Federal Communications Commission

The Federal Communications Commission’s Wireline Competition Bureau announces the commencement of the Connect America Phase II challenge process for price cap territories.

The Bureau also provides resources to assist parties in making challenges.

The Bureau encourages providers, state commissions, local governments, and any other interested parties to participate in the challenge process. The Bureau has released a list of census blocks that have been deemed initially eligible for Phase II support.

This list consists of census blocks that are: (1) shown as unserved by an unsubsidized competitor; (2) “high cost” according to the adopted Connect America Cost Model, which means that the census block has a calculated average cost per location above $52.50 and below $207.81; and (3) located in price cap territories.

Parties have until August 14, 2014, 45 days from the release of this Public Notice, to file before the FCC a challenge to the inclusion or exclusion of particular census blocks on the list. Challenges may only be based on the first criterion: whether the block is served by an unsubsidized competitor. Challengers may argue either that census blocks served by an unsubsidized competitor were improperly included on the list, or that census blocks unserved by an unsubsidized competitor that are otherwise eligible were improperly excluded from the list.

At the end of the 45-day challenge period, the Bureau will review the challenges received, then issue a public notice indicating which challenges have provided sufficient evidence to make a case that the Bureau’s initial determination regarding the status of a census block should be changed from served to unserved or vice versa.

After the close of the response period, the Bureau will make its final determination as to whether the challenged census blocks will be treated as served or unserved by an unsubsidized competitor for the purposes of Phase II and will issue the final list of census blocks eligible. That final list will be used for making an offer of Phase II model-based support to price cap carriers.

The Federal Communications Commission’s Wireline Competition Bureau proposes a specific methodology for calculating the reasonable comparability benchmark for fixed broadband services.

In the USF/ICC Transformation Order, the Commission required that as a condition of receiving Connect America Fund support, recipients must offer voice and broadband services in supported areas at rates that are reasonably comparable to rates for similar services in urban areas.

The methodology proposed here would result in a broadband benchmark that ranges from $68.48 to $71.84 for services meeting the current broadband performance standard of 4 Mbps downstream/1 Mbps upstream, with the specific benchmark depending on the associated usage allowance. The Bureau also announces the posting of the fixed broadband services data collected in the 2013 urban rate survey.

The first approach calculates the average using a subsample of observations based solely on download speed, without regard to usage or upstream speeds.

The second approach calculates the average by identifying the subset of observations that meet or exceed a minimum service level, and then for each provider that is captured in that sub-sample, computing the average based on the lowest rate offered by that provider that meets or exceeds the specified service level.

The third approach uses a simple weighted linear regression model that takes into account the impact of three dimensions of service on rates: upload speed, download speed, and usage allowance, if any.

We seek comment on survey proposals applying the aforementioned approaches.

The Federal Communications Commission’s Consumer & Governmental Affairs Bureau (CGB) seeks comment on whether certain docketed FCC proceedings should be terminated as dormant.

The Commission has revised portions of its practice and procedural rules and its organizational rules to increase the efficiency of Commission decision-making, modernize the agency’s processes in the digital age and enhance the openness and transparency of Commission proceedings for practitioners and the public.

The revised rules delegate authority to the Chief, CGB to periodically review all open dockets and, in consultation with the responsible Bureaus or Offices, to identify those dockets that appear to be candidates for termination.

In accordance with the Twenty-First Century Communications and Video Accessibility Act of 2010 (CVAA), this Report addresses the status, benefits, and costs of video description in television programming and IP-delivered programming, as informed by consumer and industry experiences since the video description rules became effective, and presents the following findings:

• Video description provides significant benefits to individuals who are blind or visually impaired by making key visual components of video programming accessible to them, which allows them greater independence and the ability to follow and understand television programs.
• Industry commenters report that they are working diligently to comply with the video description requirements for television programming, yet consumers who are blind or visually impaired perceive there to be a minimal amount of video-described programming available to them.
• Overwhelmingly, consumers who are blind or visually impaired desire an increased amount of video description in television programming.
• We believe that some of the concerns about the availability of program content with video description will be alleviated in the coming years. The obligation to provide 50 hours of video description expands to additional television markets in July 2015, which will lead to increased video description availability for a greater number of consumers. In addition, rules adopted in the Commission’s emergency information proceeding will result in more video programming providers and distributors having the technical capability to provide and pass through a secondary audio stream, which is used for both video description and aural emergency information. Further, if the Commission determines that the need for and benefits of providing video description for television programming outweigh the technical and economic costs, the Commission has authority two years after the completion of this Report to increase the 50 hours per quarter requirement by up to 75 percent (i.e., up to 87.5 hours per quarter, or roughly 7 hours per week).
• Consumers identify concerns regarding the availability of information about which television programs are video-described. In this Report, we encourage industry to coordinate with program guide developers to ensure that consumers are provided with current and accurate information about video-described programming and to promote the availability of websites and other outlets that provide such information.
• Consumers express frustration with the quality of customer support service for video description. In this Report, we urge covered entities to provide proper training and dedicated support so that their customer service representatives are able to answer consumer questions about accessing video description on the secondary audio stream.
• Consumers also identify technical problems with accessing video description services on consumer electronics equipment. The Commission recently adopted rules requiring the accessibility of user interfaces on digital apparatus and navigation devices used to view video programming to enable individuals with disabilities to access such programming more easily, which will go into effect in 2016. In the interim, we expect that MVPDs and manufacturers of digital apparatus and navigation devices will train their customer service representatives to assist consumers in accessing the secondary audio stream.
• The record reveals no significant issues with regard to the technical or creative aspects of creating, distributing, or viewing video description since the adoption of the rules, but we encourage industry to coordinate with consumer groups to address any technical and creative issues that may arise in the future.
• The costs of video description are consistent with the expectations of industry at the time of rule adoption, and covered entities do not indicate that the costs of video description have impeded their ability to comply with the video description rules.
• Video description for IP-delivered programming would provide significant benefits by making key visual components of such programming accessible to individuals with visual disabilities, which allows them greater independence and ability to follow and understand television programs.
• Industry commenters argue that there are currently technical challenges to imposing video description requirements in the context of IP-delivered programming. However, the comments of consumer group National Federation of the Blind (“NFB”), as well as recent comments in the emergency information proceeding, reflect that some technologies have already been developed that could support a secondary audio stream for IP-delivered programming.
• Given the lack of detailed comment on this issue, we are currently without sufficient information to assess accurately the costs for video programming providers, distributors, and owners to provide video description in IP-delivered programming.
• Given the rapid growth in the number of Americans who consume video programming online and the benefits of video description for individuals who are blind or visually impaired, we will continue to monitor developments on this front, and we hope that industry will take the initiative to develop standards and work toward providing video description of IP-delivered programming.

The Federal Communications Commission biennial commercial broadcast ownership report, FCC Form 323, is designed to obtain comprehensive data on racial and ethnic minority and female broadcast ownership -- statistically valid broadcast ownership information data that can be compiled and aggregated and used as a source for further analysis.

The Commission requires full power commercial television and radio broadcast stations and low power and Class A television stations, including any of these stations owned by sole proprietorships and partnerships of natural persons, to file a biennial ownership report using the same “as of” date (October 1) for reported data during each filing cycle.

This report presents the results of the third data collection and reflecting attributable ownership interests as of October 1, 2013. These data represent three snapshots of broadcast ownership in a series of planned biennial data collections that, taken together, should provide a reliable basis for analyzing ownership trends in the industry, including ownership by racial and ethnic minorities and women.

Current Broadcast Ownership by Gender, Ethnicity, and Race.
The following summary uses only data from the 2013 FCC Form 323 biennial reports and thus represents information current as of October 1, 2013 (the most current biennial information available).

Broadcast ownership and gender.

• Women collectively or individually held a majority of the voting interests in 997 broadcast stations, comprised of 87 full power commercial television stations (6.3 percent) of 1,386 stations; 217 low power television stations, including Class A stations(13.1 percent) of 1,651 stations; 310 commercial AM radio stations (8.3 percent) of 3,737 stations; and 383 commercial FM radio stations (6.7 percent) of 5,714 stations.
• Men collectively or individually held a majority of the voting interests in 9,214 broadcast stations, comprised of 1,005 full power commercial television stations (72.5 percent) of 1,386 stations; 1,246 low power television stations, including Class A stations (75.5 percent) of 1,651 stations; 2,737 commercial AM radio stations (73.2 percent) of 3,737 stations; and 4,226 commercial FM radio stations (74.0 percent) of 5,714 stations.

Broadcast ownership and ethnicity.

• Hispanic/Latino persons collectively or individually held a majority of the voting interests in 571 broadcast stations, comprised of 42 full power commercial television stations (3.0 percent) of 1,386 stations; 155 low power television stations, including Class A stations (9.4 percent) of 1,651 stations; 194 commercial AM radio stations (5.2 percent) of 3,737 stations; and 180 commercial FM radio stations (3.2 percent) of 5,714 stations.
• Non-Hispanic/Latino persons collectively or individually held a majority of the voting interests in 9,879 broadcast stations, comprised of 1,052 full power commercial television stations (75.9 percent) of 1,386 stations; 1,271 low power television stations, including Class A stations (77.0 percent) of 1651 stations; 2,912 commercial AM radio stations (77.9 percent) of 3,737 stations; and 4,529 FM commercial radio stations (79.3 percent) of 5,714 stations.

Broadcast ownership and race.

• Racial minorities collectively or individually held a majority of the voting interests in 499 broadcast stations, 41 full power commercial television stations (3.0 percent) of 1,386 stations; 64 low power television stations, including Class A stations (3.9 percent) of 1,651 stations; 225 commercial AM radio stations (6.0 percent) of 3,737 stations; and 169 commercial FM radio stations (3.0 percent) of 5,714 stations. Ownership of majority interests by racial group was as follows:
• American Indian/Alaska Natives owned 49 broadcast stations.
• Asians owned 184 broadcast stations.
• Black/African Americans owned 199 broadcast stations.
• Native Hawaiian/Other Pacific Islanders owned 36 broadcast stations.
• Persons of two or more races owned 31 broadcast stations.
• Whites collectively or individually held a majority of the voting interests in 9,919 broadcast stations, comprised of 1,070 full power commercial television stations (77.2 percent) of 1,386 stations; 1,386 low power television stations, including Class A stations (83.9 percent) of 1,651 stations; 2,893 commercial AM radio stations (77.4 percent) of 3,737 stations; and 4,570 commercial FM radio stations (80.0 percent) of 5,714 stations.

The Federal Communications Commission will hold an Open Meeting on July 11, 2014.

Due to the 4th of July holiday, the Commission will waive the sunshine period until 11:59pm on Monday, July 7, 2014. Thus, presentations with respect to the items scheduled for consideration at the meeting will be permitted until that time.

The Federal Communications Commission has taken steps to strengthen the Emergency Alert System (EAS) by proposing revisions to EAS rules to address problems encountered during the first nationwide test of the EAS.

Specifically, in light of the lessons learned from the nationwide EAS test, which occurred on November 9, 2011, this Notice of Proposed Rulemaking proposes to: 1) establish a national location code for EAS alerts issued by the President; 2) amend FCC rules governing a national EAS test code for future nationwide tests; 3) require broadcasters, cable service providers, and other entities required to comply with the Commission’s EAS rules (EAS Participants) to file test result data electronically; and 4) require EAS Participants to meet minimal standards to ensure that EAS alerts are accessible to all members of the public, including those with disabilities.

The Federal Communications Commission has released its latest reports on Internet access service connections and local telephone services in the United States. Titled Internet Access Services and Local Telephone Competition, respectively, the reports are based on data submitted by service providers every six months. The reports include data collected by the FCC through June 30, 2013.

Highlights from the reports include the following:

• The number of connections with downstream speeds of at least 10 Mbps increased by 118% over June 2012, to 103 million connections, including 58 million fixed connections and 45 million mobile connections.
• Growth is particularly high in mobile Internet subscriptions. The number of mobile subscriptions with speeds over 200 kbps in at least one direction grew to 181 million -- up 18% from June 2012.
• In voice services, there were 90 million end-user switched access lines in service, 45 million interconnected VoIP subscriptions, and 306 million mobile voice subscriptions, or 441 million retail local telephone service connections in total as of June 30, 2013.
• Over the three years between June 2010 and June 2013, interconnected VoIP subscriptions increased at a compound growth rate of 16%, mobile voice subscriptions increased at a compound annual growth rate of 3%, and retail switched access lines declined at 10% a year.

The Federal Communications Commission made history by adopting rules for the first-ever Incentive Auction. Robust participation by broadcasters will be critical to the success of the auction.

The auction is a risk-free, once-in-a-lifetime opportunity for broadcasters, but the decision of whether or not to participate is completely voluntary and confidential. We recognize that spectrum auctions are new for most broadcasters, and that we owe them additional information before the Incentive Auction.

As anyone who’s made a major sale or purchase knows, having more information leads to better decisions. First, we’re providing an updated estimated timeline of Commission actions leading up to and after the auction.

Importantly, this timeline details steps broadcasters will need to take to participate in the auction.

Second, this summer, we will distribute informational material to help inform broadcaster decision-making. This material will provide an estimate of the amount of money broadcasters could receive for voluntarily relinquishing some or all of their spectrum rights in the auction. It will also contain additional information about why broadcasters should consider participating in the reverse auction, and the options that the auction will present to them.

Third, we will conduct webinars to explain the rules for the Incentive Auction. Fourth, as we near the Incentive Auction, Commission experts will hold additional webinars and travel across the country to demonstrate to interested broadcasters how to participate, including providing hands-on bidding demonstrations.

The Internet has levelled the playing field so that consumers can access the best products for the cheapest price, and anyone who wants to compete for their business can do so quickly and easily. To borrow from Adam Thierer, broadband has made it easier for entrepreneurs to innovate without first asking the government’s permission.

What makes all this digital innovation possible? Broadband infrastructure -- and a lot of it. Since the Telecommunications Act of 1996, telephone companies, cable operators, and wireless providers have invested more than $1.2 trillion to deploy broadband to the American public, with more than $68 billion invested in 2012 alone. For those keeping score, that’s one trillion dollars more than the Universal Service Fund has ever distributed, and about $60 billion more than it distributed in 2013.

Aside from the mechanics of implementing Title II, we need to ask a more basic question. Where would Title II regulation lead? One good indication is to compare the results produced by the American regulatory model to those of a more intrusive regulatory model: Europe’s. Rather than taking a light-touch regulatory approach to broadband, the European model treats broadband as a public utility, imposes telephone-style regulation, and purports to focus on promoting service-based (rather than facilities-based) competition.

Why would we ever want to abandon our regulatory model for Europe’s? Those of us who support light-touch regulation of the Internet should engage in this debate and take our case to the American people. Should a carrier like T-Mobile be able to respond to consumer demand by offering free music to its customers? We say yes, but those who support Title II regulation say no. Is it good for competition when a carrier like T-Mobile is able to differentiate itself from its competitors and offer innovative service plans? Again, we say yes, but those who support Title II regulation say no.