CyberTelecom Blog: fcc

Showing posts with label fcc. Show all posts

Tuesday, April 18, 2017

📽 CITP Lecture Series: Internet Privacy Technology and Policy: What Lies Ahead?

Saturday, January 14, 2017

📽 FCC Chairman Tom Wheeler's Final Public Address

Sunday, June 19, 2016

1934 :: June 19 :: Communications Act Signed into Law ~ Creating the FCC

The Federal Communications Commission was established in 1934 during Franklin D. Roosevelt's New Deal. It was not, however, something new created out of the ether. Rather, the FCC assimilated authority from other preexisting agencies. The goal was to create one independent agency with expertise over communications. The FCC assimilated

the Federal Radio Commission with its authority over radio,
authority over telephone, telegraph, and cable companies from the Interstate Commerce Commission
authority over telegraph rates from the Post Office Department, and
authority over cable landing rights from the Department of State.

The Communications Act allowed the FCC additional authority, including regulation of rates of interstate and international common carriers, and domestic administration of international agreements relating generally to electronic communication.

Government officials had been unhappy with the Interstate Commerce Commission's oversight of communications carriers, as the ICC has been entirely preoccupied with railroad regulation. AT&T was also seen as growing in political power, which it was effectively leveraging at the state public utility commission level.

In 1933, a Department of Commerce Committee recommended that "the communications service, as far as congressional action is involved, should be regulated by a single body." In February 1934, Franklin D. Roosevelt sent a special message to Congress urging the creation of the Federal Communications Commission (FCC). The Communications Act was signed into law by President Roosevelt on June 1934.

Tuesday, April 19, 2016

FCC Broadband Privacy NPRM RFC

Thursday, March 03, 2016

FCC NOI: State of Video Competition

"The Federal Communications Commission today issued a Notice of Inquiry (NOI) to begin a conversation on the state of independent and diverse programming. The NOI solicits comment on the principal challenges independent video programmers face in gaining carriage of their content on both traditional and emerging distribution platforms. This action will help the Commission assess the current state of video programming diversity and determine whether further action is needed to promote independent programming sources."

Independent video programmers repeatedly have expressed concern that some practices of cable operators and other multichannel video programming distributors (MVPDs) limit their ability to reach viewers. To evaluate these concerns and assess the impact of these practices on the Commission’s goal of fostering a diverse, robust, and competitive programming marketplace, the NOI asks for comment on the general state of the marketplace for independent video programming and the challenges faced by all independent programmers – including new and emerging programmers – in attempting to launch or grow.

The NOI specifically invites comment on several issues that independent programmers and other interested parties have raised in other proceedings, including

Contractual provisions often contained in program carriage agreements, such as most favored nation (MFN) and alternative distribution method (ADM) clauses;
Distribution via over the top (OTT) platforms, and the costs and benefits of foregoing MVPD carriage to pursue OTT carriage;
Program bundling (i.e., the practice by some content companies of requiring MVPDs or other distributors to carry large bundles in order to gain access to marquee programming);
Negotiation tactics alleged to be common among MVPDs that may impede the ability of independent programmers to obtain carriage; and
Claims that MVPDs discriminate against public, educational or government access (PEG) programming by failing to make PEG programming, and information about this programming, adequately available to subscribers.

Lastly, the NOI asks about the Commission’s legal authority in this area and what role, if any, it should play in addressing obstacles that hinder consumers from accessing sources of independent and diverse programming.

PROMOTING THE AVAILABILITY OF DIVERSE AND INDEPENDENT SOURCES OF VIDEO PROGRAMMING. Notice of Inquiry seeks comment on the current state of programming diversity and the principal obstacles that independent programmers face in obtaining carriage on video distribution platforms. (Dkt No. 16-41 ). Action by: the Commission. Adopted: 02/18/2016 by NOI. (FCC No. 16-19). MB FCC-16-19A1.docx FCC-16-19A2.docx FCC-16-19A3.docx FCC-16-19A4.docx FCC-16-19A5.docx FCC-16-19A6.docx FCC-16-19A1.pdf FCC-16-19A2.pdf FCC-16-19A3.pdf FCC-16-19A4.pdf FCC-16-19A5.pdf FCC-16-19A6.pdf

FCC EXAMINES STATE OF VIDEO PROGRAMMING DIVERSITY. Notice of Inquiry Asks for Comment on the Challenges Independent Programmers Face. News Release. (Dkt No 16-41 ). Adopted: 02/18/2016. MB DOC-337789A1.docx DOC-337789A1.pdf

Released: 03/01/2016. COMMENT AND REPLY DEADLINES SET FOR INDEPENDENT PROGRAMMING NOI. (DA No. 16-226). (Dkt No 16-41 ). Comments Due: 03/30/2016. Reply Comments Due: 04/19/2016. MB https://apps.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-16-226A1.doc
https://apps.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-16-226A1.pdf

Released: 03/01/2016. MEDIA BUREAU ANNOUNCES PUBLIC WORKSHOP ON THE STATE OF THE VIDEO MARKETPLACE. (DA No. 16-228). MB . Contact: Raelynn Remy or Carlisha Myers at(202) 418-2120 https://apps.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-16-228A1.doc
https://apps.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-16-228A1.pdf

Monday, November 09, 2015

:: "The Commission has been unequivocal in declaring that it has no intent to regulate edge providers."

In Re Consumer Watchdog Petition for Rulemaking toRequire Edge Providers to Honor ‘Do Not Track’Requests Released: November 6, 2015

1. In this Order, we dismiss Consumer Watchdog’s request that the Commission “initiate arulemaking proceeding requiring ‘edge providers’ (like Google, Facebook, YouTube, Pandora, Netflix, and LinkedIn) to honor ‘Do Not Track’ Requests from consumers.” 1 The Commission has been unequivocal in declaring that it has no intent to regulate edge providers.

2 We therefore find that, pursuant to section 1.401(e) of our rules, the Consumer Watchdog Petition “plainly do[es] not warrant consideration by the Commission.”3 2. Section 222 of the Communications Act governs telecommunications carriers’ protection and use of information obtained from their customers or other carriers, and calibrates the protection of such information based on its sensitivity. The Commission has adopted rules implementing section 222’s privacy protections with respect to providers of voice services, has amended those rules over time to respond to emerging threats to consumer privacy, and has vigorously enforced those rules.4

3. Earlier this year, when the Commission reclassified broadband Internet access service (BIAS) as a telecommunications service under Title II of the Communications Act, it declined to forbear from applying section 222 to BIAS providers. 5 The Commission found that broadband providers “serve as a necessary conduit for information passing between an Internet user and Internet sites or other Internet users, and are in a position to obtain vast amounts of personal and proprietary information about their customers.”6 Recognizing, however, that the existing rules were written for voice services, the Commission held it was “not persuaded that the Commission’s current rules implementing section 222 necessarily would be well suited to broadband Internet access service.”7 It therefore forbore from applying the section 222 rules to BIAS services, “pending adoption of rules to govern broadband Internet access service in a separate rulemaking proceeding.”8 At the same time, the Commission specified that in reclassifying BIAS, it was not “regulating the Internet, per se, or any Internet applications or content.”9 Rather, as the Commission explained, its “reclassification of broadband Internet access service involves only the transmission component of Internet access service.”10

4. Consumer Watchdog’s request that “the Commission should, in addition to the CPNI rules it intends to adopt, promulgate rules protecting the authorized use of consumers’ personal information by requiring edge providers to honor ‘Do Not Track’ Requests” is inconsistent with the Commission’s articulation of the effect of its reclassification of BIAS and the scope of the privacy practices it stated that it intends to address pursuant to that reclassification. 11 We therefore find that the Consumer Watchdog Petition plainly does not warrant consideration by the Commission pursuant to section 1.401(e) of the Commission’s rules.

5. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that, pursuant to sections 0.91, 0.291, and 1.401(e) of the Commission’s rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91, 0.291, 1.401(e), Consumer Watchdog’s Petition for Rulemaking to Require Edge Providers to Honor ‘Do Not Track’ Requests IS DISMISSED.

Thursday, October 29, 2015

:: FCC and CU Boulder Public Safety Cybersecurity Summit

FCC and University of Colorado, Boulder Interdisciplinary Telecommunications Program to co-sponsor summit exploring cybersecurity issues for communications and public safety sectors

On December 7, 2015, the Federal Communications Commission and the Regents of the University of Colorado, a body corporate, contracting on behalf of the CU Boulder Interdisciplinary Telecommunications Program will co-host a summit to explore cybersecurity issues facing the telecommunications sector and the public safety community. The summit will seek to promote ways to develop, implement and measure best practices, enhance c-suite and agency senior level awareness, and evolve policy planning related to cybersecurity recommendations for the telecommunications sector, public safety sector, research and development, and workforce planning/talent management. This day-long public forum would allow exchange of ideas, as well as allow extended interaction with critical industry, academic and government personnel involved in securing our commercial networks, evolving the next generation of public safety networks, and planning for the future of these critical communications assets.

WHAT: FCC-CU Boulder ITP Public Safety Cybersecurity Summit

The event will feature industry, public safety, academic and government thought leaders in the field of cybersecurity in a series of moderated panels, considering technical, practical, and policy issues related to the cybersecurity threats facing our commercial and public safety networks.

A summit agenda, providing additional details about the event will be released at a later date.

WHEN: Monday, December 7, 2015, 9:00 AM, DLC Bechtel Collaboratory, College of Engineering and Applied Science, University of Colorado, Boulder, Colorado

WHO: Security researchers, policymakers, industry leaders, cybersecurity organizations, investors, public safety organizations, state, local and Tribal government officials, academic institutions and others interested in understanding the current and evolving cybersecurity landscape in these sectors. Space is limited for this event. Please e-mail cybersummit@fcc.gov with “Registration” in the subject line and provide your name, organization affiliation and contact information.

Released: 10/27/2015. FCC AND CU BOULDER TO HOLD PUBLIC SAFETY CYBERSECURITY SUMMIT. (DA No. 15-1224). PSHSB . Contact: Erika Olsen at (202) 418-2868, email: Erika.Olsen@fcc.govor ITP Corporate Outreach:Terese Manley at (303) 492-3824, email: Terese.Manley@colorado.edu. News Media Contact: Rochelle Cohen at (202) 418-1162, email: Rochelle.Cohen@fcc.govhttps://apps.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-15-1224A1.docx
https://apps.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-15-1224A1.pdf

Thursday, October 22, 2015

:: House Commerce Hearing: Common Carrier Regulation of the Internet: Investment Impacts

http://energycommerce.house.gov/hearing/common-carrier-regulation-internet-investment-impacts Tuesday, October 27, 2015 - 10:00am

Communications and Technology

Background Documents and Information:

Hearing Notice
To read a related press release, click here.

Witnesses:

Frank V. Louthan

Managing Director- Equity Research
Raymond James Financial

Michael Mandel

Chief Economic Strategist
Progressive Policy Institute

Robert Shapiro

Co-Founder and Chairman
Sonecon LLC

Nicholas Economides

Professor of Economics
New York University Stern School of Business

Wednesday, August 26, 2015

:: 2015 Aspen Forum - Discussion with FCC Commissioners :: Video

Saturday, August 22, 2015

♪ Whether Smart City engaged in prohibited Wi-Fi blocking

In re Smart City Holdings, Dkt. EB-SED-15-00018248, Order (Aug. 18, 2015)

"The Enforcement Bureau (Bureau) of the Federal Communications Commission has entered into a Consent Decree to resolve its investigation into whether Smart City Holdings, LLC, and its wholly-owned subsidiaries, Smart City Networks, LP, and Smart City Solutions LLC (collectively, Smart City) engaged in prohibited Wi-Fi blocking by interfering with and disabling Wi-Fi networks established by consumers at several conference facilities where Smart City operates or manages the facility’s Wi-Fi network. To settle this matter, Smart City (i) admits that it prevented certain Wi-Fi users at these locations from establishing or maintaining a Wi-Fi network independent of Smart City’s network, (ii) will implement a compliance plan under which it commits to not engage in Wi-Fi blocking, and (iii) agrees to pay a $750,000 civil penalty."

"On June 24, 2014, the Commission received an informal complaint from a company that provides equipment that enabled users to establish hotspots, marketing its use as an alternative to paying forWi-Fi service that may otherwise be available to consumers at a venue. The complaint charged that its customers could not connect to the Internet using the complainant’s equipment at several venues where Smart City operates or manages the Wi-Fi access.2 In response to the Bureau’s investigation, Smart City provided information revealing that it automatically blocked certain Wi-Fi users at several venues where it managed or operated the Wi-Fi access to prevent such these users from establishing or maintaining a Wi-Fi network independent of Smart City’s network. No evidence exists that the Wi-Fi blocking occurred in response to a specifically identified threat to the security of the Smart City network or the network’s users."

"After reviewing the terms of the Consent Decree and evaluating the facts before us, we find that the public interest would be served by adopting the Consent Decree and terminating the referenced investigation regarding Smart City’s compliance with Section 333 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (Act)."

SMART CITY HOLDINGS, LLC, AND ITS WHOLLY-OWNED SUBSIDIARIES, SMART CITY NETWORKS, LP, AND SMART CITY SOLUTIONS LLC. Adopted a Consent Decree and terminated the investigation. Action by: Chief, Enforcement Bureau. Adopted: 08/17/2015 by Order/Consent Decree. (DA No. 15-917). EB DA-15-917A1.docx DA-15-917A1.pdf

Monday, August 11, 2014

FCC RFC :: 10th Sec. 706 NOI

1.              Section 706 of the Telecommunications Act of 1996, as amended (1996 Act), requires the Commission to determine and report annually on “whether advanced telecommunications capability is being deployed to all Americans in a reasonable and timely fashion.”[1] This Notice of Inquiry (Inquiry) initiates the Commission’s assessment of the “availability of advanced telecommunications capability to all Americans (including, in particular, elementary and secondary schools and classrooms).”[2] In conducting this Inquiry, the Commission must “determine whether advanced telecommunications capability is being deployed to all Americans in a reasonable and timely fashion” and, if the answer is negative, the Commission “shall take immediate action to accelerate deployment of such capability” through a variety of means.[3] In this Inquiry, we solicit data and information that will help the Commission make this determination.

2.              On August 21, 2012, the Commission released the Ninth Broadband Progress Notice of Inquiry.[4] We asked questions in the Ninth Broadband Progress Notice of Inquiry and have not issued a corresponding report.[5] To what extent do those questions remain relevant or need to be resolved? Since that last inquiry, there have been numerous noteworthy developments in the broadband market and the Commission has continued to take significant steps to accelerate the deployment of modern communications networks. For example, since the last report, the Commission has implemented a second round of Phase I of the Connect America Fund to promote the deployment of broadband-capable infrastructure and more than $438 million in funding has been disbursed, which will bring new broadband service to more than 1.6 million unserved Americans in the next several years.[6]

3.              With this Inquiry, we start anew by analyzing current data and seeking information that will enable the Commission to conduct an updated analysis for purposes of its next report. In particular, we seek comment on the benchmarks we should use to define “advanced telecommunications capability,” explore whether we should establish separate benchmarks for fixed and mobile services, which data we should rely on in measuring broadband, whether and how we should take into account differences in broadband deployment, particularly between urban areas versus non-urban and Tribal areas, and other issues. We seek comment on whether we should modify the 4 megabits per second (Mbps) download and 1 Mbps upload (4 Mbps/1 Mbps) speed benchmark we have relied on in the past reports. We also seek comment on whether we should consider latency and data usage allowances as additional core characteristics of advanced telecommunications capability.[7]
We seek comment on how to address mobile and satellite services data in our section 706 report and on ways to improve the evaluation of mobile and satellite services data. We also seek comment on whether we should establish separate benchmarks for fixed and mobile services, and under what circumstances mobile services may itself satisfy the definition of advanced telecommunications capability and therefore serve as a functional equivalent for fixed broadband that satisfies the definition. For areas where multiple providers have deployed service but none of the services, standing alone, satisfies the broadband benchmark, how (if at all) should we evaluate that deployment for our determination under section 706? Finally, we seek comment on how to improve our analysis concerning broadband availability at elementary and secondary schools. We encourage parties to provide any information that might be useful in our evaluation of broadband availability and welcome innovative ideas on how the Commission can best increase and accelerate broadband availability throughout the nation. We welcome input on all matters relevant to this Inquiry, and seek information on the specific issues set forth below.

Monday, July 01, 2013

RFC :: FNPRM :: Data Practices, Computer III Further Remand: Bell Operating Companies Provision of Enhanced Services

Fed Reg Notice July 1

Summary

In this Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (Further Notice), the Federal Communications Commission (Commission) seeks comment on how to streamline or eliminate legacy regulations contained in the Computer Inquiry proceedings and that are applicable to the Bell Operating Companies (BOCs). The FNPRM: Seeks data on the changing market for narrowband enhanced services, in particular, the extent to which enhanced service providers (ESPs) continue to need access to the BOCs' basic network transmission services offered through comparably efficient interconnection (CEI) and open network architecture (ONA) services; proposes eliminating CEI requirements and seeks comment on whether to retain only limited ONA inputs that ESPs require in areas where there are no competitive alternatives; and seeks comment on the need for the continuing application of the All-Carrier Rule that requires non-BOC incumbent local exchange carriers (LECs) to offer non-discriminatory access to basic network services for unaffiliated ESPs.

Dates

Comments are due July 31, 2013, and reply comments are due August 30, 2013. Written comments on the paperwork Reduction Act proposed or modified information collection requirements must be submitted by the public, Office of Management and Budget (OMB), and other interested parties on or before [date].

Addresses

Interested parties may submit comments, identified by CC Docket No. 00-175, 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 accommodations (accessible format documents, sign language interpreters, CART, etc.) by email: FCC504@fcc.gov or phone: (202) 418-0530 or TTY: (202) 418-0432.

For detailed instructions for submitting comments and additional information on the rulemaking process, see theSUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATIONsection of this document.

. . . . .

Wednesday, June 19, 2013

Fed Reg RFC :: Telephone Numbers for IP Enabled Service Providers

Federal Register June 19 Action Proposed rule.

Summary In this document, the Federal Communications Commission (Commission) propose to promote innovation and efficiency by allowing interconnected Voice over Internet Protocol (VoIP) providers to obtain telephone numbers directly from the North American Numbering Plan Administrator (NANPA) and the Pooling Administrator (PA), subject to certain requirements. We anticipate that allowing interconnected VoIP providers to have direct access to numbers will help speed the delivery of innovative services to consumers and businesses, while preserving the integrity of the network and appropriate oversight of telephone number assignments. The accompanying Notice of Inquiry further seeks comment on a range of issues regarding our long-term approach to numbering resources. The relationship between numbers and geography—taken for granted when numbers were first assigned to fixed wireline telephones—is evolving as consumers turn increasingly to mobile and nomadic services. We seek comment on these trends and associated Commission policies.

Dates Comments are due on or before July 19, 2013. Reply comments are due on or before August 19, 2013.

. . . . .

Thursday, June 13, 2013

FCC Announces Date of Next Open Internet Advisory Committee - July 9

"By this Public Notice, the Federal Communications Commission (Commission) announces the date, time, and agenda of the next meeting of the Open Internet Advisory Committee (Committee). The next meeting of the Committee will take place on July 9, 2013, from 10:00 A.M. to 1:00 P.M. (EST) in the Commission Meeting Room at Commission Headquarters, located at 445 12th Street, S.W., Room TW-C305, Washington, DC 20554. The Committee will consider issues relating to the subject areas of its four working groups Mobile Broadband, Economic Impacts of Open Internet Frameworks, Specialized Services, and Transparency as well as other open Internet related issues. A limited amount of time will be available on the agenda for comments from the public. Alternatively, members of the public may send written comments to Tejas Narechania, Designated Federal Officer of the Committee, or Kristine Fargotstein, Deputy Designated Federal Officer, at the addresses provided below. The meeting is open to the public and the site is fully accessible to people using wheelchairs or other mobility aids. Other reasonable accommodations for people with disabilities are available upon request. The request should include a detailed description of the accommodation needed and contact information. Please provide as much advance notice as possible; last minute requests will be accepted, but may not be possible to fill. To request an accommodation, send an email to fcc504@fcc.gov or call the Consumer and Governmental Affairs Bureau at 202-418-0530 (voice), 202-418-0432 (TTY). The meeting of the Committee will also be broadcast live with open captioning over the Internet from the FCC Live web page at www.fcc.gov/live. For further information about the Committee, contact: Tejas Narechania, Designated Federal Officer, Office of General Counsel, Federal Communications Commission, Room 8-C721, 445 12th Street, S.W. Washington, DC 20554;-, Deputy Designated Federal Officer, Wireline Competition Bureau, Federal Communications Commission, Room 5-C323, 445 12th Street, S.W. Washington, DC 20554; - FCC -

Released: 06/03/2013. ANNOUNCEMENT OF DATE OF MEETING OF THE OPEN INTERNET ADVISORY COMMITTEE. (DA No. 13-1303). WCB OGC . http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-13-1303A1.doc
http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-13-1303A1.pdf
http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-13-1303A1.txt

Monday, April 22, 2013

RFC :: Direct Access to Phone Number Resources by VoIP Providers ::

FCC Press Release: FCC PROPOSES TO UNLEASH CONSUMER BENEFITS OF ONLINE VOICE SERVICES BY PROVIDING DIRECT ACCESS TO NUMBERS

Seeking Comment On Costs and Benefits, Including Ensuring Protection of Consumers, Public Safety, Network Reliability and Numbering System

Washington, D.C. – Working to speed innovation and competition in communications services, the Federal Communications Commission today proposed to streamline access to telephone numbers for innovative online providers of phone service.

The proposals continue the ongoing agency-wide effort to modernize its rules for today’s broadband marketplace, while promoting competition, protecting consumers and ensuring public safety.

Today, providers of interconnected Voice overInternet Protocol services – a popular type of VoIP service which can place calls to and receive calls from the traditional phone network as well as over the Internet – must obtain numbers through traditional telephone companies acting as a middleman. This can raise costs and slow introduction of innovative services, such as high-definition voice.

To determine whether a more streamlined approach is appropriate in the Internet era, the FCC is seeking comment on whether interconnected VoIP providers should have direct access to numbers. In addition, the FCC is seeking comment on easing access for other services that require numbers, such as IP access to emergency services, home security systems, text messaging services, programmable appliances and telematics like hands-free cellular modems in automobiles.

To test a number of technical issues related to the proposals, FCC also launched a limited, six-month trial of direct access to numbers. Vonage and other VoIP providers with pending direct-access waiver petitions at the Commission will be allowed to test direct access for 5% or fewer of the numbers they currently access through intermediaries – phased in over 6 months – and a very limited amount of new numbers. Participants will be required to report monthly on the progress of the trial, and can be required to return the numbers if problems arise. In addition, the FCC granted a limited waiver to TeleCommunication Systems, Inc., which provides access to E911 services for interconnected VoIP providers.

Looking further ahead, the FCC opened a Notice of Inquiry asking about the long-term relationship of numbers to geographic boundaries. The tie between area codes and geographic regions has been weakened by number portability, especially as mobile subscribers move away from the area where they obtained the service but continue using the number. The Inquiry seeks general comment on these trends and whether changes in Commission policies are appropriate

Comment Date: (30 days after date of publication in the Federal Register)

Reply Comment Date: (60 after date of publication in the Federal Register)

Docket No.: 13-97

Thursday, February 14, 2013

Video: Regulation and the IP transition GTown School of Business

See GN Docket No. 12-353: Transition from legacy transmission platforms to services based on Internet Prototol (IP) Released: 12/14/2012. PLEADING CYCLE ESTABLISHED ON AT&T AND NTCA PETITIONS. (DA No. 12-1999). (Dkt No 12-353 ). Comments Due: 01/28/2013. Reply Comments Due: 02/25/2013. WCB . Contact: John Visclosky at (202) 418-1580 DA-12-1999A1.doc DA-12-1999A1.pdf DA-12-1999A1.txt

Monday, March 05, 2012

ORDER :: FCC :: Outage Reporting Extended to Interconnected VoIP

THE PROPOSED EXTENSION OF PART 4 OF THE COMMISSION'S RULES REGARDING OUTAGE REPORTING TO INTERCONNECTED VOICE OVER INTERNET PROTOCOL SERVICE PROVIDERS AND BROADBAND INTERNET SERVICE PROVIDERS. FCC Extends Network Outage Reporting Requirement To Interconnected VOIP Service To Help Ensure A More Resilient And Reliable 9-1-1 System. (Dkt No. 11-82 ). Action by: the Commission. Adopted: 02/15/2012 by R&O. (FCC No. 12-22). PSHSB

1. In this Report and Order, the Federal Communications Commission (FCC or Commission) extends the outage reporting requirements in Part 4 of our rules only to interconnected Voice over Internet Protocol (VoIP) service providers. In the Notice of Proposed Rulemaking in this proceeding, we proposed to take much broader action. Specifically, we proposed to extend Part 4 of the rules to both interconnected VoIP services and broadband Internet services. In addition, we proposed to require reporting of both outages based on the complete loss of service and those where, while service is technically available, technical conditions (such as packet loss, latency and/or jitter) effectively prevent communication. In response to the record developed in this proceeding, we are prepared at this time to adopt reporting requirements only with respect to the complete loss of interconnected VoIP service. Collecting this data will help the Commission help ensure the Nation’s 9-1-1 systems are as reliable and resilient as possible and also allow us to monitor compliance with the statutory 9-1-1 obligations of interconnected VoIP service providers. At this time, we also defer action on possible performance degradation thresholds for measuring an outage of interconnected VoIP service and on all outages of broadband Internet service.

2. Consumers are increasingly using interconnected VoIP services in lieu of traditional telephone service. Interconnected VoIP services allow a wireline or wireless user generally to receive calls from and make calls to the legacy public telephone network, including calls to 9-1-1. As of December 31, 2010, 31 percent of the more than 87 million residential telephone subscriptions in the United States were provided by interconnected VoIP providers —an increase of 21 percent (from 22.4 million to 27.1 million residential lines) in the last year. The public’s increased reliance on interconnected VoIP services is also reflected in 9-1-1 usage trends; we estimate that approximately 31 percent of residential wireline 9-1-1 calls are made using VoIP service.

3. The availability and resilience of our communications infrastructure, specifically 9-1-1, directly impacts public safety and the ability of our first responders to fulfill their critical mission. The most practical, effective way to maintain emergency preparedness and readiness is to work continuously to minimize the incidence of routine outages.

4. The FCC’s public safety mission is one of our core functions, and “promoting safety of life and property” is a foundational reason for the creation of the Commission. More recently, Congress affirmed the Commission’s efforts to accomplish this mission by codifying the requirement for interconnected VoIP providers to provide 9-1-1 services.

5. Consistent with our statutory mission, Presidential Directives and Executive Orders, and related implementing documents charge the Commission with ensuring the resilience and reliability of the Nation’s commercial and public safety communications infrastructure. National Security Presidential Directive/NSPD-51 establishes the framework by which the government can continue to perform its most critical roles during times of emergency. Accordingly, the Commission has the responsibility to ensure continuous operations and reconstitution of critical communications and services. The Commission also plays an active role in Emergency Support Function 2 (ESF2), the communications branch of the National Response Framework, which guides the Nation’s conduct during an all-hazards response. Executive Order 12472 establishing the National Communications System, the functions of which include coordination of the planning for and provision of national security and emergency preparedness communications for the Federal government, also requires FCC participation.

6. We have cause to be concerned about the ability of interconnected VoIP subscribers to reach emergency services when they need them. Several recent, significant VoIP outages highlight our concern about the availability of 9-1-1 over VoIP service:

On May 25, 2010, according to press reports, a service outage involving the AT&T U-Verse platform involved a server failure that impacted U-Verse interconnected VoIP service in AT&T’s entire 22-state local phone service area serving approximately 1.15 million customers. The reports indicate that the outage lasted for several hours. It remains unclear how many subscribers were unable to reach 9-1-1 and for how long.

On March 22, 2011, a Comcast outage in 19 New Hampshire communities beginning around 3:30 p.m. left many Comcast customers in those communities unable to make any calls, including 9-1-1 calls. The problem lasted through the evening.

In June 2010, CenturyLink Internet experienced failures that affected approximately 30,000 customers on the Kitsap Peninsula (near Seattle, Washington), and in a separate outage, affected approximately 100,000 customers across parts of Texas. The Kitsap Peninsula outage lasted an hour according to company sources, but some customers said it lasted four times as long. The Texas outage lasted over eight hours. During the outages, consumers, businesses and government were unable to place 9-1-1 or other calls over VoIP

In March 2010, Comcast Internet and Digital Voice service was disrupted to customers in Nashville, Tennessee, and Atlanta, Georgia. Comcast customers experienced severely degraded service for at least two hours. During the outage, local, state, and Federal government department and agency customers of Comcast in the affected areas were unable to make or receive telephone calls. Residential and business subscribers to Comcast Internet and Digital Voice services also were affected by the outage significantly impairing their ability to engage in 9-1-1 and other communications.

7. Commission staff gathered these facts from press accounts. None of these outages was reported directly to the Commission. The current outage reporting requirements are limited to traditional voice and paging communications services over wireline, wireless, cable, and satellite and do not apply to outages affecting interconnected VoIP services. Obtaining outage information for interconnected VoIP service, however, is the most effective method for the Commission to know whether and how well providers are meeting their statutory obligation to provide 9-1-1 and Enhanced 9-1-1 (E9-1-1) service. Further, without detailed information about outages that occur, the Commission is unable to analyze communications vulnerabilities, especially as they pertain to 9-1-1 services, or to share aggregate information with industry to help prevent future outages.

8. With the objective of ensuring the availability of 9-1-1 service, this Report and Order:

extends the Commission’s mandatory outage reporting rules to facilities-based and non-facilities-based interconnected VoIP service providers;

applies the current Part 4 definition of an outage to outages of interconnected VoIP service, covering the complete loss of service and/or connectivity to customers;

requires that these providers submit electronically a notification to the Commission within

240 minutes of discovering that they have experienced on any facilities that they own, operate, lease, or otherwise utilize, an outage of at least 30 minutes duration that potentially affects a 9-1-1 special facility, in which case they also shall notify, as soon as possible by telephone or other electronic means, any official who has been designated by the management of the affected 9-1-1 facility as the provider’s contact person for communications outages at that facility;

in this case, the provider shall convey to that person all available information that may be useful to the management of the affected facility in mitigating the effects of the outage on efforts to communicate with that facility; or

24 hours of discovering that these providers have experienced on any facilities that they own, operate, lease, or otherwise utilize, an outage of at least 30 minutes duration that:

potentially affects at least 900,000 user minutes of interconnected VoIP service and results in complete loss of service; or

potentially affects any special offices and facilities;

requires that these providers submit electronically a Final Communications Outage Report to the Commission not later than thirty days after discovering the outage; and

clarifies that the Part 4 rules apply to voice services provided using new wireless spectrum bands.

9. The outage reporting threshold that we adopt today for interconnected VoIP service is technology-neutral in that it mirrors the existing standard applied to other services covered under Part 4 of the Commission’s rules. Furthermore, the reporting process adopted herein is quite similar to the current process. We recognize that requiring interconnected VoIP service providers to report even significant outages imposes a burden on them, but we have determined that the cost to these providers of implementing the rules adopted herein is justified by the overwhelming public benefit of a reliable 9-1-1 system and firmly grounded in the Commission’s statutory obligation to ensure that reliability 9-1-1 service is provided to users of interconnected VoIP service. Finally, we decide to defer the question of outage reporting requirements for broadband Internet service providers and determine that this issue deserves further study.

New Regulations

PART 4 – DISRUPTIONS TO COMMUNICATIONS

GENERAL
The authority citation for Part 4 is amended to read as follows:
Authority: Sec. 5, 48 Stat. 1068, as amended; 47 U.S.C. 154, 155, 201, 251, 307, 316, 615a-1, 1302(a), and 1302(b).
1. Section 4.3 is amended by amending paragraph (f) and adding paragraphs (h), resulting in original paragraph (h) now numbered as paragraph (i), to read as follows:
§ 4.3 Communications providers covered by the requirements of this part.
* * * * *
(f) Wireless service providers include Commercial Mobile Radio Service communications providers that use cellular architecture and CMRS paging providers. See § 20.9 of this chapter for the definition of Commercial Mobile Radio Service. Also included are affiliated and non-affiliated entities that maintain or provide communications networks or services used by the provider in offering such communications.
* * * * *
(h) Interconnected Voice over Internet Protocol (VoIP) providers are providers of interconnected VoIP service. See § 9.3 of this chapter for the definition of interconnected VoIP service. Such providers may be facilities-based or non-facilities-based. Also included are affiliated and non-affiliated entities that maintain or provide communications networks or services used by the provider in offering such communications.

(i) Exclusion of equipment manufacturers or vendors. Excluded from the requirements of this Part 4 are those equipment manufacturers or vendors that do not maintain or provide communications networks or services used by communications providers in offering communications.

2. Section 4.7 is amended by changing paragraph (e) as follows:
§ 4.7 Definitions of metrics used to determine the general outage-reporting threshold criteria.
* * * * *

“User minutes” are defined as:

(1) Assigned telephone number minutes (as defined in paragraph (c) of this section), for telephony, including non-mobile interconnected VoIP telephony, and for those paging networks in which each individual user is assigned a telephone number;
(2) The mathematical result of multiplying the duration of an outage, expressed in minutes, by the number of end users potentially affected by the outage, for all other forms of communications. For wireless service providers and interconnected VoIP service providers to mobile users, the number of potentially affected users should be determined by multiplying the simultaneous call capacity of the affected equipment by a concentration ratio of 8.
* * * * *
3. Section 4.9 is amended by adding paragraphs (g) to read as follows
§ 4.9 Outage reporting requirements – threshold criteria.
* * * * *
(g) Interconnected VoIP Service Providers.All interconnected VoIP service providers shall submit electronically a Notification to the Commission:

within 240 minutes of discovering that they have experienced on any facilities that they own, operate, lease, or otherwise utilize, an outage of at least 30 minutes duration that potentially affects a 9-1-1 special facility (as defined in (e) of § 4.5), in which case they also shall notify, as soon as possible by telephone or other electronic means, any official who has been designated by the management of the affected 9-1-1 facility as the provider’s contact person for communications outages at that facility, and the provider shall convey to that person all available information that may be useful to the management of the affected facility in mitigating the effects of the outage on efforts to communicate with that facility; or

within 24 hours of discovering that they have experienced on any facilities that they own, operate, lease, or otherwise utilize, an outage of at least 30 minutes duration:

(a) That potentially affects at least 900,000 user minutes of interconnected VoIP service and results in complete loss of service; or
(b) That potentially affects any special offices and facilities (in accordance with paragraphs (a)-(d) of § 4.5).

Not later than thirty days after discovering the outage, the provider shall submit electronically a Final Communications Outage Report to the Commission. The Notification and Final reports shall comply with all of the requirements of § 4.11.

Pages