[Federal Register Volume 78, Number 51 (Friday, March 15, 2013)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 16456-16460]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2013-06047]
=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION
47 CFR Part 54
[WC Docket No. 10-90; DA 13-284]
Service Obligations for Connect America Phase II and Determining
Who Is an Unsubsidized Competitor
AGENCY: Federal Communications Commission.
ACTION: Proposed rule.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: In this document, the Federal Communications Commission seeks
comment on how it will determine which census blocks are served by an
unsubsidized competitor, how price cap carriers will demonstrate they
are meeting the Commission's requirements for reasonable comparability,
and what other providers will need to demonstrate to be deemed
unsubsidized competitors.
DATES: Comments are due on or before March 28, 2013 and reply comments
are due on or before April 12, 2013. If you anticipate that you will be
submitting comments, but find it difficult to do so within the period
of time allowed by this notice, you should advise the contact listed
below as soon as possible.
ADDRESSES: You may submit comments, identified by WC Docket No. 10-90,
by any of the following methods:
Federal eRulemaking Portal: http://www.regulations.gov.
Follow the instructions for submitting comments.
Federal Communications Commission's Web Site: http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/ecfs2/. Follow the instructions for submitting
comments.
People With Disabilities: Contact the FCC to request
reasonable
[[Page 16457]]
accommodations (accessible format documents, sign language
interpreters, CART, etc.) by email: [email protected] or phone: (202) 418-
0530 or TTY: (202) 418-0432.
For detailed instructions for submitting comments and additional
information on the rulemaking process, see the SUPPLEMENTARY
INFORMATION section of this document.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Ryan Yates, Wireline Competition
Bureau, (202) 418-0886 or TTY: (202) 418-0484.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: This is a synopsis of the Wireline
Competition Bureau's Public Notice in WC Docket No. 10-90, and DA 13-
284, released February 26, 2013. The complete text of this document is
available for inspection and copying during normal business hours in
the FCC Reference Information Center, Portals II, 445 12th Street SW.,
Room CY-A257, Washington, DC 20554. These documents may also be
purchased from the Commission's duplicating contractor, Best Copy and
Printing, Inc. (BCPI), 445 12th Street SW., Room CY-B402, Washington,
DC 20554, telephone (800) 378-3160 or (202) 863-2893, facsimile (202)
863-2898, or via the Internet at http://www.bcpiweb.com. It is also
available on the Commission's Web site at http://www.fcc.gov.
I. Introduction
1. In this Public Notice, the Wireline Competition Bureau (Bureau)
seeks to further develop the record on a number of issues relating to
implementation of Connect America Phase II support. Specifically, the
Bureau seeks comment on how it will determine which census blocks are
served by an unsubsidized competitor, how price cap carriers will
demonstrate they are meeting the Commission's requirements for
reasonable comparability, and what other providers will need to
demonstrate to be deemed unsubsidized competitors.
II. Discussion
2. Unserved Areas. The Commission directed the Bureau to determine
what areas the forward looking cost model should treat as unserved by
an unsubsidized competitor ``as of a specified future date as close as
possible to the completion of the model.'' To that end, the next
version of the Connect America Cost Model will incorporate June 2012
State Broadband Initiative (SBI) data to assist in determining what
areas have access to broadband-capable infrastructure meeting specified
speed thresholds. We recognize that in some particular instances, it is
possible that providers have completed network expansion into unserved
areas since submitting the June 2012 SBI data, but it is necessary now
to incorporate an existing nationwide data set into the next version of
the model, which currently is under development.
3. The Bureau seeks to further develop the record on what speed
threshold in the June 2012 SBI data should be utilized as a proxy for 4
Mbps/1 Mbps when the Bureau identifies those census blocks that are
served by an unsubsidized competitor meeting the specified speed
requirement in the model. In the Phase I context, several commenters
argue that using 3 Mbps/768 kbps as a proxy for 4 Mbps/1Mbps excludes
some areas from support even though those areas in fact lack 4 Mbps/1
Mbps service. For purposes of Phase II, should the model treat an area
as unserved if it is shown on the National Broadband Map as lacking
broadband with speeds of at least 6 Mbps/1.5 Mbps, instead of using 3
Mbps/768 kbps as a proxy? That would presumably result in a greater
number of census blocks becoming eligible for funding under Phase II
than a 3 Mbps/768 kbps threshold. Commenters are encouraged to address
the implications of using the National Broadband Map data regarding
availability of broadband providing at least a 6 Mbps/1.5 Mbps speed to
identify census blocks that would be deemed served by an unsubsidized
competitor under Phase II. If we were to determine the presence of an
unsubsidized competitor based on a 6 Mbps/1.5 Mbps threshold, to create
parity between unsubsidized competitors and Phase II buildout
requirements, should we also require that Phase II support recipients
be required to provide broadband with speeds of 6 Mbps/1.5 Mbps to all
supported locations? This would prevent a scenario in which a carrier
could use Phase II funds to overbuild an existing 4 Mbps/1 Mbps network
with its own 4 Mbps/1 Mbps network.
4. To the extent any interested parties wish to bring to our
attention any information they believe should supplement the reported
June SBI 2012 data, they are invited to submit comments by the deadline
specified for this Public Notice. We particularly encourage input from
state SBI grantees and other state authorities that may have relevant
information.
5. For ease of administration, the Bureau proposes to exclude from
support calculations in the adopted model any Census block that is
served by a cable broadband provider that provides service meeting the
defined speed threshold, with that rebuttable presumption subject to
challenge in a challenge process. Given the wide variance in service
offerings from fixed wireless providers, we do not propose to establish
a similar presumption for fixed wireless providers. Instead, we propose
to address whether a fixed wireless provider meets the requirements to
be an unsubsidized competitor in a challenge process. A fixed wireless
provider could demonstrate it is an unsubsidized competitor by making
an affirmative showing that it meets the necessary speed, latency,
capacity, and price criteria. That affirmative showing would be subject
to rebuttal by other parties. We seek comment on this proposal. Should
mobile providers also be allowed to participate in the challenge
process, giving them the opportunity to qualify as unsubsidized
competitors and exclude areas from support if they are able to meet the
performance and pricing requirements?
6. We seek comment on whether determinations in the challenge
process of whether an unsubsidized competitor meets the specified
service requirements (speed, latency, usage, price) should be based on
a company's offerings as of June 30, 2012, or some later date.
Alternatives could include the date on which we release an order
adopting the forward looking model, or 30 days prior to that release.
We seek comment on these alternatives.
7. Pricing and Usage Allowances. We need to specify pricing and
associated minimum usage allowances that will apply to price cap
carriers that make a statewide commitment to offer voice and extend
broadband in exchange for model-determined support for a period of five
years. We also need to specify what is required for another provider to
be deemed an unsubsidized competitor that would preclude an area from
receiving any support.
8. With respect to pricing, we seek to further develop the record
on a proposal to presume that ``a broadband provider that offers
national pricing for its broadband service offerings is offering those
services in rural and urban areas at reasonably comparable rates.''
Should a Phase II recipient be allowed to demonstrate that its rates
are reasonably comparable between urban and rural areas by showing that
it offers the same rates, terms, and conditions on a nationwide basis?
Would such a presumption be a reasonable way to implement the statutory
goal of reasonably comparable rates, while implementing Phase II
quickly? Should we specify a level at which a provider's rate is too
high to be considered
[[Page 16458]]
reasonable, even if the provider offers the same rate in both urban and
rural areas?
9. Should the presumption apply if a carrier offered different
pricing plans in different regions of the country, so long as its rates
are uniform within a region across both rural and urban areas? Should
such a presumption apply for carriers that operate only in one state?
In the latter case, would it be sufficient if the provider offered
uniform pricing within its footprint, so long as that included urban
areas? If we were to take such an approach, consistent with our
proposal for the urban rate survey, we propose to define ``urban'' as
all 2010 Census urban areas and urban clusters that sit within a
Metropolitan Statistical Area. We seek comment on this proposal.
10. The Bureau has proposed an urban rate survey instrument to
gather data relating to fixed voice and fixed broadband prices and
associated usage allowances, if any, in the urban areas, but we do not
anticipate those data will be available by the time the Bureau
implements Phase II in the months ahead. In the absence of data from a
rate survey, should we establish an interim reasonable comparability
benchmark that a competitive provider would need to meet in order to be
deemed an unsubsidized competitor? The Bureau recently sought comment
on potential benchmarks that could be used for the Remote Areas Fund,
at least on an interim basis until rate survey data become available.
We now seek comment on benchmarks to use for determining who is an
unsubsidized competitor in the near term for Phase II implementation in
areas that will not be served by the Remote Areas Fund.
11. In particular, the Commission's prior reasonable comparability
benchmark for voice service for non-rural carriers was $36.52. Would it
be reasonable to presume any provider offering voice service at or
below $37 meets the reasonable comparability requirement for voice
service, at least for purposes of determining whether a particular
Census block should be excluded from the state-level offer of support?
12. We note that several large fixed terrestrial providers offer
broadband at speeds close to the Commission's 4 Mbps downstream/1 Mbps
upstream benchmark at prices ranging from $45 to $49.95 per month.
Would setting a reasonable comparability benchmark for broadband
service at a somewhat higher level, such as $60, be a reasonable
approach for determining who is an unsubsidized competitor when
identifying Census blocks that would be excluded from the state-level
offer of support in Phase II? Should that figure be lower or higher?
13. With respect to the Commission's usage requirement, we propose
to set a uniform minimum usage allowance that would apply both to price
cap carriers that make a statewide commitment as well as to
unsubsidized competitors that would preclude a Census block from being
funded. We seek comment on this proposal.
14. We propose to adopt a minimum usage allowance for purposes of
finalizing the locations that will receive support to be offered to
price cap carriers in Connect America Phase II. This minimum usage
allowance would be associated with the rate established for the
reasonable comparability benchmark for broadband service; consumers in
supported areas would be free to purchase additional gigabytes of data
above the required minimum usage allowance. We seek comment on this
proposal.
15. One way to set a minimum usage allowance would be to estimate
the amount of data needed to accomplish various user activities that
the Connect America Fund will advance. A similar approach was used to
set the minimum broadband speed requirements for Connect America. Chart
1 below provides estimates of what activities are possible under
varying data allowances, taking into account potential activities
relating to education, health, employment, e-commerce, and civic
engagement. Chart 1 shows the cumulative illustrative activities a
household could undertake under various data allowances. We seek
comment on this analysis.
Chart 1
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Data allowance
Critical use category Activity ------------------------------------------------------
20 GB 40 GB 60 GB 80 GB 100 GB
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Online College Coursework....... Hours per week of 3 6 9 12 15
interactive video
courses.
Web sites loaded per 45 90 135 180 225
day for course work.
Emails per day for 20 40 60 80 100
coursework.
Secondary Schooling............. Hours per week of 6 12 18 24 30
educational video.
Websites loaded per day 30 60 90 120 150
for homework or
learning management
systems.
Emails per day......... 20 40 60 80 100
Household's Other Critical Uses. Online medical 1 2 3 4 5
consultations (30
min.) every two months.
Web sites loaded per 55 110 165 220 275
day for job searching,
government services,
news or banking.
Emails per adult per 20 40 60 80 100
day.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
16. Given the calculations in Chart 1, would 100 GB be a reasonable
upper bound for a minimum usage allowance? Using a higher figure, such
as 100 GB, would account for the growth in video usage for education
and communication purposes over the next five years. It would also
allow for other new and unanticipated uses that Chart 1 does not
account for. Alternatively, should we instead adopt a lower value, such
as 60 GB, but increase that requirement over time to reflect growing
average data consumption, as discussed below?
17. As an alternative to setting the minimum usage allowance based
on a set of potential user activities, we could set the minimum usage
allowance based on current average usage. We note that according to one
source, during the second half of 2012, the median monthly data
consumption for fixed services in North America was 16.8 GB per
subscriber. According to the most recent Commission speed testing data
released in February 2013, the median weighted consumption of
volunteers participating in the Measuring Broadband America (MBA)
program for all fixed terrestrial technologies was 32.3 GB per month,
with approximately 90 percent of surveyed digital subscriber line (DSL)
subscribers in September
[[Page 16459]]
2012 using less than 100 GB per month. Should we set the Phase II
minimum usage allowance based on such data? Given that the vast
majority of DSL users in the MBA program today use less capacity than
100 GB per month, would that be an appropriate usage allowance
requirement for carriers electing to make a statewide commitment in
Phase II and for other providers to be deemed an unsubsidized
competitor? Is such data representative of typical users, and if not,
is there an alternative data source we should consider? What would be
the implications of setting the minimum usage allowance higher or
lower? In particular, what are the technical constraints that limit the
capacity providers are able to offer, and what are the factors that
would raise or lower deployment costs if we raise or lower the minimum
usage allowance requirement? We assume some percentage of an average
household's data is consumed in entertainment purposes. Should that be
factored into our calculations? To the extent commenters believe the
required minimum usage allowance should be higher or lower, they should
provide specific data and analyses in support of their positions.
18. Should we set an initial usage allowance that would be required
for the first year of Phase II implementation, but require that usage
allowance to grow in future years, consistent with the growth in
consumer usage observed in the marketplace? We note that Cisco projects
that North American consumer usage will grow by 14 percent in 2014, 21
percent in 2015, and 25 percent in 2016. The model developed by
Commission staff for the Broadband Plan assumed that customer usage of
fixed broadband would grow by approximately 30 percent annually. How
could such a requirement be structured to provide sufficient clarity to
providers at the time they make a statewide commitment of how their
obligations would evolve over time? What objective metric or external
data source should determine the growth in usage allowances over time?
If we were to adopt such an approach, should the usage level be
adjusted annually, bi-annually, or on some other schedule?
19. Latency. The USF/ICC Transformation Order, 76 FR 73830,
November 29, 2011, requires ETCs to provide latency sufficient for real
time applications, such as VoIP. In adopting this requirement, the
Commission noted that broadband testing results showed most terrestrial
wireline technologies can reliably provide round trip latency of less
than 100 milliseconds (ms). The June 2012 testing results show that the
average peak period round trip UDP latency for all wireline terrestrial
technologies is less than 60 ms.
20. To implement the Commission's latency requirement when offering
support to price cap carriers in Phase II and determining who is an
unsubsidized competitor in Phase II, should we establish a specific
numerical latency standard? Because performance during peak usage is
important to ensuring the consumers have adequate service, we believe a
testing under load standard would be appropriate, if we adopt a
specific standard. For instance, would it meet the Commission's
requirements if an average of 95 percent of all measurements of network
round trip latency under load during peak period (defined as weeknights
between 7:00 p.m. to 11:00 p.m. local time) between the customer
premises (or as close to the customer premises as technically possible)
to the provider's transit or peering interconnection point (often
referred to as an Internet exchange point) were at or below 60 ms?
Should that number be set lower or higher, and if so, why? To provide a
factual basis for a price cap carrier or potential unsubsidized carrier
to establish it is meeting the Commission's requirements, should a
latency test be conducted over a minimum of two consecutive weeks
during peak hours for at least 50 randomly-selected customer premises
using existing network management systems, ping tests, or other
commonly available network measurement tools? Should the testing period
be longer or shorter? Should the number of customer premise be higher
or lower? We seek comment on whether this approach would provide
sufficient clarity to potential support recipients and unsubsidized
providers regarding their service obligations.
III. Procedural Matters
A. Initial Regulatory Flexibility Act Analysis
21. The USF/ICC Transformation Order included an Initial Regulatory
Flexibility Analysis (IRFA) pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 603, exploring the
potential impact on small entities of the Commission's proposal. We
invite parties to file comments on the IRFA in light of this additional
notice.
B. Initial Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 Analysis
22. This document seeks comment on a potential new or revised
information collection requirement. If the Commission adopts any new or
revised information collection requirement, the Commission will publish
a separate notice in the Federal Register inviting the public to
comment on the requirement, as required by the Paperwork Reduction Act
of 1995, Public Law 104-13 (44 U.S.C. 3501-3520). In addition, pursuant
to the Small Business Paperwork Relief Act of 2002, Public Law 107-198,
see 44 U.S.C. 3506(c)(4), the Commission seeks specific comment on how
it might ``further reduce the information collection burden for small
business concerns with fewer than 25 employees.''
C. Filing Requirements
23. Interested parties may file comments and reply comments on or
before the dates indicated on the first page of this document. Comments
are to reference WC Docket No. 10-90 and DA 13-284 and may be filed
using the Commission's Electronic Comment Filing System (ECFS). See
Electronic Filing of Documents in Rulemaking Proceedings, 63 FR 24121,
May 1, 1998.
[ssquf] Electronic Filers: Comments may be filed electronically
using the Internet by accessing the ECFS: http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/ecfs2/.
[ssquf] Paper Filers: Parties who choose to file by paper must file
an original and one copy of each filing. Filings can be sent by hand or
messenger delivery, by commercial overnight courier, or by first-class
or overnight U.S. Postal Service mail. All filings must be addressed to
the Commission's Secretary, Office of the Secretary, Federal
Communications Commission.
[ssquf] All hand-delivered or messenger-delivered paper filings for
the Commission's Secretary must be delivered to FCC Headquarters at 445
12th Street SW., Room TW-A325, Washington, DC 20554. The filing hours
are 8:00 a.m. to 7:00 p.m. All hand deliveries must be held together
with rubber bands or fasteners. Any envelopes and boxes must be
disposed of before entering the building.
[ssquf] Commercial overnight mail (other than U.S. Postal Service
Express Mail and Priority Mail) must be sent to 9300 East Hampton
Drive, Capitol Heights, MD 20743.
[ssquf] U.S. Postal Service first-class, Express, and Priority mail
must be addressed to 445 12th Street SW., Washington, DC 20554.
24. People with Disabilities. To request materials in accessible
formats for people with disabilities (braille, large print, electronic
files, audio format), send an email to [email protected] or call the
Consumer & Governmental
[[Page 16460]]
Affairs Bureau at 202-418-0530 (voice), 202-418-0432 (tty).
In addition, we request that one copy of each pleading be sent to
each of the following:
(1) Ryan Yates, Telecommunications Access Policy Division, Wireline
Competition Bureau, 445 12th Street SW., Room 6-B-441A, Washington, DC
20554; email: [email protected];
(2) Charles Tyler, Telecommunications Access Policy Division, Wireline
Competition Bureau, 445 12th Street SW., Room 5-A452, Washington, DC
20554; email: [email protected].
25. This matter shall be treated as a ``permit-but-disclose''
proceeding in accordance with the Commission's ex parte rules. Persons
making ex parte presentations must file a copy of any written
presentation or a memorandum summarizing any oral presentation within
two business days after the presentation (unless a different deadline
applicable to the Sunshine period applies). Persons making oral ex
parte presentations are reminded that memoranda summarizing the
presentation must (1) list all persons attending or otherwise
participating in the meeting at which the ex parte presentation was
made, and (2) summarize all data presented and arguments made during
the presentation. If the presentation consisted in whole or in part of
the presentation of data or arguments already reflected in the
presenter's written comments, memoranda or other filings in the
proceeding, the presenter may provide citations to such data or
arguments in his or her prior comments, memoranda, or other filings
(specifying the relevant page and/or paragraph numbers where such data
or arguments can be found) in lieu of summarizing them in the
memorandum. Documents shown or given to Commission staff during ex
parte meetings are deemed to be written ex parte presentations and must
be filed consistent with rule 1.1206(b). In proceedings governed by
rule 1.49(f) or for which the Commission has made available a method of
electronic filing, written ex parte presentations and memoranda
summarizing oral ex parte presentations, and all attachments thereto,
must be filed through the electronic comment filing system available
for that proceeding, and must be filed in their native format (e.g.,
.doc, .xml, .ppt, searchable .pdf). Participants in this proceeding
should familiarize themselves with the Commission's ex parte rules.
Federal Communications Commission.
Kimberly A. Scardino,
Acting Division Chief, Telecommunications Access Policy Division,
Wireline Competition Bureau.
[FR Doc. 2013-06047 Filed 3-14-13; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6712-01-P