******************************************************** NOTICE ******************************************************** This document was converted from WordPerfect or Word to ASCII Text format. Content from the original version of the document such as headers, footers, footnotes, endnotes, graphics, and page numbers will not show up in this text version. All text attributes such as bold, italic, underlining, etc. from the original document will not show up in this text version. Features of the original document layout such as columns, tables, line and letter spacing, pagination, and margins will not be preserved in the text version. If you need the complete document, download the WordPerfect version or Adobe Acrobat version, if available. ***************************************************************** Before the Federal Communications Commission Washington, D.C. 20554 In the Matter of Local Competition and Broadband Reporting ) ) ) ) ) CC Docket No. 99-301 SECOND NOTICE OF PROPOSED RULEMAKING Adopted: January 17, 2001 Released: January 19, 2001 Comment date: Thirty days after publication in the Federal Register Reply Comment date: Forty-five days after publications in the Federal Register By the Commission: I.INTRODUCTION 1. Through this Second Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (Notice), we seek comment on how we might refine or improve the data gathering effort that we authorized in March of last year to assess the degree of deployment of broadband services and the development of local competition. Since institution of the program, providers of broadband services and local telephone services have reported data twice and we have issued our Second Report on Advanced Telecommunications Capability, based in significant part on the data collected through this program. We have also published initial data on the status of competition for local telephone service. We believe that it is appropriate to seek comment, in light of these experiences, on ways that we might improve this data gathering effort in the future. 2. In the initial Data Gathering Order, by which we adopted this reporting program, we sought to balance our need to collect timely and reliable data about these dynamic sectors of the communications industry with our desire to minimize burdens on providers of broadband and local telephone services. In considering revisions to this reporting program, we seek to develop more fully our understanding of the deployment and availability of broadband services and the development of local competition. At the same time, we aim to eliminate any unnecessary or unduly burdensome aspects of the reporting program and identify aspects of the Form 477 that may need further clarification. In particular, and based on our experience in compiling the Second Report on Advanced Telecommunications Capability, we believe that additional data about deployment and availability of broadband services to discrete geographic areas and among distinct demographic groups is essential in order to satisfy more fully our obligations under section 706 of the 1996 Act. In this Notice, we seek comment on how we might improve the quality of the data reported and allow us a deeper understanding of broadband deployment at finer levels of geographic granularity and among particular types of customers. We also seek comment about how we can gather information on the availability of broadband services for certain categories of consumers that the Commission identified as being particularly vulnerable to not having timely access to broadband services, including low income consumers, those living in sparsely populated areas, minority customers, Indians, persons with disabilities, and those living in the U.S. territories. We invite comment from users of the resulting information, including state commissions and the public, and particularly from participants in the reporting program who may have a unique perspective as respondents who file the data with this Commission. 3. We note that, for purposes of the Data Gathering proceeding, we will continue to use the term "broadband services" to refer to those services that deliver an information carrying capacity in excess of 200 kbps in at least one direction. These services were also referred to as "high speed services" in our Second Report on Advanced Telecommunications Capability. Of these broadband or high-speed services (i.e., those delivering an information carrying capacity in excess of 200 kbps in at least one direction), we refer to the subset of services that deliver an information carrying capacity in excess of 200 kbps in only one direction as "one-way broadband services." Accordingly, those services that deliver an information carrying capacity in excess of 200 kbps in both directions are referred to in this Notice as "full, two-way broadband services." We use this terminology in this proceeding to ensure consistency with the current version of Form 477 and to minimize confusion for filers of Form 477. IV.BACKGROUND 5. On March 30, 2000, the Commission adopted the Data Gathering Order, which established a reporting program to collect basic information about two critical areas of the communications industry: the deployment of broadband services and the development of local telephone service competition. The Commission concluded that collecting this information would materially improve its ability to develop, evaluate, and revise policy in these rapidly changing areas and provide valuable benchmarks for Congress, the Commission, other policy makers, and consumers. 6. In the Data Gathering Order, we adopted a standardized form (FCC Form 477) to collect this information. Form 477 is structured to include separate sections on deployment of broadband services, local telephone service competition, and provision of mobile telephone service. Providers are required to report only when they meet or exceed defined reporting thresholds and, then, are only required to complete those portions of the form for which they meet or exceed the reporting thresholds. Service providers which meet the threshold file data on a state-by-state basis and also report a list of zip codes in which they offer service for each state for which they complete a form. The Commission's rules require any provider of broadband services to report data for each state in which it meets the specified reporting thresholds. Under section 3(40) of the Act, the term "state" is defined to include the District of Columbia and the "Territories and possessions." Accordingly, these rules apply to data on broadband or local telephone services that are provided in the District of Columbia and the Territories and possessions, as well as the fifty states. 7. On May 15, 2000, providers filed Form 477 for the first time. Broadband data was submitted in over four hundred individual Form 477 files, representing data from over 100 holding companies. Data on local telephone service competition was submitted on over 600 individual Form 477 files, representing data from over 200 holding companies. Overall, some companies filed data concerning service provided in multiple states -- as many as 29 states -- while many other companies filed data for only one state. The data showed that broadband service is available in all 50 states, the District of Columbia, and Puerto Rico and that local telephone service from competitors is available in 49 states and the District of Columbia. 8. Based in part on the initial broadband data, we adopted our Second Report on the Deployment of Advanced Telecommunications Capability, pursuant to section 706 of the 1996 Act. In that report, we found that, in general, advanced telecommunications capability is being deployed in a reasonable and timely fashion. We identified, however, certain groups of consumers that may be particularly vulnerable to not receiving timely access to this capability. In reaching our conclusions about the timeliness of broadband deployment, we relied heavily on the data collected through the Local Competition and Broadband reporting program. We also noted that there are certain areas where additional information is needed, particularly concerning those segments of the population for whom access to broadband services may not occur on a reasonable and timely basis. For example, we observed that, because service providers are exempted from reporting broadband data if they have fewer than 250 lines or wireless channels in service in a state, the initial filings provide little information on those sparsely populated areas served by smaller providers. Similarly, we observed that our current zip code data do not allow us to determine whether, for example, the service in a zip code is provided to one customer via a T1 facility (1.5 mbps) or whether broadband service is more widely available to residential users. IX.LOCAL COMPETITION AND BROADBAND REPORTING A. Overview 10.Having completed two cycles of data collection and two reports based on that data, we seek comment on how we might improve the Local Competition and Broadband data gathering effort. We ask whether certain measures to gather additional data might assist us in our efforts to understand the degree and status of deployment of broadband services. We do not propose any significant changes to the local telephone competition or mobile telephone portions of Form 477, although we identify and seek comment on areas where additional clarification may assist filers in completing the form. More broadly, we invite commenters, particularly those providers that have completed Form 477 in its initial rounds, to suggest areas for refinement. Though we seek comment on specific areas of our data gathering effort, we generally invite commenters to address any and all aspects of our data collection program that may be improved. 11.As a preface to our proposals in this proceeding, we state our view that gathering data on broadband deployment in a systematic fashion is yielding significant benefits. We believe that our congressionally mandated efforts to assess the availability of advanced telecommunications capability to all Americans have been substantially aided by the first Form 477 data collection and that this regular and consistent survey of current broadband deployment will only continue to improve our analysis. The Local Competition and Broadband reporting program allows us to monitor broadband deployment by a wide variety of entities, and it has provided us with a more objective and comprehensive view of broadband deployment in the United States than from any other known source. 12.As stated in the Data Gathering Order, we recognize that additional inquiry into these areas will continue to be necessary. The Form 477 collection, alone, cannot capture all of the data necessary for the assessment required by section 706 of the 1996 Act. Data obtained through this information collection program is, nevertheless, an integral part of our analytical process and it will provide a baseline for understanding the state of broadband deployment over time. Similarly, the Local Competition and Broadband reporting program provides a significant improvement in our understanding of developing local telephone competition and new entrants' success in attracting customers in markets predominantly served by incumbent local exchange carriers (incumbent LECs). 13.In adopting this information collection program, and now in proposing these revisions, we balance the burden on carriers against the usefulness of the data. Based on our experience in compiling the Second Report on Advanced Telecommunications Capability, we ask whether it might be appropriate to strike a new balance. For example, the initial Data Gathering Order was designed to focus on collecting data concerning actual subscribership as a measure of broadband deployment. However, we ask whether it would be useful to expand the scope of the data collection to capture data not merely on subscribership, but more broadly on the availability of broadband services. Indeed, section 706(b) mandates that the Commission undertake regular inquiries "concerning the availability of advanced telecommunications capability to all Americans." As we consider any additional data, however, we continue to seek to minimize burdens on providers, prevent the dissemination of competitively-sensitive information, and to limit our data collection, wherever possible, to data that providers routinely keep in the ordinary course of business or that is easily derived from their records. We look forward to working closely with service providers, including past and potential respondents, to minimize burdens wherever possible and particularly for smaller providers that may have limited resources. B. Reporting Thresholds 14.Current rules. Under our current Local Competition and Broadband reporting rules, providers are required to complete only the portions of the form for which they meet or exceed the defined reporting thresholds. For broadband reporting, we require any facilities-based provider with at least 250 full or one- way broadband lines (or wireless channels) in a given state to complete applicable portions of the form (Parts I and V) for that state. For local competition reporting, we require any local exchange carrier with 10,000 or more local telephone service lines (or fixed wireless channels) in a state to complete applicable portions of the form (Parts II and V) for that state. Finally, facilities-based providers of mobile telephone services are required to complete applicable portions of Form 477 (Part III) for each state in which they serve 10,000 or more subscribers. 15.Proposed revisions. We seek comment on whether we should lower or eliminate the reporting threshold for broadband reporting. Our experience with the first round of data collection indicates that subscribership to broadband services represents a small percentage of the overall population. We are concerned that the threshold may have prevented us from collecting sufficient information on broadband service in rural and sparsely populated areas, given that many such areas are served by relatively small incumbent local telephone and cable television companies. We seek comment on this reasoning. Indeed, it is difficult to discern whether the absence of information about these areas indicates that there are no broadband services available or rather that providers are, in fact, serving small customer bases but do not meet the existing thresholds. Further, it appears that these companies would have to achieve a broadband penetration rate that vastly exceeds the national average before they would meet the reporting threshold. Access to more complete information about broadband subscribership in these areas might enable us to better fulfill the congressional directive to assess the state of deployment of broadband services to all Americans. Accordingly, we seek comment on whether we should continue to rely on voluntary filings by providers below the reporting threshold or whether we should eliminate the threshold altogether, so that any provider of broadband services must file a completed Form 477 for each state in which it has customers for its broadband services. Alternatively, we ask commenters whether the Commission should lower the current reporting threshold but not eliminate it altogether. Finally, we ask whether it might be appropriate to leave the threshold where it is, or even to increase it. We encourage commenters to explain how any such proposed threshold would balance our competing desires to obtain comprehensive information without imposing undue burdens on entities that serve comparatively few broadband customers. 16.We note that Iowa Telecom filed a petition for reconsideration of the Commission's Data Gathering Order in which it asks the Commission to create an exemption for "mid-sized LECs which serve primarily rural communities" and, instead, to engage in statistical sampling of these companies. We will consider and address Iowa Telecom's petition as part of this proceeding, because we seek comment on revising the threshold for broadband reporting. However, the Commission considered and declined, in the Data Gathering Order, a similar suggestion that it should create an exemption for rural telephone companies. Moreover, we do not believe that Iowa Telecom has raised materially new arguments beyond those considered in the Data Gathering Order, nor do we believe that Iowa Telecom has alleged any substantially changed circumstances that would cause us to alter our decision. Indeed, we seek comment in this Notice on whether we need to do more to assess the status of broadband deployment in rural areas. We recognize, however, that we could ultimately determine that the burdens imposed on smaller providers by our reporting requirements outweigh the benefits of these requirements or otherwise undermine our goal of promoting rural broadband deployment. Thus, we ask commenters to address Iowa's petition and to suggest other methods of collecting information regarding smaller providers that would minimize the burden on these providers. C. Data To Be Reported 17.Current rules. Pursuant to Form 477, providers must report information about subscribership to their broadband, local telephone, and mobile telephone service offerings. In crafting the Data Gathering Order, we sought to collect specifically-targeted data and to minimize burdens on providers. We focused there, as we do here, on collecting easily-quantifiable and readily-available statistics that providers likely maintain in their ordinary course of business. 18.Proposed revisions. Regarding broadband data collected in Form 477, we propose revisions, as discussed below, that might give us additional insights into the deployment of broadband services and also the availability of these services. We propose no substantive changes to the local telephone competition or mobile telephone service portions of Form 477, but use this opportunity to solicit comments on how they might be improved. 19.Concerning broadband data, we seek comment on whether we should alter Form 477 so that it more precisely captures distinctions between the deployment of broadband services to residential and business users. The current version of Form 477 asks providers to distinguish -- by exact count, where available, or by estimate -- between two classes of users: 1) residential and small business users; and 2) large business and institutional users. We adopted this approach based on our understanding that residential and small business users may utilize similar services. Having now analyzed two filings of the data, we seek comment on whether we may miss important distinctions between residential and small business users by grouping them together. Accordingly, we seek comment on whether we should require providers to report estimates for three categories of users: 1) residential users; 2) small business users; and 3) large business and institutional users. We also seek comment on what criteria the Commission and providers should use to distinguish between residential users, small businesses, and large businesses, if this Commission were to adopt such an approach. Moreover, for each of these categories, we ask whether it could be useful to understand whether these users are subscribing to full, two-way broadband services or simply to one-way broadband offerings and whether we should revise Form 477 so that, in addition to continuing to report the total number of broadband (both one-way and two-way) lines that are in service, providers will also report directly the number of full, two-way broadband lines that are in service to each of the user categories noted above. 20.In addition, we ask whether we should revise Form 477 so that providers report the actual subscribership by zip code, in lieu of the current requirement that providers report a list of zip codes where broadband service is being delivered. Our experience in the Second Report on Advanced Telecommunications Capability suggests that, while the reported lists of zip codes provides a valuable and unique source of data about where broadband services are located, it may not give an adequate level of granularity on the extent of deployment or types of customers within any given zip code. For example, while data from the May 2000 filing indicate that there is at least some broadband service in 93% of the zip codes that included inner city, low income areas, we were unable to draw conclusions about whether the broadband services in those areas are widely subscribed to by the residents of these areas or whether these broadband lines are delivered to one or a few large business customers. Thus, additional subscribership data, reported at the zip code level, could enhance significantly our understanding of the level of broadband deployment in discrete geographic areas. Accordingly, we ask whether we should collect actual subscribership counts by zip code and whether these counts should specify the level of residential subscribership in each zip code. We continue to believe that zip codes are the most administratively simple of the various options for obtaining finer geographic granularity, as compared with, for instance, census blocks or Metropolitan Statistical Areas (MSAs), because most providers already have zip codes incorporated into their billing and/or provisioning databases. We seek comment on this proposal in general and, specifically, on whether reporting a count of the number of broadband lines in a given zip code would provide substantially more valuable data or be appreciably more burdensome for providers in comparison to the list of zip codes that they now report. Alternatively, we seek comment on whether we could refine our collection to achieve our objectives without requiring an exact count for each zip code, for example, by collecting a list of zip codes in which there is at least one residential (or small business) customer. We ask commenters to document, insofar as possible, the burdens that are imposed by our current requirements and the additional burdens that would be imposed by more detailed reporting requirements. Finally, given that consumers who could subscribe to high-speed services often choose not to, commenters should also address whether collecting additional subscribership data would necessarily increase our understanding of "the availability of advanced telecommunications capability to all Americans" within the meaning of section 706(b). 21.We also seek comment on whether additional information should be provided at the zip code level. For example, there appear to be significant differences in the types of technologies used to deliver broadband services to residential and business users, and pricing for such service offerings may vary substantially. Thus, it may be useful to distinguish -- at the zip code level -- between the types of technology used to deliver broadband services and whether the lines in service deliver one-way broadband services or full, two-way broadband services. We seek comment on whether it is possible for providers to report such information, and on the value, if any, and burden associated with such an undertaking. 22.In addition to these refinements of the current data collection, we tentatively conclude that we should require providers to report data on the availability of their services, in addition to data on actual subscribership. Subscribership to broadband service -- which is the focus of the current Form 477 -- measures the number of customers who have chosen to purchase the services that are available to them at a particular time and particular price. In contrast, availability reflects a supplier's capability and willingness to provide service in a given area and within a specified period of time. In this sense, we use the term "availability" to refer to the supply of broadband services without regard for any demand issues concerning the price at which such services are offered. We seek comment on various measures of availability, including: 1) number of homes passed by broadband-capable infrastructure; 2) zip codes where service is currently offered (or zip codes where service is currently offered to a majority or some other percentage of the customers in the zip code); 3) for providers of telephone or cable video services, the number of their telephone or video services customers that now have broadband services available to them; or 4) any other measure. We ask commenters to indicate whether any of these measures is more readily available to providers (and thus administratively easier to report), more accurate as a predictor of availability, or more useful for drawing comparisons among different providers or types of providers. To the extent that commenters find such indicia of availability useful, we ask commenters to indicate whether the Commission should collect such information at the state level or at the zip code level. Moreover, we seek comment on whether any of these measures would provide a better understanding of those areas where multiple providers have overlapping, or partially overlapping, service areas. Alternatively, we seek comment on whether providers currently maintain any useful information about demand that they cannot satisfy, such as calls from potential customers seeking to purchase broadband services, but who are unable to do so because those services are unavailable in the potential caller's area. Finally, we seek comment about whether there is other useful information that could be collected to inform the Commission's understanding of why subscribership rates remain low in some areas where broadband service is currently available. For example, would it be useful for the Commission to collect information on the average time interval for installation, or the percentage of customers that terminate service within the first sixty (60) days? 23.We identified, in the Second Report on Advanced Telecommunications Capability, certain groups of consumers that may be particularly vulnerable to not receiving timely access to broadband services through market forces alone. These consumers include low income consumers, those living in sparsely populated areas, minority customers, Indians, persons with disabilities, and those living in the U.S. territories. Accordingly, we ask commenters whether there are alternative sources for information on the availability of, demand for, or subscribership to, broadband services for these discrete populations and demographic groups. 24.Through this Notice, we also seek to clarify the scope of broadband services reported in the Form 477 collection. In the initial filings of Form 477, we directed filers to report in the Broadband portion (Part I) of the form only those broadband lines (i.e., delivering an information carrying capacity in excess of 200 kbps in at least one direction) that connect end users to the Internet or another public data network. We recognize that there may be many lines in service which deliver an information carrying capacity in excess of our defined threshold, but that do not provide access to the Internet or other public data networks. For example, it is our understanding that there is a well-established market for high-speed data services that are used in private networks. These so-called "private lines" are dedicated lines that often connect multiple locations of one end-user customer, e.g., as a corporate intranet or as private networks for educational or healthcare institutions. We recognize that by focusing the broadband data collection effort on lines that connect end users to the Internet or other public data networks we do not obtain a complete picture of the overall broadband market. However, we did not collect data on lines that connect end users to private networks in the initial rounds of the Form 477 collection, in part, because private line networks are not relatively new and large business customers appear to be able to purchase such services with relative ease. We also excluded these lines from the data collection because it appears to be difficult for providers to report accurate and comparable line counts for these services. Having completed two rounds of data collection, we seek comment on whether it is reasonable for us to continue to exclude from the reporting program information on broadband lines that connect end users to private networks. Alternatively, we seek comment on whether we should expand the program to collect information on private lines that deliver an information carrying capacity in excess of 200 kbps but that do not connect end users to the Internet or other public data networks. We seek comment on how to define such services in order to ensure accurate and comparable reporting in the event that the Commission collects such information. 25.Concerning data on local telephone competition, we propose relatively minor revisions to Form 477, at this time. We propose to reorganize the existing form to reduce confusion, for example by reordering Blocks C and D of Part II of the form. We also propose to eliminate several data requests, particularly in Block C of Part II, that may have caused filers confusion. We seek comment on these proposals and on any other changes to this section of the form. 26.Concerning data on mobile telephone service subscribership, we similarly propose only minor revisions to the instructions to Form 477. For example, we propose to allow providers to assign subscriber counts (i.e., actual revenue-generating handsets) to particular states based either on billing address or telephone numbers. In addition, we propose to revise the Instructions to Form 477 concerning pre-paid subscribers. Specifically, we propose that mobile telephone service providers should report subscribers from distributors of pre-paid services as though these subscribers are "billed directly." We invite comment on these proposals and any additional clarifications that may be useful. D. Confidentiality Issues 27.Current rules. In the Data Gathering Order, we concluded that the value of the data collection is significantly enhanced by making as much information as possible available to the public. At the same time, we explained that under our rules we do not release information that is the subject of non-disclosure requests until persons requesting confidential treatment are afforded all of the procedural protections provided under our confidentiality rules. Specifically concerning broadband data, we decided "to publish in our regular reports data from Part I of the form only once it has been aggregated" in a way that does not identify the individual provider in our reports, regardless of whether parties requested confidential treatment of this data. 28.Proposed revisions. While we continue to consider requests for non-disclosure of competitively-sensitive information on a case-by-case basis, we seek comment on whether the Commission should establish a rebuttable presumption that some or all of the data in Form 477 does not typically meet our standards for competitively-sensitive information. In particular, commenters should address whether such a presumption would undermine companies' willingness to answer our broadband data requests fully and promptly, with a minimum of procedural challenges. In addition, we seek comment on how the need for confidential treatment would be affected by our proposals to: (1) remove the minimum threshold for broadband reporting, (2) require separate reporting of residential broadband services from small business broadband services, and (3) collect subscribership information by zip code. E. Frequency of Filing 29.Current rules. In the Data Gathering Order, the Commission concluded that semi-annual filing best balances our need for timely information about the status of broadband deployment and the development of local telephone competition. 30.Proposed revisions. We seek comment, particularly in light of the dynamic growth in the market for broadband services and the additional information we propose to request, on whether we should alter the filing frequency for Form 477. We seek to best balance the Commission's need to obtain timely information about these rapidly changing markets with the burdens imposed on filers. We seek comment, specifically, on whether the rapidity of change in broadband services requires more frequent filings to maintain reasonably accurate data or, alternatively, whether we should mitigate any increased burden on carriers of filing additional data as proposed in this Notice, by reducing the frequency of submissions to the frequency of publication of our annual reports on Advanced Telecommunications Capability thereby satisfying our goal of eliminating any unnecessary aspects of the program as well. F. Analysis of Data 31.We acknowledge that some of the revisions proposed here would make possible relatively more sophisticated statistical and other analyses. Thus, we seek comment on whether the Commission should alter the manner in which the collected data is analyzed. What additional steps, if any, should the Commission take to analyze this data or to make this data available for review by outside academics or other analysts? For example, should the Commission or its staff make available a preliminary version of its analytical methodology and findings for review and comment by outside parties? Should the Commission incorporate in its final report outside parties' analyses of the raw data collected by the Commission? To the extent the Commission decides to give outside parties an opportunity to review and comment on its preliminary findings and methodologies, how can this be done without unduly delaying adoption and release of the final section 706 Report? Finally, we invite commenters to suggest how and subject to what conditions, if any the Commission might make preliminary data and analyses available to outside parties, given that some of the filed data is subject to pending requests for non-disclosure and that the Commission has agreed to publish portions of the data only once it has been aggregated to mask the identity of the individual filers. Commenters should address these questions with specificity. V.PROCEDURAL MATTERS 1 Initial Paperwork Reduction Act Analysis 31. As required by the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, we invite the general public and the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) to comment on the proposed information collection requirements contained in this Notice. Public and Agency comments are due at the same time as other comments on this Notice. Comments should address: (a) whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the Commission, including whether the information shall have practical utility; (b) the accuracy of the Commission's burden estimates; (c) ways to enhance the quality, utility and clarity of the information collected; and (d) ways to minimize the burden of collection of information on respondents, including the use of automated techniques or other forms of information technology. A. Initial Regulatory Flexibility Analysis 32. As required by the Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA), the Commission has prepared an Initial Regulatory Flexibility Analysis (IRFA) of the possible significant economic impact on small entities of the policies and rules proposed in this Notice. The IRFA is set forth in Appendix A to this Notice. A. Comment Filing Procedures 33. Pursuant to Sections 1.415 and 1.419 of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R.  1.415, 1.419, interested parties may file comments on or before thirty (30) days after publication in the Federal Register. Interested parties may file reply comments on or before forty-five (45) days after publication in the Federal Register. Comments may be filed using the Commission's Electronic Comment Filing System (ECFS) or by filing paper copies. See Electronic Filing Documents in Rulemaking Proceedings, 63 Fed. Reg. 24,121 (1998). 34. Comments filed through the ECFS can be sent as an electronic file via the Internet to . Commenters must transmit one electronic copy of the comments to each docket or rulemaking number referenced in the caption. In completing the transmittal screen, commenters should include their full name, Postal Service mailing address, and the applicable docket or rulemaking number. Parties may also submit an electronic comment by Internet e-mail. To get filing instructions for e-mail comments, commenters should send an e-mail to ecfs@fcc.gov, and should include the following words in the body of the message, "get form ." A sample form and directions will be sent in reply. Parties who choose to file by paper must file an original and four copies of each filing and must submit two additional written copies for each additional docket or rulemaking number. All filings must be sent to the Commission's Secretary, Magalie Roman Salas, Office of the Secretary, Federal Communications Commission, 445 Twelfth Street, S.W., TW-A325, Washington, D.C. 20554. Parties are requested to send two additional paper copies of their filing to Suzanne McCrary, Industry Analysis Division, 445 Twelfth Street S.W., Sixth Floor, Washington, D.C. 20554. 35. This matter shall be treated as a "permit-but-disclose" proceeding in accordance with the Commission's ex parte rules. See 47 C.F.R.  1.1200 and 1.1206. Persons making oral ex parte presentations are reminded that memoranda summarizing the presentations must contain summaries of the substance of the presentations and not merely a listing of the subjects discussed. See 47 C.F.R.  1.1206(b). Other rules pertaining to oral and written ex parte presentations in permit-but-disclose proceedings are set forth in section 1.1206(b) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R.  1.1206(b). XXXVI.ORDERING CLAUSES 37.Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that, pursuant to sections 1-5, 10, 11, 201-205, 215, 218-220, 251-271, 303(r), 332, 403, 502, and 503 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C.  151-155, 160, 161, 201-205, 215, 218-220, 251-271, 303(r), 332, 403, 502, and 503 and pursuant to section 706 of the Telecommunications Act of 1996, 47 U.S.C.  157 nt, this NOTICE, with all attachments, is hereby ADOPTED. 38.IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Commission's Consumer Information Bureau, Reference Information Center, SHALL SEND a copy of this Second Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, including the Initial Regulatory Flexibility Analysis, to the Chief Counsel for Advocacy of the Small Business Administration. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Magalie Roman Salas Secretary APPENDIX A INITIAL REGULATORY FLEXIBILITY ANALYSIS 39.As required by the Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA), the Commission has prepared this present Initial Regulatory Flexibility Analysis (IRFA) of the possible significant economic impact on small entities by the policies and rules proposed in this Notice. Written public comments are requested on this IRFA. Comments must be identified as responses to the IRFA and must be filed by the deadlines for comments on this Notice, which are set out in  33 of the Notice. The Commission will send a copy of this Notice, including this IRFA, to the Chief Counsel for Advocacy of the Small Business Administration (SBA). In addition, this Notice and IRFA (or summaries thereof) will be published in the Federal Register. I. Need for, and Objectives of, the Proposed Action: 40. The Commission has initiated this proceeding to seek comment on how it might refine or improve the data gathering effort that we authorized on March 30, 2000 to assess the degree of deployment of broadband services and the development of local competition. In considering revisions to this program, we seek to develop more fully our understanding of the deployment and availability of broadband services and the development of local competition. At the same time, we seek to eliminate any unnecessary or unduly burdensome aspects of the program and identify aspects of the program that may need further clarification. In particular, we believe that additional data about deployment of broadband services to discrete geographic areas and amongst distinct demographic groups is essential in order to satisfy more fully our obligations under section 706 of the 1996 Act. II. Legal Basis: 41. The legal basis for the action as proposed for this rulemaking is contained in sections 1-5, 10, 11, 201-205, 215, 218-220, 251-271, 303(r), 332, 403, 502, and 503 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C.  151-155, 160, 161, 201-205, 215, 218-220, 251-271, 303(r), 332, 403, 502, and 503 and pursuant to section 706 of the Telecommunications Act of 1996, 47 U.S.C.  157 nt. III. Description and Estimate of the Number of Small Entities to Which the Proposed Action May Apply: 42. The Commission seeks comment on whether it should revise its rules so that any entity that provides broadband services must comply with the reporting requirement. Out of an abundance of caution, we set out below a detailed description of the types of entities that could possibly be required to comply with the proposed reporting requirement and we detail our understanding of the number of small entities within each of these categories. 43. 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. To estimate the number of small entities that may be affected by the proposed rules, we first consider the statutory definition of "small entity" under the RFA. The RFA generally defines "small entity" as having the same meaning as the term "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, unless the Commission has developed one or more definitions that are appropriate to its activities. Under the Small Business Act, a "small business concern" is one that: (1) is independently owned and operated; (2) is not dominant in its field of operation; and (3) meets any additional criteria established by the SBA. The SBA has defined a small business for Standard Industrial Classification (SIC) categories 4812 (Radiotelephone Communications) and 4813 (Telephone Communications, Except Radiotelephone) to be small entities when they have no more than 1,500 employees. We first discuss the number of small telephone companies falling within these SIC categories, then attempt to refine further those estimates to correspond with the categories of telephone companies that are commonly used under our rules. 44. The most reliable source of information regarding the total numbers of common carrier and related providers nationwide, as well as the numbers of commercial wireless entities, appears to be data the Commission publishes annually in its Carrier Locator report, derived from filings made in connection with the Telecommunications Relay Service (TRS). According to data in the most recent report, there are 4,822 interstate service providers. These providers include, inter alia, local exchange carriers, wireline carriers and service providers, interexchange carriers, competitive access providers, operator service providers, pay telephone operators, providers of telephone toll service, providers of telephone exchange service, and resellers. 45. We have included small incumbent local exchange carriers (LECs) in this present RFA analysis. As noted above, a "small business" under the RFA is one that, inter alia, meets the pertinent small business size standard (e.g., a telephone communications business having 1,500 or fewer employees), and "is not dominant in its field of operation." The SBA's Office of Advocacy contends that, for RFA purposes, small incumbent LECs are not dominant in their field of operation because any such dominance is not "national" in scope. We have therefore included small incumbent LECs in this RFA analysis, although we emphasize that this RFA action has no effect on FCC analyses and determinations in other, non-RFA contexts. 46. Total Number of Telephone Companies Affected. The United States Bureau of the Census (the Census Bureau) reports that, at the end of 1992, there were 3,497 firms engaged in providing telephone services, as defined therein, for at least one year. This number contains a variety of different categories of carriers, including local exchange carriers, interexchange carriers, competitive access providers, cellular carriers, mobile service carriers, operator service providers, pay telephone operators, PCS providers, covered SMR providers, and resellers. It seems certain that some of those 3,497 telephone service firms may not qualify as small entities or small incumbent LECs because they are not "independently owned and operated." For example, a PCS provider that is affiliated with an interexchange carrier having more than 1,500 employees would not meet the definition of a small business. It seems reasonable to conclude, therefore, that fewer than 3,497 telephone service firms are small entity telephone service firms or small incumbent LECs that may be affected by the decisions and rules proposed in the Notice. 47. Wireline Carriers and Service Providers. The SBA has developed a definition of small entities for telephone communications companies other than radiotelephone companies. The Census Bureau reports that, there were 2,321 such telephone companies in operation for at least one year at the end of 1992. According to SBA's definition, a small business telephone company other than a radiotelephone company is one employing no more than 1,500 persons. All but 26 of the 2,321 non-radiotelephone companies listed by the Census Bureau were reported to have fewer than 1,000 employees. Thus, even if all 26 of those companies had more than 1,500 employees, there would still be 2,295 non-radiotelephone companies that might qualify as small entities or small incumbent LECs. Although it seems certain that some of these carriers are not independently owned and operated, we are unable at this time to estimate with greater precision the number of wireline carriers and service providers that would qualify as small business concerns under SBA's definition. Consequently, we estimate that there are fewer than 2,295 small entity telephone communications companies other than radiotelephone companies that are small entities or small incumbent LECs and that may be affected by the rules proposed in the Notice. 48. Local Exchange Carriers, Competitive Access Providers, Interexchange Carriers, Operator Service Providers, and Resellers. Neither the Commission nor the SBA has developed a definition of small LECs, competitive access providers (CAPs), interexchange carriers (IXCs), operator service providers (OSPs), or resellers. The closest applicable definition for these carrier-types under SBA rules is for telephone communications companies other than radiotelephone (wireless) companies. The most reliable source of information regarding the number of these carriers nationwide of which we are aware appears to be the data that we collect annually in connection with the Telecommunications Relay Service. According to our most recent data, there are 1,395 LECs, 349 CAPs, 204 IXCs, 21 OSPs, and 541 resellers. Although it seems certain that some of these carriers are not independently owned and operated, or have more than 1,500 employees, we are unable at this time to estimate with greater precision the number of these carriers that would qualify as small business concerns under SBA's definition. Consequently, we estimate that there are fewer than 1,395 small entity LECs or small incumbent LECs, 348 CAPs, 204 IXCs, 21 OSPs, and 541 resellers that may be affected by the decisions and rules proposed in the Notice. 49. Wireless (Radiotelephone) Carriers. SBA has developed a definition of small entities for wireless (radiotelephone) companies. The Census Bureau reports that there were 1,176 such companies in operation for at least one year at the end of 1992. According to SBA's definition, a small business radiotelephone company is one employing no more than 1,500 persons. The Census Bureau also reported that 1,164 of those radiotelephone companies had fewer than 1,000 employees. Thus, even if all of the remaining 12 companies had more than 1,500 employees, there would still be 1,164 radiotelephone companies that might qualify as small entities if they are independently owned are operated. Although it seems certain that some of these carriers are not independently owned or operated, we are unable at this time to estimate with greater precision the number of radiotelephone carriers and service providers that would qualify as small business concerns under SBA's definition. Consequently, we estimate that there are fewer than 1,164 small entity radiotelephone companies that may be affected by the decisions and rules proposed in the Notice. 50. Cellular, PCS, SMR and Other Mobile Service Providers. In an effort to further refine our calculation of the number of radiotelephone companies that may be affected by the rules adopted herein, we consider the data that we collect annually in connection with the TRS for the subcategories Wireless Telephony (which includes Cellular, PCS, and SMR) and Other Mobile Service Providers. We will utilize the closest applicable definition under SBA rules -- which, for both categories, is for telephone companies other than radiotelephone (wireless) companies, however, to the extent that the Commission has adopted definitions for small entities providing PCS and SMR services, we discuss those definitions below. According to our most recent TRS data, 806 companies reported that they are engaged in the provision of Wireless Telephony services and 44 companies reported that they are engaged in the provision of Other Mobile Services. Although it seems certain that some of these carriers are not independently owned and operated, or have more than 1,500 employees, we are unable at this time to estimate with greater precision the number of Wireless Telephony Providers and Other Mobile Service Providers, except as described below, that would qualify as small business concerns under SBA's definition. Consequently, we estimate that there are fewer than 806 small entity Wireless Telephony Providers and fewer than 44 small entity Other Mobile Service Providers that might be affected by the decisions and rules proposed in the Notice. 51. Broadband PCS Licensees. The broadband PCS spectrum is divided into six frequency blocks designated A through F, and the Commission has held auctions for each block. The Commission defined "small entity" 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 classification for "very small business" was added, and is defined as an entity that, together with its affiliates, has average gross revenues of not more than $15 million for the preceding three calendar years. These regulations defining "small entity" in the context of broadband PCS auctions have been approved by SBA. No small businesses within the SBA- approved definition bid successfully for licenses in Blocks A and B. There were 90 winning bidders that qualified as small entities in the Block C auctions. A total of 93 small and very small business bidders won approximately 40% of the 1,479 licenses for Blocks D, E, and F. Based on this information, we estimate that the number of small broadband PCS licenses will include the 90 winning C Block bidders and the 93 qualifying bidders in the D, E, and F blocks, for a total of 183 small PCS providers as defined by SBA and the Commissioner's auction rules. 52. SMR Licensees. Pursuant to 47 C.F.R.  90.814(b)(1), the Commission has defined "small entity" in auctions for geographic area 800 MHz and 900 MHz SMR licenses as a firm that had average annual gross revenues of less than $15 million in the three previous calendar years. The definition of a "small entity" in the context of 800 and 900 MHz SMR has been approved by the SBA. The proposed rules may apply to SMR providers in the 800 MHz and 900 MHz bands that either hold geographic area licenses or have obtained extended implementation authorizations. We do not know how many firms provide 800 MHz or 900 MHz geographic area SMR service pursuant to extended implementation authorizations, nor how many of these providers have annual revenues of less than $15 million. Consequently, we estimate, for purposes of this IRFA, that all of the extended implementation authorizations may be held by small entities, some of which may be affected by the rules proposed in the Notice. 53. The Commission recently held auctions for geographic area licenses in the 900 MHz SMR band. There were 60 winning bidders who qualified as small entities in the 900 MHz auction. Based on this information, we estimate that the number of geographic area SMR licensees that may be affected by the decisions and rules proposed in the Notice includes these 60 small entities. No auctions have been held for 800 MHz geographic area SMR licenses. Therefore, no small entities currently hold these licenses. A total of 525 licenses will be awarded for the upper 200 channels in the 800 MHz geographic area SMR auction. The Commission, however, has not yet determined how many licenses will be awarded for the lower 230 channels in the 800 MHz geographic area SMR auction. There is no basis, moreover, on which to estimate how many small entities will win these licenses. Given that nearly all radiotelephone companies have fewer than 1,000 employees and that no reliable estimate of the number of prospective 800 MHz licensees can be made, we estimate, for purposes of this IRFA, that all of the licenses may be awarded to small entities, some of which may be affected by the decisions and rules proposed in the Notice. 54. 220 MHz Radio Service -- Phase I Licensees. The 220 MHz service has both Phase I and Phase II licenses. 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, we apply the definition under the SBA rules applicable to Radiotelephone Communications companies. According to the Bureau of the Census, only 12 radiotelephone firms out of a total of 1,178 such firms which operated during 1992 had 1,000 or more employees. Therefore, if this general ratio continues in the context of Phase I 220 MHz licensees, we estimate that nearly all such licensees are small businesses under the SBA's definition, some of which may be affected by the decisions and rules proposed in the Notice. 55. 220 MHz Radio Service -- Phase II Licensees. The Phase II 220 MHz service is a new service, and is subject to spectrum auctions. In the 220 MHz Third Report and Order we adopted criteria for defining small businesses and very small businesses for purposes of determining their eligibility for special provisions such as bidding credits and installment payments. We have defined a small business as an entity that, together with its affiliates and controlling principals, has average gross revenues not exceeding $15 million for the preceding three years. Additionally, 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 $3 million for the preceding three years. The SBA has approved these definitions. An auction of Phase II licenses commenced on September 15, 1998, and closed on October 22, 1998. Nine hundred and eight (908) licenses were auctioned in 3 different-sized geographic areas: three nationwide licenses, 30 Regional Economic Area Group (Regional) Licenses, and 875 Economic Area (EA) Licenses. Of the 908 licenses auctioned, 693 were sold. Companies claiming small business status won: one of the Nationwide licenses, 67% of the Regional licenses, and 54% of the EA licenses. As of October 7, 1999, the Commission had granted 681 of the Phase II 220 MHz licenses won at a first auction and an additional 221 Phase II licenses won at a second auction. 56. Narrowband PCS. The Commission has auctioned nationwide and regional licenses for narrowband PCS. There are 11 nationwide and 30 regional licensees for narrowband PCS. The Commission does not have sufficient information to determine whether any of these licensees are small businesses within the SBA-approved definition for radiotelephone companies. At present, there have been no auctions held for the major trading area (MTA) and basic trading area (BTA) narrowband PCS licenses. The Commission anticipates a total of 561 MTA licenses and 2,958 BTA licenses will be awarded by auction. Such auctions have not yet been scheduled, however. Given that nearly all radiotelephone companies have no more than 1,500 employees and that no reliable estimate of the number of prospective MTA and BTA narrowband licensees can be made, we assume, for purposes of this IRFA, that all of the licenses will be awarded to small entities, as that term is defined by the SBA. 57. Rural Radiotelephone Service. The Commission has not adopted a definition of small entity specific to the Rural Radiotelephone Service. A significant subset of the Rural Radiotelephone Service is the Basic Exchange Telephone Radio Systems (BETRS). We will use the SBA's definition applicable to radiotelephone companies, i.e., an entity employing no more than 1,500 persons. There are approximately 1,000 licensees in the Rural Radiotelephone Service, and we estimate that almost all of them qualify as small entities under the SBA's definition. 58. Air-Ground Radiotelephone Service. The Commission has not adopted a definition of small entity specific to the Air-Ground Radiotelephone Service. Accordingly, we will use the SBA's definition applicable to radiotelephone companies, i.e., an entity employing no more than 1,500 persons. There are approximately 100 licensees in the Air-Ground Radiotelephone Service, and we estimate that almost all of them qualify as small entities under the SBA definition. 59. Private Land Mobile Radio (PLMR). PLMR systems serve an essential role in a range of industrial, business, land transportation, and public safety activities. These radios are used by companies of all sizes operating in all U.S. business categories. The Commission has not developed a definition of small entity specifically applicable to PLMR licensees due to the vast array of PLMR users. For the purpose of determining whether a licensee is a small business as defined by the SBA, each licensee would need to be evaluated within its own business area. The Commission is unable at this time to estimate the number, if any, of small businesses that could be impacted by the proposed rules. However, the Commission's 1994 Annual Report on PLMRs indicates that at the end of fiscal year 1994 there were 1,087,267 licensees operating 12,481,989 transmitters in the PLMR bands below 512 MHz. Because any entity engaged in a commercial activity is eligible to hold a PLMR license, the proposed rules in this context could potentially impact every small business in the United States. We note, however, that because the vast majority of these licensees are end-users, not providers of telephony or broadband services, they would not be directly affected by the rules proposed in this Notice. 60. Fixed Microwave Services. Microwave services include common carrier, private-operational fixed, and broadcast auxiliary radio services. At present, there are approximately 22,015 common carrier fixed licensees in the microwave services. The Commission has not yet defined a small business with respect to microwave services. For purposes of this IRFA, we will utilize the SBA's definition applicable to radiotelephone companies -- i.e., an entity with no more than 1,500 persons. We estimate, for this purpose, that all of the Fixed Microwave licensees (excluding broadcast auxiliary licensees) would qualify as small entities under the SBA definition for radiotelephone companies. 61. Offshore Radiotelephone Service. This service operates on several UHF TV broadcast channels that are not used for TV broadcasting in the coastal area of the states bordering the Gulf of Mexico. At present, there are approximately 55 licensees in this service. We are unable at this time to estimate the number of licensees that would qualify as small entities under the SBA's definition for radiotelephone communications. 62. Wireless Communications Services. This service can be used for fixed, mobile, radio-location and digital audio broadcasting satellite uses. The Commission defined "small business" for the wireless communications services (WCS) auction as an entity with average gross revenues of $40 million for each of the three preceding years, and a "very small business" as an entity with average gross revenues of $15 million for each of the three preceding years. The Commission auctioned geographic area licenses in the WCS service. In the auction, there were seven winning bidders that qualified as very small business entities, and one that qualified as a small business entity. We conclude that the number of geographic area WCS licensees that may be affected by the decisions and rules proposed in the Notice includes these eight entities. 63. Satellite Services. The Commission has not developed a definition of small entities applicable to satellite service licensees. Therefore, the applicable definition of small entity is generally the definition under the SBA rules applicable to Communications Services, Not Elsewhere Classified (NEC). This definition provides that a small entity is expressed as one with $11.0 million or less in annual receipts. According to the Census Bureau, there were a total of 848 communications services providers, NEC, in operation in 1992, and a total of 775 had annual receipts of less than $9.999 million. The Census report does not provide more precise data. 64. In addition to the estimates provided above, we consider certain additional entities that may be affected by the data collection from broadband service providers. Because section 706 requires us to monitor the deployment of broadband regardless of technology or transmission media employed, we anticipate that some broadband service providers will not provide telephone service. Accordingly, we describe below other types of firms that may provide broadband services, including cable companies, MDS providers, and utilities, among others. 65. Cable services or systems. The SBA has developed a definition of small entities for cable and other pay television services, which includes all such companies generating $11 million or less in revenue annually. This definition includes cable systems operators, closed circuit television services, direct broadcast satellite services, multipoint distribution systems, satellite master antenna systems and subscription television services. According to the Census Bureau data from 1992, there were 1,788 total cable and other pay television services and 1,423 had less than $11 million in revenue. 66. The Commission has developed its own definition of a small cable system operator for the purposes of rate regulation. Under the Commission's rules, a "small cable company" is one serving fewer than 400,000 subscribers nationwide. Based on our most recent information, we estimate that there were 1,439 cable operators that qualified as small cable system operators at the end of 1995. Since then, some of those companies may have grown to serve over 400,000 subscribers, and others may have been involved in transactions that caused them to be combined with other cable operators. Consequently, we estimate that there are fewer than 1,439 small entity cable system operators. 67. The Communications Act also contains a definition of a small cable system operator, which is "a cable operator that, directly or through an affiliate, serves in the aggregate fewer than 1 percent of all subscribers in the United States and is not affiliated with any entity or entities whose gross annual revenues in the aggregate exceed $250,000,000." The Commission has determined that there are 66,690,000 subscribers in the United States. Therefore, we found that an operator serving fewer than 666,900 subscribers shall be deemed a small operator, if its annual revenues, when combined with the total annual revenues of all of its affiliates, do not exceed $250 million in the aggregate. Based on available data, we find that the number of cable operators serving 666,900 subscribers or less totals 1,450. We do not request nor do we collect information concerning whether cable system operators are affiliated with entities whose gross annual revenues exceed $250,000,000, and thus are unable at this time to estimate with greater precision the number of cable system operators that would qualify as small cable operators under the definition in the Communications Act. 68. Multipoint Distribution Systems (MDS). This service has historically provided primarily point-to-multipoint one-way video services to subscribers. The Commission recently amended its rules to allow MDS licensees to provide a wide range of high-speed, two-way services to a variety of users. 69. In connection with the 1996 MDS auction, the Commission defined small businesses as entities that had annual average gross revenues for the three preceding years not in excess of $40 million. The Commission established this small business definition in the context of this particular service and with the approval of the SBA. The MDS auction resulted in 67 successful bidders obtaining licensing opportunities for 493 Basic Trading Areas. Of the 67 auction winners, 61 met the definition of a small business. At this time, we estimate that of the 61 small business MDS auction winners, 48 remain small business licensees. 70. In addition to the 48 small businesses that hold BTA authorizations, there are approximately 392 incumbent MDS licensees that are considered small entities. After adding the number of small business auction licensees to the number of incumbent licensees not already counted, we find that there are currently approximately 440 MDS licensees that are defined as small businesses under either the SBA or the Commission's rules. Some of those 440 small business licensees may be affected by the proposals in this Notice. 71. Electric Services (SIC 4911). The SBA has developed a definition for small electric utility firms. The Census Bureau reports that a total of 1379 electric utilities were in operation for at least one year at the end of 1992. According to SBA, a small electric utility is an entity whose gross revenues did not exceed five million dollars in 1992. The Census Bureau reports that 447 of the 1379 firms listed had total revenues below five million dollars. 72. Electric and Other Services Combined (SIC 4931). The SBA has classified this entity as a utility whose business is less than 95% electric in combination with some other type of service. The Census Bureau reports that a total of 135 such firms were in operation for at least one year at the end of 1992. The SBA's definition of a small electric and other services combined utility is a firm whose gross revenues did not exceed five million dollars in 1992. The Census Bureau reported that 45 of the 135 firms listed had total revenues below five million dollars. 73. Combination Utilities, Not Elsewhere Classified (SIC 4939). The SBA defines this utility as providing a combination of electric, gas, and other services which are not otherwise classified. The Census Bureau reports that a total of 79 such utilities were in operation for at least one year at the end of 1992. According to SBA's definition, a small combination utility is a firm whose gross revenues did not exceed five million dollars in 1992. The Census Bureau reported that 63 of the 79 firms listed had total revenues below five million dollars. IV. Description of Proposed Reporting, Recordkeeping, and Other Compliance Requirements: 74. The Notice sets out in detail, and seeks comment on, various proposals to modify the Commission's existing Local Competition and Broadband reporting program. Pursuant to the current reporting program, certain providers of broadband services and of local telephone services must complete FCC Form 477, which collects data on their deployment of those services. Since the adoption of the reporting program, providers have reported data twice and the Commission has issued its Second Report on Advanced Telecommunications Capability based in significant part on the data collected through this program. Thus, the Notice seeks comment, in light of these experiences, on ways that the Commission might improve this data gathering effort. The Notice asks whether certain measures to gain additional data might assist the Commission in its efforts to understand the degree and status of deployment of broadband services, without imposing an undue burden on reporting providers. For example, the Notice seeks comment on possible revisions to FCC Form 477 that might more precisely capture distinctions between the deployment of broadband services to residential and business users. Similarly, the Notice seeks comment on whether we should revise the form so that providers report the actual subscribership by zip code, in lieu of the current requirement that providers report a list of zip codes where broadband service is being delivered. Further, the Notice asks whether it is possible to eliminate any unnecessary or unduly burdensome aspects of the reporting program. In addition to seeking comment on the types of data to be reported, the Notice seeks comment on whether to adjust the current reporting thresholds, whether the Commission should alter its confidentiality procedures for data collected, whether it would be appropriate to alter the frequency of filing, and whether there are additional steps that the Commission might take to promote additional analyses of the data. The Notice asks commenters to document, insofar as possible, the burdens that are imposed by our current requirements and the additional burdens that would be imposed by more detailed reporting requirements. V. Steps Taken to Minimize Significant Economic Impact on Small Entities, and Significant Alternatives Considered: 75. The RFA requires an agency to describe any significant alternatives that it has considered in reaching its proposed approach, which may include the following four alternatives: (1) the establishment of differing compliance or reporting requirements or timetables that take into account the resources available to small entities; (2) the clarification, consolidation, or simplification of compliance or reporting requirements under the rule for small entities; (3) the use of performance, rather than design, standards; and (4) an exemption from coverage of the rule, or any part thereof, for small entities. 76. As mentioned above, the Notice seeks comment, in light of our experiences since the adoption of the reporting program, on ways that we might improve this data gathering effort. The Notice asks whether there is additional data that would enhance the Commission's ability to understand the status and degree of broadband and local telephone service deployment. At the same time, the Notice asks whether it is possible to eliminate any unnecessary or unduly burdensome aspects of the reporting program. This proposal would reduce burdens on all respondents, including any small entities that must report under the program. Among the alternatives considered in the Notice that might affect small entities is a proposal by Iowa Telecom seeking to create an exemption for "mid-size LECs which serve primarily rural communities." Small entities are specifically encouraged to comment on such an exemption. The Notice seeks comment on whether the burdens imposed on smaller providers by our reporting requirements outweigh the benefits of these requirements. At the same time, the Commission also asks whether access to more complete information about broadband subscribership in rural areas -- areas that are often served by smaller telephone and cable companies -- might enable us to better fulfill the congressional directive to assess the state of deployment of broadband services to all Americans. The Notice expressly states the Commission's desire and intention to work closely with service providers, including small entities, to minimize burdens wherever possible, particularly for smaller providers that may have limited resources. VI. Federal Rules that May Duplicate, Overlap, or Conflict With the Proposed Rules: 77. None.