Federal Communications Commission FCC 11-33 
Before the
Federal Communications Commission
Washington, D.C. 20554
In the Matter of )
)
Section 257 Triennial Report to Congress )
Identifying and Eliminating )
Market Entry Barriers )
For Entrepreneurs and Other )
Small Businesses )
REPORT
Adopted:  March 1, 2011 Released:  March 3, 2011
By the Commission:   Chairman Genachowski and Commissioner Clyburn issuing separate statements; 
Commissioner Copps concurring in part and issuing a statement.
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Heading Paragraph #
I. INTRODUCTION AND EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ........................................................................... 1
II. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ......................................................................................................................
A. The Office of Communications Business Opportunities....................................................................
B. International Bureau...........................................................................................................................
C. Wireless Telecommunications Bureau...............................................................................................
D. Wireline Competition Bureau ............................................................................................................
E. The Office of Engineering and Technology.......................................................................................
F. Media Bureau.....................................................................................................................................
G. Consumer & Governmental Affairs Bureau ......................................................................................
H. Enforcement Bureau ..........................................................................................................................
III. REGULATORY ACTIONS.....................................................................................................................
A. Office of Communications Business Opportunities......................................................................... 6
1. Regulatory Flexibility Act and Small Business Act Initiatives................................................. 7
2. Small Entity Compliance Guides .............................................................................................. 8
3. Ten-Year Review of Rules (Section 610 Review) .................................................................... 9
4. Special Small Business Size Standards ................................................................................... 10
5. Unified Agenda of Federal Regulatory and Deregulatory Actions ......................................... 11
6. Office of the National Ombudsman......................................................................................... 12
7. White House Initiative on Asian Americans and Pacific Islanders......................................... 13
8. Broadband Workshop on Small and Disadvantaged Businesses............................................. 18
9. Advisory Committee on Diversity........................................................................................... 21
10. FCC Diversity Order ............................................................................................................... 22
11. Meetings and Conferences ...................................................................................................... 23
B. International Bureau....................................................................................................................... 24
1. Streamlining Earth Station Licensing...................................................................................... 25
2. Streamlining 214 Procedures................................................................................................... 27
3. Spectrum.................................................................................................................................. 29
4. Electronic Filing Initiatives ..................................................................................................... 31
5. Satellite Licensing ................................................................................................................... 33
C. Wireless Telecommunications Bureau........................................................................................... 35
1. Bidding Credits for Broadband Radio Service........................................................................ 35
Federal Communications Commission FCC 11-33
2
2. Allowing Smaller Antennas in the 11 GHz Band.................................................................... 36
3. Accommodating Broader Bandwidth Channels in the 6 MHz Band....................................... 38
4. Antenna Structure Lighting Inspection.................................................................................... 42
5. 700 MHz Second Report and Order ........................................................................................ 43
6. Roaming .................................................................................................................................. 46
7. Hearing Aid Compatibility...................................................................................................... 48
8. Historic Preservation Review .................................................................................................. 50
9. Transition to 6.25 kHz Technology Delayed........................................................................... 53
10. More Efficient and Flexible Spectrum Use for Part 90 Licensees .......................................... 55
11. Domestic Implementation of Automatic Identification Systems (AIS)................................... 57
12. Site-Based Licensing Retained for Business and Industrial Land Transportation .................. 58
13. Rule Streamlining Extended to Benefit Advanced Wireless Services (AWS) and 
Personal Communications Services (PCS).............................................................................. 59
14. Information Provided on Auction and Licensing Processes.................................................... 60
15. Recent Auctions and Provisions for Small Businesses............................................................ 61
16. The Auction Process................................................................................................................ 65
17. 700 MHz Proceeding and 700 MHz Auction .......................................................................... 68
18. Rural Broadband Outreach...................................................................................................... 72
D. Wireline Competition Bureau ........................................................................................................ 74
1. Network Management and the Open Internet.......................................................................... 75
2. Local Number Portability........................................................................................................ 77
3. Customer Privacy/CPNI .......................................................................................................... 81
4. 911 Service .............................................................................................................................. 82
5. Interconnection........................................................................................................................ 84
6. Multi-Tenant Environments .................................................................................................... 87
7. Universal Service..................................................................................................................... 88
a. Call Home Act Implementation ........................................................................................ 90
b. High Cost Support............................................................................................................. 92
(i) ETC Designation ........................................................................................................ 92
(ii) Interim Cap Orders..................................................................................................... 94
(iii) High-Cost Waivers ..................................................................................................... 97
8. Special Access......................................................................................................................... 98
E. Office of Engineering and Technology........................................................................................ 100
1. Mutual Recognition Agreements........................................................................................... 101
2. Electronic Equipment Authorization..................................................................................... 102
3. Knowledge Data Base (KDB) ............................................................................................... 103
4. Ultra-Wideband Technology ................................................................................................. 104
5. New Uses for the TV Broadcast Band................................................................................... 105
6. Broadcast Auxiliary and Mobile Satellite Services at 2 GHz................................................ 106
7. Wireless Operations in the 3650-3700 MHz Band................................................................ 107
8. Medical Device Radio Communication Service ................................................................... 108
9. Medical Body Area Networks ............................................................................................... 109
10. Spectrum Sharing Innovation Test-Bed ................................................................................ 110
11. Summary................................................................................................................................ 111
F. Media Bureau............................................................................................................................... 112
1. Promoting Ownership Diversity............................................................................................ 113
2. Exclusivity Clauses in the Provision of Video Services to Multiple Dwelling Units ........... 117
3. Competition in the Video Distribution Market...................................................................... 119
4. Digital Audio Broadcasting................................................................................................... 121
5. Policies to Promote Rural Radio Service .............................................................................. 122
6. Video Competition Notice of Inquiry.................................................................................... 123
7. XM-Sirius Merger ................................................................................................................. 126
Federal Communications Commission FCC 11-33
3
8. Low Power Radio Service..................................................................................................... 129
9. Localism ................................................................................................................................ 132
10. Leased Access Programming................................................................................................. 135
G. Consumer & Governmental Affairs Bureau ................................................................................ 136
1. Slamming............................................................................................................................... 136
2. Telecommunications Relay Service ...................................................................................... 138
a. Commission Certification of New IP-Based Relay Providers ........................................ 138
b. Provider Compensation from the TRS Fund................................................................... 140
c. Application of E911 Regulations to TRS Providers ....................................................... 143
3. Application of Section 255 to Interconnected VoIP Services ............................................... 144
4. Closed Captioning ................................................................................................................. 145
5. Market Entry in Indian Country ............................................................................................ 147
H. Enforcement Bureau .................................................................................................................... 149
1. Complaint Mediation............................................................................................................. 150
2. Pole Attachments................................................................................................................... 151
3. Investigations......................................................................................................................... 152
4. Forfeitures.............................................................................................................................. 153
IV. LEGISLATIVE PROPOSALS........................................................................................................... 154
1. New Tax Incentive Program.................................................................................................. 155
V. CONCLUSION .................................................................................................................................. 156
I. INTRODUCTION AND EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
1. Section 257 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (Communications Act)1
mandates that, every three years, the Commission review and report to Congress on (1) efforts to identify 
and eliminate regulatory barriers to market entry in the provision and ownership of telecommunications 
services and information services, or in the provision of parts or services to providers of 
telecommunications services and information services by entrepreneurs and other small businesses and 
(2) proposals to eliminate statutory barriers to market entry by those entities, consistent with the public 
interest, convenience, and necessity.2
2. The purpose underlying the requirements contained in Section 257 are:
To promote the policies and purposes of this [Communications] Act favoring a diversity of media 
voices, vigorous economic competition, technological advancement, and promotion of the public interest, 
convenience, and necessity.3
3. In this 2009 Section 257 Report to Congress (2009 Report), we examine regulatory 
actions taken to reduce market entry barriers by each rulewriting Bureau and Office within the 
  
1 47 U.S.C. § 257.  Congress added Section 257 to the Communications Act through the Telecommunications Act of 
1996, Public Law No. 104-104, 110 Stat. 56 (1996) (Telecommunications Act of 1996).
2 47 U.S.C. § 257 (c).  Subsection (c) requires periodic review and reporting by the Commission every three years.  
The Commission’s last report covered years 2004 through 2006, and was adopted and released in 2007.  See Section 
257 Triennial Report to Congress, Identifying and Eliminating Market Entry Barriers for Entrepreneurs and Other 
Small Businesses, 22 FCC Rcd 21132 (2007).  
3 47 U.S.C. § 257(b).
Federal Communications Commission FCC 11-33
4
Commission since the last triennial report.4 We also make recommendations for legislative action to 
reduce statutory barriers to market entry.  
4. In addition, as our mandate requires, we also identify other barriers which, if not 
addressed, have the potential to limit market entry by entrepreneurs and other small businesses.  One such 
barrier is a general lack of data on minority participation, which could inform decisions and help the 
Commission gauge the effectiveness of its actions on an ongoing basis.  Another barrier is a lack of 
outreach to the very parties who could benefit from agency actions.  While the actions described in this 
report do not curtail these barriers, it is important to recognize them so that they may be addressed in the 
future.  
5. The Commission fully recognizes the role that small communications businesses play in a 
robust American economy.  Our efforts, as detailed in this 2009 Report, evidence the Commission’s 
commitment to identifying and reducing or eliminating barriers that would impede the growth of such a 
vital sector of the industry and the economy.  This 2009 Report contains information from each Bureau 
and Office that either conducts substantive rulemakings relevant to small businesses or that is directly 
engaged in advocating for regulatory policies, rules and regulations to support small businesses.  Below is 
an Executive Summary of the regulatory actions taken in the last three years by the Commission's 
rulewriting Bureaus and Offices to reduce market entry barriers.
II. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
A. The Office of Communications Business Opportunities
· Served as the principal small, women, and minority business policy advisor to the Chairman and 
Commissioners, Bureaus and Offices.
· Developed policies, plans and programs to further the competitive concerns of small entities.
· Ensured that small entities obtained an opportunity to participate in any applicable rulemakings 
by organizing meetings, distributing information and attending conferences.
· Managed the implementation of the Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA), the Small Business Act, 
Section 257 of the Telecommunications Act of 1996, and the Small Business Regulatory 
Enforcement Fairness Act (SBREFA).
· Acted as the Commission’s liaison with the Small Business Administration (SBA) and assisted in 
coordinating special small business size standards with the SBA.
· Reviewed Notices of Proposed Rulemakings, Reports and Orders and other notice and comment 
items for Commission action to ensure compliance with the requirements of the RFA and 
SBREFA.
· Solicited information, on a semi-annual basis, related to Commission rulemaking proceedings for 
inclusion in the Unified Agenda, which is published by the General Services Administration 
(GSA), and coordinated the submission of the description of the Commission’s current 
rulemaking proceedings to the GSA.
  
4 Subsection (c) of Sec. 257 requires the Commission to review and report on the regulatory actions taken to identify 
and eliminate market entry barriers during the preceding three-year period. The Commission's most recent report 
detailed actions taken for the period ending December 31, 2006. Accordingly, this 2009 Report provides a review of 
regulatory actions taken by the Commission for the three-year period ending December 31, 2009. We also note 
2010 Commission actions or court decisions in footnotes insofar as they relate to actions taken by Bureaus or 
Offices between 2007 and 2009.
Federal Communications Commission FCC 11-33
5
· Reviewed Small Entity Compliance Guides (SECGs), pursuant to Section 212 of SBREFA, 
which summarize, in plain language, rules or groups of rules containing compliance requirements 
adopted by the Commission.  Also, coordinated the publication of SECGs on the FCC’s website 
and drafted the annual Reports to Congress on this program.
· Coordinated the compilation of information concerning existing 10-year old rules that are subject 
to review pursuant to Section 610 of the RFA, and drafted the Federal Register publications of 
the lists of such rules for public comment on the need for their continuation, modification or 
elimination.  OCBO also assisted the Bureaus and Offices in resolving comments filed in 
response to the publication of the Section 610 list of rules.
· Provided internal training, advice, and guidance on matters relating to the requirements of the 
RFA and SBREFA, including the hosting of Reg Flex clinics for rulewriters. 
· Participated in the FCC’s Advisory Committee on Diversity for Communications in the Digital 
Age.
· Distributed information on FCC rules, policies and initiatives affecting small, women- and 
minority-owned businesses, maintained and updated OCBO website, attended conferences held 
by organizations representing OCBO constituencies.
· Began implementation of provisions of FCC’s Diversity Order with regard to creating a Guide to 
Diversity to be entitled “Increasing Diversity in the Media and Telecommunications Industries.”
· Hosted a workshop entitled “Opportunities for Small and Disadvantaged Businesses” which was 
part of a series of workshops held to promote a new dialogue between the FCC and key 
constituents on matters important to the development of the National Broadband Plan.
· Met with trade groups and small businesses to discuss the impact of certain agency rules and 
regulations, such as the designated entities rules.
B. International Bureau
· Continued to streamline earth station licensing, directly benefitting the thousands of small 
businesses dependent on such stations.
· Continued to implement streamlined international Section 214 authorization process, which 
lowers costs, eliminates delays in the authorization of entry, increases the availability of capital 
by eliminating unnecessary limits on foreign investment, and reduces reporting burdens.
· Engaged proactively with other countries to make spectrum available, both through new 
allocations and through technical and regulatory solutions, for small businesses interested in 
innovative telecommunications enterprises.
· Continued improvements to consolidated licensing and application processing system, which is 
designed to lower costs for applicants and thereby lower barriers to entry for small businesses. 
C. Wireless Telecommunications Bureau
· Relicensed unassigned Broadband Radio Service Basic Trading Area licenses and adopted 
competitive bidding rules for BRS by establishing discounts on winning bids placed by small 
designated entities based on their average annual gross revenues over the past three years.  
· Permitted the installation of smaller antennas by Fixed Service (FS) operators which reduced the 
minimum antenna diameter, while protecting other users from experiencing any greater 
interference than they would otherwise have experienced from systems using larger antennas.  
· Proposed to increase the number of channel pairs eligible for conditional authorizations in the 23 
GHz band allowing applicants to put spectrum to use more quickly.
Federal Communications Commission FCC 11-33
6
· The 700 MHz Band spectrum was made available for other wireless services, including public 
safety and commercial services, as a result of the digital television (DTV) transition.  The 
Commission revised the 700 MHz band plan improving the opportunity for small entities to 
obtain valuable wireless spectrum by providing smaller licensing areas that better meet the needs 
of small entities, while avoiding the transaction costs associated with obtaining access to 
spectrum in the secondary market.
· The Commission replaced the “substantial service” requirements for the 700 MHz Band 
commercial licenses with significantly more stringent performance requirements in order to 
promote the provision of innovative services to consumers throughout the license areas, including 
in rural areas.  Additionally, the keep-what-you-use rule ensured that spectrum covering areas 
that are not adequately built out is returned to the Commission and others are given an 
opportunity to acquire licenses for this spectrum. 
· Promoted innovation in the 700 MHz spectrum band by imposing certain conditions on the 700 
MHz C Block to provide open platforms for devices and applications.  
· Implemented specific auction procedures to improve the opportunity for small businesses to 
successfully bid on 700 MHz Band licenses by adopting anonymous bidding procedures for the 
auction of the 700 MHz licenses.
· Adopted a Roaming Report and Order finding that roaming is a common carrier obligation for 
CMRS carriers and that CMRS carriers are required to provide, under reasonable and 
nondiscriminatory terms and conditions, automatic roaming services, upon reasonable request, to 
any requesting technologically compatible CMRS carrier outside of the requesting carrier’s 
“home market”. The Commission also adopted a Roaming Further Notice of Proposed 
Rulemaking seeking comment on whether an automatic roaming obligation should be extended to 
data services that are classified as information services and services that are not CMRS.
· Updated wireless hearing aid compatibility rules to enhance the ability of persons with hearing 
disabilities to access digital wireless telecommunications by including new deployment 
requirements that permit manufacturers and service providers to offer either specified numbers or 
percentages of handset models that meet hearing aid compatibility standards. Under the 
percentage option, small manufacturers are relieved of the expense of having to offer a number of 
compatible hearing aid models required of larger competitors thus allowing small businesses to 
maintain a competitive foot-hold in this industry.
· Introduced the Electronic Section 106 (E-106) System to facilitate and improve compliance with 
the process required under the National Preservation Act.  The E-106 System permits licensees
and applicants electronically to submit the forms required under the NPA to State Historic 
Preservation Officers, federally recognized Indian Tribes, Native Hawaiian organizations 
(NHOs), and other consulting parties.  
· Continued administration of the Tower Construction Notification System (TCNS).  TCNS allows 
tower constructors electronically to identify and initiate communications with Tribes and NHOs 
that have asserted a traditional religious and cultural interest in historic properties within the 
geographic area of a proposed tower.  
· Continued to identify those antenna structures that might affect air navigation, consistent with 
recommendations made by the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), and for registering such 
structures with the Commission.  The Commission required owners of antenna structures to 
register with the Commission those structures that meet the registration criteria and to exercise 
primary responsibility for the prescribed painting and lighting.  Registration has been streamlined 
to allow small business owners to undertake this function and avoid the cost associated with 
hiring outside consultants to perform this simplified task. 
Federal Communications Commission FCC 11-33
7
· Delayed the implementation of requiring certain PLMR licensees to transition to a more spectrum 
efficient, 6.25 kHz technology.  The delay provides significant relief to equipment manufacturers 
and users, large and small alike, from the potentially excessive costs and burden that the original 
compliance date may have produced.  
· Adopted measures for the domestic implementation of Automatic Identification Systems (AIS), 
an advanced marine vessel tracking and navigation technology that can significantly enhance the 
Nation’s homeland security as well as maritime safety.  This measure allows small commercial 
vessels to avoid the expense of having to outfit their ships with more than one AIS device if they 
travel outside the U.S. territorial waters.
· Retained the current site-based licensing paradigm for the 199 channels allocated to the Business 
and Industrial Land Transportation (B/ILT) Pool in the 896-901 MHz/935-940 MHz (900 MHz) 
band finding that the adverse effects of changing the licensing system on all current and future 
licensees in this service, and particularly small businesses, were too great.  
· Took further steps to streamline and harmonize its rules related to Wireless Radio Services 
(WRS) by adopting modifications to the rules governing radiated power limits for Personal 
Communications Services (PCS) and Advanced Wireless Services (AWS).  
· Provided information on auction and licensing processes to all sections of the wireless 
telecommunications community and the general public through trade show booths, a webpage 
and Auctions/ULS Hot Line, pre-auction seminars, and an Auction Support telephone line.
· Conducted eleven spectrum auctions and, in all but one auction, offered bidding credits to 
participants in auctions of wireless licenses who qualified as a small business or participants in 
auctions of broadcast construction permits who qualified as a new entrant.  
· Has continued to adopt band plans that address the needs of smaller businesses for different types 
of spectrum blocks and geographic license areas by designating a mix of geographic areas and 
spectrum block sizes, including spectrum for licensing over smaller and rural geographic areas.  
· Facilitated the participation of small businesses in the provision of spectrum-based services 
through its implementation and enforcement of improved rules governing these “designated 
entities” to better deter unqualified entities from attempting to circumvent eligibility 
requirements.  
· Used a web-based auction application filing and auction bidding system (the Integrated Spectrum 
Auction System or “ISAS”) that facilitates participation in its spectrum auctions by a wide range 
of potentially qualified applicants in a user-friendly bidding environment for auction participants.  
As a service to auction participants, an Auction Support telephone line was available to assist 
with auction-specific questions during the course of auction events.  Telephonic bidding also 
enhanced the accessibility of the auction bidding system to individuals with disabilities. 
· Continued to make considerable efforts to reach out and provide information to rural America, 
including entrepreneurs and other small businesses, through a Joint Federal Rural Outreach 
Initiative.  This initiative has created a partnership between the Commission’s Wireless 
Telecommunications Bureau and the U.S. Department of Agriculture’s Rural Utilities Service 
(now Rural Development) to assist rural America.  As part of this initiative, the FCC and USDA 
launched an on-line resource for those in rural America looking to bring the benefits of 
broadband services to their communities.  
· In conjunction with USDA, conducted four regional, day-long educational workshops on rural 
broadband in different locations across the country during 2008.  The workshops provided rural 
communities and organizations with information on FCC and USDA resources, including the 
broadband funding opportunities from USDA and information on broadband technologies, 
policies, and spectrum access from the FCC.   
Federal Communications Commission FCC 11-33
8
D. Wireline Competition Bureau 
· Launched a rulemaking to determine whether Commission rules would be necessary to preserve a 
free and open Internet.  The rulemaking proposed rules requiring, inter alia, that broadband 
providers adhere to non-discrimination and transparency principles intended to lower barriers to 
entry by online content, application, and service providers. 
· Clarified rules addressing delays in and obstruction of the Local Number Portability (LNP) 
process.
· Extended the LNP obligations to interconnected Voice over Internet Protocol (VoIP) providers. 
· Clarified rule that providers may not use proprietary information of other carriers that they 
receive in the local number porting process. 
· Adopted rules implementing provisions of the NET 911 Act, to ensure that interconnected VoIP 
providers have access to any and all capabilities they need to provide 911 and enhanced 911 
service in full compliance with Commission’s rules, and that no entity may use customer 
information obtained as a result of the provision of 911 services for marketing purposes. 
· Affirmed that Section 251 of the Communications Act entitles competitive local exchange 
carriers to interconnect with incumbent local exchange carriers for the purpose of exchanging 
traffic on behalf of VoIP providers. 
· Clarified that interconnection rights, under Section 251, are not based on the identity of the 
requesting carrier’s customer. 
· Adopted the Competitive Networks Order prohibiting carriers from entering or enforcing 
contracts that would make them the exclusive provider of telecommunications services in a 
residential multiple tenant environment. 
· Granted forbearance to exempt from USF and Telecommunications Relay Services fund 
contribution requirements revenue from calls covered by section 2(a) of the Call Home Act, 
including, but not limited to, calls made using prepaid calling cards and post-paid calling cards, 
and collect calls made by Armed Forces Personnel. 
· Adopted an interim emergency cap on the amount of high-cost support available to competitive 
eligible telecommunications carriers (ETCs), including a limited exception to this cap for 
competitive ETCs serving Tribal Lands or Alaska Native regions. 
· Granted petitions for ETC designation on Tribal reservations. 
· Granted several waivers of the Commission’s high-cost rules, including the extension of relief to 
small, rural carriers. 
· Granted petitions to allow non-facilities based companies to become designated as limited ETCs 
for the purpose of providing Lifeline universal service support.
· Sought comment on an appropriate analytical framework for examining issues raised in the 
Commission’s special access proceeding. 
E. The Office of Engineering and Technology
· Streamlined and simplified the authorization of equipment process.
· Promoted new and innovative services by entrepreneurs and other small businesses in the 
unlicensed spectrum market, including ultra-wideband technologies and “white spaces” devices 
that use the television broadcast spectrum on a secondary basis.
Federal Communications Commission FCC 11-33
9
· Promoted new and innovative services by entrepreneurs and other small businesses in the 
licensed spectrum market, including mobile satellite services and ancillary terrestrial services at 2 
GHz, wireless broadband services at 3650 MHz, and advanced medical services at 401-406 MHz 
and 2/5 GHz.
· Conducted studies to support and promote new technologies and greater use of spectrum, 
including a shared federal/non-federal Spectrum Sharing Innovation Test-Bed in the 400 MHz 
band.
F. Media Bureau
· Sought to foster greater competition in the market for providing video service to apartment and 
condo complexes, and other real estate developments by instituting a ban on exclusivity clauses 
in the provision of video services to multiple dwelling units.
· Adopted an Order extending the ban on exclusive contracts between vertically integrated video 
programmers and cable operators, ensuring competitive MVPDs access to cable operator 
affiliated programming thereby fostering viable competition in the video distribution market.
· Adopted new standards to facilitate the use of leased access channels on cable systems, providing 
an easier way for independent programmers to gain access to cable distribution.  
· Allowed radio stations to time broker unused digital bandwidth to third parties, providing an 
opportunity for new entrants into the radio broadcast market.
G. Consumer & Governmental Affairs Bureau
· Adopted an order refining the requirements for verification of a consumer’s intent to switch 
carriers.  These rule changes help eliminate barriers to market entry by small telecommunications 
companies by decreasing the chance that they will lose customers to unauthorized carrier 
changes.
· Certified Internet Protocol-based TRS providers to become eligible for reimbursement from the 
Interstate TRS Fund.
· Sought comment on the closed captioning obligations of digital broadcasters that “multicast”; 
ultimate disposition of these issues likely will have an effect on market entry by small 
broadcasters.
· Conducted outreach to Tribal Nations on an ongoing basis, with emphasis on increasing 
telecommunications access and market entry in Indian Country.
H. Enforcement Bureau 
· The Enforcement Bureau’s Market Disputes Resolution Division assisted in resolving over sixty 
matters involving complaints with common carriers, including eighteen mediation sessions held 
at the Commission, obviating the need for costly litigation to small businesses and others.
· The Enforcement Bureau investigated and corrected anti-competitive and discriminatory business 
practices by telecommunications carriers that established barriers to entry by small businesses.  
This effort was accomplished through the use of forfeiture and other enforcement tools imposed 
on violators.
· The Enforcement Bureau resolved nine pole attachment complaint disputes during the period 
between January 2007 and December 2009 involving access denials to poles or higher rate 
payments for pole usage.  The EB’s efforts have allowed small businesses to compete effectively 
with their larger competitors. 
Federal Communications Commission FCC 11-33
10
III. REGULATORY ACTIONS
A. Office of Communications Business Opportunities
6. The Commission created the Office of Communications Business Opportunities (OCBO) 
in 1994 to promote business opportunities for entrepreneurs and other small businesses, including 
minority- and women-owned businesses.  OCBO develops, coordinates, evaluates, and recommends to 
the Commission, policies, programs and practices that promote participation by small entities, women and 
minorities in the communications industry.  Specifically, OCBO oversees the administration and 
implementation of the Commission’s obligations under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA),5 the Small 
Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act (SBREFA), the Small Business Act,6 and certain other 
statutes governing small business issues.  OCBO’s staff participates in conferences and seminars across 
the country to inform the public about relevant agency proceedings, policies, and initiatives.  As part of 
the Commission’s outreach to entrepreneurs and other small businesses, OCBO maintains an extensive 
database of approximately 3,000 small businesses to which it sends information regarding Commission 
rulemakings and orders, as well as new service opportunities.  In addition OCBO meets with 
entrepreneurs and small businesses and representatives of trade organizations.  OCBO maintains an 
internet site which contains vital information concerning Commission rulemakings and ownership 
opportunities for the small business community.   
1. Regulatory Flexibility Act and Small Business Act Initiatives
7. OCBO implements the RFA and assists in the drafting of RFA analyses of all notice and 
comment rulemakings.  OCBO works with Bureaus and Offices to ensure that RFA analyses are precise 
and helpful, including a focus on plain language.  Major goals of the RFA include increasing agency 
awareness and understanding of the impact of proposed agency regulations on small entities, ensuring 
agency communication and explanation of any findings concerning such impacts, and encouraging 
regulatory flexibility and relief to small entities, where appropriate.  With few exceptions, an RFA 
analysis (or, alternatively, a certification that no such analysis is warranted) is required for every federal 
rulemaking that requires public notice and comment.  The analyses describe the need for the agency 
action, discuss alternatives the agency has considered, and describe which entities are considered “small” 
within the context of the rulemaking.  In this last regard, OCBO assists the Bureaus and Offices in 
determining and describing the appropriate small business size standards for the various services 
regulated by the Commission.  Overall, the commission’s RFA work assists with educational outreach to 
small entities and results in greater small entity participation in rulemakings.                                                                                                                                                                                        
2. Small Entity Compliance Guides  
8. Pursuant to Section 212 of SBREFA, the Commission is required to publish Small Entity 
Compliance Guides when it conducts a Final Regulatory Flexibility Analysis (FRFA) under Section 604 
of Title 5 of the U.S. Code.7 Congress enacted Section 212 to benefit small businesses, non-profits, and 
small governmental jurisdictions (with staffing or populations fewer than 50,000) by giving them 
concrete, easily understandable guidelines for compliance.  In 2004, the OCBO coordinated the 
Commission’s initiation of a Compliance Guide Program.8 The program is designed to implement 
Section 212 of the SBREFA by publishing documents that explain in plain language the actions a small 
  
5 See generally 5 U.S.C. §§ 601-612.
6 Small Business Act, 15 U.S.C. § 632.
7 Section 212 of the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996 (SBREFA) is a part of Title II of 
the contract With America Advancement Act of 1996, Pub. L. No. 104-121, 110 Stat. 847, 857 (1996). 
8 The Commission has long produced Fact Sheets and other informative documents, some of which have served as 
Compliance Guides.
Federal Communications Commission FCC 11-33
11
entity must take to comply with a rule or a group of rules.  OCBO has drafted a Compliance Guide 
Manual which established internal agency policies and procedures for creating and publishing 
Compliance Guides in a timely manner.  The agency publishes it compliance guides on its public website 
at www.fcc.gov/ocbo.  For 2008 and 2009, OCBO also coordinated the new, annual Report to Congress 
concerning the compliance guide program.9 The report described the agency’s Compliance Guide 
Program and also other educational outreach efforts such as information that can be found on the website 
and information that has been translated into various languages.  The annual reports list the compliance 
guides published for the subject year.      
3. Ten-Year Review of Rules (Section 610 Review)
9. Section 610 of the RFA requires agencies to publish annually in the Federal Register a 
plan for the periodic review of rules that have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of 
entrepreneurs and other small businesses.10 The Commission’s compilation identifies numerous rules that 
might be amended or rescinded, if appropriate, in an effort to better serve the public interest.  The 
Commission’s record of compliance with this program remains among the top of the sixty or so federal 
agencies subject to Section 610.   This effort yields comments from the public, which are directed to the 
pertinent Bureau and Offices for initial review.  The agency may then choose to initiate Notices of 
Proposed Rulemaking for those comments warranting further action.                                                                  
4. Special Small Business Size Standards
10. Generally, Federal departments and agencies that promulgate regulations that affect small 
businesses use the SBA’s size criteria as they develop their regulations.11 To ensure that our initiatives 
accurately target entrepreneurs and other small business participation in the telecommunications sector, 
OCBO works closely with the SBA’s Office of Size Standards to obtain approval of any necessary new 
telecommunications small business size standards.  To accomplish this, the Commission forwards to the 
SBA all descriptions and analyses of proposed size standards prior to the Commission’s adoption of a 
Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, and, thereafter, sends the SBA additional comments and documentation 
at each stage of the rulemaking process.  Near the end of the process, prior to final Commission 
consideration of the new size standard, the Commission sends a formal request for approval to the SBA 
Administrator.
5. Unified Agenda of Federal Regulatory and Deregulatory Actions
11. OCBO submits a Report for publication in the semi-annual Unified Agenda of Federal 
Regulatory and Deregulatory Actions (Unified Agenda), which provides information to the public 
regarding Commission regulations under development.12 The Unified Agenda has appeared in the 
Federal Register twice each year since 1983.  It helps governmental agencies comply with their 
obligations under the RFA, other statutes, and Executive Orders.  As a part of the Fall 2009 Unified 
Agenda, the Commission listed and described 145 ongoing rulemaking proceedings.13 These descriptions 
assist the public in becoming involved in the regulatory process, and aid the regulated community in 
complying with existing regulations.
  
9 “First Annual Report of Federal Communications Commission on the Agency’s Program to Produce Small Entity 
Compliance Guides” (June 11, 2008); “2009 Annual Report of Federal Communications Commission on the 
Agency’s Program to Produce Small Entity Compliance Guides” (May 27, 2009).
10 See 5 U.S.C. § 610.
11 See 15 U.S.C. § 632.
12 See 5 U.S.C. § 602.  The Government Services Administration’s Regulatory Information Service Center publishes 
the Unified Agenda in the Spring and Fall of each year. 
13 See Spring 2009 Unified Agenda 74 Fed Reg. 22018 (May 11, 2009).   
Federal Communications Commission FCC 11-33
12
6. Office of the National Ombudsman
12. OCBO coordinates the Commission’s responses to small entity-related enforcement 
matters with the SBA’s Office of the National Ombudsman (Ombudsman).  One avenue for assistance for 
small entities is the Ombudsman’s written comment (complaint) procedure.  Using a two-page Federal 
Agency Comment Form, a small business may submit to the Ombudsman any complaints, suggestions, or 
compliments concerning a federal agency’s enforcement action.  The Ombudsman then forwards the 
form, along with any other documentation, to the agency for review.  OCBO is certified as the 
Commission’s formal contact for this function.  OCBO also annually attends one or more Ombudsman 
public hearings, during which OCBO describes the Commission’s efforts to assist small entities with the 
Commission’s enforcement programs.  For instance, during 2007, OCBO attended a National 
Ombudsman hearing to discuss the nation’s transition to digital television.  Finally, OCBO, in 
coordination with the Enforcement Bureau, responds to any inquiries during the year and sends an annual 
letter to the Ombudsman describing the Commission’s enforcement initiatives on behalf of small entities.  
Annually, the Ombudsman submits a report to Congress in which it describes the efforts of federal 
agencies, including the Commission.
7. White House Initiative on Asian Americans and Pacific Islanders    
13. Executive Order 13339 was signed on May 13, 2004, extending the previous Executive 
Order which committed the Administration to increase opportunities and improve the quality of life for 
Asian Americans and Pacific Islanders (AAPIs) through greater participation in Federal programs where 
they may be underserved.14 To implement the Presidential mandate, the Executive Order designated the 
Secretary of the Department of Health and Human Services to initiate a federal Inter-agency Working 
Group (IWG). The IWG, which consists of representatives of thirty-four participating federal agencies, 
oversees the development of all federal policies and initiatives addressing AAPI populations, particularly 
with respect to the development of programs and services for underserved AAPI populations.15
14. OCBO’s Director is the Commission’s representative to the IWG.  A separate group, the 
Coordinating Committee (CC), was created to implement the policies and programs designed by the IWG.  
The CC consists of staff members selected from each of the thirty-four currently involved federal 
departments and agencies.   
15. Given our mission to promote business opportunities in telecommunications, we have 
focused our efforts on promotion of AAPI economic and community development with regard to 
telecommunications issues.  We seek to cooperate with other agencies that are interested in using 
telecommunications technologies to provide business-related information services, and other services, to 
rural, remote, and otherwise underserved populations.  On September 29, 2006, we participated in the first 
ever White House Initiative on Asian American and Pacific Islanders (WHIAAPI) DC Summit, which 
was designed to offer opportunities for participants to network, compare best practices, and increase their 
capacity to serve AAPI communities.  Since its inception, WHIAAPI has conducted 15 community site 
visits and 8 technical assistance conferences across the country.  
16. OCBO’s expanded contact with the national AAPI community proved helpful also in 
OCBO's sponsorship of, and preparation for, its August 18, 2009 Broadband Policy Workshop for Small 
and Disadvantaged Businesses. That Workshop convened panels in which leading micro-economists, 
broadband policy analysts, business strategists; and existing organizations with a lengthy track record of 
activity in broadband-based business operations; and new-entrant entrepreneurs seeking to use broadband 
technology to launch new businesses; all shared their perspectives and experiences and also commented 
  
14 Executive Order, No. 13339 (Bush Executive Order).  President Clinton signed the underlying Executive Order, 
No. 13125, on June 7, 1999, and President George W. Bush signed the previous Executive Order 13216 on June 6, 
2001.
15 Id.
Federal Communications Commission FCC 11-33
13
on ways to optimize federal broadband policy, including new broadband policy initiatives recently 
undertaken by the FCC. An Asian -American policy analyst was a full participant on the economics-and-
business strategy panel.
17. Approximately 50 AAPI organizations, which were determined to be active in the 
communications industry and/or in community-level business development impacted by broadband 
policy, were invited either to send representatives to attend the workshop or to view the live webcast of 
the proceedings of the conference.
8. Broadband Workshop on Small and Disadvantaged Businesses
18. OCBO conducted two broadband workshops focused on the interests of small and diverse 
communications businesses in the national broadband effort.  The first, entitled “Opportunities for Small 
and Disadvantaged Businesses (SDBs)” was conducted in August of 2009.  The second, entitled 
“Capitalization Strategies for Small and Disadvantaged Businesses in Telecom and Broadband” was 
conducted in November of 2009.
19. The August 2009 workshop was designed to explore challenges faced by SDBs in 
adopting and utilizing new and existing broadband technologies, and to assist in developing a full record 
for preparation of the National Broadband Plan.  The workshop included a number of panelists who 
discussed what is currently known about broadband technology in their constituent communities, and how 
the FCC, through the implementation of the National Broadband Plan, can assist SDBs in their effort to 
increase broadband usage.  The panelists also discussed the various ways they help businesses grow by 
using broadband technology.  They stressed the need for nationwide digital literacy and how broadband 
must become relevant in the daily lives of people in unserved and underserved communities.  Some of the 
panelists were entrepreneurs who currently own and operate small businesses and described how 
broadband technology is being used to remain competitive in their industries.  
20. The November 2009 capitalization strategies workshop was designed to educate small 
and diverse businesses in telecommunications and broadband on the myriad of financing opportunities 
available to them from both public and private sources and how to access these funding streams so as to 
remain active, productive, and profitable, in the telecommunications and broadcast industries.  The 
workshop included representatives from NTIA, RUS, SBA, and various private investors.  The panelists 
also met in one-on-one sessions with entrepreneurs to critique their presentations and business plans.  
9. Advisory Committee on Diversity
21. The mission of the Federal Advisory Committee on Diversity for Communications in the 
Digital Age “Diversity FACA” is to make recommendations to the FCC regarding policies and practices 
that will further enhance the ability of minorities and women to participate in telecommunications and 
related industries.  OCBO participated by assisting the work of the Diversity FACA Subcommittees in 
preparing agency recommendations.  The Diversity FACA met several times each year throughout the 
past three years and put forth numerous recommendations.  Some of their recommendations were adopted 
and implemented by the FCC, such as revising attribution rules, extending build-out periods, and creating 
a Guide to Diversity, as more fully described below.
10. FCC Diversity Order
22. The Commission, in In the Matter of Promoting Diversification of Ownership In the 
Broadcasting Services et al., (“Diversity Order”),16 adopted a number of proposals to encourage 
ownership diversity and enhance the participation of small businesses, including women- and minority-
owned businesses in the broadcasting industry.  In addition, the Diversity Order included a Third Further 
Notice of Proposed Rule Making (“Further Notice”), which sought comment on additional proposals to 
  
16 Promoting Diversification of Ownership in the Broadcasting Services, Report and Order and Third Further Notice 
of Rulemaking, MB Docket No. 07-294, 23 FCC Rcd 5922 (2008).
Federal Communications Commission FCC 11-33
14
increase participation of small businesses, including women- and minority-owned businesses in the 
industry.  One of the proposals adopted in the Diversity Order was the creation of a Guidebook to 
Diversity (“Guidebook”).  The purpose of the Guidebook is to focus on ways in which companies can 
promote diversity in ownership and contracting.  OCBO has been working, with input from members of 
the Diversity FACA, to prepare a draft of the Guidebook.  Other actions adopted in the Diversity Order 
which were recommended by the Diversity FACA include:  changing construction permit deadlines to 
allow “eligible entities” that acquire expiring construction permits additional time to build out the facility; 
revising the Commission’s equity/debt plus (“EDP”) attribution standard to facilitate investment in 
eligible entities; modifying the Commission’s distress sale policy to allow a licensee – whose license has 
been designated for a revocation hearing or whose renewal application has been designated for a hearing 
on basic qualifications issues – to sell its station to an “eligible entity” prior to the commencement of the 
hearing; adopting a rule that bars race or gender discrimination in broadcast transactions; requiring 
broadcasters to certify that their advertising sales contracts contain nondiscrimination clauses as a 
prerequisite to license renewal; giving priority to any entity financing or incubating an eligible entity in 
certain duopoly situations; and encouraging cooperation between the Commission and the Small Business 
Administration (SBA) to educate local and regional banks about SBA-guaranteed loan programs in order 
to facilitate broadcast and telecommunications-related transactions.  In April 2008, the Commission held 
the first in a series of Access to Capital seminars for small communications businesses and new entrants.  
In November 2009, OCBO hosted a second access to capital seminar, discussed above in Section 9, which 
included advisors from both government and private sectors.
11. Meetings and Conferences
23. OCBO acts a liaison between the Commission and various trade organizations 
representing small, women- and minority-owned communications businesses.  OCBO meets in-house 
with entrepreneurs and trade group representatives to better understand the challenges that they face.  
OCBO’s role within the Commission is to help these entities navigate the administrative processes within 
the agency and to ensure that their comments are considered in agency proceedings.  OCBO is also a 
regular participant in conferences held by such groups as:  American Women in Radio and Television; 
American Cable Association; U.S. Hispanic Chamber of Commerce; National Association of Black 
Owned Broadcasters, National Council of La Raza; and Minority Media Telecommunications Council, 
among others.
B. International Bureau 
24. In the three year period covered by this report, the International Bureau acted in several 
areas to remove barriers to entry for small businesses or initiated Commission action to remove such 
barriers.  First, the Bureau continued its efforts to streamline earth station licensing, which benefits 
thousands of small businesses dependent on such stations.  Second, the Bureau continued streamlining the 
international Section 214 process, lowering costs and eliminating delays in the authorization of entry, 
increasing the availability of capital by eliminating unnecessary limits on foreign investment, and 
reducing reporting burdens.  Third, through participation in International Telecommunication Union 
(ITU) activities, the Bureau led the Commission’s proactive engagement with other countries to make 
spectrum available for small businesses interested in innovative telecommunications enterprises.  The 
Commission achieves this through the pursuit of new allocations as well as technical and regulatory 
solutions that promote efficient spectrum use.  Fourth, the Bureau continued to improve its consolidated 
licensing and application processing system, which is designed to lower costs for applicants, and thereby 
lower barriers to entry for small businesses. Fifth, the Bureau continued its implementation of previously-
adopted safeguards to ensure that satellite licensees remain committed and able to construct and launch 
their licensed satellites, resulting in new service to customers, including small businesses. 
1. Streamlining Earth Station Licensing
25. Thousands of small businesses in the United States are “earth station” operators.  Earth 
stations are antennas that transmit information to and receive transmissions from satellites.  During the 
Federal Communications Commission FCC 11-33
15
past three years, the Commission has continued to reform and streamline the licensing process for satellite 
earth stations.17 Many of these reforms were designed to streamline the licensing procedures for "non-
routine" earth station applications.  These earth stations are often used to provide broadband Internet 
access services.  Thus, these reforms facilitate the process by which entities, including small businesses, 
enter the market to provide broadband Internet access services.  This, in turn, increases competition in the 
market for broadband Internet access services, which benefits all the consumers of such services, 
including small business customers.  
26. In 2005, the Commission issued a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, to consider rule 
revisions that would increase the number of earth station applications eligible for "routine" processing.18  
These revisions were adopted in October 2008.19 Under the new rules, small antenna earth stations and 
earth stations operating with higher powers may now be eligible for routine processing in certain 
circumstances.  These reforms allow companies, including small businesses, to provide innovative 
services to customers, including small business customers, in a timelier manner than previously possible.
2. Streamlining 214 Procedures
27. Over the years the Commission has implemented numerous streamlining procedures to 
reduce administrative regulatory barriers to entry into the U.S. international telecommunications service 
market, many of which benefit small businesses. In particular, in 2004, as part of the 2002 Biennial 
Regulatory Review process,20 the Commission took steps to remove unnecessary burdens on international 
carriers by seeking comment on several potential changes to the international section 214 authorization 
process and to the rules relating to the provision of U.S.-international telecommunications services.21
28. In 2007, the Commission amended its rules to: (1) revise the procedures for 
discontinuance of an international service; (2) clarify that U.S.-authorized resale carriers can resell the 
U.S.-inbound international services of either U.S. carriers or foreign carriers; and (3) amend the 
ownership and other rules to clarify their intent.22 These amendments streamline the rules that apply to all 
carriers, including small businesses.
3. Spectrum
29. Wireless mobile telecommunications in the U.S., aided by the on-going joint efforts of 
industry and government, are developing into global systems.  Higher capacity systems, with enhanced 
and more flexible service capabilities, continue to develop.  Demand for these devices continues to 
escalate, and when coupled with the growing attractiveness of new high performance features, spectrum 
becomes an even more precious commodity. Internationally, within the schedule of ITU activities, the 
  
17 For a discussion of prior efforts to streamline the earth station licensing process, see Section 257 Triennial Report 
to Congress, Identifying and Eliminating Market Entry Barriers For Entrepreneurs and Other Small Businesses, 
Report, 19 FCC Rcd 3034, 3057-58 (2004) (2003 Triennial Review Report); Section 257 Triennial Report to 
Congress, Identifying and Eliminating Market Entry Barriers For Entrepreneurs and Other Small Businesses, 
Report, 22 FCC Rcd 21144-45 (2007) (2006 Triennial Review Report). 
18 Part 25 Sixth Report and Order and Third Further Notice, 20 FCC Rcd at 5621.     
19 2000 Biennial Regulatory Review -- Streamlining and Other Revisions of Part 25 of the Commission's Rules 
Governing the Licensing of, and Spectrum Usage by, Satellite Network Earth Stations and Space Stations, Eighth 
Report and Order, IB Docket No. 00-248, 23 FCC Rcd 15099, 15101-02 (2008) (Part 25 Eighth Report and Order).
20 2002 Biennial Regulatory Review, GC Docket No. 02-390, 18 FCC Rcd 2726 (2003).
21 Amendment of Parts 1 and 63 of the Commission’s Rules, IB Docket No. 04-47, Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, 
19 FCC Rcd 4231 (2004).  
22 Amendment of Parts 1 and 63 of the Commission’s Rules, IB Docket No. 04-47, Report and Order, 22 FCC Rcd 
11398, (2007) .  
Federal Communications Commission FCC 11-33
16
Commission works with other agencies to find additional spectrum for licensed and unlicensed, domestic
and global wireless services.  Additional spectrum utilization opportunities can arise either through 
efficiencies brought about by further advances in technology, i.e., by compressing existing user 
requirements into less bandwidth, or by the allocation of additional spectrum via domestic or global 
allocation processes.  The International Bureau coordinates many activities using both approaches.  
30. In particular, the Commission works closely with terrestrial and satellite wireless industry 
representatives preparing and attending ITU, the World Radiocommunication Conference (WRC) and 
study groups in the radio communication, telecommunication, and development sectors.  The WRC was 
held in 2007 and addressed, among other issues, spectrum allocations for wireless broadband services, 
protection of satellite services, and spectrum for public safety services. At the World 
Telecommunications Standardization Assembly (WTSA), held in 2008, the FCC worked with industry to 
counter proposals to add a surcharge to mobile termination rates for calls from developed countries to 
developing countries. In addition, FCC staff worked with industry at working level meetings to develop 
standards and protection criteria for wireless and satellite services, to develop proposals for spectrum 
allocations, and to promote studies on the use of wireless and satellite services to increase access to 
communications services in developing countries and to help in disaster preparedness and response. 
Experience proves that advances in technology and standardization ultimately lead to significant growth 
in small business opportunities, including export, whether it is in equipment design and manufacture, new 
software development, creative applications of existing intellectual property, or the provision of new 
services.  
4. Electronic Filing Initiatives  
31. To reduce paper filings and make use of new Internet technologies to improve processing 
efficiency, the International Bureau developed a consolidated licensing and application processing system 
known as the International Bureau Filing System (IBFS). Implementation of IBFS began in February 
1999, facilitating the following applications and filings: (1) space station authorization and special 
temporary authority; (2) earth station authorization and special temporary authority; (3) space and earth 
station application for modification of current authorization; (3) Section 214 international authorization 
and special temporary authority; (4) cable landing license; (5) accounting rate change; (6) recognized 
operating agency; (7) international signaling point code; (8) request for data network identification code; 
(9) and foreign carrier affiliation notification filings.
32. Since its launch, IBFS has continued to evolve, tapping into advances in technology and 
web design. In particular, the voluntary filing of non-docketed comments and petitions and other non-
application filings via the MyIBFS was added in 2008.23
5. Satellite Licensing 
33. In the 2006 Report, the Commission discussed the satellite licensing reforms adopted in 
the 2003 First Space Station Licensing Reform Order.24 The Commission noted that it had substantially 
revised its space station licensing procedures to expedite the space station licensing process and facilitate 
provision of satellite services to the public, including but not limited to small business customers.25 As 
part of these reforms, the Commission adopted a package of safeguards designed to ensure that licensees 
remain committed and able to construct and launch their licensed satellites.  One of those safeguards 
  
23 “International Bureau Announces New Filing Modules Within MyIBFS Electronic Filing System: Ability to File 
Additional Applications and Pleadings Electronically,” Public Notice, DA 08-2173 (IB rel. Sept. 29, 2008). 
24 Amendment of the Commission's Space Station Licensing Rules and Policies, First Report and Order and Further 
Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, IB Docket No. 02-34, 18 FCC Rcd 10760 (2003) (First Space Station Reform 
Order).
25 2006 Triennial Review Report, 22 FCC Rcd at 21150.
Federal Communications Commission FCC 11-33
17
requires licensees to meet a series of construction milestones set forth as conditions in their licenses.  
Failure to meet a milestone, without an extension for good cause shown, renders the license null and void 
by its own terms.  The orbital location and/or spectrum then becomes available for reassignment.26
34. During the period covered by this Report, 2007 to 2009, 12 satellites were launched and 
are now providing service to customers, including small business customers.  Further, the Commission 
reviewed the milestone compliance demonstrations of each operator with licensed but unlaunched 
satellites, and cancelled licenses when warranted.  Other licensees that decided not to proceed with 
implementation surrendered their licenses voluntarily.  From 2007 through 2009, 11 satellite licenses 
were surrendered or cancelled.  This made additional spectrum available for satellite operators willing and 
able to construct satellites and provide service to small business customers.  
C. Wireless Telecommunications Bureau
1. Bidding Credits for Broadband Radio Service
35. In 2008, the Commission directed the Wireless Telecommunications Bureau to relicense 
unassigned Broadband Radio Service (BRS) Basic Trading Area (BTA) licenses.27 In adopting 
competitive bidding rules for BRS, the Commission established discounts on winning bids placed by 
small business entities based on their average annual gross revenues over the past three years: a 15 
percent discount for bidders with annual revenues between $15 million and $40 million, a 25 percent 
discount for companies with annual revenues between $3 million and $15 million, and a 35 percent 
discount for companies with annual revenues of $3 million or less.28 Pursuant to the Commission’s 
direction, the Wireless Telecommunications Bureau conducted an auction of 78 BRS licenses in October 
2009.29 In Auction 86, five of the ten winning bidders were small businesses that claimed eligibility for 
bidding credits and won 13 of the 61 license sold in that auction.30 The use of bidding credits furthers the 
Congressional directive to promote the involvement of “designated entities” (i.e. small businesses, rural 
telephone companies, and businesses owned by women and minorities) in the provision of spectrum-
based services.31 With this directive, Congress sought to encourage diversity among service providers, as 
well as the rapid deployment of new technologies.  
2. Allowing Smaller Antennas in the 11 GHz Band
36. In September 2007, the Commission adopted amendments to Section 101.115 of its Rules
to permit the installation of smaller antennas by Fixed Service (FS) operators in the 10.7-11.7 GHz (11 
  
26 See Section 25.164 of the Commission's Rules, 47 C.F.R. § 25.164, First Space Station Reform Order, 18 FCC 
Rcd at 10827.
27 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, 
Third Order on Reconsideration and Sixth Memorandum Opinion and Order and Fourth Memorandum Opinion and 
Order and Second Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking and Declaratory Ruling, WT Docket No. 03-66, 23 FCC 
Rcd 5992, 6003-6004 ¶¶ 17-19 (2008).
28 Id. at 6007 ¶ 28.  See 47 C.F.R. §§ 1.2110(f)(2), 27.1218.
29 “Auction of Broadband Radio Service (BRS) Licenses Scheduled for October 27, 2009; Notice and Filing 
Requirements, Minimum Opening Bids, Upfront Payments, and Other Procedures for Auction 86,” Public Notice, 
24 FCC Rcd 8277 (2009) (“Auction 86 Procedures Public Notice”); “Auction of Broadband Radio Service Licenses 
Closes, Winning Bidders Announced for Auction 86,” Public Notice, 24 FCC Rcd 13572 (2009) (“Auction 86 
Closing Public Notice”).    
30 See Auction 86 Closing Public Notice, 24 FCC Rcd 13572 (2009).
31 47 U.S.C. § 309(j)(4)(D).
Federal Communications Commission FCC 11-33
18
GHz) band.32 This decision reduced the minimum antenna diameter from 1.22 meters to 0.61 meters, 
while protecting other users from experiencing any greater interference than they would otherwise have 
experienced from systems using larger antennas.33 The effect was to make 11 GHz transmission 
equipment significantly more affordable for users who could not otherwise have justified the costs 
involved: the smaller antennas not only cost less to manufacture and distribute; they are also less 
expensive to install because they weigh less and need less structural support, and they cost less to 
maintain because they are less subject to wind load and other destructive forces.34 The smaller antennas 
also raise fewer aesthetic objections, thereby facilitating easier compliance with local zoning and 
homeowner association rules and generating fewer objections.35
37. The deployment of smaller antennas could promote a wide range of fixed microwave 
applications that are not currently being provided for in the 11 GHz band for financial, aesthetic, and 
regulatory reasons.  In addition, a number of the commenting parties in the proceeding identified 
themselves as small business entities and expressed their need to deploy smaller antennas in the 11 GHz 
band in order to open up economic opportunities and to provide for a wide range of services, including, 
for example, the provision of backhaul services.
3. Accommodating Broader Bandwidth Channels in the 6 MHz Band
38. On June 29, 2009, the Commission released a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (NPRM) 
seeking comment on tripling the permissible bandwidth, to 30 megahertz, for terrestrial Fixed Service 
(FS) operations in the 6525-6875 MHz band (Upper 6 GHz Band).36 The Commission issued this 
proposal in response to a petition for rulemaking filed by the Fixed Wireless Communications Coalition 
(FWCC), a coalition of companies, associations, and individuals interested in terrestrial point-to-point 
microwave communications.
39. The Commission found that the Lower 6 GHz Band, where 30 megahertz transmissions 
were already allowed, is increasingly congested.  It noted that congestion in the Lower 6 GHz Band has 
led a number of applicants to seek and obtain waivers to operate FS stations in the Upper 6 GHz Band 
with bandwidths greater than 10 megahertz, the amount allowed under existing rules.  While the waiver 
process has provided an alternative for applicants seeking wider bandwidths in the Upper 6 GHz, the 
waiver process has the disadvantages of delay and additional preparation costs.  The Commission’s Rules 
provide that applicants for FS licenses may operate their proposed stations pursuant to conditional 
authority at their own risk during the pendency of their applications if certain conditions are met.37 One 
of those conditions is that the applicant has successfully completed the frequency coordination procedures 
specified in Section 101.103 of the Commission’s Rules.38 Conditional authority is not available, 
however, for applicants seeking rule waivers.39 If adopted, therefore, the proposed rule changes would 
enable applicants to begin operations as soon as they complete the process of coordinating with existing 
licensees to ensure that they will not cause interference.
  
32 In the Matter of Amendment of Part 101 of the Commission’s Rules to Modify Antenna Requirements for the 
10.7-11.7 GHz Band, WT Docket No. 07-54, Report and Order, 22 FCC Rcd 17153 (2007).
33 Id. at 17160 ¶ 9.
34 Id. at 17160 ¶ 11.
35 Id.
36 Amendment of Part 101 of the Commission’s Rules to Accommodate 30 Megahertz Channels in the 6525-6875 
MHz Band, et al., Notice of Proposed Rulemaking and Order, FCC 09-58 (released Jun. 29, 2009).
37 47 C.F.R. § 101.31(b)(1).
38 47 C.F.R. § 101.31(b)(1)(i).
39 47 C.F.R. § 101.31(b)(1)(iii).
Federal Communications Commission FCC 11-33
19
40. The Commission also proposed to increase by 50 percent the number of channel pairs 
eligible for conditional authorizations in the 21.8-22.0 GHz and 23.0-23.2 GHz band (23 GHz band).  The 
Commission was able to make this proposal in conjunction with the National Telecommunications and 
Information Administration (NTIA), which manages the Federal government’s shared use of the 23 GHz 
band.
41. Allowing conditional authority allows applicants to put spectrum to use more quickly.  It 
also saves applicants from having to take additional time and money to prepare a request for waiver of the 
Commission’s Rules.  Such additional time and expense may be particularly disadvantageous to small 
businesses.  Furthermore, because waiver requests would be required, applicants cannot commence 
operation until the Commission grants their waiver requests and applications.  The resulting delays can 
make it more difficult for applicants to meet their communications needs or the needs of their customers.  
With respect to the 23 GHz Band, the alternative approach would be to deny conditional authority on the 
two additional channel pairs and require applicants to wait until the Commission grants their applications 
before they can commence service.  Again, the resulting delays can make it more difficult for applicants 
to meet their communications needs or the needs of their customers.
4. Antenna Structure Lighting Inspection
42. Section 17.47 (b) of the Commission’s rules requires that the owner of any antenna 
structure which is registered with the Commission and has been assigned lighting specifications “[s]hall 
inspect at intervals not to exceed 3 months all automatic or mechanical control devices, indicators, and 
alarm systems associated with the antenna structure lighting to insure that such apparatus is functioning 
properly.”40 Since January 1, 2007, the Commission and WTB have granted waivers of section 17.47(b) 
to permit several tower owners to perform these inspections on an annual rather than quarterly basis.41  
These companies were able to show that the quarterly on-site inspections were unnecessary because of the 
efficacy of their new, state of the art tower monitoring technologies.  In addition, WTB has established 
streamlined processes through which tower owners utilizing certain specific, pre-approved monitoring 
systems may request and obtain such waivers.42 The granting of these waivers not only eliminates the 
quarterly cost and person-hour loss inherent in the quarterly inspection process for these businesses, but 
improves aviation safety through the promotion of tower-light monitoring innovation.  The availability of 
such waivers, and the streamlined process that is available to many tower owners, enables small 
businesses that adopt these advanced technologies to better compete by easing the regulatory burdens on 
these companies.
  
40 47 C.F.R. § 17.47(b).
41 In the Matter of Requests of American Tower Corporation and Global Signal, Inc., to Waive Section 17.47(b) of 
the Commission’s Rules, WT Docket No. 05-326, Memorandum Opinion and Order, 22 FCC Rcd 9743 (2007) 
(ATC/GSI Waiver Order); Petition of Optasite Towers L.L.C. for Waiver of Section 17.47(b) of the Commission’s 
Rules, Memorandum Opinion and Order, 22 FCC Rcd 18456 (WTB 2007) (Optasite Waiver Order); In the Matter 
of Crown Castle USA Inc. Request for Waiver of 47 C.F.R. § 17.47(b), Memorandum Opinion and Order, 22 FCC
Rcd 21881 (WTB 2007) (Crown Castle Waiver Order); In the Matter of Request of Global Tower LLC for Waiver 
of 47 C.F.R. § 17.47(b), Memorandum Opinion and Order, 23 FCC Rcd 16531 (WTB 2008) (Global Tower Waiver 
Order); In the Matter of TowerSentry LLC Request for Waiver of 47 C.F.R. § 17.47(b) and Joint Petition of 
Diamond Communications LLC for Waiver of 47 C.F.R. § 17.47(b), Memorandum Opinion and Order, 24 FCC Rcd 
10774 (WTB 2009); In the Matter of Request of Mobilitie, LLC for waiver of 47 C.F.R. § 17.47(b) and Flash 
Technology Request for waiver of 47 C.F.R. § 17.47, Memorandum Opinion and Order, 24 FCC Rcd 11949 (WTB 
2009).
42 In the Matter of TowerSentry LLC Request for Waiver of 47 C.F.R. § 17.47(b) and Joint Petition of Diamond 
Communications LLC for Waiver of 47 C.F.R. § 17.47(b), Memorandum Opinion and Order, 24 FCC Rcd 10774 
(WTB 2009); In the Matter of Request of Mobilitie, LLC for waiver of 47 C.F.R. § 17.47(b) and Flash Technology 
Request for waiver of 47 C.F.R. § 17.47, Memorandum Opinion and Order, 24 FCC Rcd 11949 (WTB 2009).
Federal Communications Commission FCC 11-33
20
5. 700 MHz Second Report and Order
43. The 700 MHz Band spectrum, which runs from 698-806 MHz and had been occupied by 
television broadcasters, has been made available for other wireless services, including public safety and 
commercial services, as a result of the digital television (DTV) transition.  In August 2007, the 
Commission released a 700 MHz Second Report and Order.43 Several of the measures adopted by the 
Commission in the 700 MHz Second Report and Order serve to facilitate market entry by small entities.  
For instance, the Commission revised the 700 MHz band plan to provide a mix of geographic service area 
licenses and spectrum block sizes for the 62 megahertz of commercial spectrum to be auctioned.44 This 
revised band plan improved the opportunity for small entities to obtain valuable wireless spectrum by 
providing smaller licensing areas that better meet the needs of small entities, while avoiding the 
transaction costs associated with obtaining access to spectrum in the secondary market.45
44. In the 700 MHz Second Report and Order, the Commission also replaced the “substantial 
service” requirements for the 700 MHz Band commercial licenses with significantly more stringent 
performance requirements in order to promote the provision of innovative services to consumers 
throughout the license areas, including in rural areas.46 The performance requirements are intended to 
discourage larger entities from purchasing spectrum for the purpose of warehousing it, and thus, may 
provide small entities with a greater chance of obtaining valuable spectrum.47 Additionally, the keep-
what-you-use rule ensures that spectrum covering areas that are not adequately built out is returned to the 
Commission and others are given an opportunity to acquire licenses for this spectrum.48 Because the 
license areas returned to the Commission under the keep-what-you-use rule are likely to be smaller in 
nature, this rule provides small entities with an additional opportunity to obtain valuable wireless 
spectrum.49 Furthermore, the 700 MHz Second Report and Order modified Section 27.15(d) of the 
Commission’s rules regarding partitioning and disaggregation, which will allow smaller or newly-formed 
entities to enter the market for the first time, because they will be able to negotiate for portions of original 
licenses at costs that are proportionately less than the entire license.50 Taking a measured step to 
encourage additional innovation and consumer choice at a critical stage in the evolution of wireless 
broadband services, the 700 MHz Second Report and Order also required licensees of the Upper 700 
  
43 See Service Rules for the 698-746, 747-762 and 777-792 MHz Bands, WT Docket No. 06-150, Revision of the 
Commission’s Rules to Ensure Compatibility with Enhanced 911 Emergency Calling Systems, CC Docket No. 94-
102, Section 68.4(a) of the Commission’s Rules Governing Hearing Aid-Compatible Telephones, WT Docket No. 
01-309, Biennial Regulatory Review – Amendment of Parts 1, 22, 24, 27, and 90 to Streamline and Harmonize 
Various Rules Affecting Wireless Radio Services, WT Docket 03-264, Former Nextel Communications, Inc. Upper 
700 MHz Guard Band Licenses and Revisions to Part 27 of the Commission’s Rules, WT Docket No. 06-169, 
Implementing a Nationwide, Broadband, Interoperable Public Safety Network in the 700 MHz Band, PS Docket No. 
06-229, Development of Operational, Technical and Spectrum Requirements for Meeting Federal, State and Local 
Public Safety Communications Requirements Through the Year 2010, WT Docket No. 96-86, Declaratory Ruling on 
Reporting Requirement under Commission’s Part 1 Anti-Collusion Rule, WT Docket No. 07-166, Second Report 
and Order, 22 FCC Rcd 15289 (2007) (“700 MHz Second Report and Order”) recon. pending.
44 Id. at 15315-16 ¶ 62.
45 Id. at 15550, App. C ¶ 30.
46 Id. at 15348 ¶ 153.
47 700 MHz Second Report and Order, 22 FCC Rcd at 15551, App. C ¶ 33.
48 Id. at 15551, App. C ¶ 35
49 Id.
50 Id. at 15552, App. C ¶ 41.
Federal Communications Commission FCC 11-33
21
MHz C Block to provide open platforms for devices and applications.51 The open platform requirement 
for devices and applications provides additional opportunities for small entities to participate in the device 
and application market, since such a requirement makes it easier for customers, device manufacturers, 
third-party application developers, and others to use or develop devices and applications made by small 
entities on the network of the C Block licensee.52
45. With regard to auctions-related issues, the 700 MHz Second Report and Order 
implemented specific auction procedures to improve the opportunity for small businesses to successfully 
bid on 700 MHz Band licenses.  Because bidding information could be used by incumbents to deter or 
exclude new entrants, the Commission adopted anonymous bidding procedures for the auction of the 700 
MHz licenses.53
6. Roaming
46. Roaming issues are of considerable importance to small businesses.  Roaming occurs 
when the subscriber of one commercial mobile radio service (“CMRS”) carrier utilizes the facilities of 
another CMRS carrier, with which the subscriber has no direct pre-existing service or financial 
relationship, to place an outgoing call, to receive an incoming call, or to continue a call in-progress.54  
Roaming occurs most often when a subscriber places or receives a call while physically located outside of 
the service area of its “home” CMRS provider.55 Roaming services, particularly “automatic roaming” –
through which the roaming subscriber is able to originate or terminate a call without taking any special 
actions – have become widely available.  While most CMRS carriers have reached automatic roaming 
agreements with each other, some regional and rural carriers have alleged that nationwide carriers have 
not been willing to agree to reasonable roaming terms and conditions when negotiating with their smaller 
competitors.56 Rural operators have expressed to the Commission that availability of automatic roaming 
arrangements is crucial to a small carrier’s ability to compete, because small carriers have limited service 
areas and the ability to roam on other carriers’ networks is limited by technology—specifically, 
consumers can roam only on networks that use the same technical standard (CDMA, TDMA, GSM, 
iDEN) as their home carrier.
47. Partly in response to the concerns of small carriers, the Commission adopted the Roaming 
Report and Order and Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking in August 2007.  The Roaming Report 
and Order found that roaming is a common carrier obligation for CMRS carriers.  Moreover, under the 
automatic roaming rule adopted in the Roaming Report and Order, CMRS carriers are required to 
provide, under reasonable and nondiscriminatory terms and conditions, automatic roaming services, upon 
reasonable request, to any requesting technologically compatible CMRS carrier outside of the requesting 
carrier’s “home market” (any geographic location where the home carrier has a wireless license or 
  
51 Id. at 15361 ¶ 201.
52 Id. at 15552, App. C ¶ 42.
53 700 MHz Second Report and Order, 22 FCC Rcd at 15553, App. C ¶ 47.
54 See Reexamination of Roaming Obligations of Commercial Mobile Radio Service Providers, WT Docket No. 05-
265, Report and Order and Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, 22 FCC Rcd 15817, 15819 ¶ 5 (2007) 
(“Roaming Report and Order” and “Roaming Further Notice” respectively) recon. pending.
55 See generally Roaming Report and Order, 22 FCC Rcd at 15819-20 ¶¶ 5-6.  See also Section 22.99 of the 
Commission’s rules which describes a “roamer” as “[a] mobile station receiving service from a station or system in 
the Public Mobile Services other than one to which it is a subscriber.”  47 C.F.R. § 22.99.
56 See generally Reexamination of Roaming Obligations of Commercial Mobile Radio Service Providers, WT 
Docket No. 05-265, Report and Order and Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, 22 FCC Rcd 15817 (2007) 
(“Roaming Report and Order” and “Roaming Further Notice” respectively).
Federal Communications Commission FCC 11-33
22
spectrum usage rights that could be used to provide CMRS).57 In the Roaming Further Notice, the 
Commission sought comment on whether an automatic roaming obligation should be extended to data 
services that are classified as information services and services that are not CMRS.58  
7. Hearing Aid Compatibility
48. The Commission’s wireless hearing aid compatibility rules59 enhance the ability of 
persons with hearing disabilities to access digital wireless telecommunications.  Taking into account a 
consensus proposal developed by industry and consumer representatives, the Commission adopted its 
Hearing Aid Compatibility First Report and Order60 in February 2008 to update its hearing aid 
compatibility rules, including new deployment requirements that permit manufacturers and service 
providers to offer either specified numbers or percentages of handset models that meet hearing aid 
compatibility standards.  Under the percentage option, service providers and manufacturers with smaller 
product lines, including many small businesses, are relieved of the burden of having to offer the numbers 
of hearing aid-compatible models required of their larger competitors.  Because small business service 
providers may have few handset options and more difficulty in obtaining the newest offerings than their 
nationwide counterparts, the Commission extended future hearing aid compatibility deployment deadlines 
for non-nationwide service providers by three months.  The Commission also retained the existing de 
minimis exception61 to exempt companies with very small product lines from hearing aid compatibility 
requirements.
49. To facilitate enforcement and public information, the Commission also extended and 
modified its annual hearing aid compatibility reporting requirements for manufacturers and service 
providers.  Pursuant to the Commission’s delegation of authority, WTB promulgated a new electronic 
FCC Form 655 for mandatory use in submitting these reports.62 In addition to facilitating the 
Commission’s compilation of data from the reports and the availability of information to the public, the 
new system eases the burden on manufacturers and service providers of complying with the reporting 
  
57 47 U.S.C. § 20.3; see Roaming Report and Order, 22 FCC Rcd at 15826, 15835 ¶¶ 23, 48.
58 Roaming Further Notice, 22 FCC Rcd at 15845-46 ¶ 79.  Several parties petitioned for reconsideration of certain 
aspects of the Roaming Report and Order.   In April 2010, the FCC adopted an Order on Reconsideration
addressing the petitions for reconsideration and also issued a Second Notice of Proposed Rulemaking seeking 
additional comment on whether to adopt an automatic data roaming obligation.  Reexamination of Roaming 
Obligations of Commercial Mobile Radio Service Providers, WT Docket No. 05-265, Order on Reconsideration and 
Second Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, 25 FCC Rcd 4181 (2010).
59 47 C.F.R. § 20.19.
60 Amendment Section 68.4(a) of the Commission’s Rules Governing Hearing Aid-Compatible Mobile Handsets 
Telephones, WT Docket No. 07-250, Petition of American National Standards Institute Accredited Standards 
Committee C63 (EMC) ANSI ASC C63®s. 01-309, 06-203, First Report and Order and Second Further Notice of 
Proposed Rulemaking, 23 FCC Rcd 3406 (2008) (“Hearing Aid Compatibility First Report and Order”).
61 Under this exception, manufacturers and service providers that offer two or fewer digital wireless handset models 
in the U.S. per air interface are exempt from hearing aid compatibility requirements (other than certain reporting 
requirements), and those offering three handset models per air interface are required to offer one hearing aid-
compatible model.  See 47 C.F.R. § 20.19(e).
62 See “The Wireless Telecommunications Bureau Receives Clearance from the Office of Management and Budget 
(OMB) to Make Mandatory the Use of Electronic FCC Form 655 for Hearing Aid Compatibility Status Reports,” 
Public Notice, 24 FCC Rcd 7798 (WTB 2009); “The Wireless Telecommunications Bureau Reminds Manufacturers 
and Service Providers of Their Obligation To Report on the Status of Compliance with the Commission’s Hearing 
Aid Compatibility Requirements,” Public Notice, 23 FCC Rcd 18078 (WTB 2008); “The Wireless 
Telecommunications Bureau Receives Clearance from the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) to Make 
Mandatory the Use of Electronic FCC Form 655 for Hearing Aid Compatibility Status Reports,” Public Notice, DA 
09-1298 (WTB rel. June 10, 2009).
Federal Communications Commission FCC 11-33
23
requirements.  For example, the system ensures the appropriate completion of required fields, and it stores 
data from one year’s submission for easy copying into the next year’s report.  In addition, the electronic 
accessibility of manufacturers’ reports gives service providers ready access to information regarding the 
hearing aid compatibility status of the handset models that they offer.  By easing the burden of 
compliance, the electronic reporting system reduces entry barriers for small businesses.
8. Historic Preservation Review
50. The National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) requires all federal agencies to 
implement procedures to make environmental consideration a necessary part of an agency’s decision-
making process.63 As a licensing agency, the Commission complies with NEPA by requiring 
Commission licensees and applicants to review their proposed actions for environmental consequences.  
Under Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act (NHPA), federal agencies are required to 
consider the effects of federal undertakings on historic properties.64 To comply with the NHPA, the 
Commission requires its licensees and applicants to follow the procedures set forth in the Nationwide 
Programmatic Agreement Regarding the Section 106 National Historic Preservation Act Review Process 
(NPA).65
51. In October 2008, WTB introduced the Electronic Section 106 (E-106) System to facilitate 
and improve compliance with the process required under the NPA.66 The E-106 System is a voluntary 
system designed to save users time and resources by automating and expediting the exchange of 
information and correspondence in the Section 106 process.  Specifically, the E-106 System permits 
licensees and applicants electronically to submit the forms required under the NPA to State Historic 
Preservation Officers, federally recognized Indian Tribes, Native Hawaiian organizations (NHOs), and 
other consulting parties.  These parties may in turn use the E-106 System to comment on or otherwise 
respond to the submissions.  Among the benefits of the System to licensees and applicants are that it 
standardizes and streamlines submission of the required forms, prevents filing of submission packets if all 
required fields are not complete, provides automatic on-line notification of developments during the 
review process, and reduces the time and resources that would otherwise be devoted to the exchange of 
correspondence during that process.  The E-106 System thereby reduces entry barriers by making it easier 
for small businesses to complete the required review process.
52. WTB similarly facilitates completion of Section 106 review, and thereby creates 
conditions under which small businesses may more easily compete, through its continued administration 
of the Tower Construction Notification System (TCNS).  TCNS allows tower constructors electronically 
to identify and initiate communications with Tribes and NHOs that have asserted a traditional religious 
and cultural interest in historic properties within the geographic area of a proposed tower.  It provides a 
means for Tribes and NHOs to respond electronically to the applicant’s notification, and permits Tribes 
and NHOs efficiently to provide other information about their review process.  WTB continues to 
encourage Tribes to narrow their geographic areas and to adopt efficient review policies.
9. Transition to 6.25 kHz Technology Delayed
53. In 2003, the Commission established deadlines for certain private land mobile radio 
(PLMR) licensees that operate on 25 kHz-bandwidth channels to transition to equipment utilizing 12.5 
kHz channels, or achieving equivalent efficiency.  The Commission also sought comment on whether 
  
63 42 U.S.C. § 4332.
64 16 U.S.C. § 470f.
65 47 C.F.R. Part 1, App. C; see 47 C.F.R. §1.1307(a)(4).
66 See “The Wireless Telecommunications Bureau Announces the Introduction of a Streamlined Process and 
Automated System to Expedite the Commission’s Review of Proposed Construction Projects,” Public Notice, 23 
FCC Rcd 13560 (WTB 2008).
Federal Communications Commission FCC 11-33
24
those private land mobile radio (PLMR) licensees should be required to transition at some later date to 
6.25 kHz technology.67 In 2004, the Commission sought comment, on a proposal68 to defer or eliminate 
the requirement in Sections 90.203(j)(4)-(5) of the Commission’s Rules69 that certain applications for 
equipment authorizations received on or after January 1, 2005, must specify 6.25 kHz capability.  It also 
stayed the January 1, 2005, compliance date.70
54. In its Third Report and Order, the Commission addressed the comments and reply 
comments received in response to the Second Further Notice and the Third Further Notice.71 The 
Commission delayed the implementation of requiring certain PLMR licensees to transition to a more 
spectrum efficient, 6.25 kHz technology.  The delay, until January 1, 2011, provided relief to equipment 
manufacturers and users, large and small alike.  The new compliance date balanced reducing the 
immediate burden on those small manufacturers and operators and encouraging the development and use 
of spectrally efficient technology.
10. More Efficient and Flexible Spectrum Use for Part 90 Licensees
55. In its Notice of Proposed Rulemaking and Order,72 the Commission initiated a 
proceeding to propose miscellaneous rule changes to Part 90 of the Commission’s Rules,73 and to related 
rules in other rule parts.  The Commission sought comment regarding particular changes to the rules 
governing the 4.9 GHz band and the Wireless Medical Telemetry Service, which shares spectrum with 
Part 90 operations.  The Commission also solicited comment on other potential Part 90 rule changes, 
including suggestions to revise or eliminate provisions that are duplicative, outmoded or otherwise 
unnecessary.  Finally, the Commission took the opportunity to make certain minor editorial amendments 
to Part 90 to correct errors or omissions of publication, eliminate duplicative language, or harmonize Part 
90 provisions to other rule sections.
56. This proceeding is part of the Commission’s continuing effort to provide clear and 
concise rules that facilitate new wireless technologies, devices and services, and are easy for the public to 
  
67 Implementation of Sections 309(j) and 337 of the Communications Act of 1934 as Amended; Promotion of 
Spectrum Efficient Technologies on Certain Part 90 Frequencies, Second Report and Order and Second Further 
Notice of Proposed Rule Making and Order, WT Docket No. 99-87, RM-9332, 18 FCC Rcd 3034 (2003). In March 
2010, the FCC adopted a Second Report and Order and Second Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking that 
addressed the proposed rule changes in the Notice of Proposed Rulemaking.  Amendment of Part 90 of the 
Commission’s Rules, Second Report and Order and Second Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, WP Docket 
No. 07-100, 25 FCC Rcd 2479 (2010).  In May 2010, the FCC adopted an Order on Reconsideration clarifying the 
Report and Order.  Amendment of Part 90 of the Commission’s Rules, Order on Reconsideration, WP Docket No. 
07-100, 25 FCC Rcd 5105 (2010).
68 Joint Petition of E.F. Johnson Company, Kenwood U.S.A. (Kenwood) and Motorola, Inc. (Motorola) to Defer 
Enforcement of Section 90.203(j)(5) of the Commission’s Rules, WT Docket No. 99-87, RM-9332 (filed July 14, 
2004) (Petition to Defer).
69 47 C.F.R. § 90.203(j)(4)-(5).
70 Implementation of Sections 309(j) and 337 of the Communications Act of 1934 as Amended; Promotion of 
Spectrum Efficient Technologies on Certain Part 90 Frequencies, Third Memorandum Opinion and Order, Third 
Further Notice of Proposed Rule Making and Order, WT Docket No. 99-87, RM-9332, 19 FCC Rcd 25045 (2004).
71 Implementation of Sections 309(j) and 337 of the Communications Act of 1934 as Amended; Promotion of 
Spectrum Efficient Technologies on Certain Part 90 Frequencies, Third Report and Order, WT Docket No. 99-87, 
RM-9332, 22 FCC Rcd 6083 (2007).
72 Amendment of Part 90 of the Commission’s Rules, Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, WP Docket No. 07-100,  22 
FCC Rcd 9595 (2007).
73 See 47 C.F.R. Part 90.
Federal Communications Commission FCC 11-33
25
understand.74 The proposed Part 90 rule changes are designed to promote flexibility and more efficient 
use of the spectrum, reduce administrative burdens on both the Commission and licensees, and allow 
licensees to better meet their communication needs.  The licensees include public safety agencies, 
businesses that use radio only for their internal operations, utilities, transportation entities, and medical 
service providers as well as those who offer paging and Specialized Mobile Radio services that offer 
customers communications that are interconnected to the public switched network.
11. Domestic Implementation of Automatic Identification Systems (AIS)
57. In its Second Report and Order in WT Docket No. 04-344,75 the Commission adopted 
measures for the domestic implementation of Automatic Identification Systems (AIS), an advanced 
marine vessel tracking and navigation technology that can significantly enhance the Nation’s homeland 
security as well as maritime safety.  Among other things, these measures would reduce costs to 
manufacturers by eliminating the possible need to design devices to two potentially conflicting standards, 
and would reduce costs to small business and recreational boat users of the devices both from a pass-
through of manufacturers’ cost savings and by eliminating the possible need to fit their vessels with more 
than one Class B AIS device if they travel outside U.S. territorial waters, i.e., removing the need to carry 
one Class B AIS device to function within U.S. territorial waters, and another Class B AIS device to 
function in international waters or other nations’ territorial waters.
12. Site-Based Licensing Retained for Business and Industrial Land 
Transportation
58. In its Report and Order in WT Docket 05-62,76 the Commission retained the current site-
based licensing paradigm for the 199 channels allocated to the Business and Industrial Land 
Transportation (B/ILT) Pool in the 896-901 MHz/935-940 MHz (900 MHz) band77 and declined to adopt 
the geographic area/channel block licensing and competitive bidding rules proposed in the Notice of 
Proposed Rulemaking.78 The Commission found that the adverse effects of changing the licensing system 
on all current and future licensees in this service, and particularly small businesses, were too great.  Also 
established was a generally-applicable interference protection standard for the 900 MHz B/ILT Pool that 
will effectively eliminate costs that all licensees, including small entities, would incur to resolve any 
interference complaints.
  
74 See, e.g., 1998 Biennial Regulatory Review – 47 C.F.R. Part 90 – Private Land Mobile Radio Services, Report 
and Order and Further Notice of Proposed Rule Making, WT Docket No. 98-182, 15 FCC Rcd 16673 (2000) 
(Biennial Review R&O); see also Biennial Regulatory Review – Amendment of Parts 1, 22, 24, 27 and 90 to 
Streamline and Harmonize Various Rules Affecting Wireless Radio Services, Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, WT 
Docket No. 03-264, 19 FCC Rcd 708 (2004).
75 Amendment of the Commission’s Rules Regarding Maritime Automatic Identification Systems, Second Report 
and Order, WT Docket No. 04-344, 23 FCC Rcd 13711 (2008).
76 See Amendment of Part 90 of the Commission’s Rules To Provide for Flexible Use of the 896-901 MHz and 935-
940 MHz Bands Allotted to the Business and Industrial Land Transportation Pool, Report and Order, WT Docket 
No. 05-62, 23 FCC Rcd 15856 (2008).
77 47 C.F.R. § 90.617(c), Table C – Business/Industrial/Land Transportation Category 896-901/935-940 MHz Band 
Channels (199 Channels) (2006).
78 See Amendment of Part 90 of the Commission’s Rules To Provide for Flexible Use of the 896-901 MHz and 935-
940 MHz Bands Allotted to the Business and Industrial Land Transportation Pool, WT Docket No. 05-62; 
Oppositions and Petitions for Reconsideration of the 900 MHz Band Freeze Notice, DA 04-3013, Notice of 
Proposed Rulemaking and Memorandum Opinion and Order, 20 FCC Rcd 3814 (2005).  
Federal Communications Commission FCC 11-33
26
13. Rule Streamlining Extended to Benefit Advanced Wireless Services (AWS) 
and Personal Communications Services (PCS)
59. In its Third Report and Order in WT Docket 03-264,79 the Commission took further steps 
to streamline and harmonize its rules related to Wireless Radio Services (WRS) by adopting 
modifications to the rules governing radiated power limits for Personal Communications Services (PCS) 
and Advanced Wireless Services (AWS).  Specifically, whereas the existing rules set the radiated power 
limits in terms of watts-per-emission regardless of bandwidth size, the Commission will now permit use 
of a Power Spectral Density (PSD) model, with radiated power levels calculated on a watts-per-megahertz 
basis, when operating with greater than 1 MHz bandwidth.  The PSD approach offers more flexibility, is 
more technologically neutral, and will better accommodate newer technologies employing wider 
bandwidths.  Also, the PSD model will potentially reduce infrastructure costs, thus enabling rural service 
providers to offer enhanced service in these areas.  The Commission also will now permit PCS and AWS 
licensees to measure and express radiated power on an average rather than peak basis.  This approach is 
more realistic and more appropriate for newer wireless technologies producing emissions with sub-
microsecond power spikes.
14. Information Provided on Auction and Licensing Processes
60. Finally, the Bureau provided information on auction and licensing processes to all sectors 
of the wireless telecommunications community and the general public in various ways.  Information was 
disseminated through trade show booths, webpages, Auctions/ULS Hot Line, pre-auction seminars, and a 
dedicated Auction Support telephone line.
15. Recent Auctions and Provisions for Small Businesses 
61. Since January 1, 2007, the Commission has conducted eleven spectrum auctions and in 
all but one auction offered bidding credits to participants in auctions of wireless licenses who qualified as 
a small business or participants in auctions of broadcast construction permits who qualified as a new 
entrant.  Bidding credits provide a 15, 25 or 35 percent discount on winning bids that help to reduce 
market entry barriers for providers of wireless communications or broadcast services, including small 
businesses and other new entrants.
62. In the fifty auctions completed by the Commission to date that offered small business 
bidding credits, 75% of the qualified bidders that identified themselves as rural telephone companies were 
eligible for bidding credits, and 75% of all qualified bidders were eligible for bidding credits.  
63. The Commission has continued to adopt band plans that address the needs of smaller 
businesses for different types of spectrum blocks and geographic license areas.  By designating a mix of 
geographic areas and spectrum block sizes, including spectrum for licensing over smaller and rural 
geographic areas, the Commission has promoted access to spectrum by smaller carriers, new entrants, and 
rural telephone companies.  The relatively smaller spectrum blocks and geographic license areas provide 
opportunities for new entrants and other small companies by offering spectrum in amounts and license 
area sizes that may be more closely aligned with entities whose business plans may require less spectrum.  
In five of the six auctions of wireless licenses conducted since January 2007, licenses for at least one 
block of spectrum were offered in small geographic areas.
64. The Commission facilitated the participation of small businesses in the provision of 
spectrum-based services through its implementation and enforcement of improved rules governing these 
“designated entities” to better deter unqualified entities from attempting to circumvent eligibility 
requirements.  In 2006, the Commission adopted the CSEA Second Report and Order and Second Further 
  
79 Biennial Regulatory Review -- Amendment of Parts 1, 22, 24, 27, and 90 to Streamline and Harmonize Various 
Rules Affecting Wireless Radio Services, Third Report and Order, WT Docket No. 03-264, 23 FCC Rcd 5319 
(2008).
Federal Communications Commission FCC 11-33
27
Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (petitions for reconsideration pending), in which it strengthened its unjust 
enrichment rules, leasing requirements, reporting obligations, and auditing requirements to ensure that the 
recipients of designated entity benefits are bona fide small businesses that use their licenses directly to 
provide facilities-based telecommunications services for the benefit of the public.80 The Commission 
adopted rules to limit the award of designated entity benefits to any applicant or licensee that has 
“impermissible material relationships” or “attributable material relationships” created by certain 
agreements with one or more entities for the lease or resale of its spectrum capacity.81 The Commission 
also adopted stricter unjust enrichment rules, including a ten-year unjust enrichment schedule for licenses 
acquired with bidding credits, to discourage speculation by investors in designated entities and by non-
designated entities that hope to benefit ultimately from the discounted spectrum licenses.82 The 
Commission also clarified how it will implement its rules concerning audits, and refined its rules with 
respect to the reporting obligations of designated entities to ensure its continued ability to safeguard the 
award of designated entity benefits.83
16. The Auction Process
65. With two exceptions, prior to the start of each Commission spectrum auction conducted 
since January 2007, the Wireless Telecommunications Bureau continued its standard practice and held a 
seminar for bidders to provide additional information about auction procedures.84 These seminars were 
offered free-of-charge and provided anyone interested in specific auctions the opportunity to see 
presentations on radio service and auction rules and observe a demonstration of the competitive bidding 
system.  The Commission also made its pre-auction seminars available for viewing live over the 
Commission’s Internet site.  A recording of the seminar presentations was also made available for 
playback from the FCC's Web site following the seminar.85  
66. The Commission used a web-based auction application filing and auction bidding system 
(the Integrated Spectrum Auction System or “ISAS”) that facilitates participation in its spectrum auctions 
by a wide range of potentially qualified applicants.  The Commission’s Internet-based design provides a 
user-friendly bidding environment for auction participants.  ISAS includes FCC Form 175 application 
enhancements — such as automated checking of data accuracy, improved application search 
functionality, and integration with FCC Form 602 — as well as bidding system changes for easier 
  
80 Implementation of the Commercial Spectrum Enhancement Act and Modernization of the Commission’s 
Competitive Bidding Rules and Procedures, Second Report and Order and Second Further Notice of Proposed Rule 
Making, 21 FCC Rcd 4753 (2006).
81 Id. at 4759-65 ¶¶ 15-30.
82 Id. at 4765-68 ¶¶ 31-41.
83 Id. at 4769-70 ¶¶ 46-50.
84 There were no seminars prior to Auctions 68 and 77.  Auction 68 was an auction of nine FM broadcast 
construction permits that had originally been offered in Auction 37 and/or Auction 62.  These permits were offered 
in Auction 68 because a bidder had either withdrawn a high bid during one of the previous auctions or a winning 
bidder had defaulted on a construction permit after the close of the auction. Auction 68 applicants were provided 
instructions for viewing online a recording of the Auction 62 seminar.  See “Auction of FM Broadcast Construction 
Permits Scheduled for January 10, 2007; Notice and Filing Requirements, Minimum Opening Bids, Upfront 
Payments, and Other Procedures for Auction No. 66,” Public Notice, 21 FCC Rcd 11,144 (2006).  Auction 77 was 
an auction of Cellular Radiotelephone Service licenses covering two different unserved areas, for which 
participation was limited to the four parties that had previously filed mutually exclusive applications proposing 
service to specific unserved areas.  See “Closed Auction of Licenses for Cellular Unserved Service Areas Scheduled 
for June 17, 2008; Notice and Filing Requirements, Minimum Opening Bids, Upfront Payments, and Other 
Procedures for Auction 77,” Public Notice, 23 FCC Rcd 6670 (2008).  
85 See, e.g., http://wireless.fcc.gov/auctions/default.htm?job=auction_seminar&id=73.
Federal Communications Commission FCC 11-33
28
navigation, customizable results, and enhanced bidding features.  The bidding system allows for multiple 
types of auctions (e.g., simultaneous single or multiple round auctions or simultaneous multiple round 
auctions with package bidding, and auctions with full information disclosure or limited information 
disclosure).  As of December 2009, nineteen auctions have been completed using ISAS.  
67. As a service to auction participants, an Auction Support telephone line was available to 
assist with auction-specific questions during the course of auction events.  Additionally, auction 
participants were able to place bids telephonically.  This feature enhances the auction program by 
allowing bidders to call in their bids if they were either unable to access their computer, or if they were 
unfamiliar with the software and preferred auction experts to assist them.  Telephonic bidding also 
enhanced the accessibility of the auction bidding system to individuals with disabilities. 
17. 700 MHz Proceeding and 700 MHz Auction
68. In the 700 MHz Second Report and Order, the Commission adopted a revised band plan
for 62 megahertz of the commercial spectrum in the 700 MHz band that included a mix of small, regional, 
and large geographic service area licenses – CMAs, EAs, and REAGs respectively.86 As a result, a total 
of 24 megahertz of spectrum in the band was made available on a CMA basis, 18 megahertz was made 
available on an EA basis, and 28 megahertz was made available on an REAG or EAG basis.  By 
providing a balanced mix of geographic service area licenses and spectrum block sizes in the 700 MHz 
band, the Commission promoted its goals of disseminating licenses among a wide variety of applicants, 
accommodating the competing need for both large and small licensing areas, and meeting the various 
needs expressed by potential entrants seeking access to the spectrum and incumbents seeking additional 
spectrum.  In Auction 73, which offered 62 megahertz of spectrum in the 700 MHz band, 101 bidders 
won 1090 licenses, over half of whom (56) were small businesses taking advantage of the Commission’s 
bidding credits program. A total of 99 bidders other than the nationwide wireless incumbents won 754 
licenses, representing over 69 percent of the 1090 licenses sold in the auction. A bidder other than a 
nationwide incumbent won a license in every market, so in every market, a party other than a nationwide 
incumbent can offer a wireless third pipe.   In the A and B spectrum blocks alone, small and rural 
providers won spectrum that covered almost the entire country.87
69. To encourage the widest range of potentially qualified applicants to participate in bidding 
for the 700 MHz nationwide D Block license, in the 700 MHz Second Report and Order, the Commission 
enabled eligible applicants for that license to seek designated entity bidding credits for small businesses 
as a means to create incentives for investors to provide innovative small businesses with the capital 
necessary to compete for the D Block license at auction.88 The Commission subsequently decided to 
waive, on its own motion, the application of its “impermissible material relationship” rule for purposes of 
determining an applicant’s or licensee’s designated entity eligibility solely with respect to arrangements 
  
86 Service Rules for the 698-746, 747-762 and 777-792 MHz Bands, Revision of the Commission’s Rules to Ensure 
Compatibility with Enhanced 911 Emergency Calling Systems, Section 68.4(a) of the Commission’s Rules 
Governing Hearing Aid-Compatible Telephones, Biennial Regulatory Review – Amendment of Parts 1, 22, 24, 27, 
and 90 to Streamline and Harmonize Various Rules Affecting Wireless Radio Services, Former Nextel 
Communications, Inc. Upper 700 MHz Guard Band Licenses and Revisions to Part 27 of the Commission’s Rules, 
Implementing a Nationwide, Broadband, Interoperable Public Safety Network in the 700 MHz Band, Development 
of Operational, Technical and Spectrum Requirements for Meeting Federal, State and Local Public Safety 
Communications Requirements Through the Year 2010, Declaratory Ruling on Reporting Requirement under 
Commission’s Part 1 Anti-Collusion Rule, Second Report and Order, 22 FCC Rcd 15,289, 15,305-15,316 ¶¶ 42-61 
(2007) (“700 MHz Second Report and Order”). 
87 See News Release, “Statement by FCC Chairman Kevin J. Martin,” (rel. March 20, 2008) 
(http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-280968A1.pdf).
88 700 MHz Second Report and Order, 22 FCC Rcd at 15,473-74 ¶¶ 535-37.
Federal Communications Commission FCC 11-33
29
for lease or resale (including wholesale) of the spectrum capacity of the D Block license.89 The 
Commission found that the unique regulations then governing the D Block license, which subjected the 
licensee to significant obligations and substantial Commission oversight, when combined with the 
continued application of other designated entity rules, eliminated for the D Block license the risks that led 
the Commission to adopt the impermissible material relationship rule, and it concluded that waiver of the 
impermissible material relationship rule served the public interest.90
70. The Commission determined in the 700 MHz Second Report and Order that in Auction 
73, anonymous bidding procedures would be used to promote competition for 700 MHz licenses.91 Under 
anonymous bidding procedures, information that may indicate specific applicants' interests in the auction, 
including their license selections and bidding activity, is withheld from public release until after the 
auction closes.  Small bidders in particular benefit if larger bidders are unable to identify which bids are 
made by small bidders with relatively limited resources and thereby target licenses sought by small 
bidders.  In several auctions immediately prior to Auction 73, the Commission had adopted certain 
anonymous bidding procedures, made contingent on a specified pre-auction assessment of likely 
competition in the auction.  In the 700 MHz Second Report and Order, the Commission concluded based 
on the record in that proceeding that implementing anonymous bidding procedures would reduce the 
potential for anti-competitive bidding behavior, including bidding activity that aims to prevent the entry 
of new competitors.92 Starting with Auction 73, the Commission has used anonymous bidding without a 
pre-auction measurement of likely competition in a number of Commission auctions for wireless services 
licenses, including in an auction of licenses for Advanced Wireless Services in the 1710-1755 MHz and 
2110-2155 MHz bands, and broadband PCS. 
71. The Commission has continued to investigate, through experimental economic testing, 
the effects of different auction formats on different types of bidders.  This testing has compared the 
Commission’s simultaneous multiple round (“SMR”) auction formats with several package bidding 
formats.93 Among other things, the experiments examined whether bidders interested in small groups of 
licenses could effectively compete in a package bidding format with bidders interested in larger numbers 
of licenses. The results of the experiments indicated that, while many factors influence whether a 
package bidding auction format should be used, including whether bidders wishing to aggregate licenses 
would benefit significantly from reduced exposure risk with package bidding, the package bidding 
auction structure and pricing rules can be effective in helping small bidders compete fairly against large 
package bids. In Auction 73, the Commission implemented a simultaneous multiple round auction format 
with hierarchical package bidding (“HPB”) for licenses in the 700 MHz C Block, after experimental 
economic testing indicated that such a format would not unfairly disadvantage smaller bidders.94 The 
SMR-HPB auction format offered every license in the C Block for bid at the same time with successive 
  
89 Waiver of Section 1.2110(b)(3)(iv)(A) of the Commission’s Rules For the Upper 700 MHz Band D Block 
License, Order, 22 FCC Rcd 20,354 (2007).
90 Id. at 20,358 ¶ 9.
91 700 MHz Second Report and Order, 22 FCC Rcd at 15,390-95 ¶¶ 274-84.
92 Id. at 15,393 ¶ 280.
93 “Auction of 700 MHz Band Licenses Scheduled For January 16, 2008, Comment Sought on Competitive Bidding 
Procedures for Auction 73,” Public Notice, 22 FCC Rcd 15,004, 15,010-14 ¶¶ 17-24.
94 See “Auction of 700 MHz Band Licenses Scheduled For January 24, 2008, Notice and Filing Requirements, 
Minimum Opening Bids, Reserve Prices, Upfront Payments, and Other Procedures for Auctions 73 and 76,” Public 
Notice, 22 FCC Rcd 18,141, 18,179-81 ¶¶ 138-44.
Federal Communications Commission FCC 11-33
30
bidding rounds in which eligible bidders could place bids on individual licenses and on certain pre-
defined packages of specified licenses.   
18. Rural Broadband Outreach
72. WTB continues to make considerable efforts to reach out and provide information to 
rural America, including entrepreneurs and other small businesses, through a Joint Federal Rural 
Outreach Initiative.  This initiative has created a partnership between the Commission’s Wireless 
Telecommunications Bureau and the U.S. Department of Agriculture’s Rural Utilities Service (now Rural 
Development) to assist rural America.   As part of this initiative, the FCC and USDA launched an on-line 
resource for those in rural America looking to bring the benefits of broadband services to their 
communities.  This “Broadband Opportunities for Rural America” website makes available the expertise 
and resources of the FCC and USDA in a single, easily-accessible location and a user-friendly format.  It 
provides information on the different broadband technologies that can be used to bring broadband to rural 
America, how to access spectrum necessary for delivery of wireless broadband services, the broadband 
funding opportunities provided by USDA, and instructions on how to locate companies already licensed 
to provide wireless services in or near specific rural communities, as well as helpful links to other FCC, 
USDA, and private resources related to encouraging broadband opportunities in rural America.
73. To more fully address the needs of the public, WTB, in conjunction with USDA, 
conducted four regional, day-long educational workshops on rural broadband in different locations across 
the country during 2008.  The workshops provided rural communities and organizations with information 
on FCC and USDA resources, including the broadband funding opportunities from USDA and 
information on broadband technologies, policies, and spectrum access from the FCC.  The workshops 
also provided an opportunity for applicants to meet with FCC/USDA staff face-to-face, to gain a better 
understanding of their programs regarding broadband, and to ask questions.  There were also “Success 
Story” speakers at three of the four workshops who were FCC licensees and had obtained funding for 
their communities through the loan and/or grant programs from USDA.
D. Wireline Competition Bureau  
74. Pursuant to the Section 257 Triennial Review directive, the Wireline Competition Bureau 
(WCB or the Bureau) initiated numerous steps to identify and eliminate market entry barriers for 
entrepreneurs and small businesses in the provision of telecommunications and information services and 
equipment.  For example, the Commission launched a rulemaking to determine whether Commission 
rules were required to preserve a free and open Internet.  The Commission also released two orders 
addressing delays in and obstruction of the local number portability (LNP) process, including as it 
pertains to Voice over Internet Protocol (VoIP) services, thereby enabling end users to retain their 
telephone numbers when changing service providers, thus eliminating a major disincentive for end users 
to switch to new carriers, and in so doing, enhancing competition.  The Commission further adopted 
restrictions on providers using customer information received in the local number porting process or for 
the provision of 911 or enhanced 911 (E911) services for customer retention marketing purposes.  
Additionally, the Commission released an order enacting rules to ensure that interconnected VoIP 
providers have access to any and all capabilities necessary to provide 911 or E911 services. Also 
benefiting small businesses were a number of orders relating to the Universal Service Fund.  A more 
detailed examination of WCB’s activities is set forth below. 
1. Network Management and the Open Internet
75. On September 23, 2005, the Commission released an Internet Policy Statement
announcing four principles intended to protect consumers’ access to foster the widespread creation, 
Federal Communications Commission FCC 11-33
31
adoption and use of Internet content, applications, and services.95 On November 1, 2007, the Commission 
received a complaint and petition for declaratory ruling asking that the Commission declare that Comcast 
Corporation (Comcast) violated the Policy Statement when it intentionally and covertly degraded its 
customers’ lawful communications.96  In the subsequent Comcast Order,97 the Commission found that 
Comcast’s practices selectively targeted and interfered with lawful peer-to-peer networking applications 
used by consumers and upstart online content developers, and concluded that Comcast’s “discriminatory 
and arbitrary practice unduly squelches the dynamic benefits of an open and access Internet and does not 
constitute reasonable network management.”98 The Commission noted that variance from standard 
Internet protocols and practices “damages the Internet as a whole, including the ability of entrepreneurs to 
enter the market with new Internet services.  Contravention of these standard protocols and practices 
through discriminatory conduct thus erects barriers to entry that would not otherwise exist.”99 The 
Commission found that “[b]y exercising authority over this complaint, we are able to ensure that 
Comcast’s actions do not inappropriately hinder entry by ‘entrepreneurs and other small businesses in the 
provision and ownership of telecommunications services and information services.’  In addition, by 
facilitating such entry, we also promote the Act’s policies favoring ‘a diversity of media voices’ and 
‘technological advancement.’”100 The Commission required that Comcast disclose its network 
management practices so that the Commission and the public could ensure that Comcast complied with its 
voluntary commitment to abandon its discriminatory network management practices.101
76. On October 22, 2009, the Commission released a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking 
proposing rules to preserve the free and open Internet.102  The Open Internet NPRM proposed to codify 
the four principles the Commission articulated in the Internet Policy Statement; a fifth principle that 
would require broadband Internet providers to treat lawful content, applications, and services in a 
nondiscriminatory manner; and a sixth principle that would require broadband Internet service providers 
  
95 Appropriate Framework for Broadband Access to the Internet over Wireline Facilities, CC Docket Nos. 02-33, 
01-337, 95-20, 98-10, GN Docket No. 00-185, CS Docket No. 02-52, Policy Statement, 20 FCC Rcd 14986 (2005) 
(Policy Statement).
96 Petition of Free Press; Public Knowledge; the Media Access Project; Consumer Federation of America; 
Consumers Union; Information Society Project at Yale Law School; Professor Charles Nesson, Faculty Co-Director, 
Berkman Center for Internet & Society, Harvard Law School; and Professor Barbara van Schewick, Center for 
Internet & Society, Stanford Law School for Declaratory Ruling that Degrading an Internet Application Violates the 
FCC’s Internet Policy Statement and Does Not Meet an Exception for “Reasonable Network Management,” WC 
Docket No. 07-52, at 2-3 (Nov. 1, 2007) (Petition); Formal Complaint of Free Press and Public Knowledge against 
Comcast Corporation for Secretly Degrading Peer-to-Peer Applications; File No. EB-08-IH-1518 (Nov. 1, 2007) 
(Complaint).
97 Formal Complaint of Free Press and Public Knowledge Against Comcast Corporation for Secretly Degrading 
Peer-to-Peer Applications; Broadband Industry Practices; Petition of Free Press et al. for Declaratory Ruling that 
Degrading an Internet Application Violates the FCC’s Internet Policy Statement and Does Not Meet an Exception 
for “Reasonable Network Management,” WC Docket No. 07-52, File No. EB-08-IH-1518, Memorandum Opinion 
and Order, 23 FCC Rcd 13028 (2008) (Comcast Order), vacated sub nom. Comcast Corp. v. FCC, 600 F.3d 642 
(D.C. Cir. 2010) (Comcast v. FCC).
98 Id. at 13028, para. 1, 13030, paras. 4-5, 13050-56, paras. 41-47.
99 Id. at 13040, para. 20 (quotation marks and citations omitted) (asserting that exercising authority over the 
Complaint is reasonably ancillary to the Commission’s responsibilities under section 257 of the Act).
100 Id. (quoting 47 U.S.C. § 257).
101 Id. at 13059-60, para. 54.
102 Preserving the Open Internet, GN Docket No. 09-191, Broadband Industry Practices, WC Docket No. 07-52, 
Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, 24 FCC Rcd 23064 (2009) (Open Internet NPRM).
Federal Communications Commission FCC 11-33
32
to disclose such information concerning network management as is reasonably required for users and 
content, application, and service providers to enjoy the protections specified in the proposed rules.103 The 
proposed rules were subject to exceptions for reasonable network management, and did not prohibit 
broadband Internet service providers from taking reasonable action to prevent the transfer of unlawful 
content or the unlawful distribution of copyrighted works.104 The Commission noted in the Open Internet 
NPRM that the historically open nature of the Internet “has had the effect of empowering entrepreneurs to 
innovate without needing to seek permission,” and that “[b]y allowing innovation to be easily 
implemented at the edge of the network, the end-to-end design of the Internet has lowered technical, 
financial, and administrative barriers to entry for entrepreneurs with technical skill and bright ideas.105  
The Commission also explained that its goals were informed by section 257’s mandate that it promote 
“the policies and purposes of [the Communications] Act favoring a diversity of media voices.”106 By 
initiating the Open Internet proceeding, the Commission sought to ensure that broadband Internet access 
service providers’ network management practices did not create barriers to entry for entrepreneurs and 
small businesses.107
2. Local Number Portability
77. Section 251(b) of the Communications Act requires local exchange carriers (LECs) to 
offer, “to the extent technically feasible, number portability in accordance with requirements prescribed 
by the FCC.”108 Number portability is defined as “the ability of users of telecommunications services to 
retain, at the same location, existing telecommunications numbers without impairment of quality, 
reliability, or convenience when switching from one telecommunications carrier to another.”  
78. On November 8, 2007, the Commission released the Porting Information Order, 
Declaratory Ruling, and NPRM,109 which, among other things, extended LNP obligations to 
  
103 Id. at 13100-11, paras. 88-132.
104 Id. at 13112-16, paras. 133-47.
105 Id. at 13070, para. 19; see also id. at 13065, para. 4 (“Because of the historically open architecture of the Internet, 
it has been equally accessible to anyone with a basic knowledge of its protocols.  As a platform for commerce, it 
does not distinguish between a budding entrepreneur in a dorm room and a Fortune 500 company.”); 13084, para. 51 
(citing section 257 to support the Commission’s goal of “promot[ing] innovation and investment with respect to the 
Internet”), 13085, para. 52 (citing section 257 to support the “key goal” of “[p]romoting competition for Internet 
access and Internet content, applicatinos and sevices”), 13088, para. 62 (“The Commission has recognized that the 
historically open architecture of the Internet has facilitated entrepreneurs’ entry into the market with new Internet 
services and promoted the Act’s policies favoring ‘a diversity of media voices’ and ‘technological advancement.’).
106 Id. at 13085, para. 53 n.123; see also id. at 13095-97, paras. 75-78.
107 In April 2010, the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit held that the 
Commission’s 2008 Comcast order failed to identify any express statutory delegation of authority for stopping 
Comcast’s interference with its customers’ lawful communications.  Comcast v. FCC, 600 F.3d 642.  In June 2010, 
the Commission issued a Notice of Inquiry to gather broad public input on the best way to resolve legal issues raised 
by the decision. Framework for Broadband Internet Service, GN Docket No. 10-127, Notice of Inquiry, 25 FCC 
Rcd 7866 (2010).  In December 2010, the Commission issued final Open Internet rules.  Preserving the Open 
Internet, GN Docket No. 09-191, Broadband Industry Practices, WC Docket No. 07-52, Report and Order, 25 FCC 
Rcd 17905 (2010).
108 47 U.S.C. § 251(b)(2).
109 Telephone Number Requirements for IP-Enabled Services Providers; Local Number Portability Porting Interval 
and Validation Requirements; IP-Enabled Services; Telephone Number Portability; CTIA Petitions for Declaratory 
Ruling on Wireline-Wireless Porting Issues; Final Regulatory Flexibility Analysis; Numbering Resource
Optimization, WC Docket Nos. 07-243, 07-244, 04-36, CC Docket Nos. 95-116, 99-200, Report and Order, 
Declaratory Ruling, Order on Remand, and Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, 22 FCC Rcd 19531 (2007) (Porting 
Information Order, Declaratory Ruling, and NPRM), aff’d sub nom. National Telecomms. Cooperative Ass’n v. 
(continued....)
Federal Communications Commission FCC 11-33
33
interconnected VoIP providers, thus ensuring that interconnected VoIP customers have the same ability to 
keep their telephone numbers when changing telephone service providers as customers of traditional 
telephone service.  The Commission expanded the term “intermodal ports” to include ports involving 
interconnected VoIP services, in addition to wireline-to-wireless ports and wireless-to-wireline ports.110  
The Commission also clarified that no entities obligated to provide LNP may obstruct or delay the porting 
process by demanding from the porting-in entity information in excess of the minimum needed to validate 
the customer’s request and accomplish the port.111 In the NPRM portion of the item, the Commission 
sought comment on whether it should extend other LNP and numbering obligations to interconnected 
VoIP providers, and whether it should adopt specific rules regarding the LNP validation process and 
porting interval lengths.112 The Commission also tentatively concluded that it should adopt rules reducing 
the porting interval for simple wireline-to-wireline and intermodal port requests to 48 hours.113
79. The Commission subsequently released the Porting Intervals Order and FNPRM114 on 
May 13, 2009.  The Order, which adopted a one-business-day porting interval for simple wireline-to-
wireline and intermodal ports, became effective on July 2, 2009.  Under the Order, providers have nine 
months from that date to implement the one-business day porting interval for simple ports, while small 
providers have 15 months.115 The Commission directed the North American Numbering Council 
(NANC) to develop new LNP provisioning process flows that take into account the shortened porting 
interval, address how a “business day” should be construed, and generally how the porting time should be 
measured.116 On November 2, 2009, the NANC submitted its recommendation.  Delays in porting cost 
consumers time and money and limit consumer choice and competition, because consumers often 
abandon efforts to switch providers when they get frustrated with slow porting.  The FNPRM sought 
comment on what steps, if any, the Commission should take to improve the process of changing 
providers.117 On December 8, 2009, the Wireline Competition Bureau released a Public Notice seeking 
comment on two proposals regarding the number of fields needed for completing simple ports within the 
one-business-day porting interval.118  
  
(...continued from previous page)
FCC, 563 F.3d 536 (D.C. Cir. 2009).
110 22 FCC Rcd 19531, 19540-43, paras. 17-20.
111 The Commission concluded that, for simple ports, LNP validation should be based on no more than four fields:  
(1) 10-digit telephone number; (2) customer account number; (3) 5-digit ZIP code; and (4) pass code (if applicable).  
Id. at 19557, para. 48.
112 Id. at 19561, para. 59.
113 Id. at 19561-62, para. 60.
114 Local Number Portability Porting Interval and Validation Requirements, WC Docket No. 07-244, Telephone 
Number Portability, CC Docket No. 95-116, Report and Order and Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, 24 FCC 
Rcd 6084 (2009) (Porting Intervals Order and FNPRM). 
115 Id. at 6091-92, paras. 11-12.
116 Id. at 6090, para 10.
117 Id. at 6095, para. 19.
118 See Comment Sought on Proposals for Standardized Data Fields for Simple Port Requests, WC Docket No. 07-
244, Public Notice, 24 FCC Rcd 14423 (Wireline Comp. Bur. 2009); 75 Fed. Reg. 5013 (Feb. 1, 2010).  On May 20, 
2010, the Commission released the LNP Standard Fields Order, which adopted standardized data fields for simple 
number porting to streamline the port process and enable service providers to accomplish simple wireline-to-
wireline and intermodal ports within one business day.  Local Number Portability Porting Interval and Validation 
Requirements, Telephone Number Portability, WC Docket No. 07-244, CC Docket No. 95-116, Report and Order, 
25 FCC Rcd 6953 (2010) (LNP Standard Fields Order).  In addition, the Commission adopted the NANC’s 
(continued....)
Federal Communications Commission FCC 11-33
34
80. By enabling end users to retain their telephone numbers when changing service 
providers, LNP facilitates the successful entrance of new service providers by eliminating one 
disincentive to switch carriers, thereby enhancing competition.119 The Commission’s LNP orders 
addressed delays in and obstruction of the LNP process, which should benefit small businesses and 
entrepreneurs.
3. Customer Privacy/CPNI
81. Section 222(b) of the Act states:  “A telecommunications carrier that receives or obtains 
proprietary information from another carrier for purposes of providing any telecommunications service 
shall use such information only for such purpose, and shall not use such information for its own 
marketing efforts.”  On February 11, 2008, Bright House Networks, LLC, Comcast Corporation, and 
Time Warner Cable Inc. filed a complaint alleging that Verizon was violating this section by contacting 
complainants’ customers after a number port request was submitted to Verizon, and encouraging the 
customers to remain with Verizon.  On June 23, 2008, the Commission’s Bright House Order120
concluded that Verizon was violating section 222(b) of the Act by using, for customer retention marketing 
purposes, proprietary information of other carriers that it receives in the local number porting process.  
This order benefits small carriers by ensuring other carriers cannot use the small carriers’ number porting 
requests to help them compete for customers.  
4. 911 Service
82. On July 23, 2008, Congress enacted the New and Emerging Technologies 911 
Improvement Act of 2008 (NET 911 Act).121 On October 21, 2008, in the NET 911 Access Order, the 
Commission adopted rules implementing certain provisions of that Act.122 These rules ensure that 
interconnected VoIP providers have access to any and all capabilities they need to provide 911 and E911 
service in full compliance with the Commission’s rules.123  Specifically, the order gives interconnected 
VoIP providers a right to access any and all capabilities necessary to provide 911 or E911 service.124  
Interconnected VoIP providers may obtain these capabilities from any entity that owns or controls 
them,125 but may not use 911 and E911 capabilities obtained pursuant to the NET 911 Act or the 
Commission’s implementing rules for any purpose other than to provide 911 or E911 service.126 The Net 
  
(...continued from previous page)
recommendations for porting process provisioning flows and for counting a business day in the context of number 
porting, and adopted a rule to aid in implementing the one-business day simple porting interval.
119 As of June 2009, 104 million assigned numbers (including wireless and wireline) were in ported status, 
comprising approximately 15% of the 668.5 million total assigned numbers.  Industry Analysis and Technology 
Division, Wireline Competition Bureau, Numbering Resource Utilization in the United States (February 2010), 
Tables 1, 15, available at http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-296480A1.pdf).
120 Bright House Networks, LLC v. Verizon California, Inc., File No. EB-08-MD-002, Memorandum Opinion and 
Order, 23 FCC Rcd 10704 (2008), aff’d sub nom. Verizon California, Inc. v. FCC, 555 F.3d 270 (D.C. Cir. 2009).
121 New and Emerging Technologies 911 Improvement Act of 2008, Pub. L. No. 110-283, 122 Stat. 2620 (2008) 
(NET 911 Act) (amending Wireless Communications and Public Safety Act of 1999, Pub. L. No. 106-81, 113 Stat. 
1286 (1999) (Wireless 911 Act)).
122 Implementation of the NET 911 Improvement Act of 2008, WC Docket No. 08-171, Report and Order, 23 FCC 
Rcd 1588408-249 (rel. Oct. 21, 2008) (NET 911 Access Order).
123 Id. at 15892-92, paras. 21-29.
124 Id. at 15895-96, para. 25-27.
125 Id. at 15896, para. 28.
126 Id. at 15895-96, para. 26.
Federal Communications Commission FCC 11-33
35
911 Access Order further provides that interconnected VoIP providers may obtain such capabilities under 
rates, terms, and conditions that are reasonable.127 To protect the security of the nation’s emergency 
services network, the NET 911 Access Order requires interconnected VoIP providers to comply with all 
applicable industry network security standards to the same extent as traditional telecommunications 
carriers when they access 911 and E911 capabilities traditionally used by carriers.128  The Commission 
also stated that no entity may use customer information obtained as a result of the provision of 911 or 
E911 services for marketing purposes.129
83. In enacting the Net 911 Act, Congress recognized the critical importance of a ubiquitous, 
effective, and secure 911 and E911 network to the nation’s public safety.  Congress also recognized that 
interconnected VoIP providers must have access to 911 and E911 capabilities in order to provide reliable 
911 and E911 services, and directed that the Commission adopt rules mandating such access.  In 
implementing this statutory directive in the NET 911 Access Order, the Commission benefited small 
interconnected VoIP providers by providing them certainty regarding their access to the 911 and E911 
capabilities needed to provide 911 and E911 services equivalent to those their competitors offer.  This 
access, in turn, reduces the barriers interconnected VoIP providers face in seeking to compete against 
larger rivals in the provision of voice communications services.
5. Interconnection
84. Section 251 of the Communications Act grants “telecommunications carriers” certain 
rights, including the right “to interconnect directly or indirectly with the facilities and equipment of other 
telecommunications carriers.”130 In March 2006, Time Warner Cable (TWC) filed a petition for 
declaratory ruling requesting that the Commission affirm that section 251 entitles competitive LECs to 
interconnect with incumbent LECs for the purpose of exchanging traffic on behalf of VoIP providers.131  
TWC also requested that the Commission clarify that interconnection rights under section 251 are not 
based on the identity of the requesting carrier’s customer.132 These issues arose because certain rural 
incumbent LECs had refused to interconnect with companies that were offering wholesale 
telecommunications services to TWC that TWC, in turn, used as inputs for VoIP services it offered to end 
users.
85. In the Time Warner Cable Declaratory Ruling,133 the Wireline Competition Bureau 
conditionally granted TWC’s requests.  The Bureau held that wholesale telecommunications carriers have 
the same statutory rights to interconnect with incumbent LECs as retail telecommunications carriers,134
and that the interconnection rights of a wholesale telecommunications carrier do not depend on the 
  
127 Id. at 15897, para. 31.
128 Id. at 15901, para. 38.
129 Id. at 15901, para. 39.
130 47 U.S.C. § 251(a)(1).  
131 Petition of Time Warner Cable for Declaratory Ruling that Competitive Local Exchange Carriers May Obtain 
Interconnection under Section 251 of the Communications Act of 1934, as Amended, to Provide Wholesale 
Telecommunications Services to VoIP Providers, WC Docket No. 06-55 (filed Mar. 1, 2006) (TWC Petition).
132 Id.
133 Time Warner Cable Request for Declaratory Ruling That Competitive Local Exchange Carriers May Obtain 
Interconnection Under Section 251 of the Communications Act of 1934, as Amended, to Provide Wholesale 
Telecommunications Services to VoIP Providers, WC Docket No. 06-55, Memorandum Opinion and Order, 22 FCC 
Rcd 3513 (WCB 2007) (Time Warner Cable Declaratory Ruling).
134 Id. at 3517-120, paras. 9-14.
Federal Communications Commission FCC 11-33
36
regulatory classification of the retail service offered to end users.135 As a condition to the exercise of the 
interconnection rights affirmed in the Order, the Bureau required that, when the incumbent LEC wins 
back a customer from a VoIP provider, a VoIP provider’s interconnecting wholesale carrier must port the 
customer’s number back to the incumbent LEC at the customer’s request.136 The Bureau also conditioned 
the exercise of those rights on the wholesale carrier’s assuming responsibility, under a section 251 
arrangement between the wholesale carrier and the incumbent LEC, for compensating the incumbent LEC 
for terminating traffic to end users.137
86. The Time Warner Cable Declaratory Ruling benefits small communications services 
providers by ensuring that their wholesale carriers can interconnect with incumbent LECs for purposes of 
transmitting traffic to VoIP providers.  The declaratory ruling thus helps small businesses that wish to 
provide interconnected VoIP service to end users.  A contrary decision would have impeded wholesale 
telecommunications competition, facilities-based VoIP competition, and broadband deployment by 
limiting the ability of wholesale carriers to offer service to VoIP providers, to the detriment of important 
Commission policies.
6. Multi-Tenant Environments
87. On March 19, 2008, the Commission adopted the Competitive Networks Order,138 which 
prohibits carriers from entering into contracts that would make them the exclusive provider of 
telecommunications services in residential multiple tenant environments (MTEs), such as apartment 
buildings, condos, and co-ops.  The Commission further determined that carriers may not enforce existing 
exclusivity contracts.139 By placing essentially the same restrictions on telecommunications carriers as 
were placed on cable operators in 2007 in the Video Services Order,140 the Commission established 
regulatory parity among competitors to serve MTE residents, and made its policies regarding those 
competitors competitively neutral.  Given that the same facilities can be used to provide video, voice, and 
data services, the prohibition against exclusive contracts promotes competition between cable operators 
and telecommunications carriers to provide each of those services.  These actions advance the policy of 
promoting facilities-based competition, which in turn should extend the availability of broadband Internet 
access services, to the benefit of small information services providers. 
7. Universal Service
88. In section 254 of the Act, Congress established federal universal service support 
mechanisms to ensure the delivery of affordable telecommunications service to consumers in all areas of 
the nation.  In that section, Congress directed the Commission to base its policies for the preservation and 
advancement of universal service upon a number of principles, including: ensuring comparability between 
urban and rural rates and services;141 promoting access to the public network by low-income 
  
135 Id. at 3520-22, paras. 15-16.
136 Id. at 3522, para. 16.
137 Id. at 3522-23, para. 17.
138 Promotion of Competitive Networks in Local Telecommunications Markets, Report and Order, WT Docket No. 
99-217, 23 FCC Rcd 5385, 5387-91, paras. 8-13 (2008) (Competitive Networks Order).  
139 Id.
140 See Exclusive Service Contracts for Provision of Video Services in Multiple Dwelling Units and Other Real 
Estate Developments, MB Docket No. 07-51, Report and Order and Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, 22 
FCC Rcd 20235 (2007) (Video Services Order), aff’d sub nom, National Cable & Telecommun. Ass’n v. FCC, 567 
F. 3d 659 (D.C. Cir. 2009).  
141 47 U.S.C. § 254(b)(3).
Federal Communications Commission FCC 11-33
37
consumers;142 promoting the availability of telecommunications and advanced services in all regions of 
the nation;143 and effecting access to telecommunications and advanced services by schools, libraries, and 
rural health care providers.144
89. Since the 2006 Report, the Commission, through its universal service programs, took 
actions to advance and sustain universal service in accordance with the principles of section 254 of the 
Act.  In addition, while promoting the goals of universal service, the Commission’s actions consistently 
considered the impact of its policies on small entities.  As the examples provided below indicate, the 
Commission often recognizes the important role played by and unique circumstances faced by small 
entities in the communications marketplace.
a. Call Home Act Implementation 
90. In January 2007, the Commission approved an order implementing section 2(a) of the 
Call Home Act of 2006, which directed the Commission to “take such action as may be necessary to 
reduce the cost of calling home for Armed Forces personnel.”145 In that order, the Commission granted 
forbearance from the contribution requirements of sections 254(d) and 225(d)(3)(B) of the Act, and their 
implementing rules, to exempt from universal service and Telecommunications Relay Services (TRS) 
fund contribution requirements revenue from calls covered by section 2(a) of the Call Home Act.146  
Exempt revenues included, but were not limited to, calls made using prepaid calling cards and post-paid 
calling cards, and collect calls made by Armed Forces personnel stationed abroad.147
91. By granting forbearance from the contribution requirements of sections 254(d) and 
225(d)(3)(B) of the Act, the Commission eased regulatory burdens on small companies that supply 
telephone services to Armed Forces personnel deployed overseas.  This action also promoted competition 
in the market for the provision of telephone services because it made the contribution exemptions 
available to any telecommunications provider that offered the telecommunications services at issue in the 
Call Home Act.148 Additionally, the Commission noted that, by exempting calls made by Armed Forces 
personnel from universal service and TRS contribution obligations, dedicated members of the military 
would obtain lower prices for the phone services needed to call family and friends in the United States.149
b. High Cost Support 
(i) ETC Designation
92. Section 254(e) of the Act provides that “only an eligible telecommunications carrier 
designated under section 214(e) [of the Act] shall be eligible to receive specific Federal universal service 
support.”150 Pursuant to section 214(e)(1) of the Act, common carriers designated as eligible 
telecommunications carriers (ETCs) must offer and advertise the services supported by the federal 
  
142 47 U.S.C. § 254(j).
143 47 U.S.C. § 254(b)(2).
144 47 U.S.C. § 254(h).
145 Call Home Act of 2006, Pub. L. No. 109-459, § 2(a), 120 Stat. 3399 (2006) (Call Home Act).
146 See Implementation of the Call Home Act of 2006, WC Docket No. 07-2, Order, 22 FCC Rcd 1030, 1031-32, 
para. 2 (2007).
147 Id.
148 See id. at 1033, para. 8.
149 See id. at 1030, para. 1.
150 47 U.S.C. § 254(e).
Federal Communications Commission FCC 11-33
38
universal service mechanisms throughout the designated service area.151 Section 214(e)(2) of the Act 
gives state commissions the primary responsibility for designating carriers as ETCs.152 However, section 
214(e)(6) directs the Commission, upon request, to designate as an ETC “a common carrier providing 
telephone exchange service and exchange access that is not subject to the jurisdiction of a State 
commission.”153 Concerning areas served by a rural telephone company, the Commission may designate 
more than one common carrier as an ETC for a designated service area, consistent with the public interest 
and provided that the requesting carrier meets the requirements of section 214(e)(1).154
93. In January 2007, the Bureau granted a petition for ETC designation by Hopi 
Telecommunications, Inc. (Hopi), a tribally-owned wireline provider, to be designated as an ETC on the 
Hopi Reservation and on a small part of the Navajo reservation in Arizona.155 The following month, the 
Bureau granted a petition by Smith Bagley, Inc. (SBI), a commercial mobile radio service (CMRS) 
provider, which sought designation as an ETC on the Navajo Reservation in Utah.156 These orders 
promoted the availability of telephone service for customers in rural and Tribal areas, providing access to 
services that might not otherwise be available in these areas.  The Bureau noted, for instance, that ETC 
designation would allow Hopi to construct facilities to provide service to otherwise unserved portions of a 
study area.157 Similarly, the Bureau found that designation of SBI as an ETC would provide increased 
consumer choice and a wider availability of service offerings.158 In addition, by granting ETC 
designation to carriers such as Hopi and SBI, the Bureau ensured that providers – especially the small, 
rural carriers that frequently serve these areas – have both the financial incentive and the ability to 
provide telephone service to the nation’s rural and Tribal areas.  In 2008, the Commission conditionally 
designated TracFone Wireless, Inc. (TracFone), a non-facilities-based CMRS provider (i.e., a pure 
wireless reseller), an ETC for the limited purpose of receiving universal service low-income Lifeline 
support, following the Commission’s grant of TracFone’s petition for forbearance from the requirement 
that a carrier designated as an ETC provide services, at least in part, over its own facilities.159 The 
Commission extended similar relief to Virgin Mobile USA, L.P. (Virgin Mobile), another pure wireless 
reseller, in 2009.160 Collectively, these actions demonstrated the Commission’s commitment to ensuring 
  
151 47 U.S.C. § 214(e)(1).
152 Id. at § 214(e)(2).
153 Id. at § 214(e)(6).
154 Id.
155 Federal-State Joint Board on Universal Service, Hopi Telecommunications, Inc. Petition for Designation as an 
Eligible Telecommunications Carrier for the Hopi Reservation in Arizona, CC Docket No. 96-45, Order, 22 FCC 
Rcd 1866 (Wireline Comp. Bur. 2007) (Hopi ETC Designation Order).
156 Federal-State Joint Board on Universal Service, Smith Bagley, Inc. Petition for Designation as an Eligible 
Telecommunications Carrier for the Navajo Reservation in Utah, CC Docket No. 96-45, Order, 22 FCC Rcd 2479 
(Wireline Comp. Bur. 2007) (SBI ETC Designation Order).
157 See Hopi ETC Designation Order, 22 FCC Rcd at 1873, para. 20.
158 See SBI ETC Designation Order, 22 FCC Rcd at 2487, para. 23.
159 Federal-State Joint Board on Universal Service, TracFone Wireless, Inc. Petition for Designation as an Eligible 
Telecommunications Carrier in the State of New York, et al., CC Docket No. 96-45, Order, 23 FCC Red 6206, 6214-
15, para. 21 (2008) (TracFone ETC Designation Order); See Federal-State Joint Board on Universal Service, 
Petition of TracFone Wireless, Inc. for Forbearance from 47 U.S.C. § 214(e)(1)(A) and 47 C.F.R. § 54.201(i), CC 
Docket No. 96-45, Order, 20 FCC Rcd 15095, 15098, para. 6 (2005) (TracFone Forbearance Order)
160 Virgin Mobile USA, L.P. Petition for Forbearance from 47 U.S.C. § 214(e)(1)(A); Petition for Designation as an 
Eligible Telecommunications Carrier in the State of New York; Petition for Designation as an Eligible 
Telecommunications Carrier in the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania; Petition for Designation as an Eligible 
Telecommunications Carrier in the Commonwealth of Virginia; Petition for Limited Designation as an Eligible 
(continued....)
Federal Communications Commission FCC 11-33
39
that rural and tribally-owned carriers have access to the universal service funds needed to serve their 
respective communities.
(ii) Interim Cap Orders
94. In May 2008, based on a recommendation of the Federal-State Joint Board on Universal 
Service, the Commission adopted an interim, emergency cap on the amount of high-cost universal service 
support available to competitive ETCs.161 The Commission concluded that an interim cap was needed to 
curb the significant growth in the amount of high-cost universal service support received by competitive 
ETCs, as the rate of growth between 2001 and 2007 – more than 100 percent – threatened the continued 
stability of the fund.162 Consequently, in the Interim Cap Order the Commission limited, on an interim 
basis, the annual high-cost support amount available to competitive ETCs in each state to the amount 
competitive ETCs were eligible to receive in that state during March 2008, on an annualized basis.163  
95. The Commission, however, adopted a limited exception to the interim support cap for 
competitive ETCs serving Tribal Lands or Alaska Native regions, which would allow them to continue 
receiving support at uncapped levels.164 The Commission stated that the low penetration rates for basic 
telephone service in Tribal Lands warranted implementation of the “Covered Locations” exception, as it 
was likely that competitive ETCs did not provide complementary services in those areas, but rather served 
as primary providers of telecommunications services.165 Moreover, the Commission noted that it adopted 
the Covered Locations exception as part of its consideration of the effects of the interim support cap on 
small businesses.166 As such, in adopting the Interim Cap Order and Covered Locations exception, the 
Commission balanced the importance of the continued stability of the high-cost fund with the needs of the 
small carriers serving Tribal and rural populations to ensure that these carriers will continue to receive the 
universal service support essential for them to serve these uniquely-situated areas.
96. The Commission provided further assistance to small carriers serving Tribal Lands or 
Alaska Native regions in March 2009, by granting a waiver of the restriction in the Interim Cap Order 
that limited the availability of uncapped per-line support for competitive ETCs serving Tribal Lands or 
  
(...continued from previous page)
Telecommunications Carrier in the State of North Carolina; Petition for Limited Designation as an Eligible 
Telecommunications Carrier in the State of Tennessee, CC Docket No. 96-45, Order, 24 FCC Rcd 3381 (2009) 
(Virgin Mobile ETC Designation Order). In 2010, the Commission granted several additional carriers the same 
forbearance so that they could participate in the Lifeline program, but denied requests to extend that forbearance to 
participation in the Commission’s Link Up program.  See Federal-State Joint Board on Universal Service; 
Telecommunications Carriers Eligible for Universal Service Support; i-wireless, LLC Petition for Forbearance 
from 47 U.S.C. § 214(e)(1)(A), CC Docket No. 96-45, WC Docket No. 09-197, Order, 25 FCC Rcd 8784 (2010); 
Telecommunications Carriers Eligible for Universal Service Support; Federal-State Joint Board on Universal 
Service; Head Start Petition for Forbearance; Consumer Cellular Petition for Forbearance; Midwestern 
Telecommunications Inc. Petition for Forbearance; Line Up, LLC Petition for Forbearance, WC Docket No. 09-
197, CC Docket No. 96-45, Order, 25 FCC Rcd 10510 (2010); Telecommunications Carriers Eligible for Universal 
Service Support; Federal-State Joint Board on Universal Service; Conexions Petition for Forbearance, WC Docket 
No. 09-197, CC Docket No. 96-45, Order, 25 FCC Rcd 13866 (2010).
161 High-Cost Universal Service Support, Federal-State Joint Board on Universal Service, WC Docket No. 05-337, 
CC Docket No. 96-45, Order, 23 FCC Rcd 8834 (2008) (Interim Cap Order).
162 Id. at 8837-38, paras. 6-7.
163 Id. at 8837, para. 5.
164 Id. at 8848, para. 32.
165 See id.
166 See id. at 8943, Appendix D, para. 17.
Federal Communications Commission FCC 11-33
40
Alaska Native regions to one payment per residential account.167 In this order, the Commission 
determined that competitive ETCs serving Covered Locations who opted into the exception would receive 
uncapped high-cost support for all lines served in those Covered Locations pursuant to section 54.307 of 
the Commission’s rules.168 The Commission found that waiver of the limitation contained in the Covered 
Locations exception of the Interim Cap Order was necessary to encourage the deployment of high quality 
telephone service on Tribal Lands and in Alaska Native regions.169 By allowing competitive ETCs in 
Covered Locations to receive uncapped high-cost support for all lines served, the Commission’s action 
enables small carriers to continue to have the ability and the incentive to serve regions of the country 
where the need for high-cost support is most acute.170
(iii) High-Cost Waivers
97. The Commission may, on its own motion, waive any provision of its own rules.  The 
waiver process requires a showing of good cause to waive a rule and affords the Commission an 
opportunity to make its determination based on the specific circumstances encountered by an individual 
carrier.  Over the last three years, the Commission, through delegated authority to the Bureau, has granted 
numerous requests for waivers of the Commission’s high-cost rules, including granting requests for relief 
from small, rural carriers.171  
  
167 High-Cost Universal Service Support, Federal-State Joint Board on Universal Service, WC Docket No. 05-337, 
CC Docket No. 96-45, Order, 24 FCC Rcd 3369 (2009).
168 Id. at 3371, para. 7.
169 See id. at 3371-72, paras. 8-9.
170 See id. at 3372, para. 9.
171 The Bureau granted several high-cost and study area waivers in the past three years.  Some of these waivers 
applied to rural carriers, which are defined as carriers with fewer than 100,000 lines and therefore include small 
carriers.  See, e.g., MTA Communications Inc. d/b/a MTA Wireless, CC Docket No. 96-45, Order, 22 FCC Rcd 964 
(Wireline Comp. Bur. 2007) (allowing MTAW  to receive universal service support as of the date of its designation 
as an ETC, ensuring that the small company could continue providing uninterrupted service to its customers); Bristol 
Bay Cellular Partnership, CC Docket No. 96-45, Order, 22 FCC Rcd 21500 (Wireline Comp. Bur. 2007) (allowing 
Bristol Bay to file line count data based on the service area in which its wireless customers exclusively or primarily 
use their wireless service, which allowed Bristol Bay to receive high-cost universal service support despite a unique 
billing situation); Saddleback Communications, Gila River Telecommunications, Inc., and Pine Belt Cellular, Inc., 
CC Docket No. 96-45, Order, 23 FCC 11552 (Wireline Comp. Bur. 2008) (granting petitions for waiver filed by 
Saddleback, Gila River, and Pine Belt, seeking waiver of the annual ETC filing deadlines, an action that was 
supported by the Organization for the Promotion and Advancement of Small Telecommunications Companies 
(OPASTCO)); Northeast Iowa Telephone Company, WC Docket No. 08-71, CC Docket No. 96-45, Order, 24 FCC 
Rcd 4818 (Wireline Comp. Bur. 2009) (granting a waiver of the data submission reporting deadline for local 
switching support, because the Commission found that denial of support may have a significant effect on the small 
carrier’s rates and ability to continue providing quality service to its customers); SRT Communications, Inc. and 
North Dakota Telephone Company, CC Docket No. 96-45, Order, 22 FCC Rcd 6699 (Wireline Comp. Bur. 2007) 
(granting waiver of study area boundary freeze, allowing rural company to avoid the burden and costs of filing its 
own interstate tariffs); Sacred Wind Communications, Inc. and Qwest Corporation, CC Docket No. 96-45, Order, 23 
FCC Rcd 12917 (Wireline Comp. Bur. 2008) (extended the timing of a previously granted study area waiver for an 
additional period because the Bureau found that failure to do so would impair Sacred Wind’s ability to provide 
affordable, uninterrupted service to its customers and would be inconsistent with section 254 of the Act).
Federal Communications Commission FCC 11-33
41
8. Special Access
98. In 2007, the Bureau sought to update the record in the special access proceeding.  In 
2005, the Commission had released the Special Access NPRM,172 noting that an examination of the state 
of competition in the marketplace is critical to a determination of whether the Commission’s pricing 
flexibility rules have worked as intended.  The Bureau sought to refresh the record in that proceeding in 
light of a number of developments, including: 1) a number of significant mergers and other industry 
consolidations;173 2) the continued expansion of intermodal competition in the market for 
telecommunications services, 3) the release by GAO of a report summarizing its review of certain aspects 
of the market for special access services;174 and 4) rapid changes in fiber technologies.175
99. In 2009, the Bureau asked parties to comment on an appropriate analytical framework for 
examining the various issues that have been raised in the Special Access NPRM.176 The Bureau explained 
that “the Commission would benefit from a clear explanation by the parties of how it should use data to 
determine systematically whether the current price cap and pricing flexibility rates are working properly 
to ensure just and reasonable rates, terms, and conditions and to provide flexibility in the presence of 
competition.”177 This proceeding will help ensure that the rates, terms and conditions for special access 
services available to small businesses and entrepreneurs are just and reasonable.178
E. Office of Engineering and Technology
100. The Office of Engineering and Technology (OET) took a number of actions in the last 
three years that will remove barriers and lessen burdens for small businesses.  These actions include those 
specifically intended to do so, and those of a more general nature that will result in such effects.  It 
reduced time to market and regulatory costs by pursuing additional Mutual Recognition Agreements 
(MRA) to ease the marketing of domestically-produced devices in other countries.  It also expanded its 
Electronic Equipment Authorization System to provide full integration of new policies and regulations in 
  
172 Special Access Rates for Price Cap Local Exchange Carriers, WC Docket No. 05-25, AT&T Corp. Petition for 
Rulemaking to Reform Regulation of Incumbent Local Exchange Carrier Rates for Interstate Special Access 
Services, RM-10593, Order and Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, 20 FCC Rcd 1994 (2005) (Special Access NPRM).
173 See, e.g., AT&T Inc. and BellSouth Corporation Application for Transfer of Control, WC Docket No. 06-74, 
Memorandum Opinion and Order, 22 FCC Rcd 5662, Order on Reconsideration, 22 FCC Rcd 6285 (2007); SBC 
Communications Inc. and AT&T Corp. Applications for Approval of Transfer of Control, WC Docket No. 05-65, 
Memorandum Opinion and Order, 20 FCC Rcd 18290 (2005); Verizon Communications Inc. and MCI, Inc. 
Applications for Approval of Transfer of Control, WC Docket No. 05-75, Memorandum Opinion and Order, 20 FCC 
Rcd 18433 (2005); see also Notice of Streamlined Domestic 214 Applications Granted, Transfer of Control of 
Looking Glass Networks Holding Co. Inc. to Level 3 Communications Inc., WC Docket No. 06-116, Public Notice, 
21 FCC Rcd 8709 (2006).
174 Government Accountability Office, FCC Needs to Improve its Ability to Monitor and Determine the Extent of
Competition in Dedicated Access Services, Report 07-80 (Nov. 2006).
175 Parties Asked to Refresh Record in the Special Access Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, WC Docket No. 05-25, 
Public Notice, 22 FCC Rcd 13352 (2007) (Refresh the Record PN).
176 Parties Asked to Comment on Analytical Framework Necessary to Resolve Issues in the Special Access NPRM, 
WC Docket No. 05-25, DA 09-2388 (rel. Nov. 5, 2009) (Analytical Framework PN).
177 Analytical Framework PN at 2.
178 In 2010, Commission staff held a public workshop to discuss the analytical framework the Commission should 
use.  Wireline Competition Bureau Announces July 19, 2010 Staff Workshop to Discuss the Analytical Framework 
for Assessing the Effectiveness of the Existing Special Access Rules, Public Notice, 25 FCC Rcd 8458 (WCB 2010).  
The Bureau also requested the public to submit data voluntarily to assist the Commission in evaluating the issues 
that have been raised in the proceeding.  Data Requested in Special Access NPRM, Public Notice, 25 FCC Rcd 
15146 (WCB 2010).
Federal Communications Commission FCC 11-33
42
a number of respects.  Additionally, OET further reduced time to market and regulatory costs for these 
devices by refining a web based inquiry system to provide speedy and consistent answers to questions 
about equipment authorization procedures and rules.  To provide additional entrepreneurial opportunities 
and to provide better tools for all businesses, the Commission modified the rules for advanced ultra-
wideband (UWB) technology; permitted innovative unlicensed devices to use the TV broadcast spectrum 
on a secondary basis; provided for the introduction of the Mobile-Satellite Service (MSS) and ancillary 
terrestrial services in the 2 GHz band now used by Broadcast Auxiliary Services (BAS); facilitated the 
introduction of wireless broadband services in the 3650 MHz band; finalized rules for advanced medical 
radio communication devices in the 400 MHz band; and proposed rules for a new wireless medical 
monitoring service in the 2/5 GHz band.  Finally, the Commission facilitated the development of a 
spectrum-sharing test-bed to study the feasibility of more intensive use of shared federal/non-federal 400 
MHz spectrum to provide additional spectrum availability and better tools to individuals and businesses, 
and to provide a business opportunity for the development of Dynamic Spectrum Access devices.
1. Mutual Recognition Agreements
101. The Commission expanded its MRAs with other countries, whereby the signatories to an 
MRA mutually agree to recognize the validity of equipment authorizations sanctioned by the other 
countries, thereby greatly increasing the ease of international marketing for makers of all kinds of 
equipment.  During the past three years, the United States signed an MRA with Japan in February 2007 
and with Vietnam in June 2008.  There are hundreds of organizations designated as Conformity 
Assessment Bodies to test or approve equipment to foreign technical requirements, and the list – as well 
as the list of participating countries – continues to grow.  The majority of Conformity Assessment Bodies 
located in the United States are small businesses.  These measures thus enhance market opportunities for 
small businesses and manufacturers that supply parts and services to telecommunications service 
providers, and also to those that engage in compliance testing of equipment, most of which are small 
start-up enterprises.  These measures also promote competition in the provision of telecommunications 
products and electronic equipment and, in turn, speed delivery of products to the public.
2. Electronic Equipment Authorization
102. Upgrades to the Commission’s database of equipment authorization records have 
automated the full integration of new policies and regulations into equipment authorization processing.  
For instance, Commission rulemakings and new policies introduced upgrades to reflect new technology 
developments in cognitive radio/software defined radio; provide for electronic filing of changes to grantee 
code demographic information and information related to transfer in control of business ownership; 
implement a new short term confidentiality procedure to allow shipping and distribution of authorized 
equipment, while maintaining the confidentiality of information available to the public after marketing; 
streamlining of the Telecommunications Certification Bodies (TCB) processes to further ensure 
consistency in the processing of applications by all TCBs; and revision of the monitoring and assessment 
of TCBs, to ensure that TCBs are operating in a manner consistent with the rules, and in a manner that 
demonstrates that TCBs are providing excellent service in acting on behalf of the Commission to issue 
grants of authorization. 
3. Knowledge Data Base (KDB) 
103. The Commission has developed a web-based inquiry system to help answer questions 
about equipment authorization procedures and rules. The inquiry system and the associated archive 
collectively is part of a Knowledge Data Base (KDB) system.  The Commission has continued to develop 
and improve the KDB, which also provides published records of Commission policies and staff rule 
interpretations; and a template for the equipment authorization public to request information and present 
inquiries.  The published records are fully searchable, and are updated and maintained based on current 
technology trends and new policies and procedures.  In addition, the web interface in the KDB provides 
the public with a vehicle to request information or responses to inquiries.  The KDB provides a database 
Federal Communications Commission FCC 11-33
43
of previous responses, as well as publications, for Commission staff to review to ensure standardization in 
providing information and to facilitate rapid response.
4. Ultra-Wideband Technology
104. In November 2008, the Commission issued an Order granting in part a request submitted 
by UltraVision Security Systems, Inc. (UltraVision) for a waiver of the rules to allow limited marketing 
of its UltraSensor UWB surveillance systems.179 UltraSensor is a UWB fixed radar surveillance system 
designed to operate in the spectrum region below 960 MHz, from 80 MHz to 600 MHz, and is intended to 
provide warning of intruders to sites with strategic or commercial interests.  The waiver will permit the 
UltraSensor surveillance system to operate in the 80-600 MHz frequency band and to allow UltraVision 
to market the systems to any entity eligible for licensing under Part 90 of the rules.  We note that, in 
February 2002, the Commission adopted regulations to permit the operation of UWB transmitters, and 
that several categories of UWB devices are permitted to be operated under the Part 15 regulations without 
a requirement for an individual license: imaging systems, vehicular radars, and indoor and outdoor 
communication systems.  UWB devices are not allocated spectrum but rather use frequency bands 
allocated to various authorized radio services, including Federal Government services, on a sufferance 
basis.  This action will enhance the security of commercial enterprises, including small businesses, by 
allowing them access to a new wireless technology. 
5. New Uses for the TV Broadcast Band
105. In November 2008, the Commission adopted rules to allow unlicensed radio transmitters 
to operate in the broadcast television spectrum at locations where that spectrum is not being used to 
transmit TV signals.  This spectrum is referred to as “TV white spaces.”  The Commission stated in its 
Second Report and Order and Memorandum Opinion and Order that its action will make a significant 
amount of spectrum available for new and innovative products and services, including broadband data 
and other services for businesses and consumers.  The Commission further stated that its decision is a 
conservative first step that includes many safeguards to prevent harmful interference to incumbent 
communications services, and that it will closely oversee the development and introduction of white space 
devices to the market and will take whatever actions may be necessary to avoid, and if necessary correct, 
any interference that may occur.  Finally, the Commission stated that it will consider in the future any 
changes to the rules that may be appropriate to provide greater flexibility for development of this new 
technology and better protect against harmful interference to incumbent communications services.180 The 
white spaces initiative may be particularly beneficial to small businesses.   
6. Broadcast Auxiliary and Mobile Satellite Services at 2 GHz
106. In a March 2008 Memorandum Opinion and Order, the Commission granted a one year 
waiver of the deadline by which Sprint Nextel Corporation (Sprint Nextel) was required to complete the 
transition of the BAS from the 1990-2110 MHz band to frequencies above 2025 MHz, and set forth 
  
179 UltraVision Security Systems, Inc. Request for Interpretation and Waiver of Section 15.511(a) & (b) of the 
Commission’s Rules for Ultra-Wideband Devices, Order, ET Docket 06-195, 23 FCC Rcd 17632 (2008).
180 Unlicensed Operation in the TV Broadcast Bands, ET Docket 04-186, and Additional Spectrum for Unlicensed 
Devices, ET Docket 02-380, Second Report and Order and Memorandum Opinion and Order, ET Docket 04-186,   
23 FCC Rcd 16807 (2008).  Seventeen parties filed petitions for reconsideration in response to the Second Report 
and Order.  In September 2010, the FCC adopted a Second Memorandum Opinion and Order addressing the 
petitions for reconsideration and finalizing rules to make the unused spectrum in the TV bands available for 
unlicensed broadband wireless devices.  Unlicensed Operation in the TV Broadcast Bands, ET Docket No. 04-186, 
Additional Spectrum for Unlicensed Devices Below 900 MHz and in the 3 GHz Band, ET Docket No. 02-380,  
Second Memorandum Opinion and Order, 25 FCC Rcd 18661 (2010).  Five parties filed petitions for 
reconsideration of the Second Memorandum Opinion and Order; the Commission has not yet acted on those 
petitions.
Federal Communications Commission FCC 11-33
44
specific requirements in conjunction with this transition timetable.  In a companion Further Notice of 
Proposed Rulemaking, the Commission explored how to balance the needs of incumbent BAS licensees 
to provide service without suffering harmful interference during the transition and the introduction of new 
2 GHz MSS in a timely manner.181 In a June 2009 Report and Order, the Commission waived until 
February 8, 2010 the BAS relocation deadline; eliminated the requirement that MSS operators not begin 
operations until the relocation of BAS in the thirty largest markets and all fixed BAS links in all markets 
is completed; addressed the interference environment during the period in which both MSS and BAS 
operate in the 2000-2020 MHz band by permitting the MSS entrants to conduct operations where the 
BAS incumbents have not been relocated if they successfully coordinate with the BAS incumbents; and 
waived its rules governing when an MSS operator may provide ancillary terrestrial services in relation to 
commercial satellite service.  In a companion Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, the Commission 
tentatively concluded that MSS operators and future terrestrial licensees would have an obligation to 
share, on a pro rata basis, in the costs associated with the relocation of BAS incumbents if they enter the 
band prior to the BAS sunset date of December 9, 2013; tentatively concluded that an MSS operator 
enters the band and thus incurs an obligation to share in the costs associated with relocation of BAS 
incumbents when its satellite is found operational under its authorization milestone; sought comment on 
various approaches for when MSS operators should be required to reimburse Sprint Nextel for their pro 
rata shares of the relocation costs; invited additional analysis on whether MSS entrants could operate on a 
secondary basis without coordination where BAS incumbents have not been relocated; proposed to clarify 
that MSS operators retain an obligation to relocate BAS incumbents after the MSS operator begins 
operations; and sought comment on incentives to continue to encourage BAS licensees to complete the 
relocation process without unnecessary delay.182 The BAS Relocation will promote more efficient use of 
the spectrum and permit the introduction of new services by MSS licenses, including small businesses.
7. Wireless Operations in the 3650-3700 MHz Band
107. In May 2007, the Commission addressed three petitions for reconsideration filed in 
response to its 2005 Report and Order183 in a proceeding relating to the 3650-3700 MHz band (3650 MHz 
band).  In its 2007 Memorandum Opinion and Order, the Commission affirmed that previous decision to 
create a spectrum environment that will encourage multiple entrants and stimulate the expansion of 
broadband service to rural and under served areas.184 To facilitate rapid deployment in the band, the 
Commission also maintained its non-exclusive licensing scheme.  Additionally, the Commission declined 
to reconsider the requirement that equipment operating in the 3650 MHz band incorporate a “contention-
based protocol” – a technology that permits multiple licensees to share spectrum by ensuring that all 
licensees receive reasonable opportunities to operate in the band.  In response to the record, the 
Commission modified its rules by defining two categories of the contention based protocol – restricted 
and unrestricted.  Equipment operating with a restricted contention based protocol was limited to the 
  
181 Improving Public Safety Communications in the 800 MHz Band, Memorandum Opinion and Order and Further 
Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, WT Docket 02-55 et al., 23 FCC Rcd 4393 (2008).
182 Improving Public Safety Communications in the 800 MHz Band, Report and Order and Further Notice of Proposed 
Rulemaking, WT Docket 02-55 et al., 24 FCC Rcd 7904 (2009).  In September 2010, the Commission issued an order 
concluding the efforts to relocate the BAS. The decision addressed the outstanding matter of Sprint’s inability to agree 
with MSS operators in the band on the sharing of the costs to relocate the BAS incumbents.  The item mostly adopted the 
cost sharing proposals made in the June 2009 Further Notice.  Improving Public Safety Communications in the 800 MHz 
Band, WT Docket No. 02-55, Fifth Report and Order, Eleventh Report and Order, Sixth Report and Order, and 
Declaratory Ruling, FCC 10-179, 25 FCC Rcd 13874 (2010).
183 See Wireless Operations in the 3650-3700 MHz Band, ET Docket No. 04-151, Report & Order, 20 FCC Rcd 
6502 (2005).  
184 See Wireless Operations in the 3650-3700 MHz Band, ET Docket No. 04-151, Memorandum Opinion and Order, 
22 FCC Rcd 10421 (2007). 
Federal Communications Commission FCC 11-33
45
lower 25 megahertz portion of the 3650 MHz band while the equipment employing an unrestricted 
protocol could operate across the entire band.  This action provided an avenue for the quick deployment 
of existing equipment to rural and underserved communities.  The Commission found that this 
modification would facilitate operation of the widest variety of broadband technologies with minimal risk 
of interference, and would further reduce the potential for co-channel interference, provide additional 
protections to the multiple users in the band under the current licensing regime, and create incentives for 
the rapid development of broadly compatible contention-based technologies.  Actions taken in the 3650 
MHz band have eliminated market entry barriers for entrepreneurs and other small businesses.  
8. Medical Device Radio Communication Service 
108. In a March 2009 Report and Order, the Commission adopted rules establishing a new 
service for advanced medical radio communication devices in the 401-406 MHz band.185 An increasing 
number of medical devices are coming to rely upon radio transmissions for critical aspects of their 
functionality, and these devices are improving the health care of all Americans by providing relief and 
recovery of function from many types of illness and injury.  The new MedRadio Service incorporates the 
existing Medical Implant Communications Service band at 402-405 MHz, and also includes two 
megahertz of newly designated spectrum in the adjacent bands at 401-402 MHz and 405-406 MHz.  
Altogether, the MedRadio Service now provides a total of five megahertz of contiguous spectrum on a 
secondary basis and non-interference basis for advanced wireless medical radiocommunication devices 
used for diagnostic and therapeutic purposes in humans.  The new MedRadio Service accommodates the 
operation of body-worn as well as implanted medical devices, including those using either listen-before-
talk (LBT) frequency monitoring or non-LBT spectrum access methods, in designated portions of the 
401-406 MHz band.  The Commission’s licensing approach does not require individual transmitter 
licensing, but rather is accomplished through adherence to applicable technical standards and other 
operating rules to minimize the administrative burden on prospective licensees.  Thus, regulatory barriers 
to entrepreneurs and other small businesses in this new service are minimal.
9. Medical Body Area Networks 
109. In June 2009, the Commission adopted a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking that sought 
comment on allocating spectrum and establishing service and technical rules for the operation of Medical 
Body Area Networks (MBANs).  MBANs could be used to create wireless body sensor networks around 
individual patients to monitor an array of physiological data – such as temperature, pulse, blood glucose 
level, blood pressure, respiratory function and a variety of other physiological metrics.  MBAN systems 
would primarily be used in health care facilities, with the potential also of being used in other patient 
care/monitoring circumstances.  Unlike traditional medical telemetry systems which rely on separate 
uncoordinated links for each physiological function being monitored, MBAN systems could serve to 
wirelessly monitor all of the desired data of a single patient, which could then be aggregated and 
wirelessly transmitted to a remote location for evaluation. The Notice sought comment on options for 
accommodating MBAN operations in several frequency bands, and on the amount of spectrum that 
should be allocated for such use.  More specifically, the Notice sought comment on the feasibility of using 
the 2360-2400 MHz; 2300-2305 MHz and 2395-2400 MHz; the 2400-2483.5 MHz; or 5150-5250 MHz 
bands for this purpose, and on various licensing schemes that would be appropriate for any of these bands 
under consideration.  In addition, the Notice sought comment on tentative service and eligibility rules that 
  
185 Investigation of the Spectrum Requirements for Advanced Medical Technologies; Amendment of Parts and 95 of 
the Commission’s Rules to Establish the Medical Device Radio Communications Service at 401-402 and 405-406 
MHz; DexCom, Inc. Request for Waiver of the Frequency Monitoring Requirements of the Medical Implant 
Communications Service Rules; Biotronik, Inc. Request for Waiver of the Frequency Monitoring Requirements for 
the Medical Implant Communications Service Rules, Report and Order, ET Docket 06-135 et al., 24 FCC Rcd 3474 
(2009).
Federal Communications Commission FCC 11-33
46
would be similar in many respects to those for other wireless body-worn and implanted medical devices 
operating in the MedRadio Service in the 401-406 MHz bands.186
10. Spectrum Sharing Innovation Test-Bed 
110. On February 5, 2008, the Commission issued a Public Notice187 and the Department of 
Commerce’s National Telecommunications and Information Administration (NTIA) issued a Notice of 
Solicitation of Proposal,188 designating spectrum and providing guidance for participating in a Spectrum 
Sharing Innovation Test-Bed (“Test-Bed”) program to study the feasibility of increasing the efficient use 
of spectrum that is shared between federal and non-federal users.  In its Public Notice, the Commission 
noted that in May 2003 the President established a “Spectrum Policy Initiative” by issuing an Executive 
Memorandum to initiate an examination of the existing legal and policy framework for spectrum 
management in order to better optimize the use of U.S. spectrum assets for federal and non-federal users.  
The Commission was encouraged to participate in this review and to provide input to NTIA on these 
issues.  In its joint February 2008 action, the Commission designated 10 megahertz of spectrum in the 
470-512 MHz band, and NTIA designated the 410-420 MHz band, for the Test-Bed.  In May 2008, NTIA 
identified six Test Bed participants.  Since then, a working group, which includes NTIA, the FCC, and 
other government agencies, has met with the different participants to address any questions or comments 
they have regarding a three-phased Test-Bed Program.  This phased approach was conceived to evaluate 
the ability of Dynamic Spectrum Access devices employing spectrum sensing and/or geolocation 
techniques to share spectrum with land mobile radio systems operating in the 410-420 MHz and 470-512 
MHz bands.  These bands are a fertile ground for entrepreneurs and other small businesses.
11. Summary 
111. With these new allocations, rules, and spectrum management principles, the Commission 
anticipates the development of a broad range of new devices and communications options that will 
stimulate economic development and the growth of new industries, and promote the ability of 
manufacturers—including entrepreneurs and other small businesses—to compete more effectively in both 
domestic and global markets. 
F. Media Bureau     
112. The Media Bureau develops, recommends, and administers policy and licensing 
programs relating to electronic media, including cable television, broadcast television, and radio in the 
U.S. and its territories. The Media Bureau also handles post-licensing matters regarding Direct Broadcast 
Satellite service.  The Media Bureau is strongly committed to the principles and policies of Section 257.  
As discussed below, the Media Bureau has adopted a number of measures to remove barriers to market 
entry for entrepreneurs and other small businesses.  
1. Promoting Ownership Diversity
113. On March 5, 2008, the Commission adopted Promoting Diversification of Ownership in 
the Broadcasting Services, a Report and Order and Third Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking 
(“Diversity Order”), which modified certain agency rules and policies to encourage ownership diversity 
  
186 Amendment of the Commission’s Rules to Provide Spectrum for the Operation of Medical Body Area Networks, 
Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, ET Docket 08-59, FCC 09-57, released June 29, 2009.
187 Federal Communications Commission Designates Spectrum and Provides Guidance for Participation in a  
Spectrum Sharing Innovation Test-Bed, Public Notice, ET Docket 06-89, 23 FCC Rcd 1654 (2008).
188 NTIA Docket No. 080129095-8096-01, published in 73 Fed. Reg. 6710 (February 5, 2008). 
Federal Communications Commission FCC 11-33
47
and new entry into the broadcasting industry.189 The Diversity Order recognized the national importance 
of a communications policy that supports the widest dissemination of information from different sources 
as essential to the welfare of the public.  Many of the actions adopted by the Commission were 
recommendations from the Diversity FACA and have been described fully in paragraph 20 of this Report. 
The Third FNPRM sought comment on whether the Commission can or should expand its definition of 
“eligible entity” to include other businesses; on how best to improve its collection of data regarding the 
gender, race, and ethnicity of broadcast licensees; and on a number of additional proposals designed to 
expand ownership opportunities for new entrants and small businesses.
114. On May 5, 2009, the Commission issued a Report and Order (“323 Order”) and 
companion Fourth Further Notice of Rulemaking (“Fourth NPRM”) in the proceeding.190 The 323 Order
adopted improvements to our Form 323 data collection in order to obtain an accurate, reliable, and 
comprehensive assessment of minority and female broadcast ownership and modified the filing 
requirements.  On December 23, 2009, the Bureau temporarily suspended the filing deadline for Form 
323 to investigate changes that could be made to the form to reduce the time required to complete it and 
to lessen any unanticipated burdens in this regard without undermining the completeness, quality, 
usefulness, and aggregability of the data.191  
115. The Fourth NPRM tentatively concluded that obtaining gender, race, and ethnicity 
information from non-commercial (“NCE”) licensees would further the Commission’s goal to design 
policies to advance diversity in the broadcast industry.  The Fourth NPRM sought comment on revising 
Form 323-E to collect this information from NCE licensees and LPFM licensees, along with the best way 
to define ownership of an NCE licensee, many of whom are non-profit, non-stock entities, or 
governmental organizations. 
116. On October 16, 2009, the Commission issued a Report and Order and Fifth Further 
Notice of Rulemaking in this proceeding.192 On reconsideration of the 323 Order, the Commission 
affirmed its prior conclusion that the biennial reporting requirement should apply to sole proprietors.  It 
also reversed its decision to require the reporting of the two classes of non-attributable interests, and 
released a further notice of proposed rulemaking on the issue. 
2. Exclusivity Clauses in the Provision of Video Services to Multiple Dwelling 
Units
117. On October 31, 2007, the Commission adopted an Order that prohibits the enforcement 
or execution of exclusivity clauses in the provision of video services by multichannel video programming 
distributors (“MVPD”) subject to Section 628 of the Communications Act to multiple dwelling units 
(“MDU”) and other real estate developments.193 By instituting this ban on exclusivity clauses, the 
  
189  Promoting Diversification of Ownership in the Broadcasting Services, Report and Order and Third Further 
Notice of Rulemaking, MB Docket No. 07-294, 23 FCC Rcd 5922 (2008).
190 Promoting Diversification of Ownership in the Broadcasting Services, Report and Order and Fourth Further 
Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, MB Docket No. 07-294, et al., 24 FCC Rcd 5896 (2009) (“323 Order”)
191 Promoting Diversification in the Broadcasting Services, Order, 24 FCC Rcd 14628 (MB 2009). On April 8, 
2010, the Bureau announced the availability of an improved Form 323 and announced a new filing deadline of July 
8, 2010.  Media Bureau Announces Revised Form 323 Will be Available Online on April 9, 2010 and Sets New 
Filing Deadline of July 8, 2010, Public Notice, 25 FCC Rcd 3595 (MB 2010). The Commission released the 2009 
Form 323 data in February 2011.
192 Promoting Diversification of Ownership in the Broadcasting Services, Memorandum Opinion and Order and 
Fifth Further Notice of Rulemaking, 24 FCC Rcd 13040 (2009).
193 Exclusive Service Contracts for Provision of Video Services in Multiple Dwelling Units and Other Real Estate 
Developments, MB Docket No. 07-51, Report and Order and Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, 22 FCC Rcd 
20235 (2007).
Federal Communications Commission FCC 11-33
48
Commission sought to foster greater competition in the market for providing video service to apartment 
and condominium complexes, planned communities and other real estate developments, including by 
small MVPDs.  The Commission found that the use of exclusivity clauses between certain MVPDs and 
multiple dwelling units was on the rise, harming competition and discouraging other MVPDs from 
improving service.  This Order was affirmed by the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals on May 26, 2009.194
118. The Commission also issued a Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking which sought 
comment on whether a similar prohibition should be applied to DBS providers, private cable operators 
and other MVPDs who are not subject to Section 628 of the Communications Act.   
3. Competition in the Video Distribution Market
119. On September 11, 2007, the Commission adopted an Order extending the ban on 
exclusive contracts between vertically integrated video programmers and cable operators.195 By 
extending the ban for five years, the Commission sought to prevent video programmers affiliated with 
cable operators from favoring affiliated cable operators over competitive MVPDs, including many small 
MVPDs.  The Commission stated that ensuring competitive MVPD’s access to cable operator affiliated 
programming will foster competition in the video distribution market.196  
120. In the same proceeding, the Commission also issued a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking
seeking comment on issues relating to program tying arrangements, under which some programmers 
require MVPDs to purchase a package of programming instead of just the programming the MVPD 
wants.    
4. Digital Audio Broadcasting
121. On March 22, 2007, the Commission adopted a Second Report and Order in the Digital 
Audio Broadcasting proceeding.197 Among other things, the Order allows radio stations to time broker 
unused digital bandwidth to third parties.  The FM multicasting functionality is expected to drive demand 
for programming and, therefore, should expand opportunities for local small businesses that create radio 
programming.  
5. Policies to Promote Rural Radio Service
122. On April 7, 2009, the Commission adopted a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking seeking 
comment on numerous proposed changes to our rules and procedures to better encourage the fair 
distribution of broadcast licenses, particularly in smaller communities, rural areas, and Tribal areas, afford 
greater opportunities to participate in competitive bidding, promote the filing of technically sound 
  
194 National Cable & Telecommunications Ass’n v. FCC, 567 F.3d 659 (D.C. Cir 2009).
195 Implementation of the Cable Television Consumer Protection and Competition Act of 1992, MB Docket 07-29, 
Report and Order and Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, 22 FCC Rcd 17791 (2007), appeal pending, Cablevision 
Systems Corp., No. 07-1425 (D.C. Cir.), filed 10-19-07 (lead case), Comcast Corp. No. 07-1987, filed 12-3-07 
(consolidated case).
196 In 2010, this Order was affirmed by the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals. Cablevision Systems Corp. v. FCC, 597 
F.3d 1306 (D.C. Cir. 2010).
197 Digital Audio Broadcasting Systems and Their Impact on the Terrestrial Radio Broadcast Service, MM Docket 
No. 99-325, Second Report and Order, First Order on Reconsideration, and Second Further Notice of Proposed 
Rulemaking, 22 FCC Rcd 10344 (2007).
Federal Communications Commission FCC 11-33
49
applications, and deter speculation.198 The Notice specifically asked for comment on how the proposals 
might affect small business entities, including those owned by minorities and women.199  
6. Video Competition Notice of Inquiry  
123. Pursuant to the Cable Television Consumer Protection and Competition Act of 1992,200
the FCC compiles information yearly on the status of competition in the video programming delivery 
market. This Notice of Inquiry and Supplemental Notice of Inquiry requests information, comments, and 
analyses that will aid the Commission in evaluating the status of competition in the video marketplace, 
changes in the marketplace in the last year, factors that have facilitated or impeded competition, and, most 
directly relevant to section 257, the effect these factors have on prospects for new entrants,
124. A Notice of Inquiry was released January 16, 2009.201 A Supplemental Notice of Inquiry
seeking updated information was released April 9, 2009.202 Both Notices asked commenters to provide 
data on video programming distributors (for the next annual video competition report), including:  1) 
cable systems; 2) direct-to-home satellite services, including direct broadcast satellite (“DBS”) services 
and large home satellite dish (“C-Band”) providers; 3) other wireline providers, including local exchange 
carriers (“LECs”), broadband service providers (“BSPs”), open video systems (“OVS”), and utility-
operated systems; 4) over-the-air broadcast television stations; 5) other wireless service providers, 
including commercial mobile radio services (“CMRS”) as well as wireless cable systems using 
frequencies in the broadband radio and educational broadband services; 6) private cable operators (“PCO” 
systems), also known as satellite master antenna television(“SMATV”) systems; and 7) the Internet and 
Internet Protocol (“IP”) networks.  
125. The Notices also sought information to allow the Commission to evaluate horizontal 
concentration in the video marketplace, vertical integration between programming distributors and 
programming services, technical issues, including equipment and emerging services, and developments in 
foreign markets. 
7. XM-Sirius Merger  
126. The merging companies voluntary committed to lease 4 percent of full-time audio 
channels to qualified entities and an additional 4 percent of capacity for the delivery of noncommercial 
educational and informational (“NCE”) programming, in order to enhance the diversity of programming 
available to consumers.203  
  
198 Policies to Promote Rural Radio Service and to Streamline Allotment and Assignment Procedures, MB Docket 
09-52, Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, 24 FCC Rcd 5239 (2009).
199 On February 3, 2010, the Commission adopted a First Report and Order that gives Tribes a priority to obtain 
broadcast radio licenses in Tribal communities.  Policies to Promote Rural Radio Service and to Streamline 
Allotment and Assignment Procedures, MB Docket 09-52, First Report and Order and Further Notice of Proposed 
Rulemaking, 25 FCC Rcd 1583 (2010). The Order provides an opportunity for Tribes to establish new service 
specifically designed to offer programming that meets the needs of Tribal citizens.
200 Pub. L. No. 102-385, 106 Stat 1460 (1992) ("1992 Cable Act").
201 Annual Assessment of the Status of Competition in the Market for the Delivery of Video Programming, MB 
Docket No. 07-269, Notice of Inquiry, 24 FCC Red 750 (2009).
202 Annual Assessment of the Status of Competition in the Market for the Delivery of Video Programming, MB 
Docket No. 07-269, Supplemental Notice of Inquiry, 24 FCC Rcd 4401 (2009).
203 In May 2010, the parties received an extension from the Commission to fulfill the qualified entities commitment.  
Applications for Consent to the Transfer of Control of Licenses XM Satellite Radio Holdings, Inc., Transferor to 
Sirius Satellite Radio Inc., Transferee, MB Docket No. 07-57, Order, 25 FCC Rcd 5675 (2010) (granting extension 
until August 23, 2010). On October 18, 2010, the Commission adopted an Order providing details on the 
implementation of the qualified entities commitment to promote access for new entrants and more diverse 
(continued....)
Federal Communications Commission FCC 11-33
50
127. The Memorandum Opinion and Order and Report and Order204 also required the 
companies to refrain from entering into any agreement that would grant an equipment manufacturer an 
exclusive right to manufacture, market, and sell Satellite Digital Audio Radio Service (SDARS) receivers.  
In addition, the companies committed to refrain from barring any manufacturer from including in any 
receiver non-interfering hybrid digital terrestrial radio functionality, iPod compatibility, or other audio 
technology. In addition, the applicants commit to make available the intellectual property needed to allow 
any device manufacturer to develop equipment that can deliver SDARS. These requirements sought to 
eliminate barriers to the development and sale of SDARS equipment, including by small businesses and 
entrepreneurs.
128. On August 28, 2008, the Commission released a Notice of Inquiry205 on the issues of (i) 
requiring devices capable of receiving SDARS to include digital audio broadcast (“DAB”), or HD 
Radio™, or any other technologies capable of providing audio entertainment services; and (ii) requiring 
devices capable of receiving HD Radio to include SDARS or any other technologies capable of providing 
audio entertainment services. The Notice of Inquiry asked whether these requirements would further 
promote competition among audio technologies or add to the diversity of programming available to 
consumers through one device, both of which could lower barriers to market entry by small businesses.206
8. Low Power Radio Service
129. On November 27, 2007, the Commission adopted a Third Report and Order and Second 
Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking regarding the low power radio service.207 The Report and Order
allowed the transfer of LPFM licenses, reinstated the Commission’s rule that all LPFM authorization 
holders be local to the community and limits ownership to one station per licensee, encouraged voluntary 
time-sharing agreements between applicants and imposed an application cap on 2003 FM translator 
window filers.  
130. In the Second Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, the Commission sought comment on 
technical rules that could potentially expand LPFM licensing opportunities.  The NPRM tentatively 
concluded that full service stations must provide technical and financial assistance to LPFM stations when 
implementation of a full service station facility proposal would cause interference to an LPFM station.
131. LPFM service is vital to local/community radio and LPFM stations are often easier to 
launch by new entrants than full power stations. Accordingly, the Commission’s efforts to expand LPFM 
service and ownership opportunities increase opportunities for new entrants in radio.
  
(...continued from previous page)
programming.  Applications for Consent to the Transfer of Control of Licenses XM Satellite Radio Holdings, Inc., 
Transferor to Sirius Satellite Radio Inc., Transferee, Memorandum Opinion and Order, 25 FCC Rcd 14779 (2010).  
On November 23, 2010 Sirius XM made the application process for the set-aside channels public on its website 
www.siriusxm.com/qualifiedentity. Media Bureau Announces Location of Application Procedures for 
Implementation of the Sirius XM Leasing Condition, Public Notice, 25 FCC Rcd 16210 (MB 2010). 
204 Applications for Consent to the Transfer of Control of Licenses XM Satellite Radio Holdings, Inc., Transferor to 
Sirius Satellite Radio Inc., Transferee, MB Docket No. 07-57, Memorandum Opinion and Order and Report and 
Order, 23 FCC Rcd 12348 (2008).
205 Development of Devices Capable of Supporting Multiple Audio Entertainment Services, MB Docket No. 08-172, 
Notice of Inquiry, 23 FCC Rcd 13178 (2008).  
206 Id. at para. 6.
207 Creation of a Low Power Radio Service, MB Docket No. 99-25, Third Report and Order and Second Notice of 
Proposed Rulemaking, 22 FCC Rcd 21912 (2007).
Federal Communications Commission FCC 11-33
51
9. Localism
132. On December 18, 2007, the Commission adopted a Report and Notice of Proposed 
Rulemaking geared towards increasing local programming content and diversity in communities across 
America.208 The item is based, in part, on six field hearings conducted throughout the country and over 
83,000 comments.
133. In the Report, the Commission agreed to investigate ways to assist prospective radio 
licensees to identify suitable available commercial FM spectrum in the communities in which they wish 
to broadcast, including authorizing the development of software to do so.209 This tool was made available 
to the public on April 24, 2008.210
134. The Localism NPRM, in part, concluded that qualified LPTV stations should be granted 
Class A status, which would require them to provide 3 hours per week of locally-produced programming 
and sought comment on this proposal. This and other proposals in the NPRM were designed to expand 
broadcast ownership opportunities for minority- and women-owned businesses and small businesses.
10. Leased Access Programming 
135. On November 27, 2007, the Commission adopted an Order that, among other things, 
created specific customer service standards that cable operators must abide by when dealing with requests 
for leased access from independent programmers and increased enforcement of those standards.211 By 
adopting these new standards the Commission sought to facilitate the use of leased access channels on 
cable systems, providing an easier way for independent programmers to gain access to cable distribution.  
This Order was stayed by the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals on May 22, 2008.212  
G. Consumer & Governmental Affairs Bureau
1. Slamming
136. Section 258 of the Act prohibits any telecommunications carrier from submitting or 
executing an unauthorized change in a subscriber’s selection of a provider of telephone exchange service 
or telephone toll service, a practice known as “slamming.”213 In December 2007, the Commission 
adopted an order revising its requirements concerning verification of a consumer’s intent to switch 
carriers.214 These revisions:  1) ensure that each verification includes the date; 2) expand the disclosure 
obligations of third party verifiers when consumers have questions during the verification; and 3) clarify 
the required disclosures by verifiers to ensure that consumers better comprehend precisely what service 
changes they are approving.  
137. Not only were these rule changes designed to increase consumer confidence in their 
ability to switch carriers seamlessly, they also provide carriers greater protections against losing 
  
208 Broadcast Localism, Report and Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, MB Docket No. 04-233, 23 FCC Rcd 1324 
(2008).  
209 Id. at 1380.
210 http://www.fcc.gov/mb/audio/allotmentfinder.html.    
211 Leased Commercial Access, Report and Order, FCC 07-208, 23 FCC Rcd 2909 (2008)
212 Order, United Church of Christ Office of Communications, Inc. v. FCC, No. 08-3245 (and consolidated cases) 
(6th Cir. May 22, 2008).
213 See 47 U.S.C. § 258(a).
214 Implementation of the Subscriber Carrier Selection Changes Provisions of the Telecommunications Act of 1996; 
Policies and Rules Concerning Unauthorized Changes of Consumers’ Long Distance Carriers, CC Docket No. 94-
129, Fourth Report and Order, 23 FCC Rcd 493 (2008) (Slamming Fourth Report and Order).
Federal Communications Commission FCC 11-33
52
customers to slams.  In both facilitating consumers’ ability to switch carriers but protecting against 
unauthorized switches, the Slamming Fourth Report and Order eliminated barriers to entry by small 
telecommunications carriers.  In addition, these revisions may have decreased the administrative costs for 
carriers to comply with the Commission’s anti-slamming rules, thereby potentially removing another 
barrier to market entry for smaller businesses.
2. Telecommunications Relay Service
a. Commission Certification of New IP-Based Relay Providers
138. The Commission’s rules provide that by being certified by the Commission, IP-based 
TRS providers may become eligible for reimbursement from the TRS Fund for their provision of 
services.215 The certification of IP-based TRS providers is one area where the regulations and policies of 
the Commission have a direct bearing on the ability of small businesses to enter the TRS market.  
Although the certification rules were adopted before the period under consideration in this Report,216 14 
providers have applied to the Commission for certification since the beginning of 2007.
139. While these certification processes facilitate market entry by small businesses, in 
addressing certification issues the Commission also must balance encouraging innovation and 
competitiveness from new companies with retaining control over the process to assure quality of service 
and safeguard the integrity of the TRS Fund.  Thus, in 2008 the Consumer and Governmental Affairs 
Bureau (CGB) clarified that in the event of a merger or acquisition of one TRS provider by another, the 
acquiring or surviving provider must be certified under the Commission’s rules (or otherwise eligible for 
compensation from the TRS Fund) before it can receive payments from the TRS Fund.217 In addition, 
early in 2009, the Commission received a petition to amend its certification rules (1) to prohibit the 
practice of providing "white label" services by uncertified entities receiving compensation from the TRS 
Fund through certified providers, and (2) to require applicants for certification by the Commission to 
demonstrate sufficient resources and capabilities to provide an IP-based TRS service.  The Commission 
has sought public comment on the petition.218 These examples illustrate that while the Commission 
actively has taken steps to identify and eliminate barriers to TRS market entry for small businesses, it also 
must evaluate whether some criteria for entry should be more stringent to assure quality of service and 
safeguard the integrity of the TRS Fund.
b. Provider Compensation from the TRS Fund
140. TRS providers are compensated for their services based on per-minute rates, determined 
annually.  Eligible providers submit their minutes each month for payment.  Because TRS is an 
accommodation required by the Americans with Disabilities Act,219 the compensation rates are intended 
  
215 See 47 C.F.R. §§ 64.604(c)(5)(iii)(F)(4), 64.606.  Though these rules specifically refer to Video Relay Service 
(VRS) and IP Relay providers, the Commission also permitted IP Captioned Telephone Service providers to be 
certified by the Commission.  See Telecommunications Relay Services and Speech-to-Speech Services for 
Individuals with Hearing and Speech Disabilities; Internet-based Captioned Telephone Service, CG Docket No. 03-
123, Declaratory Ruling, 22 FCC Rcd 379 (2007).
216 Telecommunications Relay Services and Speech-to-Speech Services for Individuals with Hearing and Speech 
Disabilities, CG Docket No. 03-123, Report and Order and Order on Reconsideration, 20 FCC Rcd 20577 (2005).
217 Consumer and Governmental Affairs Bureau Clarifies the Transferability of Telecommunications Relay Service 
(TRS) Provider Certification, CG Docket No. 03-123, Public Notice, 23 FCC Rcd 10438 (CGB 2008).
218 Pleading Cycle Established for Comments on Petition for Rulemaking filed by GoAmerica, Inc., Concerning 
Internet-Based Telecommunications Relay Service (TRS) Provider Certification Requirements, CG Docket No. 03-
123, RM No. 11512, Public Notice, 24 FCC Rcd 3638 (CGB 2009).
219 Title IV of the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990, Pub. L. No. 101-336, § 401 (1990), added section 225, 
47 U.S.C. § 225, to the Act.
Federal Communications Commission FCC 11-33
53
to reflect the providers’ reasonable costs of providing services.  They are not set by market forces.220 In 
2007, the Commission released a comprehensive order addressing issues related to cost recovery 
methodologies and compensation from the TRS Fund for all of the various forms of TRS.221 Given that 
the Commission has continued to receive numerous applications for provider certification since its 
issuance of the 2007 TRS Rate Methodology Order, the Commission concluded that the cost recovery 
methodologies adopted therein have not acted as barriers to TRS market entry for small businesses.
141. Also in the 2007 TRS Rate Methodology Order, the Commission added an additional 
amount to the Speech-to-Speech (STS) services compensation rate for outreach efforts, noting that many 
potential STS users have not been made aware of the availability of STS.  The Commission also required 
that STS providers file a report annually with NECA and the Commission on their specific outreach 
efforts directly attributable to the additional support for STS outreach.222 Since STS providers are 
compensated an additional amount for outreach, the Commission concluded that requiring STS providers 
to file an annual report will not be a barrier to market entry for small entities.223
142. As with the provider certification process, the Commission also must balance 
encouraging broad participation in the TRS market, with its unique characteristics, with safeguarding the 
integrity of the TRS Fund.  This balancing has particularly been an issue with respect to Video Relay 
Service (VRS).  In the 2007 TRS Rate Methodology Order, the Commission adopted a tiered rate 
approach for VRS, based on certain monthly service minutes thresholds, to more accurately correlate the 
compensation rates to providers’ reasonable actual costs of providing service.224 In mid-2009, however, 
based on the experience with two VRS rate cycles since adoption of the 2007 TRS Rate Methodology 
Order, the Commission questioned whether the VRS rules adopted in that order accurately reflect the 
providers’ reasonable actual costs of providing service.  Therefore, the Commission sought comment on 
whether it should adopt new rates for the 2009-2010 Fund year, rather than those prescribed by the 2007 
TRS Rate Methodology Order.225 Though VRS compensation rates may have an impact on the number of 
new entities, including small businesses, that seek to become new VRS providers, we did not believe that 
the 2009 proposals would erect barriers to market entry.226
  
220 Telecommunications Relay Services and Speech-to-Speech Services for Individuals with Hearing and Speech 
Disabilities, CG Docket No. 03-123, Report and Order and Declaratory Ruling, 22 FCC Rcd 20140, 20144, para. 5 
(2007) (2007 TRS Rate Methodology Order) remanded on other grounds, Sorenson Communications v. FCC , 567 
F.3d 1215 (10th Cir. 2009).
221 See generally 2007 TRS Rate Methodology Order.
222 Id. at 20166, para. 61.
223 Id. at 20189, App. G, Final Regulatory Flexibility Certification at para. 121.
224 Id. at 20160-65, 20167-68, paras. 47-56, 67-72.
225 Telecommunications Relay Services and Speech-to-Speech Services for Individuals with Hearing and Speech 
Disabilities, CG Docket No. 03-123, Public Notice and Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, 24 FCC Rcd 6029, 6033, 
para. 11 (2009).  
226 In 2010, the Commission also launched a proceeding to take a fresh look at the Commission's VRS rules, 
including questions on the structure of the VRS market.  See Structure and Practices of the Video Relay Service 
Program, CG Docket No. 10-51, Notice of Inquiry, 25 FCC Rcd 8597, 8598, 8606, paras. 1, 27 (2010).  At the same 
time, the Commission adopted interim VRS rates for the 2010-2011 Fund year, representing the average of the 
previous tiered rates and proposed rates based on actual, historical costs.  See Telecommunications Relay Services 
and Speech-to-Speech Services for Individuals with Hearing and Speech Disabilities, CG Docket No. 03-123, Order, 
25 FCC Rcd 8689, 8690, para. 2 (2010).
Federal Communications Commission FCC 11-33
54
c. Application of E911 Regulations to TRS Providers
143. Because of the importance of prompt emergency call handling for all Americans, the 
Commission adopted emergency call handling requirements for Internet-based TRS providers.  In March 
2008,227 the Commission adopted interim measures to ensure that persons using Internet-based forms of 
TRS could promptly access emergency services, pending the development of a technological solution that 
would permit Internet-based TRS providers to immediately and automatically place the outbound leg of 
an emergency call to an appropriate public safety answering point or other appropriate entity.  Later in 
2008, the Commission adopted a system for assigning users of VRS and IP Relay ten-digit telephone 
numbers linked to the North American Numbering Plan, and required users to register their physical 
location so that the relay provider can automatically pass this location information to appropriate 
emergency personnel.228  To the extent that Internet-based TRS providers, including small entities, will be 
eligible to receive compensation from the TRS Fund for their reasonable costs of complying with these 
requirements, the Commission found that these requirements will not be a barrier to market entry for 
small entities.229  
3. Application of Section 255 to Interconnected VoIP Services
144. In June 2007, the Commission extended the disability access requirements, that have 
applied to telecommunications service providers and equipment manufacturers under section 255 of the 
Act,230 to providers of interconnected VoIP services and to manufacturers of specially designed 
equipment used to provide those services.231 In addition, the Order extended the TRS requirements to 
providers of interconnected VoIP services. The Commission took these measures to ensure that, as more 
consumers migrate from traditional phone service to interconnected VoIP services, the disability access 
provisions mandated by Congress under sections 255 and 225 will apply to and benefit users of 
interconnected VoIP services and equipment.  In applying section 255 to interconnected VoIP providers 
and equipment manufacturers, the Commission adopted the “readily achievable” standard that applies to 
telecommunications service providers and manufacturers.  Therefore, interconnected VoIP providers and 
manufacturers are required to render their services or products accessible only if doing so is “easily 
accomplishable and able to be carried out without much difficulty or expense.”232 Applying section 255 
to interconnected VoIP providers and equipment manufacturers in this manner balanced the disability 
  
227 Telecommunications Relay Services and Speech-to-Speech Services for Individuals with Hearing and Speech 
Disabilities, E911 Requirements for IP-Enabled Service Providers, CG Docket No. 03-123 and WC Docket No. 05-
196, Report and Order, 23 FCC Rcd 5255 (2008) (Interim Emergency Call Handling Order).
228 Telecommunications Relay Services and Speech-to-Speech Services for Individuals with Hearing and Speech 
Disabilities; E911 Requirements for IP-Enabled Service Providers, CG Docket No. 03-123, WC Docket No. 05-
196, Report and Order and Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, 23 FCC Rcd 11591 (2008) (First TRS 
Numbering Order); Second Report and Order and Order on Reconsideration, 24 FCC Rcd 791 (2008).
229 See First TRS Numbering Order, 23 FCC Rcd at 11661, App. C, Final Regulatory Flexibility Certification at 
para. 3; Interim Emergency Call Handling Order, 23 FCC Rcd at 5278. App. C, Final Regulatory Flexibility 
Certification at para. 3.
230 47 U.S.C. § 255.
231 IP-Enabled Services, WC Docket No. 04-36; Implementation of Sections 255 and 251(a)(2) of The 
Communications Act of 1934, as Enacted by The Telecommunications Act of 1996:  Access to Telecommunications 
Service, Telecommunications Equipment and Customer Premises Equipment by Persons with Disabilities, WT 
Docket No. 96-198; Telecommunications Relay Services and Speech-to-Speech Services for Individuals with 
Hearing and Speech Disabilities, CG Docket No. 03-123; The Use of N11 Codes and Other Abbreviated Dialing 
Arrangements, CC Docket No. 92-105, Report and Order, 22 FCC Rcd 11275 (2007).
232 Id. at 11335, App. C, Final Regulatory Flexibility Analysis at para. 81.
Federal Communications Commission FCC 11-33
55
access policies underlying section 255 with the market access for small businesses policies – in this case, 
small VoIP providers or equipment manufacturers – underlying section 257.
4. Closed Captioning
145. Closed captioning allows persons with hearing disabilities to have access to television 
programming by displaying the audio portion of a television program as text on the television screen.  In 
November 2008, the Commission sought comment on the closed captioning obligations of digital 
broadcasters that choose to use their digital channel to transmit several streams of programming, known 
as “multicasting.”  Specifically, the Commission sought comment on the scope in a multicasting 
environment of section 79.1(d)(12) of the Commission’s rules, which exempts from the closed captioning 
obligations video programming channels that produced annual gross revenues of less than $3 million 
during the previous calendar year.233 In order to determine whether each stream of a digital broadcaster’s 
multicast operation must be captioned, the Commission proposed several possible alternatives, including:  
treat each multicast stream as a separate channel and calculate their revenues separately; treat each 
multicast stream as a separate channel and calculate their revenues separately, but decrease the revenue 
threshold for determining whether the non-main programming streams must close caption; treat individual 
programming streams as one channel, in which case the revenues would be aggregated for purposes of 
determining if the exemption in section 79.1(d)(12) applies; or, impose a new non-revenue approach for 
deciding how much programming must be captioned on multicast streams.  
146. The Commission’s rules – and the Act itself – acknowledge that there are economic 
commitments associated with closed captioning requirements, and that the Commission must balance 
“maximize[ing] the accessibility of video programming”234 with ensuring that the requirements do not 
result in an undue economic burden on video providers and programmers.235 By its very nature, current 
section 79.1(d)(12) decreases the closed captioning burden on entities whose annual gross revenues do 
not meet a certain threshold.  Therefore, how the Commission interprets section 79.1(d)(12) in the 
multicasting environment likely will have an effect on market entry by small broadcasters.  Even if the 
Commission adopts a more stringent threshold for section 79.1(d)(12), however, which could result in 
increased barriers to entry for small broadcasters, at the same time, the greater amount of captioning that 
concomitantly would be required may provide business opportunities for software developers and other 
small businesses performing closed captioning services.
5. Market Entry in Indian Country
147. The Commission, through CGB’s Office of Native Affairs and Policy and assisted by 
other Bureaus, conducts outreach to Tribal Nations on an ongoing basis, with emphasis on increasing 
  
233 Closed Captioning of Video Programming; Closed Captioning Requirements for Digital Television Receivers, 
CG Docket No. 05-231, ET Docket No. 99-254, Declaratory Ruling, Order, and Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, 23 
FCC Rcd 16674, 16687-89, paras. 35-40 (2008) (Closed Captioning 2008 Order and NPRM).  See 47 C.F.R. § 
79.1(d)(12).  In the accompanying Declaratory Ruling and Order, the Commission clarified some of the closed 
captioning rules in light of technological changes inherent in the digital television transition for full-power 
broadcasting, and amended the rules to provide for more efficient complaint processes and methods for consumers 
to contact distributors with concerns about closed captioning.  See generally Closed Captioning 2008 Order and 
NPRM.
234 47 U.S.C. § 613(b)(2).
235 See, e.g., 47 U.S.C. § 613(d)(1) (empowering Commission to adopt categorical exemptions to the closed 
captioning requirements where captioning would be economically burdensome); 47 U.S.C. § 613(e) (enabling
Commission to exempt programming on a case-by-case basis where compliance with the closed captioning 
requirements would result in an undue economic burden); 47 C.F.R. § 79.1(f) (Commission rules implementing 47 
U.S.C. § 613(e); 47 C.F.R. § 79.1(d)(9) (exempting from the closed captioning requirements programming on new 
networks, for the first four years after the network begins operation).
Federal Communications Commission FCC 11-33
56
telecommunications access and market entry in Indian Country.236 For the period 2007-09, the 
Commission continued to sponsor “Indian Telecommunications Initiative” (ITI) workshops in Indian 
Country to provide "how to" information on telecommunications services and infrastructure, and to 
promote government-to-government dialogue and consultation.  Beyond the ITI workshops, Commission 
staff regularly meet with representatives of individual tribes to address their unique telecommunications 
and related issues.  Commission staff also participate in several dozen conferences each year sponsored 
by Tribal and related organizations to provide additional opportunity to help advise potential new market 
entrants, including small businesses, that are interested in serving Indian country.
148. In addition, the Tribal Lands Bidding Credit (TLBC), which is codified at section 
1.2110(f)(3) of the Commission's rules, remains available in Commission spectrum auctions to provide 
greater incentives for deployment of wireless services to Tribal Lands.237 Though the Commission’s rules 
also provide for spectrum auction bidding credits specifically for entities that qualify as small 
businesses,238 these TLBCs can act as supplemental vehicles to eliminate barriers to market entry for 
small businesses.  Since January 2007, four licensees have received TLBCs for seven licenses to provide 
service to five different Tribal Lands.239
H. Enforcement Bureau
149. Since its inception in 1999, the Enforcement Bureau has taken a number of steps to 
reduce barriers to entry for small businesses.  The Enforcement Bureau has made it easier and less costly 
for small businesses to bring anti-competitive behavior to the Commission’s attention, and to resolve 
disputes with other carriers.  The Commission has taken strong enforcement action to deter illegal, anti-
competitive behavior on the part of the largest carriers.  And, when small businesses themselves are the 
targets of enforcement actions, the Commission has tailored monetary forfeitures to their size.
1. Complaint Mediation
150. To expedite problem solving among common carrier industry participants, the 
Enforcement Bureau’s Market Disputes Resolution Division engages in informal mediation of most 
formal complaints and pre-complaint disputes.  This type of alternative dispute resolution facilitates 
private resolution, obviating the need for costly litigation.  This also frees Commission resources for 
unresolved disputes that result in formal complaints, and, therefore, reduces the average amount of time it 
takes the Commission to decide those complaints.  From January 2007 to December 2009, the 
Enforcement Bureau assisted the parties in resolving over sixty matters informally, including eighteen 
mediation sessions at the Commission with parties and lawyers present.  Roughly three-quarters of the 
matters settled as a result of staff involvement. 
  
236 Prior to the Commission’s establishment of the Office of Native Affairs and Policy, see Establishment of the 
Office of Native Affairs and Policy in the Consumer and Governmental Affairs Bureau, Order, 25 FCC Rcd 11104
(2010), CGB's Office of Intergovernmental Affairs led the Commission's outreach to Tribal Nations.
237 See 47 C.F.R. § 1.2110(f)(3).  Notably, section 1.2110(f)(3)(ii)(3) also provides specifically that the government 
of the Tribal land being served may not enter into an exclusive contract with the applicant receiving the TLBC that 
precludes entry by other carriers, and may not unreasonably discriminate among wireless carriers seeking to provide 
service on the Tribal land.
238 See 47 C.F.R. § 1.2110(f)(2).
239 All of the TLBCs were awarded in Auction No. 73, the 700 MHz Band Auction.  Awardees were Data-Max 
Wireless, LLC, for serving the Hualapai Tribes of Peach Springs, Arizona (call sign WQJQ674); LL License 
Holdings, LLC, for serving the Santee Sioux of Nebraska Reservation and the Rosebud Sioux Tribe of South Dakota 
(call signs WQKH490 and WQKH491); NSIGHTTEL WIRELESS, LLC, for serving the Hannahville Potawatomi 
Indian Village of Green Bay, Wisconsin (call sign WQJZ318); and SAL Spectrum, LLC, for serving the Navajo 
Nation of Arizona, New Mexico, and Utah (call signs WQJQ808, WQJQ809, and WQJQ810).  
Federal Communications Commission FCC 11-33
57
2. Pole Attachments
151. Section 224 of the Act240 authorizes the Commission to regulate the rates, terms, and 
conditions imposed by utilities on cable or telecommunications attachments to utilities’ poles in order to 
assure that such rates, terms and conditions are just and reasonable.  The Bureau’s enforcement of this 
provision thus ensures that small, competing carriers obtain the necessary access to utilities’ poles on a 
non-discriminatory basis.  From January 2007 to December 2009, the Enforcement Bureau handled 
twelve pole attachment complaints in which CLECs or cable companies challenged either denial of access 
to poles, or the rates for attachments.  Eight of those disputes were resolved or settled during the reporting 
period.241
3. Investigations
152. The Enforcement Bureau investigates allegations of anticompetitive or discriminatory 
conduct by telecommunications carriers, which could result in barriers to market entry by small 
competitors.  The Enforcement Bureau designs these investigations to identify, correct, and deter 
violations of the Communications Act and the Commission’s rules through monetary forfeitures and other 
enforcement tools.  The investigations also enable the Enforcement Bureau to spot significant industry 
problems and identify bad actors, without the filing of formal complaints. 
4. Forfeitures
153. Finally, in determining the amount of monetary forfeitures to impose on small businesses, 
the Commission applies section 503(b)(2)(E) of the Act, which requires the Commission to consider a 
target’s ability to pay.242 The Commission reduced proposed forfeitures on this basis in numerous cases.  
This analysis includes applications, as necessary, of Section 223 of the Small Business Regulatory 
Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996 (SBREFA), which requires, inter alia, that federal agencies establish a 
“policy or program . . . to provide for the reduction, and under appropriate circumstances for the waiver, 
of civil penalties for violations of a statutory or regulatory requirement by a small entity.”243 Since 2008, 
the Enforcement Bureau has issued no Notices of Apparent Liability to companies that claimed small 
entity status under the SBREFA.
IV. LEGISLATIVE PROPOSALS 
154. Section 257(c)(2) requires the Commission to propose legislative initiatives which 
identify statutory market entry barriers that Congress may take action to eliminate, consistent with the 
public interest, convenience, and necessity.244
1. New Tax Incentive Program
155. We propose that Congress adopt a new tax incentive program that would authorize the 
provision of tax advantages to eligible companies involved in the sale of communications businesses to 
small firms, including those owned by women and minorities.  The proposed program could permit 
deferral of the taxes on any capital gain involved in such a transaction, as long as that gain is reinvested in 
one or more qualifying communications businesses.  The proposed program could also permit tax credits 
for sellers of communications properties who offer financing to small firms.  Additional conditions might 
  
240 47 U.S.C. § 224.
241 A ninth dispute was settled after December 2009, and the others remain pending.
242 47 U.S.C. § 503(b)(2)(E); see The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Amendment of Section 1.80 of 
the Rules to Incorporate the Forfeiture Guidelines, Report and Order, 12 FCC Rcd 17,087, 17,101, para. 27 (1997), 
recon. denied, 15 FCC Rcd 303 (1999) (Policy Statement); 47 C.F.R. § 1.80(b)(4), Note to (b)(4).
243 Pub. L. No. 104-121, 110 Stat. 847 (1996); see Policy Statement, 12 FCC Rcd at 17,109, paras 51-52.
244 47 C.F.R. § 257(c)(2).
Federal Communications Commission FCC 11-33
58
include restrictions on the size of the eligible purchasing firm, a minimum holding period for the 
purchased firm, and a cap on the total value of eligible transactions.  The provision of tax advantages has 
proven to encourage the diversification of ownership and to provide opportunities for entry into the 
communications industry for small businesses, including disadvantaged businesses and businesses owned 
by minorities and women.
V. CONCLUSION
156. With this 2009 Triennial Report, the Commission has detailed actions taken during the 
last three years to enact rules which have the effect of lessening or eliminating market entry barriers for 
entrepreneurs and small telecommunications businesses.  In so doing, we have sought to meet our 
mandate under Section 257.  We continue to strive towards the goal embodied in the statute, to promote 
policies favoring diversity of media voices, vigorous economic competition, technological advancement, 
and promotion of the public interest, convenience, and necessity.
157. We hereby submit this 2009 Triennial Report to Congress.
FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION
Marlene H. Dortch
Secretary 
Federal Communications Commission FCC 11-33
59
STATEMENT OF
CHAIRMAN JULIUS GENACHOWSKI
RE: Section 257 Triennial Report to Congress Identifying and Eliminating Market Entry 
Barriers for Entrepreneurs and Other Small Businesses
I am pleased that the Commission has voted out its Section 257 report, which addresses 
some of the FCC’s highest priorities: unleashing entrepreneurship, supporting small businesses 
and spurring our economy.
Two facts highlight why the FCC’s efforts to remove barriers to new entrants in the 
communications space are important to our economy.
First, the information and communications technology sector is a significant and growing 
part of our economy, generating more than a trillion dollars a year in economic activity.  In 2010, 
the tech sector grew twice as fast as the U.S. economy, and analysts project the same will be true 
in 2011.
Second, small businesses, and new entrants in particular, are the key drivers of net job 
creation in the United States.  Since 1980, nearly all net job creation in the United States came 
from businesses that are less than five years old.  From 1977 to 2005, existing firms have lost jobs 
on average, while new firms have added 3 million jobs a year. 
This report looks at the FCC’s efforts from 2007 to 2009 to remove barriers to new 
entrants and small businesses in the communications sector.  I am pleased to report that it does a 
more comprehensive job than previous iterations of providing information that may be useful to 
policymaking.  I fully expect, nonetheless, that our next report will build on these advances and 
drive our approach to removing barriers to small businesses in the years to come. 
As important as the 257 Report is, encouraging a diversity of voices, promoting 
entrepreneurship and fostering the growth of small businesses aren’t just things we think about 
once every three years when it comes time to assemble a report. They are core principles shaping 
our strategic direction every day.  I look forward to our continued work together on these 
important issues in the months ahead.
Federal Communications Commission FCC 11-33
60
STATEMENT OF 
COMMISSIONER MICHAEL J. COPPS
APPROVING IN PART, CONCURRING IN PART
RE: Section 257 Triennial Report to Congress; Identifying and Eliminating Market Entry 
Barriers for Entrepreneurs and Other Small Businesses
We recently celebrated the 15th Anniversary of the 1996 Telecommunications Act. While 
there is plenty to celebrate in terms of the innovation and technology that has blossomed since 
then, there is much less to celebrate in terms of accomplishments related to our Section 257 
mandate. Too often, over the years, the Commission has actually gone in the wrong direction.
Hopefully those days are past. Congress recognized the significance that barriers to entry could 
have on our telecommunications and media environments, but the FCC for many years instead 
spent an inordinate time actually erecting barriers by blessing out-of-control media consolidation 
and running away from our public interest oversight responsibilities.  
It is increasingly important that the Commission have a strategic plan to eliminate 
barriers, because issuing a report every three years to Congress with a list of limited, isolated and 
non-strategic steps is not what the times demand. While each such little step may be well-
intentioned, such an approach does not substitute for a viable program that promotes market entry 
for small businesses and entrepreneurs.
Vice President Al Gore hit the nail on the head at the bill signing of the ’96 Act, “If we 
do not see to it that every project, every network, every system addresses the public interest at the 
beginning, then when will it be addressed?” We are failing to meet our statutory requirements 
when the public interest does not stand at the forefront as our guiding principle. 
I wish I could say that the Act had been implemented over the years in such a way as to 
foster a media environment with more diverse ownership, more local content, more independent 
production, and more competition. But statistics tell the opposite story. We have witnessed a 
39% drop in the number of owners of radio stations in the last 15 years. Similar consolidation 
shrunk television. In 2010, there were 150 fewer owners of commercial TV stations—a 33% 
decrease. And, while 34% of the U.S. population consists of minorities, only about 3% of full-
power commercial TV stations and 7.7% of radio stations are minority-owned.  
Congress gave us some pretty clear media goals in 1996, telling the FCC to promote 
“diversity of media voices, vigorous economic competition, technological advancement, and 
promotion of the public interest, convenience and necessity.” We have certainly seen some 
incredible technological advancement, but we have for years fallen far short in delivering on the 
diversity, competition, and public interest parts of our charge.  
I am pleased that in the report before us we have identified some of the main barriers.
This report represents an improvement over previous iterations, and I hope that we will use it to 
begin a frontal assault on barriers that are holding too many Americans--individuals and 
businesses--back. In this, we will be judged by concrete actions. Now is the time for action. Our 
media and telecommunications landscape, our civic dialogue, and our country will be better off 
when we reduce the barriers confronting minorities, women and small businesses as Congress 
directed us to do fifteen years ago. 
Federal Communications Commission FCC 11-33
61
STATEMENT OF
COMMISSIONER MIGNON L. CLYBURN
Re:  Section 257 Triennial Report to Congress; Identifying and Eliminating Market Entry 
Barriers for Entrepreneurs and Other Small Businesses
 While I support this item in large part because it identifies actions the Commission 
completed for the three-year period prior to December 31, 2009, I believe that the Commission 
can do a better job of complying with the directives of Section 257, and in reporting about the 
actions it has taken to meet those directives.  
I take seriously the mandate of Section 257 for the Commission to identify and eliminate 
market entry barriers for small businesses, and to promote policies “favoring diversity of media 
voices, vigorous economic competition, technological advancement, and promotion of the public 
interest, convenience and necessity.” The Commission, however, can do more to comply with the 
Section 257 requirement of identifying regulations that can be prescribed to eliminate market 
entry barriers for small businesses. I expect that future Reports will evidence additional progress 
for achieving the purposes underlying Section 257 and provide more detail in describing how the 
Commission’s actions have fulfilled those purposes, and set forth, where appropriate, specific 
examples and data that support the Report’s conclusions.
This Commission, as evidenced by Chairman Genachowski’s leadership during the 
National Broadband Plan proceeding, is on the right track for satisfying our obligations. The 
Commission already has taken a number of initiatives that are in compliance with both the 
language and spirit of Section 257. For example, during the National Broadband Plan 
proceeding, the Office of Communications and Business Opportunities (OCBO), led by Director 
Thomas Reed, held several workshops to connect small businesses and entrepreneurs with 
financial experts, is developing tools to assist those entities with obtaining investment capital, and 
is creating online networking programs for these entities so they can connect with other 
businesses. In addition, OCBO is working with the Small Business Administration and Service 
Corps of Retired Executives (SCORE) to encourage public-private partnerships to help small 
businesses adopt broadband, including increasing their digital literacy and e-commerce skills in 
low-income areas as recommended in the National Broadband Plan, and is producing an online 
guide to help inform small business owners about what informational assistance the Commission 
has available for new entrants.
I expect that the next Triennial Report will recount the Commission’s actions to 
implement the National Broadband Plan and promote open access to the Internet. Small 
businesses are vital to our communications industry and our Nation’s prosperity. No one can 
doubt that the Internet offers a significant opportunity for small businesses and entrepreneurs to 
showcase their products and services to the public. President Obama has said that the Internet is 
“vital infrastructure” and “has become central to the daily economic life of almost every 
American.” The U.S. Congress also recognized the significance of the Internet when it charged 
the Commission with developing our National Broadband Plan to ensure that high-speed Internet 
is available to all Americans. And without access to high-speed Internet, small businesses, new 
telecommunications entrants, and entrepreneurs will find it harder and harder to survive.
A number of the recommendations in the National Broadband Plan, if adopted, will lead 
to further deployment and adoption of broadband throughout the Nation. An Internet that is 
available and accessible to all has significant potential to improve the economic lives of many, 
Federal Communications Commission FCC 11-33
62
including small businesses, entrepreneurs, minorities, and women.  I believe the Internet is the 
great equalizer for minorities and women who have struggled for a foothold in traditional media 
and other businesses. I am determined that the next Triennial Report will describe the 
Commission’s actions to help small businesses and entrepreneurs benefit from the specific 
recommendations in the National Broadband Plan to promote their interests, as well as the 
general recommendations to improve availability and accessibility of high-speed Internet 
throughout the Nation.
The next Triennial Report should also show that we have not ignored the needs of 
communities for traditional media sources to address their diverse local interests. Mass media, 
whether TV or radio, off-air or via subscription, is still a significant source of news, 
entertainment, and emergency information for millions of Americans. It remains critically 
important to have opportunities for new, small, and diverse entrants in traditional media as on-air 
talent, creative forces, editorial voices, vendors, distributors, and owners. I am optimistic that the 
Commission’s forthcoming actions in the Quadrennial Ownership Review, as well as in mergers 
and acquisitions that require our review will reflect this recognition and concern. 
I urge my fellow Commissioners, and the talented staff of the Commission, to keep the 
goals of Section 257 in mind as we move forward. These goals should not be an afterthought as 
we develop our national communications policies. I believe the purpose of Section 257 is to 
ensure that we incorporate these goals in Commission policies, rules, and decisions as they are 
developed and implemented. This way, we can then look forward to an impressive recounting of 
actions the Commission has taken to promote policies that advance the interests of small 
businesses and entrepreneurs in the next 257 Triennial Report.