be realized from the new 
collection, we find that the adoption of polygon-based reporting will 
enable crowdsourcing and similar approaches to act as a check on the 
deployment data submitted by fixed providers, which is not possible 
with census-block reporting. Rather than listing the census blocks 
where a fixed provider's broadband service is available, broadband 
coverage polygons will show the actual service areas covered by fixed 
broadband providers. This, in turn, will result in more precise 
information about where fixed broadband is available. The use of 
crowdsourcing to verify the polygon coverage areas submitted by fixed 
providers will further improve the validity of broadband deployment 
data.
    25. Another critical benefit of transitioning to a polygon-based 
reporting format is the speed in which such a solution can be 
implemented. We are mindful of concerns voiced by commenters such as 
USTelecom that without a database of broadband-addressable locations 
(which USTelecom terms a ``Broadband Serviceable Location Fabric''), 
broadband coverage polygons provide no information on how many, and 
which, specific locations in the service area do not actually have 
service available. However, we disagree with the Broadband Mapping 
Coalition that the submission of coverage polygons should wait until 
after a process has been established to identify and geolocate all of 
the broadband serviceable locations that exist in a given area. 
Instead, we agree with commenters, such as Connected Nation, that GIS 
data such as polygons will ``provide significant granularity without 
the need to first create an underlying dataset of structures/locations 
with which the data can be paired.''
    26. We agree with commenters who argue that timing is crucial in 
getting more granular fixed broadband deployment data. We also agree 
that the mandatory collection of broadband coverage polygons best 
achieves the objectives of greater granularity in fixed broadband 
reporting within the shortest timeframe. As Connected Nation states, 
``implementing a system based on shapefile reporting would most likely 
result in the creation of a new more granular National Broadband Map in 
the shortest amount of time so that Federal agencies can more quickly 
utilize the map to guide funding decisions and support broadband 
buildout to the places that still desperately need it.'' We find that 
collecting broadband coverage polygons offers the best approach to more 
granular broadband deployment data, and that we have an opportunity to 
move forward quickly to significantly improve the data collection in 
the near term.
    27. Public Availability of Service Availability Data. We agree with 
NTIA that the Commission should release broadband deployment datasets 
with more public information, particularly ``with tables, charts and 
maps, granular visualization tools for both localized areas and 
specific technologies, and other mechanisms that summarize the 
information.'' To better allow for crowdsourcing, mapping, and other 
uses of fixed broadband deployment data, all service provider 
information filed as part of the Digital Opportunity Data Collection 
will be presumed to be non-confidential unless the Commission 
specifically directs that it be withheld. Filers seeking confidential 
treatment of data submitted as part of the new collection must submit a 
request that the data be treated as confidential, along with the 
reasons for withholding the information from the public. The Commission 
will make decisions regarding non-disclosure of confidential 
information. We find that this approach strikes an appropriate balance 
between the protection of confidential information and the need for 
public disclosure of fixed broadband deployment data to help with 
crucial crowdsourcing functionality and mapping capabilities.
    28. USAC Verification of Broadband Coverage Maps. In addition to 
incorporating feedback from state, local, and Tribal governmental 
entities, along with the public, we conclude that we must also take 
steps to independently verify coverage data submitted by service 
providers. As part of its Connect America Fund (CAF) responsibility, 
USAC maintains the High Cost Universal Broadband (HUBB) portal. CAF 
support recipients report through the HUBB portal latitude and 
longitude coordinates, address, deployment date, speed, and number of 
units for every location where service is available. This

[[Page 43710]]

information forms the foundation for the Connect America Fund Broadband 
Map. We direct USAC to integrate the geolocation data contained in the 
HUBB with the broadband coverage polygons submitted pursuant to the 
Digital Opportunity Data Collection. Doing so will benefit our overall 
understanding of how high-cost support dollars are used in conjunction 
with overall broadband deployment and will aid the data collection 
verification effort.
    29. In the CAF context, USAC performs real-time validation of the 
CAF data submitted to the HUBB through a series of automated checks of 
the information (e.g., that the latitude/longitude falls within an 
eligible area and that the location is not a duplicate of one already 
submitted). The HUBB also provides USAC the platform to conduct 
verification reviews to ``substantiate broadband deployment and confirm 
that carriers are in fact building out service that meets the FCC's 
minimum performance standards to the locations reported.'' Many 
elements of the process USAC uses for the CAF could potentially be used 
for verifying broadband deployment data as part of the Digital 
Opportunity Data Collection. We therefore direct USAC to propose and 
submit a plan to OEA for independently verifying the fixed broadband 
coverage polygons filed pursuant to the Digital Opportunity Data 
Collection. The verification process it proposes to use could parallel 
how USAC currently verifies deployment data submitted by CAF support 
recipients in the HUBB. USAC should propose other appropriate means of 
verifying the accuracy of filers' broadband coverage polygons, 
including site visits.
    30. Incorporating Location-Specific Data into the Digital 
Opportunity Database. We note that our decision to require broadband 
coverage area maps does not preclude the use of location-specific 
coverage data in the future. We agree with USTelecom and NTCA that we 
``should not adopt an `either/or' approach to improvements to data 
collection, but should both adopt shapefiles as a reporting methodology 
and move forward towards a uniform national dataset on top of which 
carriers can report broadband availability (via shapefile or other 
potential methods).'' As a result, we intend to pursue a multi-faceted 
approach that also incorporates location-specific data into the Digital 
Opportunity Data Collection, informed by input received in response to 
the Second FNPRM on the best way to implement such an approach. We 
agree with NTCA that the submission of broadband coverage polygons 
``would certainly improve granularity in the near-term . . . but 
another significant benefit is the prospect of integrating this 
approach seamlessly with broader, longer-term efforts to identify 
availability or lack thereof on a location basis.'' Location-based 
proposals such as the one put forth by the Broadband Mapping Coalition 
are ``designed to produce the most accurate, precise data available, 
and be a flexible, long-term solution'' to the problem of fixed 
broadband deployment accuracy and granularity.
    31. While we intend to pursue development of a location-specific 
database, we will not delay implementation of the new data collection 
while we make a determination of how best to incorporate location-
specific data. We agree with commenters like ACA who argue that 
location-specific reporting will impose substantial costs and 
complexity on fixed broadband providers, especially smaller providers, 
and will take significant time to complete. As a result, we find it is 
prudent to take this next step to improve the fixed broadband 
deployment data we collect in the near term. As a means of moving the 
location-based process forward as we work to establish our polygon-
based approach, we seek comment in the Second FNPRM on the best and 
fastest way to implement a location-based approach to fixed broadband 
deployment reporting, including whether to run such a process in 
parallel, or closely aligned, with the establishment of the new online 
portal for the Digital Opportunity Data Collection.
    32. Alternatives Not Adopted. We decline to adopt the approach set 
forth by Comcast and ACA to collect fixed broadband deployment data at 
the street segment level. According to ACA, while large providers have 
the capability and resources to collect broadband deployment data at a 
more granular level, smaller providers will face much greater burdens 
reporting deployment data with more precision. We find that a street-
level approach to fixed broadband deployment reporting has the same 
problem with granularity as the current census-block approach, 
especially in rural areas. Specifically, fixed providers claiming 
broadband service availability on an entire street, when only part of 
the street actually is served, would overstate broadband deployment 
much more so than a GIS file-based approach. We also agree with WISPA 
that a street-segment approach is not appropriate for fixed wireless 
providers, as streets and roads do not dictate how or where fixed 
wireless service is constructed, and consequently where service is 
provided and where it is available. Finally, given the familiarity that 
fixed providers have with GIS files, we find that is the better 
approach.
    33. In addition, we find that NTIA's recommendation to collect sub-
census-block level broadband deployment data only for larger census 
blocks does not go far enough. While we understand NTIA's desire to 
keep burdens low for filers, especially for small providers, we find 
that it is crucial to determine unserved broadband areas wherever they 
may be--in large, medium, or small census blocks. We do not agree with 
NTIA's assertion that we should only require more granular broadband 
deployment reporting in large census blocks--deployment data are 
critical for all areas and will allow federal and state governments 
(and providers) to determine with better particularity where broadband 
funding and buildout is most needed. In fact, the data suggest that 
there are likely unserved locations within even small blocks that are 
reported as served on Form 477. Granular reporting for all areas also 
would reduce customer confusion when attempting to determine broadband 
availability on a map produced from GIS-based data.
    34. We also decline to adopt Connected Nation's proposal to 
establish a neutral, third-party clearinghouse for the collection of 
fixed broadband deployment data. We conclude that such a clearinghouse 
would be largely redundant in light of the revised framework for 
collecting and reporting fixed deployment data that we adopt in this 
Report and Order.

B. Improving the Existing Form 477 Data Collection

    35. As USAC begins undertaking the Digital Opportunity Data 
Collection, we will continue to use Form 477 for certain intended uses, 
such as evaluating local telephone competition, gathering broadband 
deployment and voice subscription data, and collecting certain public 
safety information. However, we propose in the Second FNPRM to 
transition the collection of mobile broadband-capable network 
deployment data to the same USAC-administered portal created for fixed 
data and seek comment on sunsetting Form 477. We maintain the 
Commission's current Form 477 data collection for mobile broadband and 
voice data in the interim and take several actions to reduce the burden 
on service providers required to submit the form.

[[Page 43711]]

    36. Publish Minimum Advertised or Expected Speed Data and Provider-
Specific Coverage Data for Mobile Broadband Services. We adopt our 
proposal from the 2017 Data Collection Improvement FNPRM to no longer 
treat as confidential service providers' minimum advertised or expected 
speed data for mobile broadband services. After review of the record 
and considering what service providers already make public on their 
websites, we conclude that minimum advertised or expected speed data 
filed for mobile broadband services will not be treated as confidential 
and, therefore, such data will be publicly released for all subsequent 
filings. Currently, the bulk of the speed data that providers file 
relating to minimum advertised or expected speeds is treated as 
confidential because most, if not all, providers choose to check the 
non-disclosure box that is available to them on the form. This box 
allows providers to claim confidential treatment for what is otherwise 
publicly available speed information. Doing so, however, unnecessarily 
limits the ability of consumers and policy makers to effectively 
analyze the data submitted.
    37. We also conclude that provider-specific coverage data will be 
publicly released for all subsequent Form 477 filings. This action is 
necessary to ensure that consumers can easily use the information that 
is disclosed to the public, including minimum advertised or expected 
speed data, because such information is only beneficial if consumers 
know where service coverage is available. Because the Commission 
already makes provider-specific coverage data publicly available on its 
website by publishing each provider's shapefiles, filers will no longer 
be permitted to request confidential treatment for such information 
upon filing.
    38. We expect that disclosing minimum advertised or expected speed 
data, combined with already publicly available coverage information, 
will serve the public interest by promoting a more informed, 
transparent, and efficient marketplace. The dissemination of such 
information will allow consumers to determine what services are offered 
in specific geographic areas. It will also enable consumers to compare 
competing service offerings and make informed decisions regarding 
service plans and providers. In addition, it will provide consumers 
with the opportunity to review the data to ensure its accuracy.
    39. We are not persuaded that this coverage and speed data is 
competitively sensitive. Providers routinely publish and advertise the 
expected upload and download speeds they offer. Because coverage and 
speed data are already publicly available, we find that such 
information is not commercially sensitive, and conclude that its public 
release will not cause competitive harm to service providers. Most 
commenters agree that service providers often publicize this 
information by including it on their websites or in their advertising 
materials, which shows that they do not consider such information to be 
confidential or commercially sensitive.
    40. When balancing the public and private interests at stake, we 
conclude that public release of these data will not result in 
competitive harm and that the public interest in releasing coverage and 
speed information substantially outweighs any interest that service 
providers have in keeping confidential information that is already 
publicly available. Accordingly, going forward we will publish 
nationwide, provider-specific coverage maps depicting minimum 
advertised or expected speed data.
    41. Eliminating Requirement to Report Broadband Network Coverage by 
Spectrum Band. Under the current Form 477 reporting framework, mobile 
facilities-based providers are required to submit separate coverage 
maps depicting their broadband network coverage areas for each 
transmission technology and each frequency band. Eliminating this 
requirement is necessary to enhance focus on aspects of the data that 
are more important while decreasing burdens, so we therefore eliminate 
this unnecessary requirement.
    42. The Commission had hoped that collecting deployment information 
by spectrum band would enable it ``to analyze deployment in different 
spectrum bands,'' but that has not come to pass. We agree with 
commenters that eliminating this requirement will streamline the 
reporting process and reduce the number of coverage maps (and the 
associated underlying data processing) that reporting entities must 
submit. As Verizon notes, the Commission usually requests band-specific 
information directly from licensees in the context of analyzing build-
out and license renewal representations, and does not look at the 
current data collected. The burdens of submitting these data outweigh 
the benefits, particularly in light of the Commission's limited use of 
these data.
    43. We disagree that the Commission and consumer advocates may find 
it difficult to monitor providers' buildout requirements without this 
information. We are also not persuaded by Institute for Local Self-
Reliance's (ILSR) unsupported argument that we should continue to 
collect information that might be useful in the future. ILSR provides 
no meaningful examples of how the Commission might use these data. We 
also disagree with ILSR's claim that information on deployment by 
spectrum band is ``essential'' to determine if mobile providers are 
offering mobile broadband service of 10 Mbps download and 1 Mbps 
upload. Mobile broadband service providers already separately provide 
deployment data, including information on minimum advertised speeds. 
Moreover, given that service providers are deploying technologies 
(e.g., LTE) in multiple bands, we find this information is even less 
useful today than it was in 2013 when we originally imposed this 
requirement. We should not impose collection burdens based solely on 
the possibility that we might use the information at some point in the 
future.
    44. Adding a 5G-NR Technology Code. In the 2017 Data Collection 
Improvement FNPRM, the Commission sought comment on whether it should 
require separate reporting of 5G mobile broadband deployment and, if 
so, whether and how it should define 5G for the purposes of the Form 
477 data collection. Given the industry's increasing deployment of 5G 
and our goal of facilitating 5G services to consumers, we will now 
require providers to report 5G technology deployments as part of their 
filings. Gathering 5G deployment data for all areas of the country as 
well as creating 5G deployment maps based on such data is necessary so 
that consumers can understand where they can receive such services and 
to help guide us for future policies on 5G technology. We find that 
adding 5G technology deployments to our mobile broadband data 
collection and maps--and specifically defining it for purposes of Form 
477 collection--is consistent with the Commission's goal of tailoring 
its policies to evolution in technologies. We therefore adopt the 5G-NR 
(New Radio) technology standards developed by the 3rd Generation 
Partnership Project (3GPP) with Release 15 and require providers to 
submit 5G deployment data that meet the specifications of Release 15 
(or any successor release that may be adopted by the Commission's 
Bureaus).
    45. We disagree with some commenters' claims that requiring 
submission of 5G deployment data would lead to inconsistent results 
based on an absence of 5G industry standards. The 3GPP 5G-NR technology 
standards provide adequate guidance for filers to

[[Page 43712]]

determine which deployments meet the 5G-NR technology definition. We 
reject CTIA's suggestion that providers be allowed to voluntarily 
report 5G deployments. To ensure that both the Commission and consumers 
have an accurate account of 5G deployments, we will make such 
submissions mandatory.
    46. Eliminating Outdated Technology Codes. In the 2017 Data 
Collection Improvement FNPRM, the Commission sought comment on whether 
to eliminate or modify the requirement that mobile broadband providers 
report coverage information for each technology deployed in their 
networks. Specifically, the Commission asked whether reporting entities 
should provide coverage maps for four categories of technology--3G, 4G 
non-LTE, 4G LTE, and 5G--rather than the nine mobile broadband 
technology codes that it currently uses and, if so, how the Commission 
should define these four categories. Based on our experience with data 
gathered under the nine different mobile broadband technologies that 
the form specifies and on commenters' support for limiting the number 
of technologies, we modify the requirement to limit the required 
submission to four categories of technology--``5G-NR (New Radio),'' 
``LTE (Long Term Evolution),'' ``CDMA-based,'' and ``GSM-based.''
    47. For broadband data submissions going forward, 5G-NR reported 
technology should comply with industry standards for 5G as adopted by 
3GPP. Similarly, we adopt the LTE standards developed by 3GPP in 
Release 8 through Release 14, and deployment reported under LTE should 
be consistent with such standards. The ``CDMA-based'' category 
aggregates the CDMA and EVDO/EVDO Rev A categories in the current form, 
and the ``GSM-based'' category combines the GSM, WCDMA/UMTS/HSPA, and 
HSPA+ categories. We will eliminate collection of deployment data under 
the Analog and WiMAX categories because both technologies are no longer 
in widespread use and have been decommissioned by several mobile 
providers. The categories we adopt today will more meaningfully reflect 
information that is useful to consumers.
    48. Several commenters suggest modifications to the proposal in the 
2017 Data Collection Improvement FNPRM. We reject AT&T's suggestion 
that we require ``providers to file coverage maps for only three 
technology categories, 3G/4G, 4G LTE and 5G.'' As some commenters 
observe, modifying the requirement will fail to capture deployment of 
mobile technologies that predate LTE and 5G when parts of the country 
are still reliant on such technologies. To address in part the concerns 
of GCI, Connected Nation, and the CPUC, we do not adopt AT&T's 
proposal. Instead, we modify the proposal from the 2017 Data Collection 
Improvement FNPRM to retain aggregated collection under the ``CDMA-
based'' and ``GSM-based'' categories of mobile broadband deployment 
data under technologies that predate LTE and 5G-NR (with the exception 
of WiMAX and Analog) because important uses remain for such data. 
Aggregated collection under the ``CDMA-based'' and ``GSM-based'' 
categories, combined with collection of LTE and 5G-NR deployment, will 
ensure that areas of the country covered by at least 3G technology and 
entirely unserved areas of the country are captured, and will allow the 
Commission and other policymakers to evaluate those areas most in need.
    49. Given the extent of LTE deployment across the country, the 
importance of capturing mobile broadband deployment data under nine 
technology codes has been significantly reduced. In 2017, 
``approximately 92% of the U.S. population lived in census blocks with 
LTE coverage by at least four service providers,'' ``AT&T and Verizon 
each provided LTE coverage to census blocks containing approximately 
98% of the population, T-Mobile provided LTE coverage to approximately 
96% of the population, while Sprint provided LTE coverage to 
approximately 91% of the population.'' Thus, with providers' increased 
reliance on LTE to provide mobile broadband across the country, 
capturing mobile broadband deployment under nine technology codes has 
become outdated and unnecessary. The four codes that we adopt in this 
item will reduce burdens on filers while providing adequate information 
for the Commission to continue to ``assess the wireless marketplace to 
ensure that our spectrum and competition policies accommodate growing 
demand and evolving technologies in the provision of mobile broadband 
services.''
    50. The new 5G-NR, LTE, CDMA-based, and GSM-based technology codes 
also lessen the likelihood that filers may adopt and file under their 
own definitions of technology deployments, leading to confusion and 
decreasing the usefulness of the data gathered. Given that there are 
industry standards for 5G technology and LTE, we find it unnecessary to 
continue to require individual submissions under each of the previous 
nine codes.
    51. Finally, requiring deployment data to be submitted under four, 
instead of nine, technology codes will ease burdens on filers who must 
currently submit shapefiles for each technology. We find that the 
limited usefulness and practical application of the nine technology 
codes that Form 477 currently requires do not outweigh the burdens that 
they generate for filers.
    52. Simplifying Mobile Voice Deployment Data Collection. We 
eliminate the requirement to submit mobile voice data by spectrum band 
for the same reasons that we eliminate this requirement for mobile 
broadband data: The Commission has yet to use this spectrum band 
information in its mobile voice coverage analysis and the requirement 
poses an additional burden on filers. We also streamline the technology 
filing requirement to four main voice-technology categories: 5G-NR, 
Voice-over-LTE (VoLTE), GSM-based, and CDMA-based. GSM-based voice 
technologies include GSM or a subsequent generation of GSM, such as the 
current technology codes GSM, WCDMA/UMTS/HSPA, and HSPA+. CDMA-based 
voice technologies include CDMA or a subsequent generation of CDMA, 
such as the current technology codes CDMA and EVDO/EVDO Rev A.
    53. In filing nationwide voice-service coverage data, facilities-
based mobile voice providers are required to submit shapefiles 
representing geographic coverage by technology (e.g., LTE, CDMA, 
analog) and spectrum band of the service providers' voice coverage. In 
the 2017 Data Collection Improvement FNPRM, the Commission, while 
noting the importance of tracking where mobile voice services are 
available to consumers, sought comment on how it might streamline this 
collection. Specifically, the Commission asked whether it should 
eliminate the submission of voice coverage by both technology and 
spectrum band and whether it should continue to collect data for VoLTE 
separately.
    54. In the 2013 Form 477 Order, the Commission stated that voice 
deployment data filed by spectrum band and technology type would (1) 
enable the Commission to analyze the extent of deployment in different 
spectrum bands; (2) help the Commission project market trends and 
adjust its spectrum and competition policies; and (3) assist in the 
Commission's efforts in the areas of emergency response and disaster 
relief by identifying the providers that typically serve an affected 
area. The Commission no longer finds it useful, however, to examine 
voice deployment data by spectrum band for the purpose of adjusting its 
spectrum and competition policies, because service providers currently 
deploy voice and

[[Page 43713]]

broadband technologies across multiple bands. We also address the 
Commission's need to determine which provider's networks are available 
during an emergency, by retaining the requirement to submit data for 
VoLTE deployment. For example, VoLTE data coverage information 
demonstrates comprehensive technological compatibility among providers 
and aids the Commission in identifying where networks are available 
during natural disasters.
    55. Multiple commenters observe that several maps must be generated 
to meet this filing requirement, with little corresponding benefit. In 
balancing these interests, we find that more streamlined coverage maps 
depicting each provider's nationwide voice coverage area based on the 
technology categories outlined above allows consumers (and the 
Commission) to know where they can receive voice service from a given 
provider. We agree with the argument that continuing a separate 
collection for certain voice technologies is necessary because, for 
instance, consumers with a GSM-only phone may not be able to complete a 
call when roaming in an area where only CDMA is available. Providers 
have or will soon sunset their older voice technologies, replacing them 
with VoLTE networks. However, continuing to collect the voice 
technology deployment data we outline in this order is necessary for 
tracking where remaining legacy voice technologies are decommissioned, 
to ensure that coverage gaps in mobile calling do not arise.
    56. While we are streamlining the filing of voice-deployment data, 
we find facilities-based mobile-voice providers should continue to 
submit VoLTE-deployment data and going forward submit 5G voice 
deployment data under the new 5G-NR category. These data are valuable 
because they represent potential universal technical compatibility 
among mobile-voice providers, which could significantly aid emergency 
response and other efforts facilitated by such compatibility. For 
example, VoLTE coverage could better facilitate a customer's ability to 
complete a 911 call while roaming, particularly in rural areas where 
other voice technologies are not available. VoLTE is not yet 
ubiquitous. The filing of 5G-NR and VoLTE coverage data will allow the 
Commission to monitor how these deployments fill-in and expand upon the 
current voice-coverage footprint. We direct OEA, in consultation with 
WCB and WTB to change which mobile voice service technology data are 
collected going forward, as they evolve.
    57. Collect Mobile Broadband and Voice Subscription Data at the 
Census Tract Level. Facilities-based mobile-broadband and voice 
providers are currently required to submit their subscriber numbers by 
state. Providers must include their own prepaid and postpaid customers 
in addition to those of resellers. Currently, providers are instructed 
to assign a subscriber to a particular state based on the area code of 
the device's phone number or ``by using some other method that best 
reflects the subscriber's locations, such as billing address or place 
of primary use address.''
    58. To provide more granular data, the 2017 Data Collection 
Improvement FNPRM proposed changing the subscribership data by 
requiring service providers to submit subscriber data at the census-
tract level, attributed to the subscriber's billing address. Based on 
the record and the Commission's need for more granular data, we now 
require mobile providers to submit broadband and voice subscriber data 
at the census-tract level based on the subscriber's place of primary 
use for postpaid subscribers and based on the subscriber's telephone 
number for prepaid and resold subscribers. We find that state-level 
aggregation of subscription data significantly limits the data's 
usefulness, and that census-tract level data would substantially 
improve our ability to conduct more accurate mobile competition 
analysis, particularly in secondary market transactions. For instance, 
the Commission analyzes competition by Cellular Market Area to 
determine the impact of removing a competitor in a proposed license 
transfer. While the Commission receives subscriber data from service 
providers to assess competition in relevant market areas in a pending 
transaction, it does not contain information about the other 
competitors in the market. Having the same census-tract level 
subscribership data from all providers facilitates the Commission's 
ability to conduct comparative analysis in license transfer 
proceedings.
    59. The Commission today relies on the telephone number-based 
Number Resource Utilization/Forecast information as a proxy for filer-
submitted subscriber numbers when conducting competitive market 
analyses because of shortcomings in state-level subscriber data. Number 
Resource Utilization/Forecast subscriber data indicate the number of 
assigned phone numbers that a service provider has in a particular rate 
center, out of the 18,000 rate centers across the country. All service 
providers must report to the Commission the quantity of their phone 
numbers assigned to end users, which permits the Commission to 
calculate the total number of mobile wireless subscribers. When a 
geographical analysis is required, rate center data can be associated 
with a geographic point within a county boundary.
    60. Number Resource Utilization/Forecast data, however, have 
limitations, like providing only the quantity of mobile wireless 
connections that have a telephone number, rather than the number of 
consumers subscribed to mobile broadband or voice service. If a mobile 
broadband or voice subscriber uses a device that does not have a 
telephone number assigned to it (e.g., a tablet), then that subscriber 
will not be recorded in Number Resource Utilization/Forecast data. 
These data also do not reflect when consumers move to a different state 
and retain the same telephone number.
    61. We find that both the Commission's need for more precise data 
for competitive analyses and the limitations of Number Resource 
Utilization/Forecast data outweigh industry concerns about the burden 
of the collection. We believe that filer-supplied data at the census-
tract level are superior to Number Resource Utilization/Forecast data 
because they are generated by the operators and based on the operator-
determined location of its subscribers. Use of Number Resource 
Utilization/Forecast data require the Commission to estimate the 
location of subscribers based on the rate centers associated with 
telephone numbers, and this can cause problems. Mobile subscriber data 
at the census-tract level provides a dataset needed for our analyses, 
instead of introducing error by relying on Number Resource Utilization/
Forecast data in a manner that it was not intended to be used.
    62. Census-tract level reporting of mobile subscription data 
strikes the proper balance between more useful, granular data, while 
reducing artificial precision that could be introduced by getting too 
granular with mobile service use. Some commenters support the 
requirement to file subscriber data by census block. OTI states that 
census-block level data would help digital literacy programs better 
target their efforts, because many households subscribing to these 
programs rely on mobile broadband as their primary means of accessing 
the internet. Using census tracts is consistent with our previous 
finding that this level of granularity corresponds to actual locations 
and can be correlated with

[[Page 43714]]

valuable demographic census data. Moreover, subscription data at the 
census-tract level would be useful for analyzing competition by market 
and would be more useful than rate-center based Number Resource 
Utilization/Forecast data. While customers are attributed to a 
particular address for their place of primary use, unlike fixed, the 
mobile nature of the service inherently makes such attribution to too 
small an area artificial. The census-tract level maintains the balance 
of being useful for our analyses while reducing any artificial 
granularity.
    63. We are not convinced that the burdens on reporting entities are 
so high that the Commission should continue to rely on Number Resource 
Utilization/Forecast data. We disagree with commenters who contend that 
we should continue to rely on Number Resource Utilization/Forecast data 
as the primary source of mobile broadband connections and voice service 
subscriptions. The Commission must move forward with a more accurate 
mobile subscription collection to meet its goals and track 
subscribership data. Nothing in the record indicates that a census-
tract collection is any more burdensome for mobile filers than for 
fixed filers, whom were already required to provide subscriber data at 
the census-tract level.
    64. To ensure consistency among submissions, we require providers 
to submit census tract postpaid subscribership data by ``place of 
primary use,'' which is defined in the United States Code as ``the 
street address representative of where the customer's use of the mobile 
telecommunications service primarily occurs,'' and must be the ``the 
residential street address or the primary business street address of 
the customer'' and ``within the licensed service area of the home 
service provider.'' We find, however, that we should seek further 
comment on applying the place of primary use methodology to prepaid and 
reseller subscribers. As explained by CTIA, many prepaid mobile 
providers neither collect nor use place of primary use. Once prepaid 
subscribers purchase mobile services at point-of-sale, the service 
provider may not communicate with or track the subscriber. It would be 
a significant change if retailers and service providers are required to 
collect subscriber billing address at point-of-sale, or if providers 
are required to obtain customer billing address by some other means, 
such as by directly contacting the subscriber via text message or 
telephone call. To ensure the Commission receives prepaid and reseller 
subscriber data using a consistent methodology, we find it is necessary 
on an interim basis to require providers to submit data that assigns 
those subscribers to a census tract using the subscriber's telephone 
number.
    65. We find persuasive the concerns expressed by commenters that 
the use of billing address does not reflect where subscribers primarily 
use their mobile broadband and voice services. Certain subscriber 
groups, such as seasonal workers, college students, business accounts, 
and prepaid subscribers, could be misreported if billing address is 
used to represent where they primarily use their service. The ``place 
of primary use'' best addresses all of these concerns. This definition 
focuses on where the service is primarily used, not billed, and allows 
for inclusion of prepaid subscribers. Facilities-based mobile service 
providers must also obtain and maintain this information for tax 
purposes, thus decreasing the burden of collecting and storing these 
subscriber data. To the extent that providers do not currently have a 
system that associates a place of primary use with a census tract, 
providers should obtain and keep this information in the normal course 
of business going forward. While the place of primary use may not 
reflect all locations that subscribers may use their service, we 
believe it is the best proxy given the benefits and burdens commenters 
identified.
    66. Eliminating Collection of Mobile Retail Availability. We 
conclude it is appropriate to no longer collect census-tract level 
mobile retail availability data. The current form requires facilities-
based mobile broadband providers to submit a list of census tracts in 
which the provider advertises its mobile wireless broadband service and 
in which the service is available to actual and potential subscribers. 
These retail availability data were used as a proxy for mobile 
broadband deployment data before the Commission required submission of 
such data. When the Commission began collecting deployment data, it 
decided to retain the retail availability collection, on the basis that 
such data are necessary to indicate where, within a service provider's 
coverage area, the provider actually has a local retail presence. The 
Commission concluded that collection of retail availability data would 
complement the deployment data by allowing the Commission to better 
understand where service is ``advertised and available'' to subscribers 
within the provider's deployment footprint.
    67. The 2017 Data Collection Improvement FNPRM proposed to 
eliminate the collection of retail availability data, given that, as 
time passed, the data did not in actuality provide useful, additional 
information about where service providers have a local retail presence. 
Based on the record, we now eliminate the mobile retail availability 
collection. We agree with commenters that this collection creates an 
additional filing burden but does not yield useful data.
    68. We are not persuaded by those commenters that support retention 
or improvement of the retail availability filing requirement. The 
California PUC argues that we should continue collecting this 
information, but does not explain how it is useful beyond what is also 
collected for deployment data. The West Virginia Office of the GIS 
State Coordinator states that we should revise the collection and 
require providers to submit their local retail presence, which would 
aid in determining how to serve consumers not located in retail service 
areas. However, most (if not all) consumers can still subscribe to 
service despite the lack of a retail presence in a location, if a 
provider's network covers that location. We find that deployment 
information, which service providers must continue to submit, is much 
more useful to consumers and policymakers than retail availability 
information, and accordingly we eliminate the mobile retail 
availability collection.
    69. Eliminating the Committed Information Rate Collection for 
Fixed-Broadband Deployment. Form 477 currently requires fixed providers 
offering business/enterprise/government services to report the maximum 
downstream and upstream contractual or guaranteed data throughput rate 
(committed information rate) available in each reported census block. 
However, the record in this proceeding supports discontinuing the 
collection of committed information rate data. We agree with commenters 
such as Alaska Communications that committed information rate data is 
``not a useful category of data'' and ``imposes significant burdens'', 
and with ACA, who argues that any rationale there was to adopt the 
requirement no longer exists because ``small- and medium-sized end-
users increasingly do not distinguish'' between best-efforts or 
committed information rate ``as broadband service performance for best-
efforts is enhanced.'' Verizon also agrees with eliminating the 
committed information rate requirement because ``relying on the maximum 
upload and download speed should sufficiently describe the services 
that are available to business customers in an area.'' AT&T supports 
elimination and asks

[[Page 43715]]

that the Commission ``limit the collection to the maximum best efforts 
speed offered, and maintain the indicators for consumer and business 
data.'' Other commenters also are in agreement with eliminating the 
committed information rate reporting requirement.
    70. Only Windstream supports keeping the collection of committed 
information rate data, arguing that such data ``enable the Commission 
to evaluate trends in the competitive landscape for the provision of 
Business Data Services. . . .'' Windstream, in fact, urges the 
Commission not only to keep but also to expand the collection and 
require reporting of the following CIR ranges at the census-block 
level: (1) 10 Mbps and below; (2) 11 to 50 Mbps; (3) 51 to 100 Mbps; 
(4) 101 Mbps to 1 GB; and (5) above 1GB. Windstream contends that these 
data ``are crucial for the Commission to evaluate whether its 
predictions prove accurate or whether different action is necessary to 
ensure competitive [business data service] markets.''
    71. We disagree. Specific measures of a committed information rate 
are not required to evaluate the business data services market per the 
competitive market test that the Commission adopted in 2017 for price 
cap areas (prior to the 2017 Data Collection Improvement FNPRM) and in 
2018 for certain rate-of-return areas. Accordingly, discontinuing the 
committed information rate collection lacks any relationship to our 
ability to ``evaluate trends in the competitive landscape for the 
provision of [business data services],'' as Windstream claims. The 
competitive market test depends on reported service speeds 
(specifically, a minimum of 10/1 Mbps). As long as we collect service 
speeds for upload and download, all the information necessary for an 
analysis using the competitive market test remains available. 
Therefore, we disagree with Windstream and decline to expand the 
collection of committed information rate data as requested.
    72. Permitting Company-Specific Fixed-Voice-Subscription Data at 
the Study-Area Level for Incumbent Local Exchange Companies. In the 
2017 Data Collection Improvement FNPRM, the Commission proposed to use 
the Form 477 fixed voice subscription data, in conjunction with Study 
Area Boundary data, to develop and publish aggregated voice line counts 
for every rate-of-return carrier study area. The Commission's proposal 
stemmed from the fact that, at the time, rate-of-return carriers 
switching to the Alternative Connect America Cost Model and Alaska Plan 
carriers were no longer required to report such data to USAC for its 
legacy study area boundaries. However, in the December 2018 Rate-of-
Return Reform Order, the Commission reinstated the requirement so the 
Commission can once again collect the line count information (through 
FCC Form 507), thereby maintaining a frequently-used data set. 
Consequently, we decline to adopt the proposal to replace the FCC Form 
507 data with the Form 477 fixed voice subscription data (plus Study 
Area Boundary data) because the underlying rationale for the 
Commission's proposal no longer exists (i.e., the proposal is moot).
    73. Non-Substantive Clarifying Rule Amendments. Finally, we adopt 
amendments to clarify our rules, correct inaccurate references, and 
delete superfluous text, without changing the substantive requirements. 
First, we modify the rules to more clearly identify the categories of 
service providers required to submit data. The Commission has required 
facilities-based providers of broadband service to submit Form 477 
since 2000, but the existing rules do not define the key term 
``broadband.'' We remedy this gap by incorporating the form 
Instructions' definition of ``broadband connection'' into the rule. 
Moreover, facilities-based providers of mobile voice service have been 
required to file since the form's inception; but the rules do not make 
clear that mobile voice service providers can be defined as 
``facilities-based providers'' or that only those that qualify as 
``facilities-based'' must file. We correct these anomalies by 
broadening the definition of ``facilities-based providers'' to 
encompass mobile voice service providers as well as broadband 
connections.
    74. We also consolidate the separate rule sections that establish 
Form 477 filing requirements for broadband service providers (Sections 
1.7000 et seq.) and local voice service providers (Section 43.11) into 
a single set of rules. It is no longer necessary to retain two separate 
sets of rules regarding submission of the same form, particularly 
because any given entity may provide both types of services and thus is 
subject to both rules. Furthermore, we revise text in Section 1.7001(a) 
that inaptly refers to facilities-based providers' rights to use 
spectrum in terms of ownership rather than licensing. Instead, we use 
the more precise and accurate text of the Form 477 Instructions to make 
clear that fixed wireless and mobile voice and broadband service 
providers are ``facilities-based,'' for these purposes, if they: (1) 
Use spectrum for which they have a license; (2) manage or lease 
spectrum from another licensee pursuant to our rules; or (3) operate 
over unlicensed spectrum that is lawfully available for its use. We 
also delete unnecessary text.
    75. Finally, we direct WCB, together with IB, WTB, and OEA, to 
modify Form 477 and the Instructions to the form to reflect changes in 
technologies over time and to update coverage resolution, network or 
transmission technologies, and related matters reported on Form 477 as 
necessary.

IV. Final Regulatory Flexibility Analysis

    76. As required by the Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980, as 
amended (RFA), an Initial Regulatory Flexibility Analysis (IRFA) was 
incorporated in the 2017 Data Collection Improvement FNPRM released in 
August 2017 in this proceeding. The Commission sought written public 
comment on the proposals in the FNPRM, including comments on the IRFA. 
No comments were filed specifically in response to the IRFA. One 
commenter in the proceeding referenced the IRFA in its general 
comments, and we address those comments below in Section B. This Final 
Regulatory Flexibility Analysis (FRFA) conforms to the RFA.

A. Need for, and Objectives of, the Proposed Rules

    77. The Form 477 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 
merger reviews, and supporting our universal service policies. With the 
Report and Order, the Commission takes steps to improve the Form 477 
data collection to reduce filing burdens and provide more useful 
information to consumers. Specifically, we make targeted changes to 
streamline the filing process and eliminate the collection of certain 
information that we believe is not sufficiently useful when compared 
with the burden imposed on filers in providing such information. In 
addition, we make targeted changes such as clarifying parts of the 
instructions and modifying the collection of certain data to aid in 
more accurate broadband data and the maps based on that data to improve 
the overall quality and accuracy of the data that we collect on fixed 
and mobile voice and broadband service. We also streamline the nine 
mobile broadband technology codes currently listed on the Form 477 down 
to four categories of technology; require collection of facilities-
based mobile broadband and

[[Page 43716]]

voice subscription data at the census tract level; and make publicly 
available speed data that mobile broadband service providers submit on 
all subsequent Form 477 filings.
    78. It also has become clear to the Commission that the fixed-
broadband deployment data collected on Form 477 are no longer 
sufficient to use for targeting our universal service funds. Therefore, 
we direct the Universal Service Administrative Company (USAC), under 
the oversight of the Commission's Office of Economics and Analytics 
(OEA), the Wireline Competition Bureau (WCB), Wireless 
Telecommunications Bureau (WTB), and the International Bureau (IB), to 
initiate a new data collection (the Digital Opportunity Data 
Collection) for fixed providers based on geospatial broadband service 
availability data that represent the actual service area where fixed 
broadband is available. At the same time, to complement this granular 
broadband availability data, we adopt a process to have USAC 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. We 
believe these actions in the Report and Order will increase the 
usefulness of fixed broadband deployment data to the Commission, 
Congress, the industry, and the public.

B. Summary of Significant Issues Raised by Public Comments in Response 
to the IRFA

    79. The Wireless Internet Service Providers Association (WISPA) in 
its general comments to the FNPRM contends that that IRFA does not meet 
the requirements of the Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA) because the 
Commission failed ``to estimate how many small broadband providers use 
unlicensed spectrum.'' Section 603 of the RFA requires the Commission 
to include in the IRFA ``a description of and, where feasible, an 
estimate of the number of small entities to which the proposed rule 
will apply.'' WISPA argues that it is feasible for the Commission to 
estimate the number of small fixed wireless internet providers by using 
the information from its data collection on Form 477.
    80. When we prepared the IRFA in 2017, it was not feasible for us 
to provide an accurate estimate of the number of small wireless 
internet service providers (WISPs) that would be affected by the 
proposed rule. Our action in Section III.B. of this Report and Order 
clarifies that WISPs that operate over unlicensed spectrum are required 
to file Form 477. We recognize the possibility that such entities might 
not have filed in prior data collections because of the ambiguity in 
Section 1.7001(a) of the Commission's rules. Thus, at the time, it was 
not feasible for us to estimate the number of small WISPs that would be 
affected by the proposed rule. However, we specifically considered the 
potential impact of the proposed rule on small WISPs in the IRFA for 
the 2017 Data Collection Improvement FNPRM by including such entities 
in the ``Broadband Internet Access Service Providers'' category.

C. Response to Comments by the Chief Counsel for Advocacy of the Small 
Business Administration

    81. Pursuant to the Small Business Jobs Act of 2010, which amended 
the RFA, the Commission is required to respond to any comments filed by 
the Chief Counsel for Advocacy of the Small Business Administration 
(SBA) and to provide a detailed statement of any change made to the 
proposed rules as a result of those comments.
    82. The Chief Counsel did not file comments in response to the 
proposed rules in this proceeding.

D. Description and Estimate of the Number of Small Entities to Which 
the Proposed Rules Will Apply

    83. 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 rules adopted herein. 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 SBA.
    84. 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, three comprehensive small entity size standards 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.
    85. 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).
    86. Finally, the small entity described as a ``small governmental 
jurisdiction'' is defined generally as ``governments of cities, towns, 
townships, villages, school districts, or special districts, with a 
population of less than fifty thousand.'' U.S. Census Bureau data 
published in 2012 indicate that there were 89,476 local governmental 
jurisdictions in the United States. We estimate that, of this total, as 
many as 88,761 entities may qualify as ``small governmental 
jurisdictions.'' Thus, we estimate that most governmental jurisdictions 
are small.
i. Broadband Internet Access Service Providers
    87. The broadband internet access service provider industry has 
changed since the definition was introduced in 2007. The data cited 
below may therefore include entities that no longer provide broadband 
internet access service and may exclude entities that now provide such 
service. To ensure that this FRFA 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. We note that, although we have no specific information 
on the number of small entities that provide broadband internet access 
service over unlicensed spectrum, we included these entities in our 
Initial Regulatory Flexibility Analysis.
    88. 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 and 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

[[Page 43717]]

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 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.
    89. 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 data for 2012 shows 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 ``All Other Telecommunications'' firms 
can be considered small.
2. Wireline Providers
    90. 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.
    91. 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.
    92. 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 to 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.
    93. 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 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.
    94. 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.
    95. 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.

[[Page 43718]]

    96. 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.
    97. 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.
3. Wireless Providers--Fixed and Mobile
    98. The broadband internet access service provider category covered 
by these new rules may cover multiple wireless firms and categories of 
regulated wireless services. Thus, to the extent the wireless services 
listed below are used by wireless firms for broadband internet access 
service, the 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.
    99. 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.
    100. 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.
    101. 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 has 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.
    102. 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.
    103. 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 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.
    104. 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 
standards, defining ``small entity'' 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 percent 
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.
    105. 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

[[Page 43719]]

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.
    106. 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 has 
approved these small business size standards for the 900 MHz Service. 
The Commission has 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 conducted in 2002 and 
included 23 BEA licenses. One bidder claiming small business status won 
five licenses.
    107. 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.
    108. 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.
    109. 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 won 60 licenses, and nine winning bidders claimed 
entrepreneur status and won 154 licenses. On July 26, 2005, the 
Commission completed an auction of 5 licenses in the Lower 700 MHz band 
(Auction No. 60). There were three winning bidders for five licenses. 
All three winning bidders claimed small business status.
    110. 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.
    111. 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 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) and winning five 
licenses.
    112. 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

[[Page 43720]]

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.
    113. Air-Ground Radiotelephone Service. The Commission has 
previously used the SBA's small business size standard applicable to 
Wireless Telecommunications Carriers (except Satellite). 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.
    114. 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. These definitions were 
approved by the SBA. 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.
    115. AWS Services (1710-1755 MHz and 2110-2155 MHz bands (AWS-1); 
1915-1920 MHz, 1995-2000 MHz, 2020-2025 MHz and 2175-2180 MHz bands 
(AWS-2); 2155-2175 MHz band (AWS-3)). For the AWS-1 bands, the 
Commission has 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.
    116. 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 licenses. However, we estimate that the 
majority of these licensees are Internet Access Service Providers 
(ISPs) and that most of those licensees are small businesses.
    117. 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 this SBA category 
and the associated size standard, the Commission estimates that a 
majority of fixed microwave service licensees can be considered small.
    118. 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.
    119. 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)).
    120. BRS -- 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

[[Page 43721]]

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.
    121. 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 percent 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 percent 
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 percent 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 four licenses; one bidder that claimed very small business 
status won three licenses; and two bidders that claimed entrepreneur 
status won six licenses.
    122. EBS--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. 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's small business size standard for this 
category is all such firms having 1,500 or fewer employees. 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 size standard, the majority of firms in this industry can be 
considered small.
4. Satellite Service Providers
    123. Satellite Telecommunications. 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 a total of 
333 firms 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.
    124. All Other Telecommunications. The ``All Other 
Telecommunications'' category 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 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.
5. Cable Service Providers
    125. 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 that 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.
    126. 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 eleven 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.
    127. 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 
percent of all subscribers in the United States and is not affiliated 
with any entity or entities whose gross annual revenues in the 
aggregate exceed $250,000,000.'' 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

[[Page 43722]]

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.
6. All Other Telecommunications
    128. 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 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 
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.

E. Description of Projected Reporting, Recordkeeping, and Other 
Compliance Requirements for Small Entities

    129. We expect the rules adopted in the Report and Order will 
impose new or additional reporting, recordkeeping, and/or other 
compliance obligations on small entities. In an effort to develop 
better quality, more useful, and more granular broadband deployment 
data to advance our statutory universal service obligations, we 
conclude it is necessary to create a new data collection, calculated to 
produce broadband deployment maps that will allow the Commission to 
precisely target scarce universal service dollars to where broadband 
service is lacking. The Commission also modifies aspects of the Form 
477 collection to increase the accuracy of the information collected 
and to streamline the current reporting requirements to reduce the 
burdens on filers. We are cognizant of the need to ensure that the 
benefits resulting from use of the data outweigh the reporting burdens 
imposed on filers and believe the new collection requirement for fixed 
providers to submit broadband coverage polygons depicting the areas 
where they actually have broadband-capable networks and make fixed 
broadband service available to end-user locations will benefit small 
entities as well as other providers. WISPA, for example, supports the 
reporting of broadband coverage polygons because it is less burdensome 
for its members, who are primarily small fixed wireless providers, and 
because it is a more accurate means of collecting deployment data.
    130. We find that any additional burdens imposed by our new 
reporting approach will be relatively light for fixed providers in 
comparison to the significant benefit to be gained from more precise 
broadband deployment data. For example, many fixed providers are 
already familiar with GIS files because the Commission and other 
federal and state agencies use these files in other contexts. Further, 
some fixed providers already have internal GIS capabilities and/or 
vendor relationships for the production of GIS files, which should 
lessen the cost of compliance for small entities. The record suggests 
that several online resources and software options are available that 
can help fixed providers create their own polygons of service 
availability to comply with this requirement, which may lessen the need 
for small entities to hire professionals. Thus, we find that any 
additional burdens imposed by our new collection will be relatively 
light for fixed providers in comparison to the significant benefit to 
be gained from more accurate and precise broadband deployment data. 
Although the Commission cannot quantify the cost of compliance with the 
requirements in the Report and Order, we believe the streamlining and 
removal of certain reporting requirements should reduce the compliance 
burdens for small entities that are required to complete Form 477.

F. Steps Taken To Minimize the Significant Economic Impact on Small 
Entities, and Significant Alternatives Considered

    131. The RFA requires an agency to describe any significant, 
specifically small business, alternatives that it has considered in 
reaching its approach, which may include the following four 
alternatives (among others): (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.
    132. The Commission's actions to modernize and streamline the Form 
477 collection and reduce the compliance burdens for filers include 
measures that should benefit small entities. In considering the 
comments in the record, we were mindful of the time, money, and 
resources that some small entities incur to complete the current Form 
477. Our actions adopting the filing of broadband coverage polygons 
should provide some economic relief to small entities when compared to 
the burdens imposed by the current census-block reporting requirement. 
We also direct WCB, in coordination with OEA, WTB, and IB, to determine 
whether any category of very small fixed providers (e.g., those with 
less than 250 subscribers (or 1,500 or some other small set number of 
subscribers) and who are not eligible telecommunications carriers 
(ETCs) under the USF program) should have additional time in filing 
their initial reports. In addition, to lessen the burdens on small 
fixed providers, the Commission and USAC intend to have service-desk 
help available, as well as clear instructions on the form for the new 
collection, to aid filers in preparing their broadband coverage 
polygons. We also believe our actions to streamline the filing process 
and eliminate certain filing requirements will benefit small entities 
by reducing the administrative costs they incur to file Form 477.
    133. The Commission considered but declined to adopt a requirement 
to collect fixed broadband deployment data at the street segment level. 
With a street-level approach, smaller providers would encounter much 
greater burdens to report deployment data with more precision. For the 
reasons discussed in the Report and Order, we agree with

[[Page 43723]]

WISPA that a street-level approach is not appropriate for fixed 
wireless providers. In addition, we declined to establish technical 
standards for fixed providers to follow in determining whether fixed 
broadband is available in an area. Imposing fixed standards could 
result in increased costs and burdens for small entities and could risk 
undermining the expertise and on-the-ground knowledge of fixed 
providers, possibly resulting in less accurate maps. The unique 
knowledge of fixed broadband providers about their networks puts them 
in the best position to determine where broadband is available in their 
service areas.

V. Procedural Matters

    134. Paperwork Reduction Act. The Report and Order contains new and 
modified information collection requirements subject to the Paperwork 
Reduction Act of 1995 (PRA), Public Law 104-13. It will be submitted to 
the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for review under section 
3507(d) of the PRA. The Commission, as part of its continuing effort to 
reduce paperwork burdens, will invite the general public and the Office 
of Management and Budget to comment on the information collection 
requirements contained in the Report and Order, 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.
    135. Congressional Review Act. The Commission will send a copy of 
this Report & Order to Congress and the Government Accountability 
Office pursuant to the Congressional Review Act, See 5 U.S.C. 
801(a)(1)(A).
    136. 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

    137. 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.
    138. It is further ordered that Parts 1, 43, and 54 of the 
Commission's rules are amended as set forth in Appendix A.
    139. It is further ordered that the Report and Order shall be 
effective 30 days after publication in the Federal Register, except for 
rules and portions of the Report and Order that have new or modified 
information collection requirements that must be approved by the Office 
of Management and Budget (OMB), which will be effective 30 days after 
the announcement in the Federal Register of OMB approval of those 
requirements. OMB approval is necessary for the information collection 
requirements in 47 CFR 54.1401, 54.1402(b), (c), (d)(2), and (e), plus 
paragraphs 44-51 and 57-65 of the Report and Order.
    140. It is further ordered that the Commission's Consumer & 
Governmental Affairs Bureau, Reference Information Center, shall send a 
copy of the Report and Order to Congress and the Government 
Accountability Office pursuant to the Congressional Review Act, see 5 
U.S.C. 801(a)(1)(A).
    141. 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 Final Regulatory Flexibility Analysis, to the 
Chief Counsel for Advocacy of the Small Business Administration.

List of Subjects

47 CFR Part 1

    Administrative practice and procedure, Broadband, Reporting and 
recordkeeping requirements, Telecommunications.

47 CFR Part 43

    Communications common carriers, Reporting and recordkeeping 
requirements.

47 CFR Part 54

    Broadband, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Universal 
service fund.

Federal Communications Commission.
Marlene Dortch,
Secretary.

Final Rules

    For the reasons discussed in the preamble, the Federal 
Communications Commission amends 47 CFR part 1 as follows:

PART 1--PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE

0
1. The authority citation for part 1 continues to read as follows:

    Authority:  47 U.S.C. 151, 154(i) and (j), 155, 157, 225, 227, 
303(r), 309, 1403, 1404, 1451, and 1452.

Subpart V--Commission Collection of Advanced Telecommunications 
Capability Data and Local Exchange Competition Data

0
2. Revise the subpart V heading to read as set forth above.

0
3. Revise Sec.  1.7000 to read as follows:


Sec.  1.7000  Purpose.

    The purposes of this subpart are to set out the terms by which 
certain commercial and government-controlled entities report data to 
the Commission concerning (a) the provision of wired and wireless local 
telephone services and interconnected Voice over internet Protocol 
services, and (b) the deployment of advanced telecommunications 
capability, as defined in 47 U.S.C. 1302, and services that are 
competitive with advanced telecommunications capability.

0
4. Amend Sec.  1.7001 by revising paragraphs (a), (b), and (d) to read 
as follows:


Sec.  1.7001  Scope and content of filed reports.

    (a) Definitions. Terms used in this subpart have the following 
meanings:
    (1) Broadband connection. A wired line, wireless channel, or 
satellite service that terminates at an end user location or mobile 
device and enables the end user to receive information from and/or send 
information to the internet at information transfer rates exceeding 200 
kilobits per second (kbps) in at least one direction.
    (2) Facilities-based provider. An entity is a facilities-based 
provider of a service if it supplies such service using facilities that 
satisfy any of the following criteria:
    (i) Physical facilities that the entity owns and that terminate at 
the end-user premises;
    (ii) Facilities that the entity has obtained the right to use from 
other entities, such as dark fiber or satellite transponder capacity as 
part of its own network, or has obtained;
    (iii) Unbundled network element (UNE) loops, special access lines, 
or other leased facilities that the entity uses to complete 
terminations to the end-user premises;
    (iv) Wireless service for which the entity holds a license or that 
the entity

[[Page 43724]]

manages or has obtained the right to use via a spectrum leasing 
arrangement or comparable arrangement pursuant to subpart X of this 
Part (Sec. Sec.  1.9001-1.9080); or
    (v) Unlicensed spectrum.
    (3) End user. A residential, business, institutional, or government 
entity that subscribes to a service, uses that service for its own 
purposes, and does not resell that service to other entities.
    (4) Local telephone service. Telephone exchange or exchange access 
service (as defined in 47 U.S.C. 153(20 and (54)) provided by a common 
carrier or its affiliate (as defined in 47 U.S.C. 153(2)).
    (5) Mobile telephony service. Mobile telephony (as defined in Sec.  
20.15 of this chapter) provided to end users by a commercial mobile 
radio service (CMRS) provider.
    (b) The following entities shall file with the Commission a 
completed FCC Form 477, in accordance with the Commission's rules and 
the instructions to the FCC Form 477:
    (1) Facilities-based providers of broadband service;
    (2) Providers of local telephone service;
    (3) Facilities-based providers of mobile telephony service; and
    (4) Providers of Interconnected Voice over internet Protocol (VoIP) 
service (as defined in Sec.  9.3 of this chapter) to end users.
* * * * *
    (d) Disclosure of data contained in FCC Form 477 will be addressed 
as follows:
    (1) Emergency operations contact information contained in FCC Form 
477 is information that should not be routinely available for public 
inspection pursuant to section 0.457 of this chapter, in addition to 
other information that should not be routinely available for public 
inspection pursuant to Sec.  0.457.
    (2)(i) Respondents may request that provider-specific subscription 
information in FCC Form 477 filings be treated as confidential and be 
withheld from public inspection by so indicating on Form 477 at the 
time that they submit such data.
    (ii) The Commission will release the following information in FCC 
Form 477 filings to the public, and respondents may not request 
confidential treatment of such information:
    (A) Provider-specific mobile deployment data;
    (B) Data regarding minimum advertised or expected speed for mobile 
broadband services; and
    (C) Location information that is necessary to permit accurate 
broadband mapping, including crowdsourcing or challenge processes.
    (3) Respondents seeking confidential treatment of any other data 
contained in FCC Form 477 must submit a request that the data be 
treated as confidential with the submission of their Form 477 filing, 
along with their reasons for withholding the information from the 
public, pursuant to Sec.  0.459 of this chapter.
    (4) The Commission shall make all decisions regarding non-
disclosure of provider-specific information, except that the Chiefs of 
the International Bureau, Wireless Telecommunications Bureau, Wireline 
Competition Bureau, or Office of Economics and Analytics may release 
provider-specific information to:
    (i) A state commission, provided that the state commission has 
protections in place that would preclude disclosure of any confidential 
information,
    (ii) ``Eligible entities,'' as those entities are defined in the 
Broadband Data Improvement Act, in an aggregated format and pursuant to 
confidentiality conditions prescribed by the Commission, and
    (iii) Others, to the extent that access to such data can be 
accomplished in a manner that addresses concerns about the competitive 
sensitivity of the data and precludes public disclosure of any 
confidential information.
* * * * *

0
5. Add Sec.  1.7003 to subpart V to read as follows:


Sec.  1.7003  Authority to update FCC Form 477.

    The International Bureau, Wireless Telecommunications Bureau, 
Wireline Competition Bureau, and Office of Economics and Analytics may 
update the specific content of data to be submitted on FCC Form 477 as 
necessary to reflect changes over time in transmission technologies, 
spectrum usage, Geographical Information Systems (GIS) and other data 
storage and processing functionalities, and other related matters; and 
may implement any technical improvements or other clarifications to the 
filing mechanism and forms.

PART 43--REPORTS OF COMMUNICATIONS COMMON CARRIERS, PROVIDERS OF 
INTERNATIONAL SERVICES AND CERTAIN AFFILIATES

0
6. The authority citation for part 43 continues to read as follows:

    Authority:  47 U.S.C. 35-39, 154, 211, 219, 220; sec. 
402(b)(2)(B), (c), Pub. L. 104-104, 110 Stat. 129.


Sec.  43.11  [Removed]

0
7. Remove Sec.  43.11.

PART 54--UNIVERSAL SERVICE

0
8. The authority citation for part 54 continues to read as follows:

    Authority:  47 U.S.C. 151, 154(i), 155, 201, 205, 214, 219, 220, 
254, 303(r), 403, and 1302, unless otherwise noted.


0
9. Add subpart N, consisting of Sec. Sec.  54.1400 through 54.1403, to 
read as follows:
Subpart N--The Digital Opportunity Data Collection
Sec.
54.1400 Purpose.
54.1401 Frequency of reports.
54.1402 Scope and contents of filed reports.
54.1403 Authority to update the Digital Opportunity Data Collection.

Subpart N--The Digital Opportunity Data Collection


Sec.  54.1400   Purpose.

    The purpose of this subpart is to set out the terms by which 
facilities-based providers report data to the Universal Service 
Administrative Company concerning the deployment of fixed broadband 
connections for use in administration of the Universal Service program 
and related matters.


Sec.  54.1401   Frequency of reports.

    Entities subject to the provisions of this subpart shall file 
initial reports pursuant to the Digital Opportunity Data Collection 
within six months after the Office of Economics and Analytics issues a 
public notice announcing the availability of the new Digital 
Opportunity Data Collection platform. Thereafter, Digital Opportunity 
Data Collection filers must submit updates within six months of 
completing any new, or discontinuing existing, fixed broadband 
deployments; acquiring new, or selling existing, network facilities 
that have fixed broadband connections; or changing existing offerings 
that change the data submitted on their current Digital Opportunity 
Data Collection filing. Entities that become subject to the provisions 
of this subpart for the first time after the initial filing deadline 
shall file their initial reports within six months after they become 
eligible and shall report data for that initial period. All eligible 
entities must file a certification once per year on or before June 30th 
that as of December 31st of the previous year all of the filers' data 
continues to be accurate, subject to any updates made by the filer 
through June 30th of that calendar year.

[[Page 43725]]

Sec.  54.1402   Scope and content of filed reports.

    (a)(1) Definitions. The definitions in Sec.  1.7001(a) of this 
chapter apply to terms used in this subpart.
    (2) Fixed broadband connection. A broadband connection that cannot 
be used to provide a mobile service (as defined in 47 U.S.C. 153(33)) 
and does not terminate to mobile stations (as defined in 47 U.S.C. 
153(34)).
    (b) All facilities-based providers of fixed broadband connections 
shall file with USAC, pursuant to the timetable in Sec.  54.1401 of 
this subpart, a completed filing as part of the Digital Opportunity 
Data Collection in accordance with the rules of the Commission and the 
instructions to the Digital Opportunity Data Collection.
    (c) All filers in the Digital Opportunity Data Collection shall 
include in each report a certification signed by an appropriate 
official of the filer (as specified in the Digital Opportunity Data 
Collection's instructions) and shall report the title of their 
certifying official.
    (d)(1) All data contained in Digital Opportunity Data Collection 
filings will be routinely available for public disclosure, except for 
emergency operations contact information and other information that 
should not be routinely available for public inspection pursuant to 
Sec.  0.457 of this chapter.
    (2) Filers seeking confidential treatment of any data contained in 
the Digital Opportunity Data Collection must submit a request that the 
data be treated as confidential with the submission of their filing, 
along with their reasons for withholding the information from the 
public, pursuant to Sec.  0.459 of this chapter.
    (3) The Commission shall make all decisions regarding non-
disclosure of confidential information.
    (e) Filers shall file a revised version of their Digital 
Opportunity Data Collection filing if they discover a significant 
reporting error in their data.
    (f) Failure to file in the Digital Opportunity Data Collection in 
accordance with the Commission's rules and the instructions to the 
Digital Opportunity Data Collection may lead to enforcement action 
pursuant to the Act and any other applicable law.


Sec.  54.1403  Authority to update the Digital Opportunity Data 
Collection.

    The Office of Economics and Analytics, in consultation with the 
Wireline Competition Bureau, the Wireless Telecommunications Bureau, 
and the International Bureau, may update the fixed broadband 
technologies reported in the Digital Opportunity Data Collection as 
necessary to reflect changes over time in technology, and the Office 
may implement any technical improvements, changes to the format and 
type of data submitted, or other clarifications to the Digital 
Opportunity Data Collection and its instructions.

[FR Doc. 2019-18063 Filed 8-21-19; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 6712-01-P