FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION FCC 08-195
Before the
Federal Communications Commission
Washington, D.C. 20554
In the Matter of
Implementation of the NET 911 Improvement Act 
of 2008
)
)
)
)
WC Docket No. 08-171
NOTICE OF PROPOSED RULEMAKING
Adopted:  August 22, 2008 Released:  August 25, 2008
Comment Date:  [12 days after date of publication in the Federal Register]
Reply Comment Date:  [20 days after date of publication in the Federal Register]
By the Commission: Chairman Martin and Commissioners Copps, Adelstein Tate, and McDowell 
issuing separate statements.
I. INTRODUCTION
1. 911 service is critical to our nation’s ability to respond to a host of crises.  The New and 
Emerging Technologies (NET) 911 Improvement Act of 2008 (NET 911 Act), signed into law on July 23, 
2008, is designed to “promote and enhance public safety by facilitating the rapid deployment of IP-
enabled 911 and E911 services, encourage the Nation’s transition to a national IP-enabled emergency 
network, and improve 911 and enhanced 911 (E911) access to those with disabilities.”1 This Notice of 
Proposed Rulemaking (Notice) marks our first step towards implementing this new legislation.
2. The NET 911 Act addresses several aspects of our nation’s 911 system.  This Notice focuses 
on one particular obligation in the NET 911 Act:  The Commission must, no later than October 21, 2008,2
issue regulations implementing certain key provisions that, among other things, ensure that providers of 
IP-enabled voice services have access to the capabilities they need to provide 911 and E911 service.  We 
fully intend to have those regulations in place by Congress’s deadline.  Therefore we issue this Notice and 
provide a short comment cycle that will allow us to meet our statutory obligation.
II. BACKGROUND
3. The NET 911 Act explicitly imposes on each IP-enabled voice service provider the obligation 
to provide 911 service and E911 service in accordance with Commission requirements.3 The NET 911 
Act also grants each IP-enabled voice service provider rights with respect to “capabilities” to provide 911 
  
1 New and Emerging Technologies 911 Improvement Act of 2008, Pub. L. No. 110-__, __ Stat. __, Preamble (NET 
911 Act) (amending Wireless Communications and Public Safety Act of 1999, Pub. L. No. 106-81, 113 Stat. 1286 
(Wireless 911 Act)).
2 The NET 911 Act was signed into law on July 23, 2008.  The Commission therefore must issue regulations no later
than October 21, 2008.  See NET 911 Act § 101(2); Wireless 911 Act § 6(c)(1).
3 See NET 911 Act § 101(2); Wireless 911 Act § 6(a).  “IP-enabled voice service” is given the same meaning as 
“interconnected VoIP service,” as defined by section 9.3 of our rules.  See NET 911 Act § 101(3); Wireless 911 Act 
§ 7(8); see also 47 C.F.R. § 9.3.  The Commission regulations imposing 911 service obligations on interconnected 
VoIP providers are located at 47 C.F.R. §§ 9.3 et seq.  
FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION FCC 08-195
2
and E911 services.4 Specifically, section 102 of the NET 911 Act adds a new section 6 to the Wireless 
911 Act, which states in relevant part:
(a) DUTIES.—It shall be the duty of each IP-enabled voice service provider to 
provide 9–1–1 service and enhanced 9–1–1 service to its subscribers in accordance with 
the requirements of the Federal Communications Commission, as in effect on the date of 
enactment of the New and Emerging Technologies 911 Improvement Act of 2008 and as 
such requirements may be modified by the Commission from time to time.
(b) PARITY FOR IP-ENABLED VOICE SERVICE PROVIDERS.—An IP-
enabled voice service provider that seeks capabilities to provide 9–1–1 and enhanced 9–
1–1 service from an entity with ownership or control over such capabilities, to comply 
with its obligations under subsection (a), shall, for the exclusive purpose of complying 
with such obligations, have a right of access to such capabilities, including 
interconnection, to provide 9–1–1 and enhanced 9–1–1 service on the same rates, terms, 
and conditions that are provided to a provider of commercial mobile service . . . , subject 
to such regulations as the Commission prescribes under subsection (c).5
(c) REGULATIONS.—The Commission—
(1) within 90 days after the date of enactment of the [NET 911 Act] shall issue 
regulations implementing such Act, including regulations that—
(A) ensure that IP-enabled voice service providers have the ability to 
exercise their rights under subsection (b);
(B) take into account any technical, network security, or information 
privacy requirements that are specific to IP-enabled voice services; and
(C) provide, with respect to any capabilities that are not required to be 
made available to a commercial mobile service provider but that the Commission 
determines under subparagraph (B) of this paragraph or paragraph (2)6 are 
necessary for an IP-enabled voice service provider to comply with its obligations 
under subsection (a), that such capabilities shall be available at the same rates, 
terms, and conditions as would apply if such capabilities were made available to 
a commercial mobile service provider.7
(2) shall require IP-enabled voice service providers to which the regulations 
apply to register with the Commission and to establish a point of contact for public safety 
and government officials relative to 9–1–1 and enhanced 9–1–1 service and access . . . .
  
4 See NET 911 Act § 101(2); Wireless 911 Act § 6(b). 
5 For purposes of NET 911 Act, Congress specifically defined “commercial mobile service” by reference to section 
332(d)(1) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended.  47 U.S.C. § 332(d)(1) (stating that the term 
“commercial mobile service” means any mobile service that is provided for profit and makes interconnected service 
available to the public or to such classes of eligible users as to be effectively available to a substantial portion of the 
public, as specified by regulation by the Commission).  See NET 911 Act § 101(2); Wireless 911 Act § 6(b).
6 We believe Congress may have intended to instead refer to paragraph 3 of the NET 911 Act and seek comment on 
what impact this has on whatever action would be appropriate for the Commission to take.
7 NET 911 Act § 101(2); Wireless 911 Act §§ 6(c)(1)(A)–(C).
FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION FCC 08-195
3
4. The “requirements of the Federal Communications Commission, as in effect on the date of 
enactment of the [NET 911 Act]” referenced in the legislation are set forth in the Commission’s VoIP 911 
Order.8 In that Order, the Commission required providers of “interconnected VoIP service”—referred to 
as “IP-enabled voice services” in the NET 911 Act—to provide 911 service using the existing wireline 
911 infrastructure.  Congress has specified that “[n]othing in the [NET 911 Act] shall be construed as 
altering, delaying, or otherwise limiting the ability of the Commission to enforce the Federal actions taken 
or rules adopted obligating an IP-enabled voice service provider to provide 9–1–1 or enhanced 9–1–1 
service as of the date of the enactment of the [NET 911 Act].”9
III. DISCUSSION
5. In the discussion that follows, we seek comment on the specific duties imposed by the 
legislation and the elements of the regulations we are required to adopt.  We ask about the capabilities for 
which the NET 911 Act affords IP-enabled voice service providers a right of access, how the Commission 
can ensure that IP-enabled voice service providers can exercise these rights, and how to provide that such 
capabilities are made available on the same rates, terms, and conditions that are provided to commercial 
mobile service providers.  We also explore how the regulations we must adopt are impacted by 
requirements specific to IP-enable voice service providers.  We seek comment, generally, on the 
questions and tentative conclusions below.
A. “Capabilities”
6. The NET 911 Act states that IP-enabled voice service providers “shall . . . have a right of 
access to such capabilities, including interconnection, to provide 9–1–1 and enhanced 9–1–1 service on 
the same rates, terms, and conditions that are provided to CMS providers.”10 To what extent is it 
appropriate for the Commission to define “capabilities” in this rulemaking, or should we determine what 
constitutes “capabilities” on a case-by-case basis?  To the extent a prospective determination is 
appropriate, we seek comment on the definition of “capabilities.”  What would such a definition include 
and exclude?  Are pseudo Automatic Number Identification (p-ANI), real-time Automatic Location 
Identification (ALI) database access, Emergency Service Numbers (ESN), Master Street Address Guides 
(MSAG), shell records, callback number, selective router interconnection for both voice and data 
transport, or other “elements” appropriately considered “capabilities” under the NET 911 Act?11 Do 
“capabilities” include network services, testing, and agreements?12 What other items, elements, features, 
functions, or agreements are appropriately considered capabilities?  Because the NET 911 Act requires 
IP-enabled service providers to “have a right of access” to capabilities to provide 911 and enhanced 911 
service “on the same rates, terms, and conditions that are provided to a provider of commercial mobile 
service,”13 we seek comment about what capabilities are currently required to be available to CMS 
providers.  What, if any, capabilities “are necessary for an IP-enabled voice service provider to comply 
  
8 IP-enabled Services; E911 Requirements for IP-Enabled Service Providers, WC Docket Nos. 04-36, 05-196, First 
Report and Order and Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, 20 FCC Rcd 10245 (2005) (VoIP 911 Order), aff’d Nuvio 
Corp. v. FCC, 473 F.3d 302 (D.C. Cir. 2006). 
9 NET 911 Act § 101(2); Wireless 911 Act § 6(i).
10 NET 911 Act § 101(2); Wireless 911 Act § 6(b). 
11 See Letter from Ronald W. Del Sesto, Jr., Counsel for Vonage, to Marlene H. Dortch, Secretary, FCC, WC 
Docket Nos. 04-36, 05-196, Attach. A at 1–3 (filed July 11, 2008).
12 See id. at 1.
13 See NET 911 Act § 101(2); Wireless 911 Act § 6(b).
FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION FCC 08-195
4
with its obligations” under section 6(a) of the Wireless 911 Act,14 but “are not required to be made 
available to a commercial mobile service provider”?15
7. With regard to mobile VoIP service used by CMRS16 carriers in conjunction with their 
CMRS service, we seek comment specifically on what capabilities “are necessary for [such mobile 
interconnected VoIP17] provider to comply with its obligations” under section 6(a) of the Wireless 911 
Act.  Specifically, what requirements should be imposed on the mobile VoIP provider and its roaming 
partner when offering mobile VoIP service in a roaming area outside its CMRS footprint?18 For example, 
T-Mobile has asked the Commission to waive or rule on several requirements of the VoIP 911 Order for 
its interconnected VoIP service,19 which allows a customer to use a dual-mode handset that works as a 
regular CMRS phone and, when it is in a WiFi hotspot, an interconnected VoIP phone.  Their service uses 
CMRS default routing for VoIP 911 calls and “last known cell” information for automatic location 
information in their footprint, but is not able to use such “last known cell” information outside the 
footprint because it is not provided by its roaming partner.20 Assuming that T-Mobile’s use of CMRS 
  
14 See NET 911 Act § 101(2); Wireless 911 Act § 6(c)(1)(C).
15 NET 911 Act § 101(2); Wireless 911 Act § 6(c)(1)(C).
16 For the purposes of this NPRM, CMS and CMRS are used interchangeably.
17 For the purposes of this NPRM, “IP-enabled voice services” and “Interconnected VoIP” are used interchangeably.
18 Seeking additional comment on this particular issue is supported by public safety organizations such as the 
Association of Public-Safety Communications Officials-International (APCO) and the National Emergency Number 
Association (NENA).  See Letter from Robert M. Gurss, Director, Legal and Government Affairs, APCO 
International, and Brian Fontes, Chief Executive Officer, NENA, to Marlene H. Dortch, Secretary, FCC, WC 
Docket Nos. 04-36, 05-196 at 1 (filed Aug. 19, 2008) (stating that “we believe that the Commission should seek 
comments on [whether, pursuant to the NET 911 Improvement Act, wireless carriers should be required to provide 
roaming partners with last-known caller location information necessary for the proper routing of wireless VoIP calls 
to 9-1-1] issue at this time.”).  See also Letter from Brian Fontes, CEO, NENA, to Marlene H. Dortch, Secretary, 
FCC, WC Docket Nos. 04-36, 05-196 (filed Aug. 21, 2008) (“NENA believes that having the ability to route calls 
based on the last known location of a caller roaming on another provider’s network would provide public safety 
benefits.  NENA would support the Commission taking steps to address this issue.”)
19 T-Mobile has posted an example of such an offering, called “Unlimited HotSpot Calling Service,” on its Web site.  
See http://www.t-mobile.com/shop/addons/services/information.aspx?tp=Svc_Tab_UnlimitedHotSpotCalling, last 
visited July 26, 2008: 
Home is where the coverage is[.]  Your T-Mobile wireless router creates a personal network for 
your HotSpot-enabled phone, for enhanced coverage at home. . . .  Include the Unlimited HotSpot 
Calling service and you can make and receive unlimited nationwide calls over Wi-Fi from home, 
or at any US T-Mobile HotSpot location, anytime, day or night. . . . Whenever you’re out and not 
using a Wi-Fi network, your HotSpot-enabled phone works just like a regular mobile phone . . . . 
Buy a HotSpot-enabled phone and T-Mobile wireless router, so when you’re home, you’re 
covered. 
20 See Petition of T-Mobile USA, Inc. for Clarification, IP-Enabled Services, E-911 Requirements for IP-Enabled 
Service Providers, WC Docket Nos. 04-36, 05-196 (filed July 29, 2005) (T-Mobile Petition); see also Joint Petition 
for Clarification of the National Emergency Number Association and the Voice on the Net (VON) Coalition, IP-
Enabled Services, E-911 Requirements for IP-Enabled Service Providers, WC Docket Nos. 04-36, 05-196 (filed 
July 29, 2005) (NENA/VON Petition).  Specifically, T-Mobile has asked the Commission to rule that interconnected 
VoIP providers may use “network-derived location information” instead of a customer-provided Registered 
Location.  See T-Mobile Petition at 4–5.  Relatedly, T-Mobile asks the Commission to rule that interconnected VoIP 
providers need not obtain Registered Locations from their customers if they can obtain them automatically.  See id. 
at 6; see also NENA/VON Petition at 8.  T-Mobile has also asked for a ruling that it need not obtain any location 
(continued . . .)
FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION FCC 08-195
5
default routing and associated “last known cell” information is sufficient, we seek comment on what 
modifications we should make to our rules when outside the footprint.  For example, what requirements 
should be placed on the roaming partners of these dual-mode service providers to provide access to 
information necessary to employ “last known cell” in a roaming area in the same manner that dual-mode 
providers such as T-Mobile use such information when in their own network?  Further, we seek comment 
generally on what capabilities we should require roaming partners to make available to mobile VoIP 
providers to ensure compliance with applicable 911 and E911 requirements.  In addition, we seek 
comment on whether wireless carriers should be required pursuant to the NET 911 Act to provide 
roaming partners with last-known caller location information necessary for the proper routing of wireless 
VoIP calls to 911.  We also seek comment on how such a requirement would affect incentives to reach 
roaming agreements and how the Commission can ensure that such a requirement would not prevent 
companies from forming roaming agreements they might otherwise reach.  
B. Ownership, Control, Availability, and Right of Access
8. Who owns and controls each of the capabilities identified in response to the questions above?  
For each type of entity owning or controlling such capabilities, how should the Commission fulfill its 
statutory mandate to “ensure that IP-enabled voice service providers have the ability to exercise their 
rights under subsection (b)”?21 Does this mandate confer sufficient authority or jurisdiction upon the 
Commission to impose requirements on state, local or private entities?  What other sources of authority or 
jurisdiction are available to the Commission to ensure that such capabilities are made available?  Are 
there any additional actions the Commission should take to ensure that such capabilities are available per 
Congress’s instructions?  What are the implications of Congress’s direction that IP-enabled voice service 
providers shall have a right of access to these capabilities “for the exclusive purpose of complying with” 
their obligations under the NET 911 Act?22
C. Rates, Terms, and Conditions
9. The NET 911 Act requires that IP-enabled voice service providers receive a right of access to 
E911 network capabilities on the “same rates, terms, and conditions” as provided to CMS providers.23  
Under what rates, terms, and conditions are such capabilities provided to CMS providers?  To what extent 
are capabilities made available to CMS providers under tariff, interconnection agreement, or some other 
form of agreement?  To what extent are the terms of such agreements available for review by other CMS 
providers or providers of IP-enabled voice service?
10. Assuming that similar capabilities have varying rates, terms, and conditions, how should the 
Commission determine what rates, terms, and conditions are to be placed on certain capabilities?  Is it 
(Continued from previous page)   
information from the customer until after service initiation if it is not “practicable to do so beforehand.”  Id. at 7.  T-
Mobile also asks the Commission to rule that a mobile or nomadic interconnected VoIP provider need not pass 
certain call-back and location information to a public safety answering point (PSAP) unless the PSAP has already 
implemented “non-call associated signaling and the ability to retrieve location information from real-time databases, 
and the implementation period in Rule § 20.18 has elapsed.” Id. at 10; see also NENA/VON Petition at 4–5 (asking 
for clarification “that for non-native telephone numbers, routing to the appropriate PSAP meets the Commission’s 
obligations where the PSAP is not yet capable of processing the dynamic data necessary for delivering E9-1-1”).  
Finally, T-Mobile asked to be able to deliver location information to PSAPs in the form of “x,y” coordinates rather 
than street addresses.  Id. at 10.
21 NET 911 Act § 101(2); Wireless 911 Act § 6(c)(1)(A).  
22 See NET 911 Act § 101(2); Wireless 911 Act §6(b).
23 See NET 911 Act § 101(2); Wireless 911 Act §§ 6(b), (c)(1)(C).
FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION FCC 08-195
6
enough to mandate in our rules that those entities owning or controlling the capabilities needed for IP-
enabled voice service providers provide such capabilities at the same rates, terms and conditions offered 
to CMS providers?  Conversely, is it necessary to establish pricing standards for each of the capabilities 
that an IP-enabled voice service provider needs to meet the NET 911 Act’s section 101(2) obligations?  If 
so, what standards should apply?  Can and should the Commission mandate disclosure of all rates, terms, 
and conditions concerning each capability from states, localities, and industry?  How shall the 
Commission determine what rates, terms, and conditions would have been made available to CMS 
providers for capabilities that they do not use?  Are there any other differences between CMS and IP-
enabled voice service that we should consider with regard to the “rates, terms, and conditions” of access 
for IP-enabled voice service providers?
D. Technical, Network Security, or Information Privacy Requirements That Are 
Specific to IP-Enabled Voice Services
11. What technical, network security, or information privacy requirements specific to IP-enabled 
voice services must be taken into account when ensuring that capabilities are available to IP-enabled 
voice service providers?  Are there any concerns that certain 911 systems may not offer the capabilities 
necessary particularly to meet the technical requirements of IP-enable voice services?  If so, how should 
we take into account these requirements when adopting regulations for IP-enabled voice service 
providers?  What network security issues do providers of IP-enabled voice services pose for the 911 and 
E911 networks?  What steps can the Commission take to correct or ameliorate these concerns?  With 
respect to information privacy, are there any issues specific to IP-enabled voice service providers that 
raise new concerns regarding the protection of customer proprietary network information?  What steps 
should the Commission take to ensure IP-enabled voice service providers’ customers’ information is 
protected during and after a 911 or E911 call?  Should the Commission take any action at this time to 
require IP-enabled voice service providers to register with the Commission and to establish a point of 
contact for public safety and government officials relative to 911 and E911 service and access?24 If so, 
what steps would be appropriate?
E. Other Considerations
12. Finally, what other issues relating to the NET 911 Act should the Commission consider? Are 
there particular issues relating to the Commission’s jurisdiction, federal, state, local and private 
initiatives, or other issues that the Commission should take into consideration when adopting rules? 
Should the Commission delegate authority to enforce any regulations issued under subsection (c) to State 
commissions or other State or local agencies or programs with jurisdiction over emergency 
communications?25 If so, what specifically should the Commission delegate and to which entity?  What 
costs and burdens would rules resulting from the Notice impose upon small entities and how can they be 
ameliorated?  Are there any other issues or significant alternatives that the Commission should consider 
to ease the burden on small entities?  
IV. PROCEDURAL MATTERS
A. Ex Parte Presentations
13. This matter shall be treated as a “permit-but-disclose” proceeding in accordance with the 
Commission’s ex parte rules.26 Persons making oral ex parte presentations are reminded that memoranda 
  
24 See NET 911 Act § 101(2); Wireless 911 Act § 6(c)(2).
25 See NET 911 Act § 101(2); Wireless 911 Act § 6(d).
26 47 C.F.R. §§ 1.200 et seq.
FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION FCC 08-195
7
summarizing the presentations must contain summaries of the substance of the presentations and not 
merely a listing of the subjects discussed.  More than a one or two sentence description of the views and 
arguments presented is generally required.27 Other requirements pertaining to oral and written 
presentations are set forth in section 1.1206(b) of the Commission’s rules.
B. Comment Filing Procedures
14. 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 and reply comments on or before the dates indicated on the first 
page of this document.  All filings related to this Notice of Proposed Rulemaking should refer to WC 
Docket No. 08-171.  Commenters need not resubmit material previously filed in that proceeding.  
Comments may be filed using:  (1) the Commission’s Electronic Comment Filing System (ECFS), (2) the 
Federal Government’s e-Rulemaking Portal, or (3) by filing paper copies.  See Electronic Filing of 
Documents in Rulemaking Proceedings, 63 FR 24121 (1998).
· Electronic Filers:  Comments may be filed electronically using the Internet by accessing 
the ECFS:  http://www.fcc.gov/cgb/ecfs/ or the Federal e-Rulemaking Portal:  
http://www.regulations.gov.  Filers should follow the instructions provided on the website for 
submitting comments.  
· For ECFS filers, if multiple docket or rulemaking numbers appear in the caption of this 
proceeding, filers must transmit one electronic copy of the comments for each docket or 
rulemaking number referenced in the caption.  In completing the transmittal screen, filers should 
include their full name, U.S. 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, filers should send an e-mail to ecfs@fcc.gov, and include the following words 
in the body of the message, “get form.”  A sample form and directions will be sent in response.
· Paper Filers:  Parties who choose to file by paper must file an original and four copies of 
each filing.  If more than one docket or rulemaking number appears in the caption of this 
proceeding, filers must submit two additional copies for each additional docket or rulemaking 
number.
· Filings can be sent by hand or messenger delivery, by commercial overnight courier, or 
by first-class or overnight U.S. Postal Service mail (although we continue to experience delays in 
receiving U.S. Postal Service mail).  All filings must be addressed to the Commission’s Secretary, 
Office of the Secretary, Federal Communications Commission.
· The Commission’s contractor will receive hand-delivered or messenger-delivered paper 
filings for the Commission’s Secretary at 236 Massachusetts Avenue, NE, Suite 110, 
Washington, DC  20002.  The filing hours at this location are 8:00 a.m. to 7:00 p.m.  All hand 
deliveries must be held together with rubber bands or fasteners.  Any envelopes must be disposed 
of before entering the building.
· Commercial overnight mail (other than U.S. Postal Service Express Mail and Priority 
Mail) must be sent to 9300 East Hampton Drive, Capitol Heights, MD  20743.
  
27 See 47 C.F.R. § 1.1206(b)(2).
FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION FCC 08-195
8
· U.S. Postal Service first-class, Express, and Priority mail should be addressed to 445 12th
Street, SW, Washington DC  20554.
15. All filings must be addressed to the Commission’s Secretary, Marlene H. Dortch, Office of 
the Secretary, Federal Communications Commission, 445 12th Street, SW, Washington, DC 20554.  
Parties should also send a copy of their filings to the Competition Policy Division, Wireline Competition 
Bureau, Federal Communications Commission, Room 5-C140, 445 12th Street, SW, Washington, D.C. 
20554, or by e-mail to cpdcopies@fcc.gov.  Parties shall also serve one copy with the Commission’s copy 
contractor, Best Copy and Printing, Inc. (BCPI), Portals II, 445 12th Street, SW, Room CY-B402, 
Washington, D.C. 20554, (202) 488-5300, or via e-mail to fcc@bcpiweb.com.
16. Documents in WC Docket No. 08-171 are available for public inspection and copying during 
business hours at the FCC Reference Information Center, Portals II, 445 12th St. SW, Room CY-A257, 
Washington, DC 20554.  The documents may also be purchased from BCPI, telephone (202) 488-5300, 
facsimile (202) 488-5563, TTY (202) 488-5562, e-mail fcc@bcpiweb.com.
C. Accessible Formats
17. To request materials in accessible formats for people with disabilities (braille, large print, 
electronic files, audio format), send an e-mail to fcc504@fcc.gov or call the Consumer & Governmental 
Affairs Bureau at (202) 418-0531 (voice), (202) 418-7365 (TTY).
D. Initial Regulatory Flexibility Analysis
18. As required by the Regulatory Flexibility Act,28 the Commission has prepared an Initial 
Regulatory Flexibility Analysis (IRFA) of the possible significant economic impact on a substantial 
number of small entities of the proposals addressed in this Notice.  The IRFA is set forth in the 
Appendix.29 Written public comments are requested on the IRFA.  These comments must be filed in 
accordance with the same filing deadlines for comments on the Notice, and they should have a separate 
and distinct heading designating them as responses to the IRFA.  The Commission’s Consumer and 
Governmental Affairs Bureau, Reference Information Center, will send a copy of this Notice, including 
the IRFA, to the Chief Counsel for Advocacy of the Small Business Administration, in accordance with 
the Regulatory Flexibility Act.30
E. Paperwork Reduction Act Analysis 
19. This document does not contain proposed information collection(s) subject to the Paperwork 
Reduction Act of 1995 (PRA), Public Law 104-13. In addition, therefore, it does not contain any new or 
modified “information collection burden for small business concerns with fewer than 25 employees,” 
pursuant to the Small Business Paperwork Relief Act of 2002, Public Law 107-198, see 44 U.S.C. 
3506(c)(4).
  
28 See 5 U.S.C. § 603.
29 See Appendix, infra.
30 See 5 U.S.C. § 603(a).
FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION FCC 08-195
9
V. ORDERING CLAUSES
20. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that pursuant to the authority contained in sections 1, 4(i)–(j), 
201, 202, 222, 251, 252, 303(r) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. §§ 151, 
154(i)–(j), 201, 202, 222, 251, 252, 303(r), and section 6 of the Wireless Communications and Public 
Safety Act of 1999, as amended, this Notice of Proposed Rulemaking IS ADOPTED.
21. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Commission’s Consumer and Governmental Affairs 
Bureau, Reference Information Center, SHALL SEND a copy of this Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, 
including the Initial Regulatory Flexibility Analysis, to the Chief Counsel for Advocacy of the Small 
Business Administration.
FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION
Marlene H. Dortch
Secretary
FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION FCC 08-195
10
APPENDIX
Initial Regulatory Flexibility Analysis
1. As required by the Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980, as amended (RFA),31 the Commission 
has prepared the present Initial Regulatory Flexibility Analysis (IRFA) of the possible significant 
economic impact on small entities that might result from today’s 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 the Notice provided above.  The Commission will send a copy of the Notice, 
including this IRFA, to the Chief Counsel for Advocacy of the Small Business Administration.32 In 
addition, the Notice and IRFA (or summaries thereof) will be published in the Federal Register.33
A. Need for, and Objectives of, the Proposed Rules
2. In the Notice, the Commission considers how to best make 911 capabilities available to IP-
enabled voice service providers at the same rates, terms, and conditions available to commercial mobile 
service (CMS) providers.  Specifically, the Commission seeks comments regarding its need to issue 
regulations within 90 days of NET 911 Act’s enactment,34 including regulations that:
(A) ensure that IP-enabled voice service providers have the ability to exercise 
their rights under subsection (b);
(B) take into account any technical, network security, or information privacy 
requirements that are specific to IP-enabled voice services; and
(C) provide, with respect to any capabilities that are not required to be made 
available to a commercial mobile service provider but that the Commission determines … 
are necessary for an IP-enabled voice service provider to comply with its obligations [to 
provide 911 service and enhanced 911 service], that such capabilities shall be available at 
the same rates, terms, and conditions as would apply if such capabilities were made 
available to a commercial mobile service provider.35
For each of these issues, the Commission also seeks comment on the burdens, including those placed on 
small carriers, associated with corresponding Commission rules related to each issue and whether there 
are alternative rules that might lessen any burden.
B. Legal Basis
3. The legal basis for any action that may be taken pursuant to the Notice is contained in 
sections 1, 4(i)–(j), 201, 202, 222, 251, 252, and 303(r) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 
47 U.S.C. §§ 151, 154(i)–(j), 201, 202, 222, 251, 252, 303(r), and section 6 of the Wireless 911 Act, as 
amended.
  
31 See 5 U.S.C. § 603.  The RFA, see 5 U.S.C. §§ 601–12, has been amended by the Small Business Regulatory 
Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996 (SBREFA), Pub. L. No. 104-121, 110 Stat. 857 (1996).
32 See 5 U.S.C. § 603(a).
33 See 5 U.S.C. § 603(a).
34 The NET 911 Act was signed into law on July 23, 2008.  The Commission therefore must issue regulations no 
later than October 21, 2008.  See NET 911 Act § 101(2); Wireless 911 Act § 6(c)(1).
35 NET 911 Act § 101(2); Wireless 911 Act §§ 6(c)(1)(A)–(C).
FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION FCC 08-195
11
C. Description and Estimate of the Number of Small Entities to Which the Rules 
Will Apply
4. 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 rules adopted herein.36 The RFA generally defines 
the term “small entity” as having the same meaning as the terms “small business,” “small organization,” 
and “small governmental jurisdiction.”37 In addition, the term “small business” has the same meaning as 
the term “small business concern” under the Small Business Act.38 A “small business concern” is one 
which:  (1) is independently owned and operated; (2) is not dominant in its field of operation; and (3) 
satisfies any additional criteria established by the Small Business Administration (SBA).39  
1. Wireline Carriers and Service Providers
5. Incumbent Local Exchange Carriers (ILECs).  Neither the Commission nor the SBA has 
developed a size standard for small businesses specifically applicable to incumbent local exchange 
services.  The closest applicable size standard under SBA rules is for Wired Telecommunications 
Carriers.  Under that size standard, such a business is small if it has 1,500 or fewer employees.40  
According to Commission data,41 1,307 carriers reported that they were engaged in the provision of local 
exchange services.  Of these 1,307 carriers, an estimated 1,019 have 1,500 or fewer employees and 288 
have more than 1,500 employees.  Consequently, the Commission estimates that most providers of 
incumbent local exchange service are small businesses that may be affected by our action.
6. Competitive Local Exchange Carriers (CLECs), Competitive Access Providers (CAPs), 
“Shared-Tenant Service Providers,” and “Other Local Service Providers.”  Neither the Commission nor 
the SBA has developed a small business size standard specifically for these service providers.  The 
appropriate size standard under SBA rules is for the category Wired Telecommunications Carriers.  Under 
that size standard, such a business is small if it has 1,500 or fewer employees.42 According to 
Commission data,43 859 carriers reported that they were engaged in the provision of either competitive 
local exchange carrier or competitive access provider services.  Of these 859 carriers, an estimated 741 
have 1,500 or fewer employees and 118 have more than 1,500 employees.44 In addition, 16 carriers have 
reported that they are “Shared-Tenant Service Providers,” and all 16 are estimated to have 1,500 or fewer 
employees.  In addition, 44 carriers have reported that they are “Other Local Service Providers.”  Of the 
  
36 5 U.S.C. § 604(a)(3).
37 5 U.S.C. § 601(6).
38 5 U.S.C. § 601(3) (incorporating by reference the definition of “small-business concern” in the Small Business 
Act, 15 U.S.C. § 632).  Pursuant to 5 U.S.C. § 601(3), the statutory definition of a small business applies “unless an 
agency, after consultation with the Office of Advocacy of the Small Business Administration and after opportunity 
for public comment, establishes one or more definitions of such term which are appropriate to the activities of the 
agency and publishes such definition(s) in the Federal Register.”
39 15 U.S.C. § 632.
40 13 C.F.R. § 121.201, NAICS code 517110.
41 FCC, Wireline Competition Bureau, Industry Analysis and Technology Division, Trends in Telephone Service, 
Table 5.3, page 5-5  (February 2007) (Trends in Telephone Service).  This source uses data collected as of October 
20, 2005.
42 13 C.F.R. § 121.201, NAICS code 517110.
43 Trends in Telephone Service at Table 5.3.
44 Id.
FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION FCC 08-195
12
44, an estimated 43 have 1,500 or fewer employees and one has more than 1,500 employees.  
Consequently, the Commission estimates that most providers of competitive local exchange service, 
competitive access providers, “Shared-Tenant Service Providers,” and “Other Local Service Providers” 
are small entities that may be affected by our action. 
7. 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.”45 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.46 We have therefore included small incumbent LECs in this 
RFA analysis, although we emphasize that this RFA action has no effect on Commission analyses and 
determinations in other, non-RFA contexts.
8. Local Resellers.  The SBA has developed a small business size standard for the category of 
Telecommunications Resellers.  Under that size standard, such a business is small if it has 1,500 or fewer 
employees.47 According to Commission data,48 184 carriers have reported that they are engaged in the 
provision of local resale services.  Of these, an estimated 181 have 1,500 or fewer employees and three 
have more than 1,500 employees.  Consequently, the Commission estimates that the majority of local 
resellers are small entities that may be affected by our action.  
9. Toll Resellers. The SBA has developed a small business size standard for the category of 
Telecommunications Resellers.  Under that size standard, such a business is small if it has 1,500 or fewer 
employees.49 According to Commission data,50 881 carriers have reported that they are engaged in the 
provision of toll resale services.  Of these, an estimated 853 have 1,500 or fewer employees and 28 have 
more than 1,500 employees.  Consequently, the Commission estimates that the majority of toll resellers 
are small entities that may be affected by our action.  
10. Payphone Service Providers (PSPs).  Neither the Commission nor the SBA has developed a 
small business size standard specifically for payphone services providers.  The appropriate size standard 
under SBA rules is for the category Wired Telecommunications Carriers.  Under that size standard, such a 
business is small if it has 1,500 or fewer employees.51 According to Commission data,52 657 carriers have 
reported that they are engaged in the provision of payphone services.  Of these, an estimated 653 have 
1,500 or fewer employees and four have more than 1,500 employees.  Consequently, the Commission 
estimates that the majority of payphone service providers are small entities that may be affected by our 
action.
  
45 5 U.S.C. § 601(3).
46 Letter from Jere W. Glover, Chief Counsel for Advocacy, SBA, to William E. Kennard, Chairman, FCC (May 27, 
1999). The Small Business Act contains a definition of “small business concern,” which the RFA incorporates into 
its own definition of “small business.” See 15 U.S.C. § 632(a); 5 U.S.C. § 601(3). SBA regulations interpret “small 
business concern” to include the concept of dominance on a national basis. 13 C.F.R. § 121.102(b).
47 13 C.F.R. § 121.201, NAICS code 517911.
48 Trends in Telephone Service at Table 5.3.  
49 13 C.F.R. § 121.201, NAICS code 517911.
50 Trends in Telephone Service at Table 5.3.
51 13 C.F.R. § 121.201, NAICS code 517110.
52 Trends in Telephone Service at Table 5.3.
FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION FCC 08-195
13
11. Interexchange Carriers (IXCs).  Neither the Commission nor the SBA has developed a size 
standard for small businesses specifically applicable to interexchange services.  The closest applicable 
size standard under SBA rules is for Wired Telecommunications Carriers.  Under that size standard, such 
a business is small if it has 1,500 or fewer employees.53 According to Commission data,54 330 companies 
reported that their primary telecommunications service activity was the provision of interexchange 
services.  Of these 330 companies, an estimated 309 have 1,500 or fewer employees and 21 have more 
than 1,500 employees.55 Consequently, the Commission estimates that the majority of interexchange 
service providers are small entities that may be affected by our action. 
12. Operator Service Providers (OSPs).  Neither the Commission nor the SBA has developed a 
small business size standard specifically for operator service providers.  The appropriate size standard 
under SBA rules is for the category Wired Telecommunications Carriers.  Under that size standard, such a 
business is small if it has 1,500 or fewer employees.56 According to Commission data,57 23 carriers have 
reported that they are engaged in the provision of operator services.  Of these, an estimated 22 have 1,500 
or fewer employees and one has more than 1,500 employees.  Consequently, the Commission estimates 
that the majority of OSPs are small entities that may be affected by our action.  
13. Prepaid Calling Card Providers.  Neither the Commission nor the SBA has developed a 
small business size standard specifically for prepaid calling card providers.  The appropriate size standard 
under SBA rules is for the category Telecommunications Resellers.  Under that size standard, such a 
business is small if it has 1,500 or fewer employees.58 According to Commission data,59 104 carriers have 
reported that they are engaged in the provision of prepaid calling cards.  Of these, an estimated 102 have 
1,500 or fewer employees and two have more than 1,500 employees.  Consequently, the Commission 
estimates that the majority of prepaid calling card providers are small entities that may be affected by our 
action.
14. 800 and 800-Like Service Subscribers.60 Neither the Commission nor the SBA has developed 
a small business size standard specifically for 800 and 800-like service (“toll free”) subscribers.  The 
appropriate size standard under SBA rules is for the category Telecommunications Resellers.  Under that 
size standard, such a business is small if it has 1,500 or fewer employees.61 The most reliable source of 
information regarding the number of these service subscribers appears to be data the Commission collects 
on the 800, 888, 877, and 866 numbers in use.62 According to our data, at the beginning of July 2006, the 
number of 800 numbers assigned was 7,647,941; the number of 888 numbers assigned was 5,318,667; the 
number of 877 numbers assigned was 4,431,162; and the number of 866 numbers assigned was 
6,008,976.  We do not have data specifying the number of these subscribers that are not independently 
  
53 13 C.F.R. § 121.201, NAICS code 517110.
54 Trends in Telephone Service at Table 5.3.
55 Id.
56 13 C.F.R. § 121.201, NAICS code 517110.
57 Trends in Telephone Service at Table 5.3.
58 13 C.F.R. § 121.201, NAICS code 517911.
59 Trends in Telephone Service at Table 5.3.
60 We include all toll-free number subscribers in this category, including those for 888 numbers.
61 13 C.F.R. § 121.201, NAICS code 517911.
62 Trends in Telephone Service at Tables 18.4, 18.5, 18.6, 18.7. 
FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION FCC 08-195
14
owned and operated or have more than 1,500 employees, and thus are unable at this time to estimate with 
greater precision the number of toll free subscribers that would qualify as small businesses under the SBA 
size standard.  Consequently, we estimate that there are 7,647,941 or fewer small entity 800 subscribers; 
5,318,667 or fewer small entity 888 subscribers; 4,431,162 or fewer small entity 877 subscribers; and 
5,318,667 or fewer small entity 866 subscribers.
2. Wireless Carriers and Service Providers
15. Below, for those services subject to auctions, we note that, as a general matter, the number of 
winning bidders that qualify as small businesses at the close of an auction does not necessarily represent 
the number of small businesses currently in service.  Also, the Commission does not generally track 
subsequent business size unless, in the context of assignments or transfers, unjust enrichment issues are 
implicated.
16. Wireless Telecommunications Carriers (except Satellite).  Since 2007, the SBA has 
recognized wireless firms within this new, broad, economic census category.63 Prior to that time, the 
SBA had developed a small business size standard for wireless firms within the now-superseded census 
categories of “Paging” and “Cellular and Other Wireless Telecommunications.”64 Under the present and 
prior categories, the SBA has deemed a wireless business to be small if it has 1,500 or fewer employees.  
Because Census Bureau data are not yet available for the new category, we will estimate small business 
prevalence using the prior categories and associated data.  For the first category of Paging, data for 2002 
show that there were 807 firms that operated for the entire year.65 Of this total, 804 firms had 
employment of 999 or fewer employees, and three firms had employment of 1,000 employees or more.66  
For the second category of Cellular and Other Wireless Telecommunications, data for 2002 show that 
there were 1,397 firms that operated for the entire year.67 Of this total, 1,378 firms had employment of 
999 or fewer employees, and 19 firms had employment of 1,000 employees or more.68 Thus, using the 
prior categories and the available data, we estimate that the majority of wireless firms can be considered 
small.  According to Commission data, 432 carriers reported that they were engaged in the provision of 
cellular service, Personal Communications Service (PCS), or Specialized Mobile Radio (SMR) 
Telephony services, which are placed together in the data.69 We have estimated that 221 of these are 
small, under the SBA small business size standard.70 Thus, under this category and size standard, about 
half of firms can be considered small.  This information is also included in paragraph 23.
  
63 13 C.F.R. § 121.201, NAICS code 517210.
64 13 C.F.R. § 121.201, NAICS codes 517211, 517212.
65 U.S. Census Bureau, 2002 Economic Census, Subject Series:  Information, “Establishment and Firm Size 
(Including Legal Form of Organization,” Table 5, NAICS code 517211 (issued Nov. 2005).
66  Id. The census data do not provide a more precise estimate of the number of firms that have employment of 
1,500 or fewer employees; the largest category provided is for firms with “1000 employees or more.”
67 U.S. Census Bureau, 2002 Economic Census, Subject Series:  Information, “Establishment and Firm Size 
(Including Legal Form of Organization,” Table 5, NAICS code 517212 (issued Nov. 2005).
68  Id. The census data do not provide a more precise estimate of the number of firms that have employment of 
1,500 or fewer employees; the largest category provided is for firms with “1000 employees or more.”
69 Trends in Telephone Service at Table 5.3.
70 Id.
FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION FCC 08-195
15
17. Common Carrier Paging. The SBA has developed a small business size standard for Paging, 
under which a business is small if it has 1,500 or fewer employees.71 According to Commission data,72
365 carriers have reported that they are engaged in Paging or Messaging Service.  Of these, an estimated 
360 have 1,500 or fewer employees, and 5 have more than 1,500 employees.  Consequently, the 
Commission estimates that the majority of paging providers are small entities that may be affected by our 
action.  In addition, in the Paging Third Report and Order, we developed a small business size standard 
for “small businesses” and “very small businesses” for purposes of determining their eligibility for special 
provisions such as bidding credits and installment payments.73 A “small business” is an entity that, 
together with its affiliates and controlling principals, has average gross revenues not exceeding $15 
million for the preceding three years.  Additionally, a “very small business” is an entity that, together with 
its affiliates and controlling principals, has average gross revenues that are not more than $3 million for 
the preceding three years.74 The SBA has approved these small business size standards.75 An auction of 
Metropolitan Economic Area licenses commenced on February 24, 2000, and closed on March 2, 2000.76  
Of the 985 licenses auctioned, 440 were sold.  Fifty-seven companies claiming small business status won.
18. Wireless Communications Services.  This service can be used for fixed, mobile, radiolocation, 
and digital audio broadcasting satellite uses.  The Commission established small business size standards 
for the wireless communications services (WCS) auction.  A “small business” is an entity with average 
gross revenues of $40 million for each of the three preceding years, and a “very small business” is an 
entity with average gross revenues of $15 million for each of the three preceding years.  The SBA has 
approved these small business size standards.77 The Commission auctioned geographic area licenses in 
the WCS service.  In the auction, held in April 1997, there were seven winning bidders that qualified as 
“very small business” entities, and one that qualified as a “small business” entity.  
19. Wireless Telephony.  Wireless telephony includes cellular, personal communications services 
(PCS), and specialized mobile radio (SMR) telephony carriers.  As noted earlier, the SBA has developed 
a small business size standard for “Cellular and Other Wireless Telecommunications” services.78 Under 
that SBA small business size standard, a business is small if it has 1,500 or fewer employees.79  
  
71 13 C.F.R. § 121.201, NAICS code 517211 (This category will be changed for purposes of the 2007 Census to 
“Wireless Telecommunications Carriers (except Satellite),” NAICS code 517210.).
72 Trends in Telephone Service at Table 5.3.
73 Amendment of Part 90 of the Commission’s Rules to Provide for the Use of the 220–222 MHz Band by the Private 
Land Mobile Radio Service, PR Docket No. 89-552, GN Docket No. 93-252, PP Docket No. 93-253, Third Report 
and Order and Fifth Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, 12 FCC Rcd 10943, 11068–70, paras. 291–295 (1997) (220 
MHz Third Report and Order).
74 See Letter to Amy Zoslov, Chief, Auctions and Industry Analysis Division, Wireless Telecommunications 
Bureau, FCC, from A. Alvarez, Administrator, SBA (Dec. 2, 1998).
75 Revision of Part 22 and Part 90 of the Commission’s Rules to Facilitate Future Development of Paging Systems, 
WT Docket No. 96-18, PR Docket No. 93-253, Memorandum Opinion and Order on Reconsideration and Third 
Report and Order, 14 FCC Rcd 10030, paras. 98–107 (1999).  
76 Id. at 10085, para. 98.
77 See Letter to Amy Zoslov, Chief, Auctions and Industry Analysis Division, Wireless Telecommunications 
Bureau, FCC, from Aida Alvarez, Administrator, SBA (Dec. 2, 1998).
78 13 C.F.R. § 121.201, NAICS code 517212.
79 Id.
FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION FCC 08-195
16
According to Commission data, 432 carriers reported that they were engaged in the provision of wireless 
telephony.80 We have estimated that 221 of these are small under the SBA small business size standard.  
20. Broadband Personal Communications Service. The broadband Personal Communications 
Service (PCS) spectrum is divided into six frequency blocks designated A through F, and the Commission 
has held auctions for each block.  The Commission defined “small entity” for Blocks C and F as an entity 
that has average gross revenues of $40 million or less in the three previous calendar years.81  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.”82 These standards defining “small entity” in the context of broadband PCS auctions have 
been approved by the SBA.83 No small businesses, within the SBA-approved small business size 
standards bid successfully for licenses in Blocks A and B.  There were 90 winning bidders that qualified 
as small entities in the Block C auctions.  A total of 93 small and very small business bidders won 
approximately 40 percent of the 1,479 licenses for Blocks D, E, and F.84 On March 23, 1999, the 
Commission re-auctioned 347 C, D, E, and F Block licenses.  There were 48 small business winning 
bidders.  On January 26, 2001, the Commission completed the auction of 422 C and F Broadband PCS 
licenses in Auction No. 35.  Of the 35 winning bidders in this auction, 29 qualified as “small” or “very 
small” businesses.  Subsequent events, concerning Auction 35, including judicial and agency 
determinations, resulted in a total of 163 C and F Block licenses being available for grant.  
21. Narrowband Personal Communications Services.  To date, two auctions of narrowband 
personal communications services (PCS) licenses have been conducted.  For purposes of the two auctions 
that have already been held, “small businesses” were entities with average gross revenues for the prior 
three calendar years of $40 million or less.  Through these auctions, the Commission has awarded a total 
of 41 licenses, out of which 11 were obtained by small businesses.  To ensure meaningful participation of 
small business entities in future auctions, the Commission has adopted a two-tiered small business size 
standard in the Narrowband PCS Second Report and Order.85 A “small business” is an entity that, 
together with affiliates and controlling interests, has average gross revenues for the three preceding years 
of not more than $40 million.  A “very small business” is an entity that, together with affiliates and 
controlling interests, has average gross revenues for the three preceding years of not more than $15 
million.  The SBA has approved these small business size standards.86 In the future, the Commission will 
auction 459 licenses to serve Metropolitan Trading Areas (MTAs) and 408 response channel licenses.  
  
80 Trends in Telephone Service at Table 5.3.
81 See Amendment of Parts 20 and 24 of the Commission’s Rules—Broadband PCS Competitive Bidding and the 
Commercial Mobile Radio Service Spectrum Cap, WT Docket No. 96-59, GN Docket No. 90-314, Report and 
Order, 61 FR 33859 (July 1, 1996); see also 47 C.F.R. § 24.720(b).
82 Id.
83 See, e.g., Implementation of Section 309(j) of the Communications Act—Competitive Bidding, PP Docket No. 93-
253, Fifth Report and Order, 9 FCC Rcd 5532 (1994).
84 FCC News, Broadband PCS, D, E and F Block Auction Closes, No. 71744 (released January 14, 1997). See also
Amendment of the Commission’s Rules Regarding Installment Payment Financing for Personal Communications 
Services (PCS) Licenses, WT Docket No. 97-82, Second Report and Order, 12 FCC Rcd 16436 (1997).
85 Amendment of the Commission’s Rules to Establish New Personal Communications Services, Narrowband PCS, 
GEN Docket No. 90-314, ET Docket No. 92-100, PP Docket No. 93-253, Second Report and Order and Second 
Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, 15 FCC Rcd 10456 (2000).
86 See Letter to Amy Zoslov, Chief, Auctions and Industry Analysis Division, Wireless Telecommunications 
Bureau, FCC, from Aida Alvarez, Administrator, SBA (Dec. 2, 1998).
FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION FCC 08-195
17
There is also one megahertz of narrowband PCS spectrum that has been held in reserve and that the 
Commission has not yet decided to release for licensing.  The Commission cannot predict accurately the 
number of licenses that will be awarded to small entities in future actions.  However, four of the 16 
winning bidders in the two previous narrowband PCS auctions were small businesses, as that term was 
defined under the Commission’s Rules.  The Commission assumes, for purposes of this analysis, that a 
large portion of the remaining narrowband PCS licenses will be awarded to small entities.  The 
Commission also assumes that at least some small businesses will acquire narrowband PCS licenses by 
means of the Commission’s partitioning and disaggregation rules.
22. 220 MHz Radio Service—Phase I Licensees. The 220 MHz service has both Phase I and 
Phase II licenses.  Phase I licensing was conducted by lotteries in 1992 and 1993.  There are 
approximately 1,515 such non-nationwide licensees and four nationwide licensees currently authorized to 
operate in the 220 MHz band.  The Commission has not developed a small business size standard for 
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 small business size standard under the 
SBA rules applicable to “Cellular and Other Wireless Telecommunications” companies.  Under this 
category, the SBA deems a wireless business to be small if it has 1,500 or fewer employees. 87 The 
Commission estimates that nearly all such licensees are small businesses under the SBA’s small business 
size standard.
23. 220 MHz Radio Service—Phase II Licensees.  The 220 MHz service has both Phase I and 
Phase II licenses.  The Phase II 220 MHz service is a new service, and is subject to spectrum auctions.  In 
the 220 MHz Third Report and Order, we adopted a small business size standard for “small” and “very 
small” businesses for purposes of determining their eligibility for special provisions such as bidding 
credits and installment payments.88 This small business size standard indicates that a “small business” is 
an entity that, together with its affiliates and controlling principals, has average gross revenues not 
exceeding $15 million for the preceding three years.89 A “very small business” is an entity that, together 
with its affiliates and controlling principals, has average gross revenues that do not exceed $3 million for 
the preceding three years.  The SBA has approved these small business size standards.90 Auctions of 
Phase II licenses commenced on September 15, 1998, and closed on October 22, 1998.91 In the first 
auction, 908 licenses were auctioned in three different-sized geographic areas: three nationwide licenses, 
30 Regional Economic Area Group (EAG) Licenses, and 875 Economic Area (EA) Licenses.  Of the 908 
licenses auctioned, 693 were sold.  Thirty-nine small businesses won licenses in the first 220 MHz 
auction.  The second auction included 225 licenses: 216 EA licenses and 9 EAG licenses.  Fourteen 
companies claiming small business status won 158 licenses.92  
24. 800 MHz and 900 MHz Specialized Mobile Radio Licenses. The Commission awards “small 
entity” and “very small entity” bidding credits in auctions for Specialized Mobile Radio (SMR) 
geographic area licenses in the 800 MHz and 900 MHz bands to firms that had revenues of no more than 
$15 million in each of the three previous calendar years, or that had revenues of no more than $3 million 
  
87 13 C.F.R. § 121.201, NAICS code 517212.
88 220 MHz Third Report and Order, 12 FCC Rcd at 11068–70, at paras. 291–95.
89 Id. at 11068–70, para. 291.
90 See letter to D. Phythyon, Chief, Wireless Telecommunications Bureau, FCC, from Aida Alvarez, Administrator, 
SBA (Jan. 6, 1998).
91 See generally 220 MHz Service Auction Closes, Public Notice, 14 FCC Rcd 605 (1998).
92 Phase II 220 MHz Service Spectrum Auction Closes, Public Notice, 14 FCC Rcd 11218 (1999).
FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION FCC 08-195
18
in each of the previous calendar years, respectively.93 These bidding credits apply to SMR providers in 
the 800 MHz and 900 MHz bands that either hold geographic area licenses or have obtained extended 
implementation authorizations.  The Commission does 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 no more than $15 million.  One firm has over $15 
million in revenues.  The Commission assumes, for purposes here, that all of the remaining existing 
extended implementation authorizations are held by small entities, as that term is defined by the SBA.  
The Commission has held auctions for geographic area licenses in the 800 MHz and 900 MHz SMR 
bands.  There were 60 winning bidders that qualified as small or very small entities in the 900 MHz SMR 
auctions.  Of the 1,020 licenses won in the 900 MHz auction, bidders qualifying as small or very small 
entities won 263 licenses.  In the 800 MHz auction, 38 of the 524 licenses won were won by small and 
very small entities.  
25. 700 MHz Guard Band Licensees. In the 700 MHz Guard Band Order, we adopted a small 
business size standard for “small businesses” and “very small businesses” for purposes of determining 
their eligibility for special provisions such as bidding credits and installment payments.94 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 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.  An auction of 52 Major Economic Area (MEA) 
licenses commenced on September 6, 2000, and closed on September 21, 2000.95 Of the 104 licenses 
auctioned, 96 licenses were sold to nine bidders.  Five of these bidders were small businesses that won a 
total of 26 licenses.  A second auction of 700 MHz Guard Band licenses commenced on February 13, 
2001 and closed on February 21, 2001.  All eight of the licenses auctioned were sold to three bidders.  
One of these bidders was a small business that won a total of two licenses.96
26. Rural Radiotelephone Service. The Commission has not adopted a size standard for small 
businesses specific to the Rural Radiotelephone Service.97 A significant subset of the Rural 
Radiotelephone Service is the Basic Exchange Telephone Radio System (BETRS).98 The Commission 
uses the SBA’s small business size standard applicable to “Cellular and Other Wireless 
Telecommunications,” i.e., an entity employing no more than 1,500 persons.99 There are approximately 
1,000 licensees in the Rural Radiotelephone Service, and the Commission estimates that there are 1,000 
or fewer small entity licensees in the Rural Radiotelephone Service that may be affected by the rules and 
policies adopted herein.
27. Air-Ground Radiotelephone Service. The Commission has not adopted a small business size 
standard specific to the Air-Ground Radiotelephone Service.100 We will use SBA’s small business size 
  
93 47 C.F.R. § 90.814(b)(1).
94 See Service Rules for the 746–764 and 776–794 MHz Bands, and Revisions to part 27 of the Commission’s Rules, 
WT Docket No. 99-168, Second Report and Order, 15 FCC Rcd 5299 (2000).
95 See generally 220 MHz Service Auction Closes, Public Notice, 14 FCC Rcd 605 (1998).
96 700 MHz Guard Band Auction Closes, Public Notice, 16 FCC Rcd 4590 (2001).
97 The service is defined in section 22.99 of the Commission’s Rules, 47 C.F.R. § 22.99.
98 BETRS is defined in sections 22.757 and 22.759 of the Commission’s Rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 22.757 and 22.759.
99 13 C.F.R. § 121.201, NAICS code 517210.
100 The service is defined in section 22.99 of the Commission’s Rules, 47 C.F.R. § 22.99.
FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION FCC 08-195
19
standard applicable to “Cellular and Other Wireless Telecommunications,” i.e., an entity employing no 
more than 1,500 persons.101 There are approximately 100 licensees in the Air-Ground Radiotelephone 
Service, and we estimate that almost all of them qualify as small under the SBA small business size 
standard.
28. Aviation and Marine Radio Services. Small businesses in the aviation and marine radio 
services use a very high frequency (VHF) marine or aircraft radio and, as appropriate, an emergency 
position-indicating radio beacon (and/or radar) or an emergency locator transmitter.  The Commission has 
not developed a small business size standard specifically applicable to these small businesses.  For 
purposes of this analysis, the Commission uses the SBA small business size standard for the category 
“Cellular and Other Telecommunications,” which is 1,500 or fewer employees.102 Most applicants for 
recreational licenses are individuals.  Approximately 581,000 ship station licensees and 131,000 aircraft 
station licensees operate domestically and are not subject to the radio carriage requirements of any statute 
or treaty.  For purposes of our evaluations in this analysis, we estimate that there are up to approximately 
712,000 licensees that are small businesses (or individuals) under the SBA standard.  In addition, between 
December 3, 1998 and December 14, 1998, the Commission held an auction of 42 VHF Public Coast 
licenses in the 157.1875–157.4500 MHz (ship transmit) and 161.775–162.0125 MHz (coast transmit) 
bands.  For purposes of the auction, the Commission defined a “small” business as an entity that, together 
with controlling interests and affiliates, has average gross revenues for the preceding three years not to 
exceed $15 million dollars.  In addition, a “very small” business is one that, together with controlling 
interests and affiliates, has average gross revenues for the preceding three years not to exceed $3 million 
dollars.103 There are approximately 10,672 licensees in the Marine Coast Service, and the Commission 
estimates that almost all of them qualify as “small” businesses under the above special small business size 
standards.  
29. Fixed Microwave Services. Fixed microwave services include common carrier,104 private 
operational-fixed,105 and broadcast auxiliary radio services.106 At present, there are approximately 22,015 
common carrier fixed licensees and 61,670 private operational-fixed licensees and broadcast auxiliary 
radio licensees in the microwave services.  The Commission has not created a size standard for a small 
business specifically with respect to fixed microwave services.  For purposes of this analysis, the 
  
101 13 C.F.R. § 121.201, NAICS code 517212 (This category will be changed for purposes of the 2007 Census to 
“Wireless Telecommunications Carriers (except Satellite),” NAICS code 517210.).
102 13 C.F.R. § 121.201, NAICS code 517212 (This category will be changed for purposes of the 2007 Census to 
“Wireless Telecommunications Carriers (except Satellite),” NAICS code 517210.).
103 Amendment of the Commission’s Rules Concerning Maritime Communications, PR Docket No. 92-257, Third 
Report and Order and Memorandum Opinion and Order, 13 FCC Rcd 19853 (1998).
104 See 47 C.F.R. §§ 101 et seq. (formerly, Part 21 of the Commission’s Rules) for common carrier fixed microwave 
services (except Multipoint Distribution Service).
105 Persons eligible under parts 80 and 90 of the Commission’s Rules can use Private Operational-Fixed Microwave 
services.  See 47 C.F.R. Parts 80 and 90.  Stations in this service are called operational-fixed to distinguish them 
from common carrier and public fixed stations.  Only the licensee may use the operational-fixed station, and only for 
communications related to the licensee’s commercial, industrial, or safety operations.
106 Auxiliary Microwave Service is governed by Part 74 of Title 47 of the Commission’s Rules.  See 47 C.F.R. Part 
74.  This service is available to licensees of broadcast stations and to broadcast and cable network entities.  
Broadcast auxiliary microwave stations are used for relaying broadcast television signals from the studio to the 
transmitter, or between two points such as a main studio and an auxiliary studio.  The service also includes mobile 
television pickups, which relay signals from a remote location back to the studio.
FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION FCC 08-195
20
Commission uses the SBA small business size standard for the category “Cellular and Other 
Telecommunications,” which is 1,500 or fewer employees.107 The Commission does not have data 
specifying the number of these licensees that have more than 1,500 employees, and thus are unable at this 
time to estimate with greater precision the number of fixed microwave service licensees that would 
qualify as small business concerns under the SBA’s small business size standard.  Consequently, the 
Commission estimates that there are up to 22,015 common carrier fixed licensees and up to 61,670 private 
operational-fixed licensees and broadcast auxiliary radio licensees in the microwave services that may be 
small and may be affected by the rules and policies adopted herein. We noted, however, that the common 
carrier microwave fixed licensee category includes some large entities.
30. Offshore Radiotelephone Service. This service operates on several UHF television broadcast 
channels that are not used for television broadcasting in the coastal areas of states bordering the Gulf of 
Mexico.108 There are presently approximately 55 licensees in this service.  We are unable to estimate at 
this time the number of licensees that would qualify as small under the SBA’s small business size 
standard for “Cellular and Other Wireless Telecommunications” services.109 Under that SBA small 
business size standard, a business is small if it has 1,500 or fewer employees.110  
31. 39 GHz Service. The Commission created a special small business size standard for 39 GHz 
licenses—an entity that has average gross revenues of $40 million or less in the three previous calendar 
years.111 An additional size standard for “very small business” is:  an entity that, together with affiliates, 
has average gross revenues of not more than $15 million for the preceding three calendar years.112 The 
SBA has approved these small business size standards.113 The auction of the 2,173 39 GHz licenses 
began on April 12, 2000 and closed on May 8, 2000.  The 18 bidders who claimed small business status 
won 849 licenses.   Consequently, the Commission estimates that 18 or fewer 39 GHz licensees are small 
entities that may be affected by our action.
32. Wireless Cable Systems. Wireless cable systems use 2 GHz band frequencies of the 
Broadband Radio Service (“BRS”), formerly Multipoint Distribution Service (“MDS”),114 and the 
  
107 13 C.F.R. § 121.201, NAICS code 517212 (This category will be changed for purposes of the 2007 Census to 
“Wireless Telecommunications Carriers (except Satellite),” NAICS code 517210.).
108 This service is governed by Subpart I of Part 22 of the Commission’s Rules.  See 47 C.F.R. §§ 22.1001–22.1037.
109 13 C.F.R. § 121.201, NAICS code 517212 (This category will be changed for purposes of the 2007 Census to 
“Wireless Telecommunications Carriers (except Satellite),” NAICS code 517210.).
110 Id. 
111 See Amendment of the Commission’s Rules Regarding the 37.0–38.6 GHz and 38.6–40.0 GHz Bands, ET Docket 
No. 95-183, PP Docket No. 93-253, Report and Order, 12 FCC Rcd 18600 (1998).
112 Id.
113 See Letter to Kathleen O’Brien Ham, Chief, Auctions and Industry Analysis Division, Wireless 
Telecommunications Bureau, FCC, from Aida Alvarez, Administrator, SBA (Feb. 4, 1998).
114 MDS, also known as Multichannel Multipoint Distribution Service (“MMDS”), is regulated by Part 21 of the 
Commission’s rules; see 47 C.F.R. Part 21, subpart K; and has been renamed the Broadband Radio Service (BRS); 
see Amendment of Parts 1, 21, 73, 74 and 101 of the Commission’s Rules to Facilitate the Provision of Fixed and 
Mobile Broadband Access, Educational and Other Advanced Services in the 2150–2162 and 2500–2690 MHz 
Bands; Part 1 of the Commission's Rules—Further Competitive Bidding Procedures; Amendment of Parts 21 and 74 
to Enable Multipoint Distribution Service and the Instructional Television Fixed Service Amendment of Parts 21 
and 74 to Engage in Fixed Two-Way Transmissions; Amendment of Parts 21 and 74 of the Commission's Rules 
(continued . . .)
FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION FCC 08-195
21
Educational Broadband Service (“EBS”), formerly Instructional Television Fixed Service (“ITFS”),115 to 
transmit video programming and provide broadband services to residential subscribers.116 These services 
were originally designed for the delivery of multichannel video programming, similar to that of traditional 
cable systems, but over the past several years licensees have focused their operations instead on providing 
two-way high-speed Internet access services.117 We estimate that the number of wireless cable 
subscribers is approximately 100,000, as of March 2005.  Local Multipoint Distribution Service 
(“LMDS”) is a fixed broadband point-to-multipoint microwave service that provides for two-way video 
telecommunications.118 As described below, the SBA small business size standard for the broad census 
category of Cable and Other Program Distribution, which consists of such entities generating $13.5 
million or less in annual receipts, appears applicable to MDS, ITFS and LMDS.119 Other standards also 
apply, as described.
33. The Commission has defined small MDS (now BRS) and LMDS entities in the context of 
Commission license auctions.  In the 1996 MDS auction,120 the Commission defined a small business as 
an entity that had annual average gross revenues of less than $40 million in the previous three calendar 
years.121 This definition of a small entity in the context of MDS auctions has been approved by the 
SBA.122 In the MDS auction, 67 bidders won 493 licenses.  Of the 67 auction winners, 61 claimed status 
as a small business.  At this time, the Commission estimates that of the 61 small business MDS auction 
winners, 48 remain small business licensees.  In addition to the 48 small businesses that hold BTA 
authorizations, there are approximately 392 incumbent MDS licensees that have gross revenues that are 
not more than $40 million and are thus considered small entities.123 MDS licensees and wireless cable 
operators that did not receive their licenses as a result of the MDS auction fall under the SBA small 
business size standard for Cable and Other Program Distribution.  Information available to us indicates 
that there are approximately 850 of these licensees and operators that do not generate revenue in excess of 
$13.5 million annually.  Therefore, we estimate that there are approximately 850 small entity MDS (or 
BRS) providers, as defined by the SBA and the Commission’s auction rules.
(Continued from previous page)   
With Regard to Licensing in the Multipoint Distribution Service and in the Instructional Television Fixed Service 
for the Gulf of Mexico, 19 FCC Rcd 14165 (2004) (“MDS/ITFS Order”).
115 ITFS systems are regulated by Part 74 of the Commission’s rules; see 47 C.F.R. Part 74, subpart I.  ITFS, an 
educational service, has been renamed the Educational Broadband Service (EBS); see MDS/ITFS Order, 19 FCC 
Rcd 14165.  ITFS licensees, however, are permitted to lease spectrum for MDS operation.
116  See Annual Assessment of the Status of Competition in the Market for the Delivery of Video Programming, 
Eleventh Annual Report, 20 FCC Rcd 2507, 2565 ¶ 131 (2006) (“2006 Cable Competition Report”).
117  Id.
118  See Local Multipoint Distribution Service, 12 FCC Rcd 12545 (1997). 
119 13 C.F.R. § 121.201, NAICS code 517510.
120 MDS Auction No. 6 began on November 13, 1995, and closed on March 28, 1996.  (67 bidders won 493 
licenses.)
121 47 C.F.R. § 21.961(b)(1).
122  See ITFS Order, 10 FCC Rcd at 9589.
123 47 U.S.C. § 309(j).  Hundreds of stations were licensed to incumbent MDS licensees prior to implementation of 
Section 309(j) of the Communications Act of 1934, 47 U.S.C. § 309(j).  For these pre-auction licenses, the 
applicable standard is SBA’s small business size standards for “other telecommunications” (annual receipts of $13.5 
million or less).  See 13 C.F.R. § 121.201, NAICS code 517910.
FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION FCC 08-195
22
34. Educational institutions are included in this analysis as small entities; however, the 
Commission has not created a specific small business size standard for ITFS (now EBS).124 We estimate 
that there are currently 2,032 ITFS (or EBS) licensees, and all but 100 of the licenses are held by 
educational institutions.  Thus, we estimate that at least 1,932 ITFS licensees are small entities. 
35. In the 1998 and 1999 LMDS auctions,125 the Commission defined a small business as an 
entity that has annual average gross revenues of less than $40 million in the previous three calendar 
years.126 Moreover, the Commission added an additional classification for a “very small business,” which 
was defined as an entity that had annual average gross revenues of less than $15 million in the previous 
three calendar years.127 These definitions of “small business” and “very small business” in the context of 
the LMDS auctions have been approved by the SBA.128 In the first LMDS auction, 104 bidders won 864 
licenses.  Of the 104 auction winners, 93 claimed status as small or very small businesses.  In the LMDS 
re-auction, 40 bidders won 161 licenses.  Based on this information, we believe that the number of small 
LMDS licenses will include the 93 winning bidders in the first auction and the 40 winning bidders in the 
re-auction, for a total of 133 small entity LMDS providers as defined by the SBA and the Commission’s 
auction rules.
36. 218–219 MHz Service. The first auction of 218–219 MHz spectrum resulted in 170 entities 
winning licenses for 594 Metropolitan Statistical Area (MSA) licenses.  Of the 594 licenses, 557 were 
won by entities qualifying as a small business.  For that auction, the small business size standard was an 
entity that, together with its affiliates, has no more than a $6 million net worth and, after federal income 
taxes (excluding any carry over losses), has no more than $2 million in annual profits each year for the 
previous two years.129 In the 218–219 MHz Report and Order and Memorandum Opinion and Order, we 
established a small business size standard for a “small business” as an entity that, together with its 
affiliates and persons or entities that hold interests in such an entity and their affiliates, has average annual 
gross revenues not to exceed $15 million for the preceding three years.130 A “very small business” is 
defined as an entity that, together with its affiliates and persons or entities that hold interests in such an 
entity and its affiliates, has average annual gross revenues not to exceed $3 million for the preceding three 
years.131 These size standards will be used in future auctions of 218–219 MHz spectrum.
37. 24 GHz—Incumbent Licensees. This analysis may affect incumbent licensees who were 
relocated to the 24 GHz band from the 18 GHz band, and applicants who wish to provide services in the 
  
124 In addition, the term “small entity” under SBREFA applies to small organizations (nonprofits) and to small 
governmental jurisdictions (cities, counties, towns, townships, villages, school districts, and special districts with 
populations of less than 50,000).  5 U.S.C. §§ 601(4)–(6).  We do not collect annual revenue data on ITFS licensees.
125 The Commission has held two LMDS auctions:  Auction 17 and Auction 23.  Auction No. 17, the first LMDS 
auction, began on February 18, 1998, and closed on March 25, 1998.  (104 bidders won 864 licenses.)  Auction No. 
23, the LMDS re-auction, began on April 27, 1999, and closed on May 12, 1999.  (40 bidders won 161 licenses.)
126  See LMDS Order, 12 FCC Rcd at 12545.
127 Id.
128 See Letter to Daniel Phythyon, Chief, Wireless Telecommunications Bureau (FCC) from A. Alvarez, 
Administrator, SBA (January 6, 1998).
129 Implementation of Section 309(j) of the Communications Act—Competitive Bidding, PP Docket No. 93-253, 
Fourth Report and Order, 9 FCC Rcd 2330 (1994).
130 Amendment of Part 95 of the Commission’s Rules to Provide Regulatory Flexibility in the 218–219 MHz Service, 
WT Docket No. 98-169, Report and Order and Memorandum Opinion and Order, 15 FCC Rcd 1497 (1999).
131 Id.
FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION FCC 08-195
23
24 GHz band.  The applicable SBA small business size standard is that of “Cellular and Other Wireless 
Telecommunications” companies.  This category provides that such a company is small if it employs no 
more than 1,500 persons.132 We believe that there are only two licensees in the 24 GHz band that were 
relocated from the 18 GHz band, Teligent133 and TRW, Inc.  It is our understanding that Teligent and its 
related companies have less than 1,500 employees, though this may change in the future.  TRW is not a 
small entity.  Thus, only one incumbent licensee in the 24 GHz band is a small business entity.
38. 24 GHz—Future Licensees.  With respect to new applicants in the 24 GHz band, the small 
business size standard for “small business” is an entity that, together with controlling interests and 
affiliates, has average annual gross revenues for the three preceding years not in excess of $15 million.134  
“Very small business” in the 24 GHz band is an entity that, together with controlling interests and 
affiliates, has average gross revenues not exceeding $3 million for the preceding three years.135 The SBA 
has approved these small business size standards.136 These size standards will apply to the future auction, 
if held. 
3. Satellite Service Providers
39. Satellite Telecommunications.  Since 2007, the SBA has recognized satellite firms within this 
revised category, with a small business size standard of $13.5 million.137 The most current Census 
Bureau data, however, are from the (last) economic census of 2002, and we will use those figures to 
gauge the prevalence of small businesses in this category.  Those size standards are for the two census 
categories of “Satellite Telecommunications” and “Other Telecommunications.”  Under both prior 
categories, such a business was considered small if it had, as now, $13.5 million or less in average annual 
receipts.138
40. The first category of Satellite Telecommunications “comprises establishments primarily 
engaged in providing point-to-point telecommunications services to other establishments in the 
telecommunications and broadcasting industries by forwarding and receiving communications signals via 
a system of satellites or reselling satellite telecommunications.”139 For this category, Census Bureau data 
for 2002 show that there were a total of 371 firms that operated for the entire year.140 Of this total, 307 
  
132 13 C.F.R. § 121.201, NAICS code 517212 (This category will be changed for purposes of the 2007 Census to 
“Wireless Telecommunications Carriers (except Satellite),” NAICS code 517210.).
133 Teligent acquired the DEMS licenses of FirstMark, the only licensee other than TRW in the 24 GHz band whose 
license has been modified to require relocation to the 24 GHz band.
134 Amendments to Parts 1, 2, 87 and 101 of the Commission’s Rules to License Fixed Services at 24 GHz, WT 
Docket No. 99-327, Report and Order, 15 FCC Rcd 16934, 16967 at para. 77 (2000); see also 47 C.F.R. § 
101.538(a)(2).
135 Amendments to Parts 1, 2, 87 and 101 of the Commission’s Rules to License Fixed Services at 24 GHz, WT 
Docket No. 99-327, Report and Order, 15 FCC Rcd 16934, 16967 at para. 77 (2000); see also 47 C.F.R. § 
101.538(a)(1).
136 See Letter to Margaret W. Wiener, Deputy Chief, Auctions and Industry Analysis Division, Wireless 
Telecommunications Bureau, FCC, from Gary M. Jackson, Assistant Administrator, SBA (July 28, 2000).
137 13 C.F.R. § 121.201, NAICS code 517410 (2007).
138 13 C.F.R. § 121.201 , NAICS codes 517410 and 517910 (2002).  
139 U.S. Census Bureau, 2002 NAICS Definitions, “517410 Satellite Telecommunications”; 
http://www.census.gov/epcd/naics02/def/NDEF517.HTM. 
140 U.S. Census Bureau, 2002 Economic Census, Subject Series: Information, “Establishment and Firm Size 
(continued . . .)
FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION FCC 08-195
24
firms had annual receipts of under $10 million, and 26 firms had receipts of $10 million to 
$24,999,999.141 Consequently, we estimate that the majority of Satellite Telecommunications firms are 
small entities that might be affected by our action.
41. The second category of Other Telecommunications “comprises establishments primarily 
engaged in (1) providing specialized telecommunications applications, such as satellite tracking, 
communications telemetry, and radar station operations; or (2) providing satellite terminal stations and 
associated facilities operationally connected with one or more terrestrial communications systems and 
capable of transmitting telecommunications to or receiving telecommunications from satellite systems.”142  
For this category, Census Bureau data for 2002 show that there were a total of 332 firms that operated for 
the entire year.143 Of this total, 303 firms had annual receipts of under $10 million and 15 firms had 
annual receipts of $10 million to $24,999,999.144 Consequently, we estimate that the majority of Other 
Telecommunications firms are small entities that might be affected by our action.
4. Cable and OVS Operators
42. In 2007, the SBA recognized new census categories for small cable entities.145 However, 
there is no census data yet in existence that may be used to calculate the number of small entities that fit 
these definitions.  Therefore, we will use prior definitions of these types of entities in order to estimate 
numbers of potentially-affected small business entities.  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.
43. Cable and Other Program Distribution.  The Census Bureau defines this category as 
follows:  “This industry comprises establishments primarily engaged as third-party distribution systems 
for broadcast programming. The establishments of this industry deliver visual, aural, or textual 
programming received from cable networks, local television stations, or radio networks to consumers via 
cable or direct-to-home satellite systems on a subscription or fee basis. These establishments do not 
generally originate programming material.”146 The SBA has developed a small business size standard for 
Cable and Other Program Distribution, which is:  all such firms having $13.5 million or less in annual 
receipts.147 According to Census Bureau data for 2002, there were a total of 1,191 firms in this category 
(Continued from previous page)   
(Including Legal Form of Organization),” Table 4, NAICS code 517410 (issued Nov. 2005).
141  Id.  An additional 38 firms had annual receipts of $25 million or more.
142 U.S. Census Bureau, 2002 NAICS Definitions, “517910 Other Telecommunications”;  
http://www.census.gov/epcd/naics02/def/NDEF517.HTM. 
143 U.S. Census Bureau, 2002 Economic Census, Subject Series: Information, “Establishment and Firm Size 
(Including Legal Form of Organization),” Table 4, NAICS code 517910 (issued Nov. 2005).
144  Id.  An additional 14 firms had annual receipts of $25 million or more.
145 13 C.F.R. § 121.201.
146 U.S. Census Bureau, 2002 NAICS Definitions, “517510 Cable and Other Program Distribution”; 
http://www.census.gov/epcd/naics02/def/NDEF517.HTM.
147 13 C.F.R. § 121.201, NAICS code 517510 (This category will be changed for purposes of the 2007 Census to 
“Wired Telecommunications Carriers,” NAICS code 517110.).
FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION FCC 08-195
25
that operated for the entire year.148 Of this total, 1,087 firms had annual receipts of under $10 million, 
and 43 firms had receipts of $10 million or more but less than $25 million.149 Thus, under this size 
standard, the majority of firms can be considered small.
44. Cable Companies and Systems. The Commission has also developed its own small business 
size standards, for the purpose of cable rate regulation.  Under the Commission’s rules, a “small cable 
company” is one serving 400,000 or fewer subscribers, nationwide.150 Industry data indicate that, of 
1,076 cable operators nationwide, all but eleven are small under this size standard.151 In addition, under 
the Commission’s rules, a “small system” is a cable system serving 15,000 or fewer subscribers.152  
Industry data indicate that, of 7,208 systems nationwide, 6,139 systems have under 10,000 subscribers, 
and an additional 379 systems have 10,000–19,999 subscribers.153 Thus, under this second size standard, 
most cable systems are small.    
45. Cable System Operators.  The Communications Act of 1934, as amended, also contains a size 
standard for small cable system operators, 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.”154 The 
Commission has determined that an operator serving fewer than 677,000 subscribers shall be deemed a 
small operator, if its annual revenues, when combined with the total annual revenues of all its affiliates, 
do not exceed $250 million in the aggregate.155 Industry data indicate that, of 1,076 cable operators 
nationwide, all but ten are small under this size standard.156 We note that the Commission neither 
requests nor collects information on whether cable system operators are affiliated with entities whose 
gross annual revenues exceed $250 million,157 and therefore we are unable to estimate more accurately 
the number of cable system operators that would qualify as small under this size standard.  
  
148 U.S. Census Bureau, 2002 Economic Census, Subject Series: Information, Table 4, Receipts Size of Firms for the 
United States:  2002, NAICS code 517510 (issued November 2005).
149 Id.  An additional 61 firms had annual receipts of $25 million or more.
150 47 C.F.R. § 76.901(e).  The Commission determined that this size standard equates approximately to a size 
standard of $100 million or less in annual revenues.  Implementation of Sections of the 1992 Cable Act: Rate 
Regulation, Sixth Report and Order and Eleventh Order on Reconsideration, 10 FCC Rcd 7393, 7408 (1995).
151 These data are derived from  R.R. Bowker, Broadcasting & Cable Yearbook 2006, “Top 25 Cable/Satellite 
Operators,” pages A-8 & C-2 (data current as of June 30, 2005);  Warren Communications News, Television & 
Cable Factbook 2006, “Ownership of Cable Systems in the United States,” pages D-1805–D-1857.
152 47 C.F.R. § 76.901(c).  
153 Warren Communications News, Television & Cable Factbook 2006, “U.S. Cable Systems by Subscriber Size,” 
page F-2 (data current as of Oct. 2005).  The data do not include 718 systems for which classifying data were not 
available.
154 47 U.S.C. § 543(m)(2); see 47 C.F.R. § 76.901(f) & nn. 1–3.
155 47 C.F.R. § 76.901(f); see FCC Announces New Subscriber Count for the Definition of Small Cable Operator, 
Public Notice, 16 FCC Rcd 2225 (Cable Services Bureau 2001).
156 These data are derived from:  R.R. Bowker, Broadcasting & Cable Yearbook 2006, “Top 25 Cable/Satellite 
Operators,” pages A-8 & C-2 (data current as of June 30, 2005); Warren Communications News, Television & 
Cable Factbook 2006, “Ownership of Cable Systems in the United States,” pages D-1805–D-1857.
157 The Commission does receive such information on a case-by-case basis if a cable operator appeals a local 
franchise authority’s finding that the operator does not qualify as a small cable operator pursuant to § 76.901(f) of 
the Commission’s rules.  See 47 C.F.R. § 76.909(b).
FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION FCC 08-195
26
46. Open Video Services. Open Video Service (OVS) systems provide subscription services.158  
As noted above, the SBA has created a small business size standard for Cable and Other Program 
Distribution.159 This standard provides that a small entity is one with $13.5 million or less in annual 
receipts.  The Commission has certified approximately 45 OVS operators to serve 75 areas, and some of 
these are currently providing service.160 Affiliates of Residential Communications Network, Inc. (RCN) 
received approval to operate OVS systems in New York City, Boston, Washington, D.C., and other areas.  
RCN has sufficient revenues to assure that they do not qualify as a small business entity.  Little financial 
information is available for the other entities that are authorized to provide OVS and are not yet 
operational.  Given that some entities authorized to provide OVS service have not yet begun to generate 
revenues, the Commission concludes that up to 44 OVS operators (those remaining) might qualify as 
small businesses that may be affected by the rules and policies adopted herein.
5. Electric Power Generation, Transmission and Distribution
47. Electric Power Generation, Transmission and Distribution. The Census Bureau defines this 
category as follows:  “This industry group comprises establishments primarily engaged in generating, 
transmitting, and/or distributing electric power. Establishments in this industry group may perform one or 
more of the following activities: (1) operate generation facilities that produce electric energy; (2) operate 
transmission systems that convey the electricity from the generation facility to the distribution system; 
and (3) operate distribution systems that convey electric power received from the generation facility or 
the transmission system to the final consumer.”161 The SBA has developed a small business size standard 
for firms in this category:  “A firm is small if, including its affiliates, it is primarily engaged in the 
generation, transmission, and/or distribution of electric energy for sale and its total electric output for the 
preceding fiscal year did not exceed 4 million megawatt hours.”162 According to Census Bureau data for 
2002, there were 1,644 firms in this category that operated for the entire year.163 Census data do not track 
electric output and we have not determined how many of these firms fit the SBA size standard for small, 
with no more than 4 million megawatt hours of electric output.  Consequently, we estimate that 1,644 or 
fewer firms may be considered small under the SBA small business size standard.   
6. Internet Service Providers, Web Portals, and Other Information Services
48. In 2007, the SBA recognized two new small business, economic census categories.  They are 
(1) Internet Publishing and Broadcasting and Web Search Portals,164 and (2) All Other Information 
Services.165 However, there is no census data yet in existence that may be used to calculate the number of 
small entities that fit these definitions.  Therefore, we will use prior definitions of these types of entities in 
order to estimate numbers of potentially-affected small business entities.
  
158 See 47 U.S.C. § 573.
159 13 C.F.R. § 121.201, NAICS code 517110.
160 See http://www.fcc.gov/mb/ovs/csovscer.html (current as of February 2007).
161 U.S. Census Bureau, 2002 NAICS Definitions, “2211 Electric Power Generation, Transmission and 
Distribution”; http://www.census.gov/epcd/naics02/def/NDEF221.HTM.
162 13 C.F.R. § 121.201, NAICS codes 221111, 221112, 221113, 221119, 221121, 221122, footnote 1.
163 U S. Census Bureau, 2002 Economic Census, Subject Series:  Utilities, “Establishment and Firm Size (Including 
Legal Form of Organization),” Table 4, NAICS codes 221111, 221112, 221113, 221119, 221121, 221122 (issued 
Nov. 2005).
164 13 C.F.R. § 121.201, NAICS code 519130 (establishing a $500,000 revenue ceiling).
165 13 C.F.R. § 121.201, NAICS code 519190 (establishing a $6.5 million revenue ceiling).
FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION FCC 08-195
27
49. Internet Service Providers.  The SBA has developed a small business size standard for 
Internet Service Providers (ISPs).  ISPs “provide clients access to the Internet and generally provide 
related services such as web hosting, web page designing, and hardware or software consulting related to 
Internet connectivity.”166 Under the SBA size standard, such a business is small if it has average annual 
receipts of $23 million or less.167 According to Census Bureau data for 2002, there were 2,529 firms in 
this category that operated for the entire year. 168 Of these, 2,437 firms had annual receipts of under $10 
million, and an additional 47 firms had receipts of between $10 million and $24,999,999.  Consequently, 
we estimate that the majority of these firms are small entities that may be affected by our action.  
50. Web Search Portals.  Our action pertains to interconnected VoIP services, which could be 
provided by entities that provide other services such as email, online gaming, web browsing, video 
conferencing, instant messaging, and other, similar IP-enabled services.  The Commission has not 
adopted a size standard for entities that create or provide these types of services or applications.  
However, the Census Bureau has identified firms that “operate web sites that use a search engine to 
generate and maintain extensive databases of Internet addresses and content in an easily searchable 
format.  Web search portals often provide additional Internet services, such as e-mail, connections to 
other web sites, auctions, news, and other limited content, and serve as a home base for Internet users.”169  
The SBA has developed a small business size standard for this category; that size standard is $6.5 million 
or less in average annual receipts.170 According to Census Bureau data for 2002, there were 342 firms in 
this category that operated for the entire year.171 Of these, 303 had annual receipts of under $5 million, 
and an additional 15 firms had receipts of between $5 million and $9,999,999.  Consequently, we 
estimate that the majority of these firms are small entities that may be affected by our action.  
51. Data Processing, Hosting, and Related Services. Entities in this category “primarily … 
provid[e] infrastructure for hosting or data processing services.”172 The SBA has developed a small 
business size standard for this category; that size standard is $23 million or less in average annual 
receipts.173 According to Census Bureau data for 2002, there were 6,877 firms in this category that 
operated for the entire year.174 Of these, 6,418 had annual receipts of under $10 million, and an additional 
251 firms had receipts of between $10 million and $24,999,999.  Consequently, we estimate that the 
majority of these firms are small entities that may be affected by our action.
  
166 U.S. Census Bureau, “2002 NAICS Definitions: 518111 Internet Service Providers”;  
http://www.census.gov/epcd/naics02/def/NDEF518.HTM. 
167 13 C.F.R. § 121.201, NAICS code 518111.
168 U.S. Census Bureau, 2002 Economic Census, Subject Series:  Information, “Establishment and Firm Size 
(Including Legal Form of Organization),” Table 4, NAICS code 518111 (issued Nov. 2005).
169 U.S. Census Bureau, “2002 NAICS Definitions:  518112 Web Search Portals”; 
http://www.census.gov/epcd/naics02/def/NDEF518.HTM.
170 13 C.F.R. § 121.201, NAICS code 518112.
171 U.S. Census Bureau, 2002 Economic Census, Subject Series:  Information, “Establishment and Firm Size 
(Including Legal Form of Organization),” Table 4, NAICS code 518112 (issued Nov. 2005).
172 U.S. Census Bureau, “2002 NAICS Definitions:  518210 Data Processing, Hosting, and Related Services”; 
http://www.census.gov/epcd/naics02/def/NDEF518.HTM. 
173 13 C.F.R. § 121.201, NAICS code 518210.
174 U.S. Census Bureau, 2002 Economic Census, Subject Series:  Information, “Establishment and Firm Size 
(Including Legal Form of Organization),” Table 4, NAICS code 518210 (issued Nov. 2005). 
FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION FCC 08-195
28
52. All Other Information Services.  “This industry comprises establishments primarily engaged 
in providing other information services (except new syndicates and libraries and archives).”175 Our action 
pertains to interconnected VoIP services, which could be provided by entities that provide other services 
such as email, online gaming, web browsing, video conferencing, instant messaging, and other, similar 
IP-enabled services.  The SBA has developed a small business size standard for this category; that size 
standard is $6.5 million or less in average annual receipts.176 According to Census Bureau data for 2002, 
there were 155 firms in this category that operated for the entire year.177 Of these, 138 had annual 
receipts of under $5 million, and an additional four firms had receipts of between $5 million and 
$9,999,999.  Consequently, we estimate that the majority of these firms are small entities that may be 
affected by our action.  
53. Internet Publishing and Broadcasting.  “This industry comprises establishments engaged in 
publishing and/or broadcasting content on the Internet exclusively.  These establishments do not provide 
traditional (non-Internet) versions of the content that they publish or broadcast.”178 The SBA has 
developed a small business size standard for this census category; that size standard is 500 or fewer 
employees.179 According to Census Bureau data for 2002, there were 1,362 firms in this category that 
operated for the entire year.180 Of these, 1,351 had employment of 499 or fewer employees, and six firms 
had employment of between 500 and 999.  Consequently, we estimate that the majority of these firms 
small entities that may be affected by our action. 
D. Description of Projected Reporting, Recordkeeping, and Other Compliance 
Requirements for Small Entities
54. Any potential proposals from this Notice will not impose reporting or recordkeeping 
requirements that would be subject to the Paperwork Reduction Act.  Therefore, we have not attempted 
here to provide an estimate in terms of burden hours.  Rather, we are asking commenters to provide the 
Commission with reliable information and comments on any costs and burdens on small entities.  
E. Steps Taken to Minimize the Significant Economic Impact on Small Entities, 
and Significant Alternatives Considered
55. The RFA requires an agency to describe any significant alternatives that it has considered in 
reaching its proposed approach, which may include (among others) 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.181
  
175 U.S. Census Bureau, “2002 NAICS Definitions:  519190 All Other Information Services”; 
http://www.census.gov/epcd/naics02/def/NDEF519.HTM.
176 13 C.F.R. § 121.201, NAICS code 519190.
177 U.S. Census Bureau, 1997 Economic Census, Subject Series:  Information, “Establishment and Firm Size 
(Including Legal Form of Organization),” Table 4, NAICS code 519190 (issued Nov. 2005).
178 U.S. Census Bureau, “2002 NAICS Definitions:  516110 Internet Publishing and Broadcasting”; 
http://www.census.gov/epcd/naics02/def/NDEF516.HTM. 
179 13 C.F.R. § 121.201, NAICS code 516110. 
180 U.S. Census Bureau, 2002 Economic Census, Subject Series:  Information, “Establishment and Firm Size 
(Including Legal Form of Organization),” Table 5, NAICS code 516110 (issued Nov. 2005).
181 5 U.S.C. § 603(c).
FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION FCC 08-195
29
56. As noted above, the Notice invites comment on regulations that the Commission must 
implement 90 days after the 911 NET Act’s enactment, including regulations that:
(A) ensure that IP-enabled voice service providers have the ability to exercise 
their rights under subsection (b);
(B) take into account any technical, network security, or information privacy 
requirements that are specific to IP-enabled voice services; and
(C) provide, with respect to any capabilities that are not required to be made 
available to a commercial mobile service provider but that the Commission determines … 
are necessary for an IP-enabled voice service provider to comply with its obligations [to 
provide 911 service and enhanced 911 service], that such capabilities shall be available at 
the same rates, terms, and conditions as would apply if such capabilities were made 
available to a commercial mobile service provider.
Specifically, we invite comment regarding how the Commission could ease any potential burden on small 
entities.  The Commission seeks comment on significant alternatives and recommends that small entities 
file comments in response to the Notice.  We anticipate that the record will be developed concerning 
alternative ways in which the Commission could lesson the burden on classes of carrier or entities.
F. Federal Rules that May Duplicate, Overlap, or Conflict with the Proposed Rules
57. None.
FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION FCC 08-195
30
STATEMENT OF 
CHAIRMAN KEVIN J. MARTIN
Re: Implementation of the NET 911 Act, WC Docket No. 08-171
Today, we initiate a proceeding to implement the New and Emerging Technologies 911 
Improvement Act of 2008 (NET 911 Act).  Supporting the safety of the public and the needs of our first 
responders is our highest obligation as public officials.  Therefore, I am pleased to take this opportunity to 
further refine our rules to ensure that the most basic need of the public to call for help by dialing 911 is 
fulfilled.  
As I have said before, anyone who dials 911 has a reasonable expectation that he or she will be 
connected to an emergency operator; this expectation exists whether that person is dialing 911 from a 
traditional wireline phone, a wireless phone, or a VoIP phone.  Moreover, we need to ensure that our 
enhanced 911 (E911) rules provide meaningful automatic location information that permits first 
responders to reliably find callers, even when they are using mobile wireless or VoIP phones.
In the NET 911 Act, Congress affirmed that interconnected VoIP providers must provide 911 and 
E911 and directed the Commission to ensure that interconnected VoIP providers have the tools they need 
to provide such service.  I support these objectives and look forward to working with my colleagues on 
these critical public safety issues.
FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION FCC 08-195
31
STATEMENT OF 
COMMISSIONER MICHAEL J. COPPS
Re: Implementation of the NET 911 Act, WC Docket No. 08-171
Three years ago, the FCC established E911 rules for VoIP services.  At that time, I warned that if 
VoIP providers could not obtain access to selective routers, the Commission would need to step in to 
safeguard VoIP customers.  Unfortunately, that did not happen and VoIP providers have faced obstacles 
in obtaining access.  So just one month ago, Congress enacted the NET 911 Act, establishing a 90-day 
deadline for the Commission to issue rules to ensure the appropriate degree of access.  Today’s item 
initiates a fast-track proceeding to do just that.  I look forward to working with my colleagues, public 
safety and consumer representatives, wireless carriers, VoIP providers, and other interested parties to 
resolve these critical issues quickly.   
Today’s item also seeks comment on an issue that is not typically thought of as related to VoIP 
E911, namely the terms of roaming agreements between wireless carriers. The issue is being raised here 
because it appears that, in certain situations, wireless providers offering dual-mode VoIP/CMRS handsets 
use the “last known cell” (i.e., the last CMRS cell tower contacted) as part of their routing protocol for 
mobile VoIP calls.  It is not entirely clear at this point whether CMRS providers can obtain this 
information when their customers are roaming on another CMRS network.  Accordingly, we ask whether 
the Commission should require host roaming networks to provide this information to their roaming 
partners.  I am pleased that my colleagues have agreed to also seek comment on how this will affect 
incentives to form roaming agreements and, in particular, on how the Commission can ensure that it does 
not prevent companies from forming roaming agreements they might otherwise reach. 
Leading public safety organizations believe that the Commission should address this question 
about roaming practices, and I agree 100 percent.  Indeed, I wish the Commission had addressed this 
public safety question—as well as related questions—long ago.  The fact is that, over three years ago, 
industry asked our agency for guidance about how to handle E911 for dual-mode, mobile CMRS/VoIP 
handsets.  This was well before such handsets were available to consumers—and I certainly wish the 
Commission had acted on this reasonable request for clarification and/or rulemaking at that time.  Instead, 
we are now faced with the less optimal task of playing catch-up by addressing technologies that are 
already in the marketplace.
So, given where we stand today, my first preference would be to deal with the full set of issues 
raised by dual-mode, mobile CMRS/VoIP handsets in a single, comprehensive proceeding.  But with that 
option unavailable at this time, I think the next best approach is to ask the roaming question in the 
proceeding that we have before us today.  Even if this issue may not be exactly what Congress had in 
mind when it drafted the NET E911 Act (and that is certainly my reading of the statute and associated 
legislative history), it is nevertheless an important issue and I look forward to building a record on it 
starting now.  
Thanks to the Bureau and my colleagues for their work on this item.
FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION FCC 08-195
32
STATEMENT OF
COMMISSIONER JONATHAN S. ADELSTEIN
Re: Implementation of the NET 911 Act, WC Docket No. 08-171
Since the earliest days of this Commission, promoting our nation’s public safety through 
communications has been our highest calling.  In recent years, the migration of communications networks 
to IP-based technology has created both opportunities and challenges for public safety and emergency 
communications.  Responding to technological and marketplace changes, this Commission made clear 
three years ago that consumers of interconnected VoIP services deserve access to life saving 911 and 
E911 services.  With the passage of the “NET 911 Improvement Act of 2008” (NET 911 Act), Congress 
reaffirmed this mandate and charged us with an active role in transitioning to an IP-enabled emergency 
communications network.
Finding that more than 9 million consumers use VoIP services as a substitute for traditional 
telephony, Congress directed the Commission to ensure that providers of IP-enabled voice services 
comply with 911 and E911 obligations and that these providers have access to the capabilities necessary 
to provide 911 and E911 services.  By opening this proceeding today, we take the first step toward 
implementing Congress’s directive.  
I am pleased that we now seek comment in a neutral and balanced fashion on the specific rights 
and obligations imposed by Congress in the NET 911 Act.  Though I expect to hear differing opinions on 
how to implement these statutory provisions – and, indeed, we have much work to do to meet Congress’s 
90-day statutory deadline – we must remain committed to making E911 a success for these increasingly 
important services and for the consumers who reach for that critical lifeline in their time of need.  
Additionally, I note that while there are a number of E911 compliance and policy questions raised by 
dual-mode mobile commercial mobile radio service/VoIP handsets that use Wi-Fi technology, these 
issues are more appropriately addressed in a separate proceeding.  Indeed, at least one party sought 
clarification on the Commission’s policies on E911 requirements for IP-enabled service providers several 
years ago.1 By attempting to append these issues here, we risking diverting this Notice from the core 
issues, potentially making it more difficult to reach the 90-day statutory deadline.   
Nevertheless, I approve this item and look forward to working with representatives of the public 
safety community, providers, and all interested stakeholders to implement this Act quickly and ensure that 
E911 services remain robust and reliable.
  
1 See T-Mobile Petition, supra note 18.
FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION FCC 08-195
33
STATEMENT OF
COMMISSIONER DEBORAH TAYLOR TATE
Re: Implementation of the NET 911 Act, WC Docket No. 08-171
Today the Commission fulfills another one of our important roles for citizens and first responders 
as we continue to develop rules for 911 and E911 service.  As new technologies, new business models, 
and new services emerge, it is critical that we update our rules to take into consideration how citizens will 
continue to make emergency calls, how networks will handle those calls, and how our public safety
service providers will respond.
With the passage of the New and Emerging Technologies 911 Improvement Act of 2008 (NET 
911 Act), Congress has placed 911 and E911 obligations on interconnected VoIP providers and required 
the Commission to issue rules to ensure that these providers have the access they need to enable such 
service.  This Notice of Proposed Rulemaking seeks comment on the elements of the regulations we are 
required to adopt.  
I especially want to recognize Congressman Bart Gordon from Tennessee for his continued 
dedication to this issue and I applaud both the President and Congress for their leadership on this critical 
piece of legislation.  My colleagues and I recognize that alacrity is indispensable to emergency 
communications operations, and I am well aware of the role such operations play in promoting public 
safety.  I was fortunate to have recently toured the new, state-of-the-art, fully interoperable 911 call center 
in New York City, which links together NYPD, NYFD and the city’s emergency medical services, and I 
have also toured interoperable emergency communications facilities in New Orleans and the surrounding 
parishes.  I look forward to hearing from these and all public safety communications providers, network 
operators, and all those who rely upon our rules to ensure that each call reaches public safety providers 
and receives the response it deserves.
I also want to recognize efforts by industry, both in providing new and innovative services to its 
customers, and in attempting to comply with the Commission’s rules to enable emergency calling and 
other critical public safety functions.  We should applaud carriers that have found unique ways to provide 
valuable services to consumers and take into account the experience of such carriers in developing 911 
and E911 call routing that better allows completion of emergency calls.  For example, CMRS carriers that 
add new technology such as WiFi to their existing service actually allow an additional layer of protection 
for completing a very small subset of emergency calls, including calls that otherwise would not be made 
available to mobile users who do not have a similar service.  
American families rely upon the 911 system no matter how they make emergency calls, and no 
matter the device or service they use to make the call.  The Commission’s rules therefore should 
encourage better ways to provide the caller location and other information public safety needs to fulfill its 
life-saving mission, while also encouraging the new technologies and services consumers want.  I look 
forward to the comments in this proceeding and addressing these issues to the benefit of American 
consumers and the public safety community.
FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION FCC 08-195
34
STATEMENT OF 
COMMISSIONER ROBERT M. McDOWELL
Re: Implementation of the NET 911 Act, WC Docket No. 08-171
I am voting to approve today’s NPRM pursuant to the recently-passed New and Emerging 
Technologies 911 Improvement Act of 2008 (NET 911 Act).  I am pleased to join my colleagues in 
furthering the abilities of our nation’s emergency response providers for the benefit of all Americans.  
At the same time, I question the direction that our inquiry appears to be taking.  By virtue of an 
extemporaneous discussion regarding mobile VoIP, we veer well off the course set by Congress.  
Through this discussion, the Commission is seeking comment on possible new regulatory duties neither 
intended nor mandated by Congress.  In so doing, the Commission could jeopardize the tight deadlines 
established by the NET 911 Act.       
I strongly agree with the public safety community that the question of whether or how, as a matter 
of policy, wireless carriers offering open WiFi or other off-network services share location information is 
worthy of additional study.  This is especially true given that wireless providers have been and are 
continuing to roll out multi-mode open platform devices at a steady pace.  This question, however, is in 
no way compelled by the plain language or intent of the NET 911 Act.  Moreover, a petition for 
clarification raising this specific question and related issues, and which presents an ideal forum for 
handling this inquiry, has been pending at the Commission for over three years.