[Federal Register Volume 75, Number 81 (Wednesday, April 28, 2010)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 22338-22352]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2010-9831]
=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION
47 CFR Part 20
[WT Docket No. 05-265; FCC 10-59]
Reexamination of Roaming Obligations of Commercial Mobile Radio
Service Providers
AGENCY: Federal Communications Commission.
ACTION: Proposed rule.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: The Commission addresses in this Second Further Notice of
Proposed Rulemaking (Second FNPRM) whether to extend roaming
obligations to data services that are provided without interconnection
to the public switched network--including mobile broadband services.
DATES: Interested parties may file comments on or before June 14, 2010,
and reply comments on or before July 12, 2010.
ADDRESSES: Comments may be filed using: (1) The Commission's Electronic
Comment Filing System (ECFS), (2) the Federal Government's eRulemaking
Portal, or (3) by filing paper copies. See Electronic Filing of
Documents in Rulemaking Proceedings, 63 FR 24121 (1998).
Electronic Filers: Comments may be filed electronically
using the Internet by accessing the ECFS: http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/ecfs2/or the Federal eRulemaking Portal: http://www.regulations.gov.
Paper Filers: Parties who choose to file by paper must
file an original and four copies of each filing. If more than one
docket or rulemaking number appears in the caption of this proceeding,
filers must submit two additional copies for each additional docket or
rulemaking number.
Filings can be sent by hand or messenger delivery, by commercial
overnight courier, or by first-class or overnight U.S. Postal Service
mail. All filings must be addressed to the Commission's Secretary,
Office of the Secretary, Federal Communications Commission.
All hand-delivered or messenger-delivered paper filings
for the Commission's Secretary must be delivered to FCC Headquarters at
445 12th St., SW., Room TW-A325, Washington, DC 20554. The filing hours
are 8 a.m. to 7 p.m. All hand deliveries must be held together with
rubber bands or fasteners. Any envelopes must be disposed of before
entering the building.
Commercial overnight mail (other than U.S. Postal Service
Express Mail
[[Page 22339]]
and Priority Mail) must be sent to 9300 East Hampton Drive, Capitol
Heights, MD 20743.
U.S. Postal Service first-class, Express, and Priority
mail must be addressed to 445 12th Street, SW., Washington, DC 20554.
People with Disabilities: To request materials in accessible
formats for people with disabilities (braille, large print, electronic
files, audio format), send an e-mail to [email protected] or call the
Consumer & Governmental Affairs Bureau at 202-418-0530 (voice), 202-
418-0432 (TTY).
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For further information concerning
this proceeding, please contact Peter Trachtenberg, Spectrum and
Competition Policy Division at 202-418-7369, Christina Clearwater,
Spectrum and Competition Policy Division at 202-418-1893 or Nese
Guendelsberger, Spectrum and Competition Policy Division at 202-418-
0634.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: This is a summary of the Commission's rules
noted in the Order on Reconsideration and Second Further Notice of
Proposed Rulemaking in WT Docket No. 05-265; FCC 10-59, adopted April
21, 2010, and released on April 21, 2010. This summary should be read
with its companion document, the Order on Reconsideration summary
published elsewhere in this issue of the Federal Register. The full
text of the Order on Reconsideration and Second Further Notice of
Proposed Rulemaking is available for public inspection and copying
during business hours in the FCC Reference Information Center, Portals
II, 445 12th Street, SW., Room CY-A257, Washington, DC 20554. It also
may be purchased from the Commission's duplicating contractor at
Portals II, 445 12th Street, SW., Room CY-B402, Washington, DC 20554;
the contractor's Web site, http://www.bcpiweb.com; or by calling (800)
378-3160, facsimile (202) 488-5563, or e-mail [email protected]. Copies
of the public notice also may be obtained via the Commission's
Electronic Comment Filing System (ECFS) by entering the docket number,
WT Docket No. 05-265. Additionally, the complete item is available on
the Federal Communications Commission's Web site at http://www.fcc.gov.
Synopsis of the Second Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking Section of
the Order on Reconsideration and Second Further Notice of Proposed
Rulemaking
I. Introduction
1. In this Second FNPRM, the Commission seeks additional comment on
whether to extend automatic roaming obligations to certain mobile data
services--specifically, mobile services, including mobile broadband
Internet access, that are provided without interconnection to the
public switched telephone network. The Commission is seeking comment as
well on whether any such obligations should apply only to service
providers that are also CMRS carriers or more broadly to facility-based
mobile data service providers whether or not they also provide CMRS.
The Commission's underlying policy goals remain the same as for mobile
voice service roaming--to facilitate the provision of services in a
manner that provides the greatest benefit to consumers. In particular,
the Commission seeks to have service provided by new entrants in
competition with established incumbents; to ensure that consumers have
access to seamless coverage nationwide; and to provide incentives for
both new entrants and incumbent service providers to invest and
innovate by using available spectrum and constructing wireless network
facilities on a widespread basis. The Commission invites parties to
include any new information that may be relevant to the Commission's
consideration of what action, if any, may be appropriate in this
proceeding.
2. In 2007, the Commission sought comment in a Further Notice
(FNPRM) on whether to impose data roaming obligations on CMRS carriers.
The Commission recognizes the need to resolve this issue in an
expeditious manner. Broadband deployment is a key priority for the
Commission, and the deployment of mobile data networks will be
essential to achieve the goal of making broadband connectivity
available everywhere in the United States. The Commission also seeks to
foster competition and the development of mobile data services with
wide, seamless coverage. Wide coverage will enhance the unique social
and economic benefits that a mobile service provides by enabling
consumers to access information wherever they are, while competition
will help to promote investment and innovation and protect consumer
interests.
3. Many providers have argued that ensuring the availability of
roaming arrangements for mobile broadband will be critical to achieving
these goals. The Commission also notes that roaming services have
helped to promote competition and seamless nationwide coverage in the
mobile telephony market. The Commission notes mobile broadband
networks, particularly ``fourth-generation'' networks, are still at an
early stage of deployment, similar to the early years of the mobile
telephony market. The Commission therefore expects that the
availability of data roaming services will likely play a major role in
the future development of the broadband data market. Further, resolving
the issue will provide regulatory certainty, which will itself help to
establish an environment conducive to network deployment and
investment.
4. Nevertheless, the Commission concludes that it is important to
refresh and further develop the record before moving to adopt specific
rules governing the availability of data roaming services. Mobile
broadband is at a critical stage in its development. The mobile
broadband ecosystem is rapidly evolving and providers are seeing a
rapid increase in mobile broadband data use, but the advanced mobile
broadband services market is still nascent. The Commission therefore
seeks additional information in order to determine how best to ensure
the rapid, ubiquitous and competitive development and deployment of
broadband services. Given the impact the Commission's policies can have
at this formative stage, the Commission needs to choose the right
policies to further its goals for mobile broadband, which like its
mobile services goals generally, include fostering innovation,
investment and network deployment, promoting competition and the
availability of seamless nationwide access, and empowering and
protecting consumers.
5. Since the 2007 FNPRM, there have been numerous developments in
the industry and advancements in technology that are likely to be
relevant to the Commission's analysis, and which have affected at least
one nationwide provider's positions in this proceeding. To help us
determine the best policies for mobile broadband, the Commission wants
to ensure that such information is fully incorporated into its decision
making on this important issue. In addition, in light of the limited
extent of the FNPRM, the Commission finds that asking a number of
specific questions will ensure that its resolution of this issue is
based on a more fully developed record. Although the mobile broadband
market is similar to the voice market in key respects, it appears to be
[[Page 22340]]
different in others, and it is important that the Commission
understands whether any of those differences would justify a different
regulatory approach to achieve its underlying policy goals than the
Commission is taking today with regard to interconnected voice. In
addition, as the FNPRM was limited to seeking comment on the
obligations of CMRS carriers that also provide non-CMRS data services,
the Commission takes this opportunity to seek comment on whether to
impose similar obligations on other mobile data service providers,
whether they offer CMRS or not. For these reasons, the Commission seeks
further comment on whether it would be in the public interest to extend
roaming obligations to non-interconnected services including broadband
data.
A. Discussion
6. The goals that informed the Commission's determinations
regarding the scope of roaming obligations for interconnected voice
also guide its consideration of obligations on non-interconnected data
services. The Commission seeks to foster investment and innovation in
the use of spectrum and the development and deployment of data network
facilities and services, competition for mobile broadband business by
multiple providers, and consumer benefit from the availability of
advanced and innovative mobile services with seamless nationwide
coverage. The Commission notes that the growth of the mobile broadband
data market is at a critical early stage. Many nationwide and non-
nationwide providers have obtained licenses, including AWS and 700 MHz
spectrum licenses among others, that the Commission anticipates will be
used to provide new and advanced data services to American consumers.
Numerous commenters in this proceeding argue that the viability of data
network deployments and the ability of consumers to access such
services seamlessly will depend on the ability of providers to obtain
data roaming arrangements.
7. The importance of the issue underscores the need for a more
fully developed record to provide the foundation for fact-based, data-
driven decision making, especially in light of the brevity of the 2007
FNPRM. In the two years since the 2007 FNPRM, the wireless broadband
industry has experienced a rapid evolution, with significant economic,
technological, and regulatory developments, including developments in
network and device technologies, spectrum use and availability, market
participants, network deployments, and consumer demand and usage
patterns. Such developments include market transactions involving
significant existing CMRS providers, the Commission's auction of
significant additional spectrum in the 700 MHz Band for commercial
broadband use, announcements from numerous providers of new mobile
broadband network deployments, increasing consumer use of smartphones,
and, partly as a result, a dramatic increase in consumers' use of
wireless data services. Given all these changes and developments, the
Commission desires an up-to-date understanding of, among other things,
the shape of the business segment, the network services and
technologies that will be deployed, the importance of roaming to entry
and commercial viability, the availability of roaming arrangements
absent any regulatory requirement, the technical arrangements needed to
support data roaming, and the capacity demands to be expected from data
roaming traffic, including variability.
8. In addition, the Commission notes that the 2007 FNPRM was
limited in scope to whether the Commission should impose data roaming
obligations on CMRS carriers that also provide non-CMRS data services.
As the market for mobile broadband services has developed, however, the
Commission now anticipates that mobile broadband services will
increasingly be provided by entities that do not offer CMRS but that
may nevertheless compete for mobile data service subscribers with
companies that offer both mobile broadband and CMRS carriers.
Therefore, the Commission is taking this opportunity to seek comment on
whether automatic roaming obligations for mobile data services should
apply to all providers of such services.
9. Parties should include any new information that may be relevant
to determining what action the Commission should take in this
proceeding. Further, parties should comment on how a roaming rule for
data services, if any, should compare to the Commission's rule for
voice services and explain with specificity what justifies similar or
different treatment. The Commission notes that parties submitted
several proposals in response to the 2007 FNPRM.
Some proposed that the Commission should not impose any
rule.
Others argued for a rule for data roaming that largely
mirrors the voice roaming rule adopted in the 2007 Report and Order,
subject only to restrictions in cases of technical or economic
infeasibility.
Others proposed requiring data roaming but including
special conditions on data roaming comparable to those that the
Commission imposed on requests for roaming for push-to-talk and SMS,
including a requirement that the requesting provider offer the services
on its own network for which it is requesting a roaming arrangement.
Some suggested that data roaming obligations should only
require a host carrier to provide roaming subscribers with conduit
access to the requesting carrier's network, not access to the host's
own proprietary information services.
In addition, some commenters proposed specific measures to
address concerns regarding the potential for data roaming to cause
network capacity exhaustion.
The Commission seeks comment on these specific proposals or any other
proposals for addressing data roaming obligations, and the Commission
ask all parties to be specific regarding the rule that the Commission
should adopt, if any, regarding data roaming. Commenters desiring
confidential treatment of their submissions should request that their
submission, or specific parts thereof, be withheld from public
inspection pursuant to the Commission's rules.
10. Legal Authority. The Commission has exercised its discretion to
classify some non-interconnected data services, e.g., mobile wireless
broadband Internet access, as information services, thus removing them
from the category of common carrier services under Title II. In the
2007 Report and Order, the Commission found that automatic roaming is a
common carrier obligation and does not extend to information services
or to other wireless services that are not CMRS. Accordingly, in the
2007 FNPRM, the Commission sought comment on whether automatic roaming
obligations could be imposed on such services pursuant to our authority
under Title I and/or Title III. The Commission further addresses the
extent of its authority below, and the Commission seeks comment on its
analysis.
11. Although the Commission determined three years ago that
wireless broadband Internet access is an information service and not a
CMRS service, it has not made any classification determinations
regarding any service or application provided over these Internet
access connections. Further, the Commission has not determined whether
the provision of automatic roaming should be
[[Page 22341]]
considered a telecommunications service, and thus subject to Title II,
even if the subscriber is using the roaming arrangement to access an
information service. The Commission believes that, regardless of
whether the services a subscriber would access through roaming
arrangements are telecommunications services or information services,
the Commission has statutory authority to require automatic roaming for
them. If these services are telecommunications services, they are
subject to roaming obligations pursuant to the Commission's authority
under Title II and Title III. If they are information services, the
Commission has the authority to promulgate roaming requirements under
Title III and other provisions. The Commission seeks comment on this
analysis, including the significance, if any, of the recent decision of
the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit
in Comcast Corporation. v. FCC.
12. The Commission turns first to its authority under Title III.
Several provisions of that title provide the Commission authority to
establish license conditions in the public interest. For example,
Section 301 provides the Commission with authority to regulate ``radio
communications'' and ``transmission of energy by radio.'' Under Section
303, the Commission has the authority to establish operational
obligations for licensees that further the goals and requirements of
the Act if the obligations are in the ``public convenience, interest,
or necessity'' and not inconsistent with other provisions of law.
Section 303 also authorizes the Commission, subject to what the
``public interest, convenience, or necessity requires,'' to
``[p]rescribe the nature of the service to be rendered by each class of
licensed stations and each station within any class.'' Section 307(a)
likewise authorizes the issuance of licenses ``if public convenience,
interest, or necessity will be served thereby.'' Section 316 provides a
similar test for new conditions on existing licenses, authorizing such
modifications if ``in the judgment of the Commission such action will
promote the public interest, convenience, and necessity.'' Application
of these provisions is not affected by whether the service using the
spectrum is a telecommunications service or information service under
the Act. Thus, in the Wireless Broadband Internet Access Classification
Order, the Commission found that wireless broadband Internet access,
although an information service, continues to be subject to obligations
promulgated pursuant to Title III. The Commission also relied on
authority under Section 303(r) to impose ``open platform'' obligations
on Upper 700 MHz C Block licensees, without regard to whether such
licensees were providing telecommunications or information services.
Accordingly, the Commission believes that the provisions discussed
above provide authority to establish roaming obligations over both
telecommunications and information services, if such obligations are
found to be in the public interest and, in the case of Section 303(r),
the obligations would also further the goals and requirements of the
Act.
13. As discussed above, reasonable roaming obligations can serve
the public interest by promoting competition, investment, and new entry
while facilitating consumer access to ubiquitous service. The
Commission also anticipates that promoting competition, investment, and
new entry in the broadband services market and protecting consumer
access to nationwide ubiquitous service, would serve several specific
goals and requirements of the Act consistent with section 303(r), which
gives the Commission authority to impose requirements ``as may be
necessary to carry out the provisions of this Act.'' These obligations
may help to meet the requirement under Section 309(j)(3) that, ``in
specifying eligibility and other characteristics of * * * licenses [to
be issued by competitive bidding] * * *, and in designing the
methodologies for use under this subsection, the Commission shall
include safeguards to protect the public interest in the use of the
spectrum and shall seek to promote the purposes specified in section 1
of this Act'' and certain enumerated objectives. Regarding the purposes
in section 1 of the Act, to the extent that they would promote
competition and the availability of seamless nationwide services,
automatic roaming obligations for data may further the statutory goal
of making available ``to all the people of the United States * * * a
rapid, efficient, Nation-wide, and world-wide wire and radio
communication service with adequate facilities at reasonable charges *
* * for the purpose of promoting safety of life and property through
the use of wire and radio communications.'' Automatic data roaming
additionally may advance enumerated objectives within Section
309(j)(3), including ``the development and rapid deployment of new
technologies, products, and services for the benefit of the public * *
* without administrative or judicial delays; * * * [and] (D) efficient
and intensive use of the electromagnetic spectrum * * * .'' To the
extent that roaming requirements are found to encourage more efficient
and intensive use of spectrum in rural areas, they would also support
the direction of Section 303(g) to ``[s]tudy new uses for radio,
provide for experimental uses of frequencies, and generally encourage
the larger and more effective use of radio in the public interest * *
*.'' These obligations may also further the goal under Section 1302 of
encouraging new deployment of advanced services to all Americans by
promoting competition and by removing barriers to infrastructure
investment, including the barriers to new entrants resulting from
incumbents' ``head start'' advantages. Accordingly, the Commission
thinks that, if roaming obligations on non-interconnected services are
ultimately found to be in the public interest, the Commission has
authority under the provisions of Title III discussed above, among
other provisions, to establish such obligations. The Commission seeks
comment on this analysis.
14. Next, the Commission seeks comment on arguments in the record
that automatic roaming for non-interconnected services is itself a
telecommunications service, and therefore is also subject to our
authority under Title II. ``Telecommunications'' is defined in the Act
as ``the transmission, between or among points specified by the user,
of information of the user's choosing without change in the form or
content of the information as sent and received.'' ``Telecommunications
service'' is defined as ``the offering of telecommunications for a fee
directly to the public, or to such classes of users as to be
effectively available directly to the public, regardless of the
facilities used.'' SouthernLINC argues that automatic roaming is simply
a transmission service. It describes the function of the host provider
as ensuring that data are transmitted without change between the
subscriber and the subscriber's home network. Opponents argue that the
provision of roaming access to information services can involve direct
support of the information service by the host provider rather than
simply transmission of the packets to the roaming subscriber's native
network. They also argue that, even where the data are simply
transmitted back to the native network, this will often require DNS
lookup, which, they say, the Commission has found to be a
``capability'' that goes beyond mere transmission. Proponents respond
that such addressing and routing functions
[[Page 22342]]
are not sufficient to render automatic roaming an information service,
as they do not cause a ``change in the form or content of the
information as sent and received.'' The Commission seeks comment on
these arguments.
15. The Commission also seeks comment on the extent to which host
providers that have implemented data roaming arrangements provide data
services or applications, such as web browsing or push-to-device
electronic mail, and how these applications are provided. Is a host
provider's network being used only as a conduit between the roaming
subscriber and the subscriber's home network? To the extent that a host
provider performs functions other than data transmission, to what
extent are these functions limited to addressing and routing functions,
or other functions ancillary to achieving the transmission of the data
to its destination? Do any of these functions fall within the
management exception in the definition of ``information service''? Do
the answers to any of these questions vary depending on the specific
data service (e.g., e-mail) requested by subscribers of home providers,
or on the specific network technology involved (e.g., 2G, 3G, or 4G)?
16. Finally, the Commission turns to its authority under Title I of
the Act. Under Title I, the Commission may exercise ancillary authority
over a matter when it falls within the agency's general statutory grant
of jurisdiction under Title I and the regulation is reasonably
ancillary to the effective performance of the Commission's statutorily
mandated responsibilities. The Commission seeks comment on its
ancillary authority to address roaming obligations for providers of
non-interconnected wireless services. The Commission thinks it clear
that the Commission has subject matter jurisdiction over non-
interconnected wireless services and features, including wireless
broadband Internet access services. As the Commission has previously
found with regard to wireless broadband Internet access services,
wireless non-interconnected services are covered by the Commission's
general jurisdictional grant under sections 1 and 2(a) of the Act,
coupled with the definition set forth in section 3(33) (``radio
communication''). Second, because the availability of automatic roaming
at reasonable rates and terms can help to promote facilities-based
competition and the availability of seamless nationwide services,
automatic roaming obligations may be reasonably ancillary to several
provisions under the Act. The Commission seeks comment on whether these
or other provisions of the Act support the exercise of ancillary
authority.
17. Some commenters argue that relying on our Title I authority to
impose roaming obligations on services that the Commission has
classified as information services would be inconsistent with
Congress's intent that information services not be treated as common
carrier services, pointing to section 153(44) of the Act. This
provision provides that ``a telecommunications carrier shall be treated
as a common carrier under this Act only to the extent that it is
engaged in providing telecommunications services.'' They also argue
that requiring automatic roaming obligations for information services
would be inconsistent with the Commission's prior determination that
providers of information services ``are exempt from mandatory Title II
common carrier regulation.'' The Commission seeks comment on these
arguments.
18. Importance of Data Roaming. The Commission next seeks further
comment on the importance of roaming for non-interconnected data
services. In what ways will data roaming arrangements affect
competitive entry and network deployment in the nascent data services
market? For example, what is the effect on consumers in the absence of
data roaming requirements in terms of the coverage and service they
will receive? Will rural consumers, who may only have access to small,
local providers, have no coverage beyond their local area?
19. The Commission also seeks comment on what impacts the
establishment of data roaming arrangements may have on the terms of
retail service provided to consumers, how such impacts differ from
those resulting from voice roaming arrangements, and how service terms
might be affected by data roaming developments in the future and a data
roaming mandate in particular.
20. For those providers that have roaming arrangements with other
providers for non-interconnected data services, to what extent do their
data subscribers make use of such roaming arrangements, and how does
the amount of their subscribers' roaming use compare to their home
network use? For host providers, how does the data roaming traffic they
support compare to their own subscribers' use, in terms of amount and
revenues generated? The Commission also seeks comment on how
deployment, competition, and consumer access to services will be
affected in the mobile broadband market in the absence of data roaming
obligations.
21. Investment Incentives. The Commission seeks further comment on
the impact that extending roaming requirements to wireless data
services would have on the incentives of providers to invest in
advanced data networks and fully use available spectrum. The record
currently encompasses competing claims with regard to the impact that
extending an automatic roaming obligation to non-interconnected
services would have on investment. Proponents of a data roaming
obligation argue that, because the availability of roaming will
facilitate competitive entry, the amount of network investment will be
increased. Opponents of such an obligation argue that a data roaming
mandate will create disincentives for both smaller and larger providers
to build out advanced networks in new areas, particularly in high cost
areas.
22. The Commission first notes that these arguments are similar to
the arguments presented to the Commission with regard to automatic
roaming for voice services, which, as discussed above, the Commission
has addressed through adoption of an automatic roaming requirement. The
Commission therefore asks commenters to address specifically whether
and how the investment incentives would differ for non-interconnected
data services. The Commission also notes that, while many commenters
made assertions regarding the impact of roaming obligations on buildout
incentives, no commenters provided a methodology or hard data that
would help us to judge the overall impact of a roaming obligation on
investment, the use of spectrum, and buildout. Such methodology or data
would be helpful. In addition, the Commission seeks comment on whether
it should adopt any measures or restrictions to help preserve
investment incentives. For example, should the Commission clarify that
a carrier that obtains automatic roaming from another carrier does not
have a right to advertise that it offers its subscribers roaming on a
particular host carrier's network absent a voluntary agreement of the
host carrier? Would this help to prevent freeriding on the value of the
host carrier's brand name recognition and service quality reputation?
23. The Provision of Roaming for Non-Interconnected Data Services.
The Commission also asks commenters to provide specific data that will
help us assess the availability of roaming arrangements for various
non-interconnected data services and the current ability of providers
that desire
[[Page 22343]]
such arrangements to obtain them. The Commission seeks comment on the
impact of consolidation in the CMRS market or other trends affecting
market concentration on the current and future availability of roaming
arrangements for non-interconnected services. For example, the
Commission asks commenters to provide specific information regarding
instances in which providers that have been willing to enter into
roaming arrangements, whether for voice or data, are now refusing to do
so. In such cases, the Commission asks commenters to specify whether
the would-be host provider has refused ongoing roaming for any service,
or has agreed to continue providing roaming for services previously
supported but refused to extend the arrangement to new (e.g., non-
interconnected data) services.
24. The Commission seeks specific information from providers that
have received requests for data roaming regarding their policies and
practices regarding such roaming arrangements. How many requests for
data roaming they have received, how many of these requesting providers
have been granted or refused roaming arrangements, and for what reasons
or considerations were arrangements granted or refused? Will these
policies change in the future?
25. The Commission seeks comment on the impact of developing
network technology on the availability of data roaming. Are providers
seeking data roaming arrangements limited to networks using the same
basic air interface technology as their own, and, if so, how do the
markets for roaming services compare between the different network
technologies? How are roaming opportunities being affected by the
handsets being developed for broadband data? For example, to what
extent are multi-mode or multi-band handsets being developed that might
expand a provider's potential pool of roaming partners?
26. Capacity and Other Technical Issues. In the FNPRM, the
Commission sought comment on whether roaming obligations presented any
issues regarding network capacity, integrity, or security, and on the
effect that automatic roaming would have on the capacity of data
networks and the ability of providers to offer full access to their own
customers. The Commission asked whether a provider should have the
right to limit access to its network by roamers and what parameters
should be considered as justification for such limits. Numerous
commenters addressed these issues in general terms, but provided few
specifics.
27. The Commission invites commenters to refresh the record on
these issues and provide specific information. The Commission seeks
comment on how concerns regarding capacity or traffic management issues
from data roaming traffic could be addressed. Would clarifying that a
host provider's provision of data roaming service is subject to
reasonable network operational needs address this issue? The Commission
asks commenters to be specific regarding the clarifications, if any,
that the Commissions should adopt. If a commenter asserts that
addressing this problem through traffic management is not feasible, the
Commission asks that the commenter provide a detailed explanation
regarding the problem. Some commenters have argued, for example, that
it is not possible to identify the particular roaming individuals
causing a traffic congestion problem. The Commission seeks comment on
the specifics of this argument, and on, assuming the argument is true,
alternative traffic management approaches that are available to address
network congestion issues. For instance, as suggested by some
proponents of a data roaming obligation, should such a roaming
obligation allow network operators to identify roaming users as a group
and apply suitable network management protocols to such a group to
address congestion issues? The Commission also notes that it is seeking
comment below on terms and conditions established for the provision of
PTT and SMS roaming that may well serve to limit technical issues.
28. The Commission also seeks specific information on the extent to
which solutions have been developed to address these issues. The
Commission notes, for example, that some international data roaming
services have implemented models to provide traffic forecasting. Can
these models help providers address the problem of uncertainty in the
broadband capacity demands of roaming traffic? Have such models for
data roaming been implemented domestically? Data roaming arrangements
are already established in the United States that provide roaming on
2.5G data networks. The Commission seeks comment on how the capacity
demands of roaming parties and the other technical issues referenced
above have been addressed to achieve roaming on these networks. For
example, how have providers addressed the concerns regarding traffic
management and capacity exhaustion?
29. The Commission also seeks comment on what other actions might
be appropriate to address spectrum capacity needs that may arise out of
data roaming or to help ensure that spectrum is utilized to the extent
possible. For example, would a rule facilitating spectrum sharing
arrangements between a host provider and a requesting provider be
helpful or appropriate if the host provider provides data roaming
services to the requesting provider? In other words, would it be
helpful to obligate the requesting provider to allow the host provider
to use the requesting provider's spectrum in the market in which the
host provider makes data roaming available to the requesting provider?
30. To what extent have solutions been developed for anticipating
and managing the broadband capacity demands of roaming traffic on
networks using any 3G technology and on networks using any 4G
technology? If solutions have been developed for any technology, the
Commission seeks comment on the status of efforts to develop such
solutions. Are there different technical, legal, commercial or policy
considerations that the Commission should consider with respect to data
roaming traffic on 3G and 4G networks? For instance, how do 4G
technologies such as LTE impact the technical challenges to developing
such roaming arrangements or otherwise affect carriers' ability to
establish such arrangements? If there are differences, should the
Commission treat roaming on 4G networks differently than other
generations of mobile networks, including 3G networks? If so, for what
period of time should the different treatment remain in place? Is
facilitating automatic roaming traffic between different generations of
networks, including 3G and 4G networks important and, if so, are there
technical, legal, commercial or policy considerations of which the
Commission should be aware? The Commission understands that a number of
3G roaming arrangements have been made between domestic and foreign
carriers to support international roaming at home and abroad. The
Commission seeks comment on the extent to which carriers have
established data roaming arrangements with foreign carriers, whether
international roaming solutions could be applied to domestic roaming.
31. Scope of Covered Entities. Assuming that the Commission were to
impose a data roaming obligation, the Commission seeks comment on the
appropriate scope and terms of the obligation (including those entities
entitled to request data roaming), whether either the scope or the
terms of the obligation should vary from what
[[Page 22344]]
the Commission has established for interconnected services, and in
particular, whether the scope of entities covered by the obligations
should include providers of mobile data services that do not also offer
CMRS. The obligation to provide roaming for interconnected services
applies only to providers that also offer CMRS, and only those that
meet certain characteristics. Although mobile broadband data services
may be provided by companies that are also CMRS carriers, such services
may also be provided by entities that do not offer any CMRS. Therefore,
the Commission seeks comment on whether the scope of covered entities
should be broader than the existing scope of the automatic roaming
rule. If so, how specifically should the Commission define the class of
covered entities? For example, should the Commission impose the same
obligations on all entities offering facility-based commercial mobile
data services? Should it encompass only entities operating over
licensed spectrum or include providers that rely on the use of
unlicensed devices as well? Should the class of covered entities be
limited to terrestrial networks, or also encompass satellite providers
of mobile data services (either by satellite or ancillary terrestrial
component)? The Commission seeks comment on how, specifically, the
Commission should define entities covered by any automatic data roaming
rule.
32. The Commission seeks comment on whether there are any subsets
of non-interconnected data services to which roaming requirements
should not apply. For example, should the Commission propose that any
automatic roaming obligation on data service providers exclude non-
facilities-based entities such as resellers? The Commission also notes
that the automatic roaming obligation for interconnected services is
restricted to such providers as are in actual competition for the
provision of such services. Given that promoting competition would
likewise be a key reason to establish roaming obligations on non-
interconnected services, is there a comparable restriction the
Commission should impose on the scope of such obligation to achieve the
same purpose?
33. Other Terms and Conditions. The Commission also seeks comment
on what specific terms, conditions, or restrictions the Commission
should include in any rule requiring the provision of data roaming. For
example, what conditions could the Commission adopt to help ensure that
providers' incentives to innovate and invest are not undermined? The
Commission previously sought comment on whether the potential adverse
effect on incentives might be mitigated by conditioning roaming access
to non-interconnected services in the same manner as the Commission has
with push-to-talk and SMS: requiring that (1) the requesting provider
provide the underlying service for which roaming is requested, (2)
roaming be technically feasible, and (3) any changes to the host
network necessary to accommodate roaming access to the requested
service be economically reasonable. The Commission again seeks comment
on whether these conditions, or some variation, should be adopted.
34. Leap supports imposing the first condition above on data
roaming, arguing that this would ``remove any question of free-riding
on the innovation of others'' and ``would leave ample room for product
differentiation'' because a provider that developed proprietary
enhanced services or applications would not have to provide them to
roaming subscribers. Verizon Wireless and MetroPCS raise concerns,
however. Verizon Wireless argues that the proposal requires too little:
under this proposal, it asserts, a provider that makes a minimal
investment to support a data service on a ``handful of EVDO antennas''
in its home market would be able to obtain data services on a
competitor's nationwide network. MetroPCS argues, however, that it
requires too much: requiring the requesting provider to offer the
requested data service on its own home network would be ``impracticable
and would foster unnecessary litigation.'' It further argues that there
were many legitimate reasons why a provider might not offer a
particular service in one or more of its home markets, including
variations in the spectrum resources available to the provider.
35. The Commission continues to believe that these conditions lay a
solid foundation for any roaming requirement. On the one hand, as with
the Commission's automatic voice roaming requirement, a data roaming
requirement is not intended to constitute a resale requirement. The
Commission would decide in the case of a specific dispute whether data
roaming should be provided in a particular instance, and on what terms,
or whether the request is essentially a request for resale. On the
other hand, requiring a provider to offer a data service on its home
network would appear to be an essential element of a request for
roaming coverage as opposed to resale. To the extent that the lack of a
roaming arrangement may make competitive entry in the mobile services
market difficult for small providers, would it be useful to clarify
that providers that do not offer data services may obtain roaming
arrangements that become effective when they offer their own data
services?
36. With regard to the second and third conditions, and the extent
to which they require changes to the network, the Commission seeks
further comment on whether these conditions will address concerns
regarding the potential technical issues that may arise when
implementing data roaming arrangements. The Commission seeks comment on
whether the Commission should clarify that to the extent requesting
providers can resolve issues of accommodation through changes to their
own network, a reasonable request must include an offer to make such
changes.
37. Dispute Resolution. The Commission seeks comment on the
appropriate process for dispute resolution, and whether the Commission
should provide the same process for data roaming requests as for other
roaming requests. The Commission also seeks comment on whether it
should adopt measures to require or encourage disputes over the
reasonableness of requests for data roaming to be resolved through
alternative dispute resolution procedures such as arbitration. Are
there any legal considerations, limitations or concerns for the
Commission to consider with respect to adoption of alternative disputes
resolution procedures? If such measures are appropriate for data
roaming disputes, should they be applicable to roaming disputes more
generally?
II. Procedural Matters
A. Initial Regulatory Flexibility Analysis
38. As required by the Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980
(``RFA''), the Commission has prepared an Initial Regulatory
Flexibility Analysis (``IRFA'') relating to the Second Further Notice
of Proposed Rulemaking, The IRFA is set forth below.
Initial Regulatory Flexibility Analysis
39. As required by the Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980, as
amended (the ``RFA''), the Commission has prepared this Initial
Regulatory Flexibility Analysis (IRFA) of the possible significant
economic impact of the policies and rules proposed in the Second
Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (``Second FNPRM'') on a
substantial number of small entities. Written public comments are
requested
[[Page 22345]]
on the IRFA. Comments must be identified as responses to the IRFA and
must be filed by the deadline for comments on the Second FNPRM provided
in the item. The Commission will send a copy of the Second FNPRM,
including this IRFA, to the Chief Counsel for Advocacy of the Small
Business Administration (``SBA''). In addition, the Second FNPRM and
IRFA (or summaries thereof) will be published in the Federal Register.
A. Need for, and Objectives of, the Proposed Rules
40. In the Second FNPRM, the Commission invites interested parties
to refresh the record pertaining to the 2007 Roaming FNPRM. Since the
2007 Roaming FNPRM, there have been advancements in technology and
developments in the industry that may have affected parties' positions
on the issues raised in the FNPRM. Accordingly, the Commission requests
that parties refresh the record in this proceeding to reflect the
effects of these developments. The Commission asks parties to include
any new information that may be relevant to the Commission's
consideration of what action, if any, may be appropriate in this
proceeding. In addition, as the previous FNPRM was limited to seeking
comment on the obligations of CMRS carriers that also provide non-CMRS
data services, the Commission takes this opportunity to seek comment on
whether to impose similar obligations on other mobile data service
providers, whether they offer CMRS or not. For these reasons, the
Commission seeks further comment on whether it would be in the public
interest to extend roaming obligations to non-interconnected services,
including broadband data.
B. Legal Basis
41. The authority for the actions taken in this Second FNPRM is
contained in Sections 1, 4(i), 201, 202, 251(a), 253, 303(r), and
332(c)(1)(B) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C.
151, 154(i), 201, 202, 251(a), 253, 303(r), and 332(c)(1)(B).
C. Description and Estimate of the Number of Small Entities to Which
the Proposed Rules Will Apply
42. The RFA directs agencies to provide a description of, and,
where feasible, an estimate of, the number of small entities that may
be affected by the proposed rules, if adopted. The RFA generally
defines the term ``small entity'' as having the same meaning as the
terms ``small business,'' ``small organization,'' and ``small
governmental jurisdiction.'' In addition, the term ``small business''
has the same meaning as the term ``small business concern'' under the
Small Business Act. A ``small business concern'' is one which: (1) Is
independently owned and operated; (2) is not dominant in its field of
operation; and (3) satisfies any additional criteria established by the
Small Business Administration (SBA).
43. In the following paragraphs, the Commission further describes
and estimates the number of small entity licensees that may be affected
by the rules the Commission proposes in this Second FNPRM. The
Commission's extension of the automatic roaming obligation to non-
interconnected services and features, including those that constitute
information services, affects any CMRS carrier offering such services.
44. This IRFA analyzes the number of small entities affected on a
service-by-service basis. When identifying small entities that could be
affected by the Commission's new rules, this IRFA provides information
that describes auction results, including the number of small entities
that were winning bidders. However, the number of winning bidders that
qualify as small businesses at the close of an auction does not
necessarily reflect the total number of small entities currently in a
particular service. The Commission does not generally require that
licensees later provide business size information, except in the
context of an assignment or a transfer of control application that
involves unjust enrichment issues.
45. Wireless Telecommunications Carriers (except Satellite). Since
2007, the Census Bureau has placed wireless firms within this new,
broad, economic census category. Prior to that time, such firms were
within the now-superseded categories of ``Paging'' and ``Cellular and
Other Wireless Telecommunications.'' Under the present and prior
categories, the SBA has deemed a wireless business to be small if it
has 1,500 or fewer employees. Because Census Bureau data are not yet
available for the new category, the Commission will estimate small
business prevalence using the prior categories and associated data. For
the category of Paging, data for 2002 show that there were 807 firms
that operated for the entire year. Of this total, 804 firms had
employment of 999 or fewer employees, and three firms had employment of
1,000 employees or more. For the category of Cellular and Other
Wireless Telecommunications, data for 2002 show that there were 1,397
firms that operated for the entire year. Of this total, 1,378 firms had
employment of 999 or fewer employees, and 19 firms had employment of
1,000 employees or more. Thus, the Commission estimates that the
majority of wireless firms are small.
46. Wireless Service Providers. The SBA has developed a small
business size standard for wireless firms within the two broad economic
census categories of ``Paging'' and ``Cellular and Other Wireless
Telecommunications.'' Under both categories, the SBA deems a wireless
business to be small if it has 1,500 or fewer employees. For the census
category of Paging, Census Bureau data for 2002 show that there were
807 firms in this category that operated for the entire year. Of this
total, 804 firms had employment of 999 or fewer employees, and three
firms had employment of 1,000 employees or more. Thus, under this
category and associated small business size standard, the majority of
firms can be considered small. For the census category of Cellular and
Other Wireless Telecommunications, Census Bureau data for 2002 show
that there were 1,397 firms in this category that operated for the
entire year. Of this total, 1,378 firms had employment of 999 or fewer
employees, and 19 firms had employment of 1,000 employees or more.
Thus, under this second category and size standard, the majority of
firms can, again, be considered small.
47. Cellular Licensees. The SBA has developed a small business size
standard for small businesses in the category ``Cellular and Other
Wireless Telecommunications.'' Under that SBA category, a business is
small if it has 1,500 or fewer employees. For the census category of
``Cellular and Other Wireless Telecommunications,'' Census Bureau data
for 2002 show that there were 1,397 firms in this category that
operated for the entire year. Of this total, 1,378 firms had employment
of 999 or fewer employees, and 19 firms had employment of 1,000
employees or more. Thus, under this category and size standard, the
majority of firms can be considered small.
48. Broadband Personal Communications Service. The broadband
Personal Communications Service (PCS) spectrum is divided into six
frequency blocks designated A through F, and the Commission has held
auctions for each block. The Commission has created a small business
size standard for Blocks C and F as an entity that has average gross
revenues of less than $40 million in the three previous calendar years.
For Block F, 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
[[Page 22346]]
gross revenues of not more than $15 million for the preceding three
calendar years. These small business size standards, in the context of
broadband PCS auctions, have been approved by the SBA. No small
businesses within the SBA-approved small business size standards bid
successfully for licenses in Blocks A and B. There were 90 winning
bidders that qualified as small entities in the C Block auctions. A
total of 93 ``small'' and ``very small'' business bidders won
approximately 40 percent of the 1,479 licenses for Blocks D, E, and F.
In 1999, the Commission reauctioned 155 C, D, E, and F Block licenses;
there were 113 small business winning bidders.
49. In 2001, the Commission completed the auction of 422 C and F
Broadband PCS licenses in Auction 35. Of the 35 winning bidders in this
auction, 29 qualified as ``small'' or ``very small'' businesses.
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. In 2005, the Commission completed an auction of
188 C block licenses and 21 F block licenses in Auction 58. There were
24 winning bidders for 217 licenses. Of the 24 winning bidders, 16
claimed small business status and won 156 licenses. In 2007, the
Commission completed an auction of 33 licenses in the A, C, and F
Blocks in Auction 71. Of the 14 winning bidders, six were designated
entities. In 2008, the Commission completed an auction of 20 Broadband
PCS licenses in the C, D, E and F block licenses in Auction 78.
50. Narrowband Personal Communications Service. In 1994, the
Commission conducted an auction for Narrowband PCS licenses. A second
auction was also conducted later in 1994. For purposes of the first two
Narrowband PCS auctions, ``small businesses'' were entities with
average gross revenues for the prior three calendar years of $40
million or less. Through these auctions, the Commission awarded a total
of 41 licenses, 11 of which were obtained by four small businesses. To
ensure meaningful participation by small business entities in future
auctions, the Commission adopted a two-tiered small business size
standard in the Narrowband PCS Second Report and Order. A ``small
business'' is an entity that, together with affiliates and controlling
interests, has average gross revenues for the three preceding years of
not more than $40 million. A ``very small business'' is an entity that,
together with affiliates and controlling interests, has average gross
revenues for the three preceding years of not more than $15 million.
The SBA has approved these small business size standards. A third
auction was conducted in 2001. Here, five bidders won 317 (Metropolitan
Trading Areas and nationwide) licenses. Three of these claimed status
as a small or very small entity and won 311 licenses.
51. Specialized Mobile Radio. 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 was completed in 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 was conducted in 1997.
Ten bidders claiming that they qualified as small businesses under the
$15 million size standard won 38 geographic area licenses for the upper
200 channels in the 800 MHz SMR band. A second auction for the 800 MHz
band was conducted in 2002 and included 23 BEA licenses. One bidder
claiming small business status won five licenses.
52. The auction of the 1,050 800 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 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 three
auctions, 40 winning bidders for geographic licenses in the 800 MHz SMR
band claimed status as small businesses.
53. In addition, there are numerous incumbent site-by-site SMR
licensees and licensees with extended implementation authorizations in
the 800 and 900 MHz bands. The Commission does not know how many firms
provide 800 MHz or 900 MHz geographic area SMR 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, the Commission does not know how many
of these firms have 1500 or fewer employees. The Commission assumes,
for purposes of this analysis, that all of the remaining existing
extended implementation authorizations are held by small entities, as
that small business size standard is approved by the SBA.
54. 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 the Commission does not know for certain
which entities are likely to apply for these frequencies, the
Commission notes 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.
55. Rural Radiotelephone Service. The Commission has not adopted a
size standard for small businesses specific to the Rural Radiotelephone
Service. A significant subset of the Rural Radiotelephone Service is
the Basic Exchange Telephone Radio System (``BETRS''). In the present
context, the Commission will use the SBA's small business size standard
applicable to Wireless Telecommunications Carriers (except Satellite),
i.e., an entity employing no more than 1,500 persons. There are
approximately 1,000 licensees in the Rural Radiotelephone Service, and
the Commission estimates that there are 1,000 or fewer small entity
licensees in the Rural Radiotelephone Service that may be affected by
the rules and policies adopted herein.
56. Wireless Communications Services. This service can be used for
fixed, mobile, radiolocation, and digital
[[Page 22347]]
audio broadcasting satellite uses in the 2305-2320 MHz and 2345-2360
MHz bands. 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 definitions. The Commission auctioned geographic area licenses in
the WCS service. In the auction, which commenced on April 15, 1997 and
closed on April 25, 1997, there were seven bidders that won 31 licenses
that qualified as very small business entities, and one bidder that won
one license that qualified as a small business entity.
57. 220 MHz Radio Service--Phase I Licensees. The 220 MHz service
has both Phase I and Phase II licenses. Phase I licensing was conducted
by lotteries in 1992 and 1993. There are approximately 1,515 such non-
nationwide licensees and four nationwide licensees currently authorized
to operate in the 220 MHz Band. The Commission has not developed a
definition of small entities specifically applicable to such incumbent
220 MHz Phase I licensees. To estimate the number of such licensees
that are small businesses, the Commission applies the small business
size standard under the SBA rules applicable to Wireless
Telecommunications Carriers (except Satellite). This category provides
that a small business is a wireless company employing no more than
1,500 persons. The Commission estimates that most such licensees are
small businesses under the SBA's small business standard.
58. 220 MHz Radio Service--Phase II Licensees. The 220 MHz service
has both Phase I and Phase II licenses. The Phase II 220 MHz service is
a new service, and is subject to spectrum auctions. In the 220 MHz
Third Report and Order, the Commission adopted a small business size
standard for defining ``small'' and ``very small'' businesses for
purposes of determining their eligibility for special provisions such
as bidding credits and installment payments. This small business
standard indicates that a ``small business'' is an entity that,
together with its affiliates and controlling principals, has average
gross revenues not exceeding $15 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 do not exceed $3 million for the preceding three years. The SBA
has approved these small size standards. Auctions of Phase II licenses
commenced on and closed in 1998. In the first auction, 908 licenses
were auctioned in three different-sized geographic areas: three
nationwide licenses, 30 Regional Economic Area Group (EAG) Licenses,
and 875 Economic Area (EA) Licenses. Of the 908 licenses auctioned, 693
were sold. Thirty-nine small businesses won 373 licenses in the first
220 MHz auction. A second auction included 225 licenses: 216 EA
licenses and 9 EAG licenses. Fourteen companies claiming small business
status won 158 licenses. A third auction included four licenses: 2 BEA
licenses and 2 EAG licenses in the 220 MHz Service. No small or very
small business won any of these licenses. In 2007, the Commission
conducted a fourth auction of the 220 MHz licenses. Bidding credits
were offered to small businesses. A bidder with attributed average
annual gross revenues that exceeded $3 million and did not exceed $15
million for the preceding three years (``small business'') received a
25 percent discount on its winning bid. A bidder with attributed
average annual gross revenues that did not exceed $3 million for the
preceding three years received a 35 percent discount on its winning bid
(``very small business''). Auction 72, which offered 94 Phase II 220
MHz Service licenses, concluded in 2007. In this auction, five winning
bidders won a total of 76 licenses. Two winning bidders identified
themselves as very small businesses won 56 of the 76 licenses. One of
the winning bidders that identified themselves as a small business won
5 of the 76 licenses won.
59. 700 MHz Guard Band Licenses. In the 700 MHz Guard Band Order,
the Commission adopted size standards for ``small businesses'' and
``very small businesses'' for purposes of determining their eligibility
for special provisions such as bidding credits and installment
payments. A small business in this service is an entity that, together
with its affiliates and controlling principals, has average gross
revenues not exceeding $40 million for the preceding three years.
Additionally, a ``very small business'' is an entity that, together
with its affiliates and controlling principals, has average gross
revenues that are not more than $15 million for the preceding three
years. SBA approval of these definitions is not required. In 2000, the
Commission conducted an auction of 52 Major Economic Area (``MEA'')
licenses. 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 and closed in 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.
60. Upper 700 MHz Band Licenses. In the 700 MHz Second Report and
Order, the Commission revised its rules regarding Upper 700 MHz
licenses. On January 24, 2008, the Commission commenced Auction 73 in
which several licenses in the Upper 700 MHz band were available for
licensing: 12 Regional Economic Area Grouping licenses in the C Block,
and one nationwide license in the D Block. The auction concluded on
March 18, 2008, with 3 winning bidders claiming very small business
status (those with attributable average annual gross revenues that do
not exceed $15 million for the preceding three years) and winning five
licenses.
61. Lower 700 MHz Band Licenses. The Commission adopted criteria
for defining three groups of small businesses for purposes of
determining their eligibility for special provisions such as bidding
credits. The Commission has 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 Band has a third category of small
business status that may be claimed for Metropolitan/Rural Service Area
(MSA/RSA) licenses. The third category is 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 has 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
sold to 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, and
closed on June 13, 2003, and included 256 licenses: 5 EAG licenses and
476 CMA licenses. Seventeen winning bidders claimed small or very
[[Page 22348]]
small business status and won sixty licenses, and nine winning bidders
claimed entrepreneur status and won 154 licenses.
62. Wireless Telephony. Wireless telephony includes cellular,
personal communications services (PCS), and specialized mobile radio
(SMR) telephony carriers. As noted, the SBA has developed a small
business size standard for Wireless Telecommunications Carriers (except
Satellite). Under that SBA small business size standard, a business is
small if it has 1,500 or fewer employees. According to Trends in
Telephone Service data, 434 carriers reported that they were engaged in
wireless telephony. Of these, an estimated 222 have 1,500 or fewer
employees and 212 have more than 1,500 employees. The Commission has
estimated that 222 of these are small under the SBA small business size
standard.
63. Air-Ground Radiotelephone Service. The Commission has
previously used the SBA's small business definition applicable to
Wireless Telecommunications Carriers (except Satellite), i.e., an
entity employing no more than 1,500 persons. There are approximately
100 licensees in the Air-Ground Radiotelephone Service, and under that
definition, the Commission estimates that almost all of them qualify as
small entities under the SBA definition. 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 2006, the Commission completed
an auction of nationwide commercial Air-Ground Radiotelephone Service
licenses in the 800 MHz band (Auction 65). Later in 2006, the auction
closed with two winning bidders winning two Air-Ground Radiotelephone
Services licenses. Neither of the winning bidders claimed small
business status.
64. Aviation and Marine Radio Services. There are approximately
26,162 aviation, 34,555 marine (ship), and 3,296 marine (coast)
licensees. The Commission has not developed a small business size
standard specifically applicable to all licensees. For purposes of this
analysis, the Commission will use the SBA small business size standard
for the category Wireless Telecommunications Carriers (except
Satellite), which is 1,500 or fewer employees. The Commission is unable
to determine how many of those licensed fall under this standard. For
purposes of the Commission's evaluations in this analysis, the
Commission estimates that there are up to approximately 62,969
licensees that are small businesses under the SBA standard. In 1998,
the Commission held an auction of 42 VHF Public Coast licenses in the
157.1875-157.4500 MHz (ship transmit) and 161.775-162.0125 MHz (coast
transmit) bands. For this auction, the Commission defined a ``small''
business as an entity that, together with controlling interests and
affiliates, has average gross revenues for the preceding three years
not to exceed $15 million. In addition, a ``very small'' business is
one that, together with controlling interests and affiliates, has
average gross revenues for the preceding three years not to exceed $3
million. Further, the Commission made available Automated Maritime
Telecommunications System (``AMTS'') licenses in Auctions 57 and 61.
Winning bidders could claim status as a very small business or a very
small business. A very small business for this service is defined as an
entity with attributed average annual gross revenues that do not exceed
$3 million for the preceding three years, and a small business is
defined as an entity with attributed average annual gross revenues of
more than $3 million but less than $15 million for the preceding three
years. Three of the winning bidders in Auction 57 qualified as small or
very small businesses, while three winning entities in Auction 61
qualified as very small businesses.
65. Fixed Microwave Services. Fixed microwave services include
common carrier, private-operational fixed, and broadcast auxiliary
radio services. At present, there are approximately 22,015 common
carrier fixed licensees and 61,670 private operational-fixed licensees
and broadcast auxiliary radio licensees in the microwave services. The
Commission has not created a size standard for a small business
specifically with respect to fixed microwave services. For purposes of
this analysis, the Commission uses the SBA small business size standard
for the category Wireless Telecommunications Carriers (except
Satellite), which is 1,500 or fewer employees. The Commission does not
have data specifying the number of these licensees that have no more
than 1,500 employees, and thus are 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
22,015 or fewer common carrier fixed licensees and 61,670 or fewer
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 proposed herein. The Commission
notes, however, that the common carrier microwave fixed licensee
category includes some large entities.
66. Local Multipoint Distribution Service. Local Multipoint
Distribution Service (LMDS) is a fixed broadband point-to-multipoint
microwave service that provides for two-way video telecommunications.
The auction of the 986 LMDS licenses began and closed in 1998. The
Commission established a small business size standard for LMDS licenses
as an entity that has average gross revenues of less than $40 million
in the three previous calendar years. An additional small business size
standard for ``very small business'' was added as an entity that,
together with its affiliates, has average gross revenues of not more
than $15 million for the preceding three calendar years. The SBA has
approved these small business size standards in the context of LMDS
auctions. There were 93 winning bidders that qualified as small
entities in the LMDS auctions. A total of 93 small and very small
business bidders won approximately 277 A Block licenses and 387 B Block
licenses. In 1999, the Commission re-auctioned 161 licenses; were 32
small and very small businesses winning that won 119 licenses.
67. Offshore Radiotelephone Service. This service operates on
several ultra high frequencies (``UHF'') television broadcast channels
that are not used for television broadcasting in the coastal areas of
states bordering the Gulf of Mexico. There is presently one licensee in
this service. The Commission does not have information whether that
licensee would qualify as small under the SBA's small business size
standard for Wireless Telecommunications Carriers (except Satellite)
services. Under that SBA small business size standard, a business is
small if it has 1,500 or fewer employees.
68. 39 GHz Service. The Commission created a special small business
size standard for 39 GHz licenses--an entity that has average gross
revenues of $40 million or less in the three previous calendar years.
An additional size standard for ``very small business'' is: An
[[Page 22349]]
entity that, together with affiliates, has average gross revenues of
not more than $15 million for the preceding three calendar years. The
SBA has approved these small business size standards. The auction of
the 2,173 39 GHz licenses began and closed in 2000. The 18 bidders who
claimed small business status won 849 licenses.
69. 218-219 MHz Service. The first auction of 218-219 MHz spectrum
resulted in 178 entities winning licenses for 594 Metropolitan
Statistical Area (``MSAs''). Of the 594 licenses, 557 were won by
entities qualifying as a small business. For that auction, the small
business size standard was an entity that, together with its
affiliates, has no more than a $6 million net worth and, after Federal
income taxes (excluding any carry over losses), has no more than $2
million in annual profits each year for the previous two years. In the
218-219 MHz Report and Order and Memorandum Opinion and Order, the
Commission defined a small business as an entity that, together with
its affiliates and persons or entities that hold interests in such an
entity and their affiliates, has average annual gross revenues not
exceeding $15 million for the preceding three years. A very small
business is defined as an entity that, together with its affiliates and
persons or entities that hold interests in such an entity and its
affiliates, has average annual gross revenues not exceeding $3 million
for the preceding three years. The SBA has approved of these
definitions. A subsequent auction is not yet scheduled. Given the
success of small businesses in the previous auction, and the prevalence
of small businesses in the subscription television services and message
communications industries, the Commission assumes for purposes of this
analysis that in future auctions, many, and perhaps most, of the
licenses may be awarded to small businesses.
70. Incumbent 24 GHz Licensees. This analysis may affect incumbent
licensees who were relocated to the 24 GHz band from the 18 GHz band,
and applicants who wish to provide services in the 24 GHz band. The
applicable SBA small business size standard is that of Wireless
Telecommunications Carriers (except Satellite). This category provides
that such a company is small if it employs no more than 1,500 persons.
The broader census data notwithstanding, the Commission believes that
there are only two licensees in the 24 GHz band that were relocated
from the 18 GHz band, Teligent and TRW, Inc. It is the Commissions'
understanding that Teligent and its related companies have fewer than
1,500 employees, though this may change in the future. TRW is not a
small entity. There are approximately 122 licensees in the Rural
Radiotelephone Service, and the Commission estimates that there are 122
or fewer small entity licensees in the Rural Radiotelephone Service
that may be affected by the rules and policies proposed herein.
71. Future 24 GHz Licensees. With respect to new applicants in the
24 GHz band, the Commission has defined ``small business'' as an entity
that, together with controlling interests and affiliates, has average
annual gross revenues for the three preceding years not in excess of
$15 million. ``Very small business'' in the 24 GHz band is defined as
an entity that, together with controlling interests and affiliates, has
average gross revenues not exceeding $3 million for the preceding three
years. The SBA has approved these definitions. The Commission will not
know how many licensees will be small or very small businesses until
the auction, if required, is held.
72. 1670-1675 MHz Services. 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.
73. 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,
utilizing contention-based technologies, in the 3650 MHz band (i.e.,
3650-3700 MHz). As of September 2009, more than 1,080 licenses have
been granted and more than 4,870 sites have been registered. The
Commission has not developed a definition of small entities applicable
to 3650-3700 MHz band nationwide, non-exclusive licensees. However, the
Commission estimates that the majority of these licensees are Internet
Access Service Providers (ISPs) and that most of those licensees are
small businesses.
74. Internet Service Providers. The 2007 Economic Census places
these firms, whose services might include voice over Internet protocol
(VoIP), in either of two categories, depending on whether the service
is provided over the provider's own telecommunications facilities
(e.g., cable and DSL ISPs), or over client-supplied telecommunications
connections (e.g., dial-up ISPs). The former are within the category of
Wired Telecommunications Carriers, which has an SBA small business size
standard of 1,500 or fewer employees. The latter are within the
category of All Other Telecommunications, which has a size standard of
annual receipts of $25 million or less. The most current Census Bureau
data for all such firms, however, are the 2002 data for the previous
census category called Internet Service Providers. That category had a
small business size standard of $21 million or less in annual receipts,
which was revised in late 2005 to $23 million. The 2002 data show that
there were 2,529 such firms that operated for the entire year. Of
those, 2,437 firms had annual receipts of under $10 million, and an
additional 47 firms had receipts of between $10 million and
$24,999,999. Consequently, the Commission estimates that the majority
of ISP firms are small entities.
75. The ISP industry has changed dramatically since 2002. The 2002
data cited above may therefore include entities that no longer provide
Internet access service and may exclude entities that now provide such
service. To ensure that this IRFA describes the universe of small
entities that the Commission's action might affect, the Commission
discusses in turn several different types of entities that might be
providing Internet access service.
76. The Commission notes that, although it has no specific
information on the number of small entities that provide Internet
access service over unlicensed spectrum, the Commission includes these
entities in its IRFA.
77. Satellite Telecommunications and All Other Telecommunications.
These two economic census categories address the satellite industry.
The first category has a small business size standard of $15 million or
less in average annual receipts, under SBA rules. The second has a size
standard of $25 million or less in annual receipts. The most current
Census Bureau data in this context, however, are from the (last)
economic census of 2002, and the Commission will use those figures to
gauge the prevalence of small businesses in these categories.
78. The category of Satellite Telecommunications ``comprises
establishments 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.'' For this category, Census Bureau data for 2002
show that there were a total of 371 firms that operated for the entire
year. Of this total, 307 firms had annual receipts of under $10
million, and 26 firms had receipts of $10 million to $24,999,999.
Consequently, the Commission estimates that the majority of Satellite
[[Page 22350]]
Telecommunications firms are small entities that might be affected by
the Commission's action.
79. The second category of All Other Telecommunications comprises,
inter alia, ``establishments primarily engaged in providing specialized
telecommunications services, such as satellite tracking, communications
telemetry, and radar station operation. This industry also includes
establishments primarily engaged in providing satellite terminal
stations and associated facilities connected with one or more
terrestrial systems and capable of transmitting telecommunications to,
and receiving telecommunications from, satellite systems.'' For this
category, Census Bureau data for 2002 show that there were a total of
332 firms that operated for the entire year. Of this total, 303 firms
had annual receipts of under $10 million and 15 firms had annual
receipts of $10 million to $24,999,999. Consequently, the Commission
estimates that the majority of All Other Telecommunications firms are
small entities that might be affected by the Commission's action.
80. Unlicensed Devices. In this category, regulatees use devices as
permitted on an unlicensed basis under the provisions of Part 15 of the
Commission's Rules. The Commission does not have an accurate count of
the number of regulatees utilizing this capability. Since 2007, the
Census Bureau has placed wireless firms within the new, broad, economic
census category Wireless Telecommunications Carriers (except
Satellite). Prior to that time, such firms were within the now-
superseded category of ``Paging'' and ``Cellular and Other Wireless
Telecommunications.'' Under the present and prior categories, the SBA
has deemed a wireless business to be small if it has 1,500 or fewer
employees. Because Census Bureau data are not yet available for the new
category, the Commission will estimate small business prevalence using
the prior categories and associated data. For the category of Paging,
data for 2002 show that there were 807 firms that operated for the
entire year. Of this total, 804 firms had employment of 999 or fewer
employees, and three firms had employment of 1,000 employees or more.
For the category of Cellular and Other Wireless Telecommunications,
data for 2002 show that there were 1,397 firms that operated for the
entire year. Of this total, 1,378 firms had employment of 999 or fewer
employees, and 19 firms had employment of 1,000 employees or more.
Thus, the Commission estimates that the majority of wireless firms are
small.
81. Part 15 Device Manufacturers. The Commission has not developed
a definition of small entities applicable to unlicensed communications
devices manufacturers. Therefore, the Commission will utilize the SBA
definition applicable to Radio and Television Broadcasting and Wireless
Communications Equipment Manufacturing. The Census Bureau defines this
category as follows: ``This industry comprises establishments primarily
engaged in manufacturing radio and television broadcast and wireless
communications equipment. Examples of products made by these
establishments are: Transmitting and receiving antennas, cable
television equipment, GPS equipment, pagers, cellular phones, mobile
communications equipment, and radio and television studio and
broadcasting equipment.'' The SBA has developed a small business size
standard for Radio and Television Broadcasting and Wireless
Communications Equipment Manufacturing, which is: All such firms having
750 or fewer employees. According to Census Bureau data for 2002, there
were a total of 1,041 establishments in this category that operated for
the entire year. Of this total, 1,010 had employment of under 500, and
an additional 13 had employment of 500 to 999. Thus, under this size
standard, the majority of firms can be considered small.
82. Telephone Apparatus Manufacturing. The Census Bureau defines
this category as follows: ``This industry comprises establishments
primarily engaged in manufacturing wire telephone and data
communications equipment. These products may be standalone or board-
level components of a larger system. Examples of products made by these
establishments are central office switching equipment, cordless
telephones (except cellular), PBX equipment, telephones, telephone
answering machines, LAN modems, multi-user modems, and other data
communications equipment, such as bridges, routers, and gateways.'' The
SBA has developed a small business size standard for Telephone
Apparatus Manufacturing, which is: All such firms having 1,000 or fewer
employees. According to Census Bureau data for 2002, there were a total
of 518 establishments in this category that operated for the entire
year. Of this total, 511 had employment of under 1,000, and an
additional 7 had employment of 1,000 to 2,499. Thus, under this size
standard, the majority of firms can be considered small.
83. Other Communications Equipment Manufacturing. The Census Bureau
defines this category as follows: ``This industry comprises
establishments primarily engaged in manufacturing communications
equipment (except telephone apparatus, and radio and television
broadcast, and wireless communications equipment).'' The SBA has
developed a small business size standard for Other Communications
Equipment Manufacturing, which is: All such firms having 750 or fewer
employees. According to Census Bureau data for 2002, there were a total
of 503 establishments in this category that operated for the entire
year. Of this total, 493 had employment of under 500, and an additional
7 had employment of 500 to 999. Thus, under this size standard, the
majority of firms can be considered small.
D. Description of Projected Reporting, Recordkeeping, and Other
Compliance Requirements for Small Entities
84. Should the Commission decide to extend the automatic roaming
requirement to non-interconnected services or features, including those
that are information services, such as broadband Internet access
service, or other non-CMRS services, the only reporting or
recordkeeping costs incurred will be administrative costs to ensure
that an entity's practices are in compliance with the automatic data
roaming rule. The additional compliance requirement is that providers
must provide automatic data roaming to any requesting technologically
compatible carrier on reasonable and non-discriminatory terms and
conditions. The Commission seeks comment on the possible burden such
requirements would place on small entities. Also, the Commission seeks
comment on whether a special approach toward any possible compliance
burden on small entities might be appropriate. Entities, especially
small businesses, are encouraged to quantify the costs and benefits of
any compliance requirement that may result from this proceeding.
E. Steps Taken To Minimize Significant Economic Impact on Small
Entities and Significant Alternatives Considered
85. The RFA requires an agency to describe any significant
alternatives that it has considered in developing 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
[[Page 22351]]
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.
86. The Commission's primary objective in this proceeding is to
facilitate seamless wireless communications for consumers, even when
they are outside of the coverage area of their own service providers.
Recognizing wireless subscribers' increasing reliance on mobile
telephony services, especially the growing demand of data services by
consumers, the Second FNPRM seeks comment on whether it would serve the
public interest to extend the applicability of the automatic roaming
requirements to non-interconnected services or features, including
those that are information services, such as wireless broadband
Internet access services, or other non-CMRS services.
87. To the extent that addressing the issues raised in the Second
FNPRM requires modifying the applicability of the automatic roaming
rules, the Commission seeks comment on the effect that such rule
changes will have on small entities, on whether alternative rules
should be adopted for small entities in particular, and on what effect
such alternative rules would have on those entities. The Commission
invites comment on ways in which the Commission can achieve its goals,
but at the same time impose minimal burdens on small wireless service
providers and small non-CMRS providers.
88. The item notes that, in their comments filed on the 2007 FNPRM,
several carriers argued that extending the automatic roaming
requirements to non-interconnected services and features would subject
networks to capacity restraints that would degrade the quality of
service to the network's own customers. They also argued that there are
technical issues associated with extending an automatic roaming
requirement to wireless broadband Internet access services, such as,
for example, different authentication methods and interoperability
issues regarding methods for assigning IP addresses. The item seeks
comment about whether advances in technology have helped to reduce the
potential for these problems to occur or whether parties continue to
have concerns with network capacity, network integrity, or network
security issues that may be associated with roaming among data
networks. To the extent that parties continue to have concerns about
the potential for network capacity or other technical issues, the item
seeks comment on potential methods to address such issues.
F. Federal Rules that May Duplicate, Overlap, or Conflict with the
Proposed Rules
None.
B. Comment Filing Procedures
89. Pursuant to sections 1.415 and 1.419 of the Commission's rules,
47 CFR 1.415, 1.419, interested parties may file comments and reply
comments on or before the dates indicated on the first page of this
document. Comments may be filed using: (1) The Commission's Electronic
Comment Filing System (ECFS), (2) the Federal Government's eRulemaking
Portal, or (3) by filing paper copies. See Electronic Filing of
Documents in Rulemaking Proceedings, 63 FR 24121 (1998).
Electronic Filers: Comments may be filed electronically
using the Internet by accessing the ECFS: http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/ecfs2 or the Federal eRulemaking Portal: http://www.regulations.gov.
Paper Filers: Parties who choose to file by paper must
file an original and four copies of each filing. If more than one
docket or rulemaking number appears in the caption of this proceeding,
filers must submit two additional copies for each additional docket or
rulemaking number.
Filings can be sent by hand or messenger delivery, by commercial
overnight courier, or by first-class or overnight U.S. Postal Service
mail. All filings must be addressed to the Commission's Secretary,
Office of the Secretary, Federal Communications Commission.
All hand-delivered or messenger-delivered paper filings
for the Commission's Secretary must be delivered to FCC Headquarters at
445 12th St., SW., Room TW-A325, Washington, DC 20554. The filing hours
are 8 a.m. to 7 p.m. All hand deliveries must be held together with
rubber bands or fasteners. Any envelopes must be disposed of before
entering the building.
Commercial overnight mail (other than U.S. Postal Service
Express Mail and Priority Mail) must be sent to 9300 East Hampton
Drive, Capitol Heights, MD 20743.
U.S. Postal Service first-class, Express, and Priority
mail must be addressed to 445 12th Street, SW., Washington DC 20554.
People with Disabilities: To request materials in accessible
formats for people with disabilities (braille, large print, electronic
files, audio format), send an e-mail to [email protected] or call the
Consumer & Governmental Affairs Bureau at 202-418-0530 (voice), 202-
418-0432 (TTY).
C. Paperwork Reduction Act Analysis
90. Concerning the Order on Reconsideration, this document does not
contain an information collection subject to the Paperwork Reduction
Act of 1995 (PRA), Public Law 104-13. Therefore, it does not contain
any new or modified ``information collection burden for small business
concerns with fewer than 25 employees,'' pursuant to the Small Business
Paperwork Relief Act of 2002, Public Law 107-198.
91. Concerning the Second Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking,
this document does not contain an information collection subject to the
Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (PRA), Public Law 104-13. Therefore, it
does not contain any new or modified ``information collection burden
for small business concerns with fewer than 25 employees,'' pursuant to
the Small Business Paperwork Relief Act of 2002, Public Law 107-198.
D. Congressional Review Act
92. The Commission will send a copy of this Order on
Reconsideration and Second Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking in a
report to be sent to Congress and the Government Accountability Office,
pursuant to the Congressional Review Act.
E. Contact Persons
93. For further information concerning this proceeding, please
contact Peter Trachtenberg, Spectrum and Competition Policy Division at
202-418-7369, Christina Clearwater, Spectrum and Competition Policy
Division at 202-418-1893 or Nese Guendelsberger, Spectrum and
Competition Policy Division at 202-418-0634.
III. Ordering Clauses
94. Accordingly, It is ordered, pursuant to the authority contained
in Sections 1, 4(i), 201, 202, 251(a), 253, 303(r), and 332(c)(1)(B) of
the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. 151, 154(i), 201,
202, 251(a), 253, 303(r), and 332(c)(1)(B), and Section 1.429 of the
Commission's rules, 47 CFR 1.429, this Order on Reconsideration and
Second Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking is hereby adopted.
95. It is further ordered Section 20.12 of the Commission's rules
IS AMENDED as specified in the Final Rules, and such rule amendments
shall be effective 30 days after the date of publication in the Federal
Register.
[[Page 22352]]
96. It is further ordered the Petitions for Reconsiderations filed
by Leap Wireless International, Inc., MetroPCS Communications, Inc.,
Spectrum Co., LLC, Sprint Nextel, and T-Mobile USA, Inc. are hereby
granted in part and denied in part to the extent expressed herein.
97. It is further ordered the Commission's Consumer and
Governmental Affairs Bureau, Reference Information Center, SHALL SEND a
copy of this Order on Reconsideration and Second Further Notice of
Proposed Rulemaking, including the Initial Regulatory Flexibility
Analysis and Final Regulatory Flexibility Analysis, to the Chief
Counsel for Advocacy of the Small Business Administration.
Federal Communications Commission.
Marlene H. Dortch,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2010-9831 Filed 4-27-10; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6712-01-P