Federal Communications Commission FCC 16-90
Before the
Federal Communications Commission
Washington, D.C. 20554
In the Matter of
Technology Transitions
USTelecom Petition for Declaratory Ruling That 
Incumbent Local Exchange Carriers Are Non-
Dominant in the Provision of Switched Access 
Services
Policies and Rules Governing Retirement Of
Copper Loops by Incumbent Local Exchange
Carriers
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
GN Docket No. 13-5
WC Docket No. 13-3
RM-11358
DECLARATORY RULING, SECOND REPORT AND ORDER, AND ORDER ON 
RECONSIDERATION
Adopted:  July 14, 2016 Released:  July 15, 2016
By the Commission:  Chairman Wheeler and Commissioners Clyburn and Rosenworcel issuing separate 
statements; Commissioner Pai approving in part, concurring in part, and issuing a 
separate statement; Commissioner O’Rielly approving in part, dissenting in part, and 
issuing a separate statement.
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Para.
I. INTRODUCTION.................................................................................................................................. 1
II. DECLARATORY RULING (WC DOCKET NO. 13-3) ....................................................................... 8
A. USTelecom’s Petition ...................................................................................................................... 9
B. Background.................................................................................................................................... 10
C. The Market for Interstate Switched Access Services Today ......................................................... 13
1. A New Regulatory Model for Interstate Switched Access...................................................... 14
2. Continuing Decline of Switched Access Voice Services ........................................................ 16
D. Determination that Incumbent LECs Are Non-Dominant When Providing Interstate 
Switched Access Services.............................................................................................................. 19
1. Market Power Analysis ........................................................................................................... 21
a. Absence of Market Power................................................................................................. 22
b. Other Arguments in the Record ........................................................................................ 35
2. Streamlined Regulation of Incumbent LEC Interstate Switched Access Services.................. 40
a. Transition to Bill and Keep............................................................................................... 43
b. Tariffing Obligations and Protections............................................................................... 44
c. Section 214 Oversight....................................................................................................... 49
d. Additional Safeguards....................................................................................................... 55
III. SECOND REPORT AND ORDER...................................................................................................... 60
A. Background.................................................................................................................................... 61
B. Overview of Our New Approach for Technology Transitions ...................................................... 63
Federal Communications Commission FCC 16-90
2
C. The Three Prongs of the Adequate Replacement Test................................................................... 88
1. Network Infrastructure and Service Quality............................................................................ 89
a. Network Performance ....................................................................................................... 94
b. Service Availability ........................................................................................................ 112
c. Network Coverage .......................................................................................................... 123
2. Access to Critical Applications and Functionalities.............................................................. 126
a. 911 and Emergency Services .......................................................................................... 127
b. Communications Security............................................................................................... 136
c. Services for Individuals with Disabilities ....................................................................... 146
3. Interoperability with Key Applications and Functionalities.................................................. 157
a. Identifying Key Applications.......................................................................................... 159
b. Satisfying the Interoperability Standard for Key Applications....................................... 167
D. Other Issues Regarding the Adequate Replacement Test ............................................................ 171
E. Other Issues Related to the Discontinuance Process ................................................................... 178
1. Consumer Education ............................................................................................................. 179
2. Email Notice.......................................................................................................................... 187
3. Notice to Tribal Governments ............................................................................................... 189
4. Timing of Notice ................................................................................................................... 192
F. Non-Substantive Change to Code of Federal Regulations........................................................... 193
G. Clarification of Copper Retirement Notice Rules........................................................................ 194
IV. ORDER ON RECONSIDERATION ................................................................................................. 195
A. Background.................................................................................................................................. 196
B. Discussion.................................................................................................................................... 202
V. PROCEDURAL MATTERS.............................................................................................................. 206
A. Paperwork Reduction Act Analysis ............................................................................................. 206
B. Congressional Review Act........................................................................................................... 208
C. Final Regulatory Flexibility Analysis .......................................................................................... 209
VI. ORDERING CLAUSES..................................................................................................................... 210
A. Need for, and Objectives of, the Final Rules ................................................................................... 2
1. Adequate Replacement Test .................................................................................................... 14
2. Other Issues ............................................................................................................................. 28
B. Summary of Significant Issues Raised by Public Comments to the IRFA.................................... 33
C. Response to Comments by the Chief Counsel for Advocacy of the Small Business 
Administration ............................................................................................................................... 34
D. Description and Estimate of the Number of Small Entities to Which Rules May Apply.............. 36
1. Wireline Providers................................................................................................................... 38
2. Wireless Providers................................................................................................................... 45
3. Cable Service Providers .......................................................................................................... 47
4. All Other Telecommunications ............................................................................................... 49
E. Description of Projected Reporting, Recordkeeping, and Other Compliance Requirements 
for Small Entities ........................................................................................................................... 50
F. Steps Taken to Minimize the Significant Economic Impact on Small Entities, and 
Significant Alternatives Considered .............................................................................................. 61
G. Federal Rules that Might Duplicate, Overlap, or Conflict with the Rules..................................... 72
H. Report to Congress......................................................................................................................... 73
APPENDIX A – Final Rules
APPENDIX B – Technical Appendix
APPENDIX C – List of Commenters
APPENDIX D – Final Regulatory Flexibility Analysis
Federal Communications Commission FCC 16-90
3
I. INTRODUCTION
1. Technology transitions demand regulatory transitions.  In recent years, the Commission
has focused closely on the ongoing transitions from networks based on time-division multiplexed (TDM) 
circuit-switched voice services running on copper loops to all-Internet Protocol (IP) multi-media networks 
using copper, co-axial cable, wireless, and/or fiber as physical infrastructure.
1
  We are now at a crossroads 
where legacy technologies remain relevant for certain consumers but new technologies have exploded in 
popularity.  That crossroads necessitates a regulatory transition period, where we eliminate legacy 
regulations that are no longer necessary and develop the proper framework for the transition to new 
technologies.  
2. The regulations—even the terminology used in those regulations—that guided our 
traditional regime will grow increasingly anachronistic as a new world of technologies governs the 
communications landscape.  As the tectonic plates of disruptive technological change settle, our role 
cannot be to avoid the turbulence but to do our best to provide nimble, common sense solutions in the 
interim until this as yet not fully formed new regime emerges.
3. Our mission is to strip away the outdated and unnecessary while we build a bridge to the 
new.  As we noted last December, we are committed “to eliminating unnecessary burdens on industry and 
promoting innovation while ensuring our statutory objectives are met.”
2
  We will consistently aim to 
“modernize[ ] our rules by removing outmoded regulations, while preserving requirements that remain 
essential to our fundamental mission to ensure competition, consumer protection, universal service, and 
public safety.”
3
  We seek to maximize opportunities for creative disruption and simultaneously preserve
essential regulatory protections.
4. Today, we take several actions aimed at stripping away the anachronistic while ensuring 
that our fundamental values are preserved.
4
  First, we remove the outdated designation of incumbent 
carriers as dominant in the legacy switched access marketplace. In particular, we grant a petition from the 
United States Telecom Association seeking a declaratory ruling that incumbent local exchange carriers 
(LECs) are non-dominant in their provision of interstate switched access services.
5. Second, we establish a framework for evaluating requests to discontinue a legacy voice 
service as part of technology transitions.  In particular, the Second Report and Order announces a three-
pronged test for determining whether a new service qualifies as an adequate replacement for a legacy 
voice service as part of our Section 214 discontinuance application process.  The test will ensure that 
consumers can continue to expect strong service quality, access to critical applications such as 911, and 
interoperability with other key applications and functionalities.  
6. Third, we refine our Section 214 discontinuance notice requirements to ensure that the 
public is aware of and prepared for such transitions.  We require Section 214 discontinuance applicants to
implement customer outreach plans and provide consumer education materials, allow applicants to offer 
notice via email to increase industry and customer convenience, and require notice to Tribal governments 
in the state where a discontinuance is proposed.  
7. Fourth, and finally, we issue an Order on Reconsideration granting in part a petition by 
U.S. TelePacific Corporation (TelePacific) to address a gap in the Commission’s rules that potentially left 
                                                     
1
See, e.g., Technology Transitions et al., Notice of Proposed Rulemaking and Declaratory Ruling, 29 FCC Rcd 
14968, 14969, para. 1 (2014) (Emerging Wireline Notice).
2
Petition of USTelecom for Forbearance Pursuant to 47 U.S.C. 160(c) from Enf’t of Obsolete ILEC Legacy 
Regulations That Inhibit Deployment of Next-Generation Networks, WC Docket No. 14-192, Memorandum Opinion 
and Order, FCC 15-166, para. 2 (rel. Dec. 28, 2015) (2015 USTelecom Forbearance Order).
3
Id.
4
See, e.g., Emerging Wireline Notice, 29 FCC Rcd at 14969, para. 1.
Federal Communications Commission FCC 16-90
4
competitive LECs without recourse to avoid violating our discontinuance procedures when an incumbent 
LEC files a copper retirement notice without an accompanying discontinuance of a TDM-based service.  
We deny, however, TelePacific’s petition to the extent it would impose new obligations on copper 
retirement by incumbent LECs or otherwise delay copper retirements. 
II. DECLARATORY RULING (WC DOCKET NO. 13-3)
8. Today we grant a petition from the United States Telecom Association (USTelecom) for 
a declaratory ruling that incumbent LECs are non-dominant in their provision of interstate switched 
access services.
5
We find that incumbent LECs no longer presumptively exert market power in their 
provision of these services, so dominant carrier treatment under certain of our rules is no longer 
warranted.  As a consequence of this declaratory ruling, incumbent LECs will enjoy streamlined treatment 
under the Commission’s Section 214 review processes and some reduction of their tariffing obligations. 
At the same time, the requirements imposed on incumbent LECs in the USF/ICC Transformation 
Order—which are not triggered by a dominance classification—will remain in place to facilitate the 
transition of interstate switched access services to a modern “bill-and-keep” regime.
6
  This ruling takes 
further steps to modernize the Commission’s regulation of incumbent LEC legacy telephone services and 
encourage more robust deployment of broadband technologies.   
A. USTelecom’s Petition
9. On December 19, 2012, USTelecom filed a petition for a declaratory ruling that 
incumbent LECs “are no longer presumptively dominant when providing interstate mass market and 
enterprise switched access services.”
7
  USTelecom clarified that its Petition “does not encompass 
dedicated services such as special access” or seek relief from wholesale obligations such as the provision 
of unbundled network elements (UNEs).
8
  The Wireline Competition Bureau (Bureau) sought comment 
on the Petition in 2013
9
and sought further comment to “refresh the record” in early 2016.
10
B. Background
10. Dominant Carrier Regulation.  In the 1980 Competitive Carrier First Report and Order, 
the Commission established a “two-tiered regulatory approach” under which common carriers are either 
dominant or non-dominant in their provision of regulated services.
11
  The defining characteristic of a 
                                                     
5
See Petition of USTelecom for a Declaratory Ruling That Incumbent LECs Are Non-Dominant in the Provision of 
Switched Access Services, WC Docket No. 13-3 (filed Dec. 19, 2012) (USTelecom Petition). 
6
See Connect America Fund et al., Report and Order and Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, 26 FCC Rcd 
17663 (2011) (USF/ICC Transformation Order), aff’d sub nom In re:  FCC 11-161, 753 F.3d 1015 (10th Cir. 2014). 
7
USTelecom Petition at 9.
8
USTelecom Petition at 1 n.2.
9
See Wireline Competition Bureau Seeks Comment on United States Telecom Association Petition for Declaratory 
Ruling That Incumbent Local Exchange Carriers Are Non-Dominant in the Provision of Switched Access Services, 
Public Notice, 28 FCC Rcd 107 (WCB 2013).
10
Wireline Competition Bureau Seeks Comment to Refresh the Record on United States Telecom Association 
Petition for Declaratory Ruling That Incumbent Local Exchange Carriers Are Nondominant in the Provision of 
Switched Access Services, Public Notice, 31 FCC Rcd 254 (WCB 2016).  Comments responsive to the earlier public 
notice are cited as “Comments [or Reply] to USTelecom Petition” and those responsive to the “refresh-the-record” 
public notice are cited as “Refresh Comments [or Reply]”.
11
See Policy and Rules Concerning Rates for Competitive Common Carrier Services and Facilities Authorizations 
Therefor, First Report and Order, 85 FCC 2d 1, 5, para. 22, (1980) (Competitive Carrier First Report and Order).  
This Report and Order was the first of several adopted in CC Docket 79-251, a docket commonly known as the 
“Competitive Carrier proceeding.”  See Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, 84 FCC 2d 445 (1981); Second 
Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, 47 Fed. Reg. 17308 (1982); Second Report and Order, 91 FCC 2d 59 
(1982); Order on Reconsideration, 93 FCC 2d 54 (1983); Third Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, 48 Fed. 
(continued . . .)
Federal Communications Commission FCC 16-90
5
dominant carrier is the possession of market power, which in turn is defined as the power to control 
prices.
12
  The Commission explained that carriers in this position have “substantial opportunity and 
incentive to subsidize the rates for [their] more competitive services with revenues obtained from [their] 
monopoly or near-monopoly services.”
13
  By contrast, non-dominant carriers lack “the market power 
necessary to sustain prices either unreasonably above or below costs.”
14
The Commission determined that 
relaxed regulatory treatment of carriers in the latter category would reduce barriers to entry and thereby 
fulfill consumer demand more efficiently than applying the same regulatory requirements to all carriers.
15
Accordingly, it streamlined its regulation of non-dominant carriers while continuing to regulate dominant 
carriers more extensively.
16
11. To determine whether a carrier possesses market power and is thus dominant, the 
Commission historically has examined “clearly identifiable market features” such as “the number and size 
distribution of competing firms, the nature of barriers to entry, and the availability of reasonably 
substitutable services.”
17
  The Commission has recognized that changes in the marketplace can erode the 
market power of a carrier once considered dominant. Indeed, AT&T, the quintessential dominant carrier 
in 1980, was declared non-dominant in its provision of domestic interexchange services in 1995.
18
  
12. Interstate Switched Access Services.  Incumbent LECs are regulated as dominant carriers 
in their provision of interstate switched access services.
19
  These services are the means by which 
interexchange carriers (IXCs) obtain access to local telephone exchanges to complete interstate long 
distance telephone calls.
20
  IXCs historically paid LECs a per-minute charge for this access.
21
In this 
market, an IXC seeking access to a particular subscriber has no choice but to connect with the LEC that 
serves that subscriber and to pay that LEC’s tariffed rate for the access service.  The Commission has thus 
observed that the market for interstate switched access services “does not appear to be structured in a 
(Continued from previous page)                                                            
Reg. 28292 (1983); Third Report and Order, 48 Fed. Reg. 46791 (1983); Fourth Report and Order, 95 FCC 2d 554 
(1983) (Competitive Carrier Fourth Report and Order), vacated, AT&T v. FCC, 978 F.2d 727 (D.C. Cir. 1992) 
(AT&T v. FCC), cert. denied, MCI Telecomms. Corp. v. AT&T, 509 U.S. 913 (1993); Fifth Report and Order, 98 
FCC 2d 1191 (1984); Sixth Report and Order, 99 FCC 2d 1020 (1985) (Competitive Carrier Sixth Report and 
Order), vacated, MCI Telecomms. Corp. v. FCC, 765 F.2d 1186 (D.C. Cir. 1985), aff’d, MCI v. AT&T, 512 U.S. 218 
(1994) (MCI v. AT&T).
12
See 47 CFR § 61.3(q); see also Competitive Carrier First Report and Order, 85 FCC 2d at 6, para. 26, 14-15, 
para. 56.
13
Competitive Carrier First Report and Order, 85 FCC 2d at 4, para. 15.
14
Id. at 4, para. 16; see also id. at 15, para. 56.
15
Id. at 8, para. 33. 
16
Id. at 6, para. 25. 
17
Competitive Carrier First Report and Order, 85 FCC 2d at 14, para. 57.
18
See Motion of AT&T Corp. to Be Reclassified as a Non-Dominant Carrier, Order, 11 FCC Rcd 3271 (1995) 
(AT&T Non-Dominance Order).
19
See Competitive Carrier First Report and Order, 85 FCC 2d at 6, para. 26; see also id. at 15, paras. 62-64.
20
See, e.g., Petition of Qwest Corporation for Forbearance Pursuant to 47 U.S.C. § 160(C) in the Phoenix, Arizona 
Metropolitan Statistical Area, Memorandum Opinion and Order, 25 FCC Rcd 8622, 8649, para. 50, 8678, para. 111 
(2010) (Qwest Phoenix Forbearance Order).
21
See, e.g., FCC, Connecting America: The National Broadband Plan at 142 (2010), 
http://download.broadband.gov/plan/national-broadband-plan.pdf. (National Broadband Plan). 
Federal Communications Commission FCC 16-90
6
manner that allows competition to discipline rates.”
22
  In the 2010 Qwest Phoenix Forbearance Order, the 
Commission declared that LECs “[have] market power over originating and terminating switched 
access.”
23
C. The Market for Interstate Switched Access Services Today
13. Incumbent LECs today provide interstate switched access services under circumstances 
that have continued to change dramatically even in the six years since the Commission issued the Qwest 
Phoenix Forbearance Order. Specifically, the Commission has adopted rate reforms that fundamentally 
change the market in which incumbent LECs provide these services.  At the same time, Americans have 
continued to move away from switched access voice lines as they adopt new and more advanced ways of 
communicating. 
1. A New Regulatory Model for Interstate Switched Access
14. The regulatory reforms adopted in the 2011 USF/ICC Transformation Order undermine 
the distinction between dominant and non-dominant providers of interstate switched access services.  That 
order comprehensively reformed the Commission’s intercarrier compensation and universal service rules 
to promote broadband availability for all Americans.
24
An integral component of these reforms was the 
adoption of bill-and-keep as “the default methodology” for the exchange of telecommunications traffic, 
including interstate switched access.
25
  Under bill-and-keep, a carrier “looks to its end users” rather than 
to “other carriers and their customers” to recover the costs of exchanging traffic.
26
Bill-and-keep has been 
a success for the mobile wireless industry and offers many advantages over per-minute access charges as 
a method of compensating LECs for their provision of interstate switched access.
27
  Perhaps most 
significantly, bill-and-keep exposes end users more directly to the costs of their telephone service.
28
Doing so reduces opportunities for “arbitrage and competitive distortions” in the pricing of interstate 
switched access and encourages deployment of advanced networks and services.
29
15. To facilitate the transition to bill-and-keep, the Commission established a transition path 
requiring scheduled reductions to intercarrier compensation charges, including interstate switched access 
charges.
30
Under this transition, interstate switched access services are no longer subject to traditional 
price cap and rate-of-return regulation.
31
All interstate switched access rate elements are capped, and 
                                                     
22
See Access Charge Reform; Reform of Access Charges Imposed by Competitive Local Exchange Carriers, 
Seventh Report and Order and Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, 16 FCC Rcd 9923, 9936, para. 32 (2001) 
(CLEC Access Charge Reform Order).
23
Qwest Phoenix Forbearance Order, 25 FCC Rcd at 8664, para. 79.
24
See generally USF/ICC Transformation Order. While the Commission’s intercarrier compensation reforms 
encompass both interstate and intrastate switched access services, see USF/ICC Transformation Order, 26 FCC Rcd 
at 17916-17, paras. 764-65, USTelecom’s petition—and our ruling—concerns only the former.  See USTelecom 
Petition at 9.
25
USF/ICC Transformation Order, 26 FCC Rcd at 17904, para. 736.
26
Id. at 17904, para. 737. 
27
Id. at 17904, para. 737.  VoIP-PSTN “toll” traffic is subject to interstate access charges.  See id. at 18008, paras. 
943-44.
28
Id. at 17904, para. 738.
29
Id. at 17911, para. 752 (capitalization removed).
30
See 47 CFR pt. 51 subpt. J (Transitional Access Service Pricing).  When referring to rules and reforms adopted 
“in” or “as part of” the USF/ICC Transformation Order, we include subsequent amendments to those rules.  
31
See USF/ICC Transformation Order, 26 FCC Rcd at 17916, para. 764; see also 47 CFR § 51.907(a) (“Carriers 
will remove [interstate switched access] services from price cap regulation in their July 1, 2012 annual tariff 
filing.”); Connect America Fund et al., Order, 28 FCC Rcd 3319, 3323, para. 8 (2013) (explaining that the 
(continued . . .)
Federal Communications Commission FCC 16-90
7
terminating access rate elements are being transitioned to bill-and-keep on a multi-year timetable.
32
  A 
recovery mechanism is in place to partially offset incumbent LECs’ loss of access charge revenues during 
this transition.
33
  
2. Continuing Decline of Switched Access Voice Services
16. The ability of callers to place and receive long distance calls over their landlines is what 
historically made interstate switched access a valuable service.
34
  Yet demand for this service continues to 
plummet as subscribership to traditional voice phone service reaches new lows.  The Commission 
observed last year that “almost 75 percent of U.S. residential customers (approximately 88 million 
households) no longer receive[d] telephone service over traditional copper facilities.”
35
By USTelecom’s 
estimate, only 16 percent of households retained incumbent LEC switched access lines as of the end of 
2015.
36
  As USTelecom documents in its Petition and in subsequent filings, the switched access lines that 
once dominated the landscape “have been displaced by wireless and VoIP connections.”
37
  USTelecom 
asserts that, as of the end 2013, 43 percent of households relied solely on wireless connections for voice 
service and 30 percent used wired alternatives to incumbent LEC switched voice.
38
  In addition, 
USTelecom presents evidence that “the widespread deployment of wired and wireless IP-based networks”
has fostered greater reliance on voice alternatives such as text, email, video chat, and social networking 
applications.
39
  
17. While we agree with commenters that these statistics are too broad and general to support 
detailed competitive findings,
40
the overall trends are clear and have only accelerated since USTelecom 
(Continued from previous page)                                                            
transitional rules “removed rate-of-return carriers from rate-of-return cost-based recovery for interstate switched 
access services”).
32
See 47 CFR §§ 51.907 (Transition of price cap carrier access charges.), 51.909 (Transition of rate-of-return carrier 
access charges.). 
33
See 47 CFR §§ 51.915 (Recovery mechanism for price cap carriers.), 51.917 (Revenue recovery for Rate-of-
Return Carriers.).  As part of the transitional recovery mechanism, the Commission defined as Eligible Recovery the 
amount of intercarrier compensation revenue reductions that incumbent LECs would be eligible to recover through a 
combination of end-user charges (the Access Recovery Charge (ARC)) and, where eligible and if a carrier elects to 
receive it, intercarrier compensation replacement Connect America Fund support.  A carrier’s Eligible Recovery is 
based on a percentage of the reduction in revenue each year resulting from the intercarrier compensation reform 
transition.  See USF/ICC Transformation Order, 26 FCC Rcd at 17957-61, paras. 850-51.
34
See CLEC Access Charge Reform Order, 16 FCC Rcd at 9938, para. 38 (noting that end users are “beneficiaries” 
of interstate switched access).
35
2015 USTelecom Forbearance Order at 5-6, para. 6.
36
See USTelecom Refresh Comments at 4 (Chart: ILEC Switched vs. Wireless-Only and Interconnected VoIP 
Households).
37
USTelecom Petition at iii; see also Verizon Comments to USTelecom Petition at 3-7.
38
USTelecom Refresh Comments at 3.
39
USTelecom Petition at 41-42; see also Verizon Comments to USTelecom Petition at 7-8.
40
See COMPTEL Comments to USTelecom Petition at 3-4; MDTC Comments to USTelecom Petition at 5-7; Cox 
Comments to USTelecom Petition at 4; NCTA Comments to USTelecom Petition at 6-7; Cbeyond et al. Comments 
to USTelecom Petition at 6; Ad Hoc Telecommunications Users Committee Comments to USTelecom Petition at 4-
5; XO Reply to USTelecom Petition at 5-6; Mich. PSC Refresh Comments at 1-4; GCI Refresh Comments at 4-5; 
South Dakota Telecom. Assoc. Refresh Reply at 1-2. 
Federal Communications Commission FCC 16-90
8
filed its Petition.
41
  There has been an indisputable “societal and technological shift” away from switched 
telephone service as a fixture of American life.
42
  Consumers are increasingly able and willing to abandon 
their landlines in favor of communications technologies that do not rely on local telephone switches. In 
turn, they are depending less and less on the interstate switched access services of incumbent LECs to 
facilitate communications across state lines.  
18. With these marketplace developments in mind, we turn to the question of whether 
incumbent LECs remain dominant carriers in their provision of interstate switched access services.  For 
the reasons explained below, we find that incumbent LECs lack market power and therefore are non-
dominant in the provision of these services. 
D. Determination that Incumbent LECs Are Non-Dominant When Providing Interstate 
Switched Access Services
19. The Commission regulates carriers as dominant only to the extent they possess market 
power.  Below, we find that regulatory changes have restructured the marketplace in which incumbent 
LECs provide interstate switched access services so as to deny them market power.  For the reasons stated 
below, we declare incumbent LECs non-dominant in their provision of interstate switched access 
services.
43
This declaration is based in part upon our understanding, as also discussed below, of the 
regulatory consequences of this ruling and our identification of safeguards that will remain in place to 
protect consumers; guard against waste, fraud and abuse; and ensure the transition is implemented 
properly as the marketplace continues to evolve. 
20. Before proceeding further, we reject the argument that USTelecom’s request for a 
declaratory ruling is procedurally improper.
44
  The Commission has authority to issue a declaratory ruling 
“terminating a controversy or removing an uncertainty.”
45
USTelecom has raised a significant question as 
to whether recent marketplace developments have divested incumbent LECs of market power over 
interstate switched access. Where carriers lack market power, they are entitled to treatment as “non-
dominant” rather than “dominant” carriers under existing Commission rules.
46
We thus find that a 
declaratory ruling is appropriate to clarify the proper regulatory treatment of incumbent LECs in their 
provision of interstate switched access services under the market conditions in which they provide these
                                                     
41
See supra para. 1; Technology Transitions et al., Report and Order, Order on Reconsideration and Further Notice 
of Proposed Rulemaking, 30 FCC Rcd 9372, 9379, para. 9 (2015) (Emerging Wireline Order and Further Notice); 
see also USTelecom Refresh Comments at 3-6.
42
USTelecom Petition at ii; see also Free State Comments to USTelecom Petition at 4-5; IIA Comments to 
USTelecom Petition at 6-7; AT&T Comments to USTelecom Petition at 7-10, Attach. A, B; Digital Policy Institute 
Comments to USTelecom Petition at 5-6; ITTA Comments to USTelecom Petition at 3-5.  
43
The scope of this declaratory ruling is limited to interstate switched access services.  We do not address the 
regulatory treatment of incumbent LECs in their provision of special access services (i.e., Business Data Services). 
Cf. Sprint Refresh Comments at 6.  In addition, non-dominant status does not extend to centralized equal access 
providers because such carriers do not provide service to end users.  See, e.g.,  Application of Iowa Network Access 
Division for Authority Pursuant to Section 214 of the Communications Act of 1934 and Section 63.01 of the 
Commission’s Rules and Regulations to Lease Transmission Facilities to Provide Access Service to Interexchange 
Carriers in the State of Iowa, Memorandum Opinion, Order and Certificate, 3 FCC Rcd 1468 (CCB 1988) (granting 
authority to operate facilities to provide the benefits of equal access and interexchange carrier competition from a 
central location in Des Moines Iowa).  
44
Cbeyond at al. Comments to USTelecom Petition at 3-4; ViaSat Comments to USTelecom Petition at 1; Cox 
Reply to USTelecom Petition at 1-2; XO Reply to USTelecom Petition at 1-3; South Dakota Telecom. Assoc. 
Refresh Reply at 3-4.
45
See 5 U.S.C. § 554(e); see also 47 CFR § 1.2.
46
See 47 CFR § 61.3(q) (definition of “dominant carrier”). 
Federal Communications Commission FCC 16-90
9
services today.
47
  This holds true regardless of whether we could have chosen a different procedural 
vehicle, such as a forbearance proceeding, to reach a similar regulatory outcome.  
1. Market Power Analysis
21. The Commission defines a dominant carrier as one that possesses market power.  Below, 
we determine that incumbent LECs no longer possess market power over interstate switched access.  We 
then respond to various arguments that incumbent LECs nevertheless remain dominant carriers.  We 
reject these arguments and ultimately declare incumbent LECs as non-dominant in their provision of 
interstate switched access services.  
a. Absence of Market Power
22. Market power is defined for this purpose as “power to control prices.”
48
  The ability of a 
carrier to exercise this power depends, in part, on the structure of the market in which the carrier 
operates.
49
The market for switched access services has changed dramatically with the Commission’s 
adoption of bill-and-keep as a new methodology for intercarrier compensation. In addition, the overall 
importance of interstate switched access has continued to decline as consumers have discarded their 
switched access lines in favor of more advanced technologies. In today’s marketplace, incumbent LECs 
cannot control prices for, and thus lack market power over, interstate switched access.   
23. Prior Commission determinations reaching a contrary conclusion about incumbent LEC 
market power took place against the backdrop of an “access charge regime” for interstate switched 
access.
50
This system was “designed for an era of separate long-distance companies and high per-minute 
charges.”
51
  The purpose of regulated access charges was to allocate the costs of long distance telephone 
service; LECs were permitted to charge above-cost rates for switched access, generating subsidies for the 
local network that helped keep basic telephone service affordable.
52
  
24. By 2011, the Commission had long recognized that this model was no longer tenable. 
The hidden subsidies it produced for traditional phone companies put wireless carriers and other voice 
providers at a competitive disadvantage and discouraged investment in more advanced, IP-based 
networks.
53
Moreover, the system of regulated per-minute access charges had become “riddled with 
inefficiencies and opportunities for wasteful arbitrage” that ultimately meant higher telephone bills for 
consumers.
54
  
25. Under the reforms adopted in the USF/ICC Transformation Order, the Commission is 
now phasing out per-minute charges for interstate switched access as it implements bill-and-keep as “the 
default methodology for all intercarrier compensation traffic.”
55
  While this transition is occurring over 
                                                     
47
Cf. Cbeyond at al. Comments to USTelecom Petition at 3-4; ViaSat Comments to USTelecom Petition at 1; Cox 
Reply to USTelecom Petition at 1-2; XO Reply to USTelecom Petition at 1-3; South Dakota Telecom. Assoc. 
Refresh Reply at 3-4.
48
See 47 CFR § 61.3(q).
49
See, e.g., CLEC Access Charge Reform Order, 16 FCC Rcd at 9936, para. 32; see also AT&T Non-Dominance 
Order, 11 FCC Rcd at 3293, para. 38.  
50
See USF/ICC Transformation Order, 26 FCC Rcd at 17916, para. 764; see also Qwest Phoenix Forbearance 
Order, 25 FCC Rcd at 8678, para. 111. 
51
USF/ICC Transformation Order, 26 FCC Rcd at 17669, para. 9.
52
See National Broadband Plan at 142.
53
See USF/ICC Transformation Order, 26 FCC Rcd at 17669, para. 9.
54
Id. at 17669, para. 9.
55
Id. at 17904, para. 36; see also 47 CFR §§ 51.901-51.919.
Federal Communications Commission FCC 16-90
10
several years,
56
significant regulatory developments have already taken place.  Interstate switched access 
services have been removed from traditional access charge regulation and placed under transitional 
pricing rules that cap the rates charged for each rate element.
57
The rules specify dates certain for the 
transition of terminating switched access rate elements to bill-and-keep, with an end date of July 1, 2018, 
for price cap carriers and July 1, 2020, for rate-of-return carriers.
58
  Originating access and other 
remaining rate elements will remain capped at current levels until a transition timetable is established for 
these rate elements.
59
The rate caps these rules prescribe are “default rates,” from which the rules permit
carriers to deviate by private agreement.
60
Carriers “who are otherwise required to file tariffs” must 
“tariff rates no higher than the default transitional rates” set forth in the rules.
61
  
26. USTelecom argues that adoption of these reforms has rendered concerns about incumbent 
LEC market power over interstate switched access moot.
62
We agree. The purpose of these reforms was 
to establish a uniform set of requirements governing the exchange of switched access traffic.  Under the 
transitional rules adopted to implement the reforms, there are two theoretical options for recovery of 
interstate switched access revenues: tariffs and private agreements. Tariffed rates may not exceed the 
“default” rates established under the rules, and private agreements require a willing negotiating partner. 
The rules thus deny incumbent LECs unilateral control over the prices they charge IXCs for interstate 
switched access services. When the reforms reach their end point, incumbent LECs will have no right to 
demand payment for interstate switched access except under the terms of a private agreement.
63
  We find 
no basis to ascribe market power to incumbent LECs in their provision of a service that they must provide
without any expectation of payment.  
27. Of course, the full implementation of bill-and-keep for interstate switched access services 
is years away.  Some commenters suggest that the Commission should await the completion of this 
process before taking action on USTelecom’s Petition.
64
We disagree. The Commission’s intercarrier 
compensation reforms have already progressed to a point where incumbent LECs no longer possess 
market power over interstate switched access. The transitional access service pricing rules have already 
put default rates for interstate switched access service into effect, even for rate elements that lack an 
established timetable for transition to bill-and-keep. Incumbent LECs’ ability to control prices for 
interstate switched access under these rules is narrowly circumscribed; they only can charge rates at or 
below the prescribed default rate. These rules prevent incumbent LECs from charging IXCs excessive
rates for switched access or inappropriately shifting costs among rate elements.
65
Accordingly, incumbent 
LECs are already divested of market power in their provision of interstate switched access services under 
these rules.  
                                                     
56
Its ultimate end date has yet to be established, because the Commission has not adopted a transition timetable for 
originating access or other interstate switched access rate elements. 
57
See 47 CFR §§ 51.907, 51.909.
58
See USF/ICC Transformation Order, 26 FCC Rcd at 17934-35, Fig. 9; see also 47 CFR §§ 51.507-51.509. 
59
See USF/ICC Transformation Order, 26 FCC Rcd at 17905, para. 739, 17933-34, para. 800 & n.1494.
60
See 47 CFR § 51.905(a).
61
See 47 CFR § 51.905(b).
62
See USTelecom Reply to USTelecom Petition at 17-18 n.49.
63
See USF/ICC Transformation Order, 26 FCC Rcd at 17904-05, paras. 737-38; see also COMPTEL Comments to 
USTelecom Petition at 11.
64
See Granite Comments to USTelecom Petition at 19-20; see also Cox Comments to USTelecom Petition at 5-6; 
NCTA Comments to USTelecom Petition at 3-4; Sprint Refresh Comments at 2. 
65
See USF/ICC Transformation Order, 26 FCC Rcd at 17934, para. 800 n.1494.  
Federal Communications Commission FCC 16-90
11
28. This finding is consistent with today’s marketplace realities. Interstate switched access 
was once an indispensable functionality that made long distance communications across multiple 
networks possible. When every telephone subscriber used a switched access line, every long distance 
caller relied on interstate switched access by technological necessity. Today, switched access telephone 
lines are far from “a monopoly platform for the delivery of voice services.”
66
Consumers and businesses 
rely less than ever on local telephone switches—and, accordingly, on interstate switched access—to 
communicate over long distances.
67
  
29. These “broad market trends”
68
are persuasively documented in USTelecom’s and its 
supporters’ filings.
69
  The competitive decline of switched telephone service could provide a compelling
basis for finding that incumbent LECs lack market power over interstate switched access, at least in
markets where these competitive trends are most pronounced.
70
  Yet we base our ruling today primarily 
on changes to the regulatory structure of interstate switched access that are largely independent of these 
trends.  Accordingly, our ruling is not dependent on the extent of competition among geographic and 
product markets for retail voice services.  For instance, even if Granite is correct that “most business 
locations (especially small and medium business customer locations) do not face facilities-based 
competitors for switched access services to business customers,”
71
that finding would not undercut our 
analysis.  The same is true of Michigan PSC’s claim that rural areas such as Michigan’s Upper Peninsula 
lack reliable wireless service,
72
and of Sprint’s argument that alternatives to incumbent LEC switched 
voice service are often provided by incumbent LECs themselves or their affiliates.
73
Claims such as these 
are consistent with our finding that incumbent LECs lack market power over the interstate switched 
access they provide IXCs to complete long distance calls, for the reasons discussed above. 
30. Opponents of USTelecom’s Petition argue that incumbent LECs’ “terminating 
monopoly” compels a finding that they retain market power over interstate switched access.
74
Some insist 
that USTelecom has conceded as much with its observation that LECs may “continue to have power with 
respect to their own end users.”
75
  We disagree.  This observation proves too much in the context of 
deciding whether a LEC is dominant or non-dominant in the provision of switched access services.  The 
Commission has long recognized that all LECs—both incumbents and their competitors—have control 
                                                     
66
See USTelecom Petition at iii; see also Verizon Comments to USTelecom Petition at 2-3.
67
See Verizon Comments to USTelecom Petition at 2 (“[M]ost voice connections and traffic no longer originate on 
the traditional copper network. In fact, since the peak, ILECs have lost more than 60 percent of their switched access 
lines and an even greater share of this traffic.”); see also FCC, Wireline Competition Bureau, Industry Analysis and 
Technology Division, Local Telephone Competition: Status as of December 31, 2013 at 2 (2014), 
https://apps.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-329975A1.pdf.
68
See 2015 USTelecom Forbearance Order at 5, para. 6.
69
See supra Section II.C.2. 
70
See Hyperion Telecommunications, Inc. Petition Requesting Forbearance et al., Memorandum Opinion and Order 
and Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, 12 FCC Rcd 8596, 8609, para. 24 (1997) (citing competitive carriers’ 
“extremely small market share of the interstate access market” as support for the conclusion that these carriers lack 
market power) (Hyperion Forbearance Order).  
71
Granite Comments to USTelecom Petition at 9 (italics omitted).
72
Mich. PSC Refresh Comments at 3.
73
See Sprint Refresh Comments at 5-6.
74
See COMPTEL Comments to USTelecom Petition at 6-7; see also Granite Comments to USTelecom Petition at 3-
4; Sprint Comments to USTelecom Petition at 2
75
COMPTEL Comments to USTelecom Petition at 6 (citing USTelecom Petition at 9 n.16); see also Granite 
Comments to USTelecom Petition at 3.
Federal Communications Commission FCC 16-90
12
over access to their own telephone subscribers.
76
Yet the Commission has continued to regulate 
competitive LECs as non-dominant in their provision of interstate switched access services.
77
The 
Commission has based this regulatory treatment on external factors that served to constrain competitive 
LECs’ rates, notwithstanding their control over end user access.
78
  Today we find that the Commission’s 
intercarrier compensation reforms have placed incumbent LECs on similar footing. The market for 
interstate switched access services is no longer structured in a way that permits incumbent LECs to exert 
market power over these services in a way that is materially different to other (i.e., competitive) LECs. 
31. We decline to engage in a more granular market power analysis as some commenters 
urge.
79
  The transitional pricing rules adopted for switched access services deny incumbent LECs market 
power over these services.
80
  Because the rules apply categorically to these services, we find no reason to 
disaggregate our market power analysis by carrier or geographic region.  Nor do we distinguish the mass 
market from enterprise markets in our analysis. The Commission observed in the Qwest Phoenix 
Forbearance Order that incumbent LECs’ charges for interstate switched access do not typically vary 
based on the identity of the end user that generates the traffic.
81
We find no basis in the record for 
revising that view. Accordingly, we find that incumbent LECs lack market power over both “interstate 
mass market and enterprise switched access services.”
82
Also, because we find that a categorical ruling is 
appropriate, we decline to grant “presumptive” relief that bases the treatment of an incumbent LEC in a 
particular market on “case-by-case” factors.
83
  
32. We also decline to engage in a more rigorous examination of traditional market power 
factors such as market share; demand and supply elasticity; and the size, resources, and cost structure of 
firms operating in interstate switched access markets.
84
  The Commission has taken such factors into 
account when assessing whether sufficient marketplace competition exists to deny a carrier market 
power.
85
We make no such assessment today. Rather, we find that the Commission’s intercarrier 
compensation reforms have restructured the market for interstate switched access services in a manner 
that divests incumbent LECs of market power over these services. Although we also take into account the 
rising competition for voice services documented in USTelecom’s filings, standalone competition for 
interstate switched access services themselves is not central to our analysis.  A more thorough 
examination of the competitive dynamics of this market would therefore not improve our analysis.
86
                                                     
76
See Hyperion Forbearance Order, 11 FCC Rcd at 8608-09, para. 24; CLEC Access Charge Reform Order, 16 
FCC Rcd at 9935, para. 30; see also CenturyLink Refresh Comments at 7 (“[W]hatever the merits of this 
termination monopoly theory in the past, it is a phenomenon that is equally true for all providers.”).
77
See generally Hyperion Forbearance Order. 
78
See id. at 8608-09, paras. 24-25; see also CLEC Access Charge Reform Order 16 FCC Rcd at 9937-40, paras. 37-
44.
79
See, e.g., COMPTEL Comments to USTelecom Petition at 3-4; Granite Comments to USTelecom Petition at 2-3; 
Mich. PSC Refresh Comments at 1-2; Pa. PUC Refresh Reply at 2-3. 
80
See supra Section II.D.1.a.
81
Qwest Phoenix Forbearance Order, 25 FCC Rcd at 8679, para. 112.
82
See USTelecom Petition at 9 (emphasis added).
83
See id. at 47. 
84
See AT&T Non-Dominance Order, 11 FCC Rcd at 3293, para. 38; see also Competitive Carrier First R&O, 85 
FCC 2d at 14, para. 57.
85
See, e.g., AT&T Non-Dominance Order. 
86
Cf. MDTC Comments to USTelecom Petition at 3; Cbeyond et al. Comments to USTelecom Petition at 7-8.
Federal Communications Commission FCC 16-90
13
33. The market power analysis we perform today is tailored to the characteristics of the 
markets and services at issue in USTelecom’s Petition. We assess market power by evaluating the market 
conditions that would exist were incumbent LECs not regulated as dominant carriers in their provision of 
interstate switched access services.
87
  As explained above, we find that the Commission’s comprehensive 
overhaul of its intercarrier compensation and universal service regimes has fundamentally changed the 
regulatory character of interstate switched access. This regulatory restructuring of the marketplace has 
led to conditions under which no carrier can exert market power in its provision of these services, 
regardless of its dominance classification.  Failure to take these reforms into account would yield an 
analysis that exaggerates the ability of incumbent LECs to exert market power over these services in the 
absence of dominant carrier treatment.  We thus find it appropriate to conduct our market power analysis 
against the backdrop of these regulatory reforms. 
34. The possession of market power is what defines a “dominant carrier” under Part 61 of the 
Commission’s rules.
88
Incumbent LECs no longer possess market power over interstate switched access, 
so we find that they are no longer dominant in their provision of interstate switched access services. 
Because this decision is based on our analysis of the market conditions under which incumbent LECs 
provide these services today, we find irrelevant COMPTEL’s assertion that USTelecom has failed to 
substantiate any harms “attributable to dominant carrier regulation.”
89
  While this declaratory ruling will 
have certain deregulatory consequences for incumbent LECs,
90
these consequences follow from rather 
than dictate the ruling.
b. Other Arguments in the Record
35. Some commenters raise arguments against USTelecom’s Petition that do not go directly 
to the question whether incumbent LECs possess market power over interstate switched access.  As 
explained below, we do not find any of these arguments persuasive.
36. We first reject the argument that incumbent LECs’ access to Connect America Fund 
support as part of the transition to bill-and-keep is premised on their designation as dominant in the 
provision of interstate switched access.
91
The Commission established this recovery mechanism for 
incumbent but not competitive LECs because the former have “regulatory constraints on their pricing and 
service requirements . . . that otherwise limit their ability to recover their costs.”
92
These “constraints”
include federal and state law requirements that limit the revenues incumbent LECs can recover from their 
end user telephone subscribers; competitive LECs do not face similar restrictions.
93
Because the ruling 
we issue today preserves this disparate regulatory treatment of end user charges, there remains a reasoned 
basis for providing incumbent LECs with a recovery mechanism that is not available to competitive LEC 
providers of interstate switched access. 
37. We also are not convinced that the specialized role of price cap incumbent LECs in 
Connect America Phase I and Phase II is a reason to maintain dominant treatment of these carriers in their 
                                                     
87
See, e.g., Competitive Carrier First Report and Order, 85 FCC 2d at 14, para. 55 (describing market power in 
terms whether a carrier has the “ability [and] incentive” to engage in the very forms of misconduct to which 
dominant carrier regulation is addressed).  
88
47 CFR § 61.3(q).
89
Cf. COMPTEL Comments to USTelecom Petition at 8-12; Cox Comments to USTelecom Petition at 5-6. 
90
See infra Section II.D.2.b.
91
See Sprint Comments to USTelecom Petition at 3-4; see also NCTA Comments to USTelecom Petition at 4; CCA 
Comments to USTelecom Petition at 2-4; Pa, PUC Reply to USTelecom Petition at 10-11; XO Reply to USTelecom 
Petition at 4. 
92
USF/ICC Transformation Order, 26 FCC Rcd at 17964, para. 862.
93
Id. at 17965, para. 862 & n.1666.
Federal Communications Commission FCC 16-90
14
provision of interstate switched access services.
94
Phase I of the Connect America Fund provided price 
cap LECs with an initial burst of funding to support immediate broadband deployment.
95
Under Phase II, 
price cap LECs were granted the opportunity to receive six years of Connect America funding 
conditioned on state-level build-out commitments, after which support would be provided through a 
competitive bidding process.
96
  The design of Connect America Phase I and Phase II reflects a careful 
balancing of policy considerations, with the overriding goal of expediting broadband deployment for 
“millions more unserved Americans.”
97
  
38. The Commission observed that the historical regulatory treatment of price cap incumbent 
LECs has left these carriers particularly well-situated to deploy broadband services expeditiously across 
broad geographies.
98
Accordingly, the Commission adopted a framework for disbursement of Connect 
America funds that relied in the first instance on price cap incumbent LECs to deliver voice and 
broadband services to rural and unserved areas. The decision to structure the Connect America Fund in 
this manner was thus based on considerations that had nothing to do with whether or not incumbent LECs 
continue to possess market power over interstate switched access or are constrained by rules that apply 
specifically to dominant carriers. We are therefore not convinced that price cap LECs enjoy 
“disproportionate regulatory benefits” under the Connect America Fund such that we must continue to 
treat these carriers as dominant in their provision of interstate switched access services.
99
   
39. Finally, we dismiss a number of miscellaneous objections that have no relevance to our 
decision.  These include generalized claims in the record that incumbent LECs act in ways that betray 
their status as dominant carriers.  COMPTEL, for instance, asserts that “only a dominant carrier” would 
adopt the bargaining position the largest incumbent LECs have taken with respect to IP-to-IP 
interconnection.
100
  Sprint meanwhile accuses “certain ILECs” of unlawful access charge practices that it 
claims are “hardly consistent with a lack of dominance.”
101
  Assertions such as these do not speak to the 
precise question at issue in this proceeding, namely whether incumbent LECs continue to possess market 
power over interstate switched access.  Nor does Cbeyond et al.’s contention that “[g]rant of 
USTelecom’s Petition could lead to a slippery slope in which incumbent LECs rely on the Commission’s 
nondominance ruling to seek further deregulation.”
102
  The ruling we issue today follows from our finding 
                                                     
94
Sprint Comments to USTelecom Petition at 3-4; NCTA Comments to USTelecom Petition at 4;  see also ViaSat 
Comments to USTelecom Petition at 1-4; CCA Comments to USTelecom Petition at 3-4. 
95
USF/ICC Transformation Order, 26 FCC Rcd at 17673, para. 22.
96
Id. at 17673-74, para. 24.
97
Id. at 17673, paras. 22-23; see also id. at 17725, para. 156.
98
Id. at 17730-31, para. 175.
99
See Sprint Comments to USTelecom Petition. 
100
COMPTEL Reply to USTelecom Petition at 4-6; see also Cox Comments to USTelecom Petition at 3; Cox Reply 
to USTelecom Petition at 4-5.  But see AT&T Comments to USTelecom Petition at 3.  COMPTEL, a trade 
association representing competitive carriers, changed its name to INCOMPAS on October 19, 2015.  We refer to its 
filings in this record under the COMPTEL name if they were filed before that date.
101
See Sprint Refresh Comments at 3 (“Although the Commission has repeatedly found that intraMTA traffic is 
subject to reciprocal compensation rates, including when an interexchange carrier connects a CMRS carrier and a 
LEC, certain ILECs continue to insist that access charges apply when they deliver intraMTA traffic over FGD/IXC 
facilities.” (internal citations omitted)). 
102
Cbeyond et al. Comments to USTelecom Petition at 11; see also Sprint Refresh Comments at 4-5 (citing 
forbearance relief granted to incumbent LECs in other proceedings as a basis for denying UST’s petition); New 
Networks Institute Refresh Comments at 1 (arguing that the requested ruling “is just another part of the AT&T-
Verizon-CenturyLink-USTA plan to remove the companies’ remaining overall obligations”).
Federal Communications Commission FCC 16-90
15
that incumbent LECs no longer possess market power over interstate switched access.
103
  The fact that 
incumbent LECs may cite this ruling in future proceedings as support for “further deregulation” is of no 
consequence. We will review issues raised in each proceeding independently on the basis of the facts and 
law at issue therein.  Similarly irrelevant is Sprint’s observation that recent decisions have already 
brought incumbent LECs significant regulatory relief.
104
2. Streamlined Regulation of Incumbent LEC Interstate Switched Access
Services
40. Our declaration that incumbent LECs are non-dominant in their provision of interstate 
switched access services will result in streamlined regulatory treatment of these services. We discuss 
these deregulatory consequences below.  In particular, our ruling will (i) reduce incumbent LEC 
obligations in their tariffing of interstate switched access services; and (ii) streamline the Section 214 
transfer of control and discontinuance review procedures that apply to these services.  
41. At the outset, we observe that incumbent LECs are members of several overlapping 
regulatory categories. Different obligations flow from membership in each category; for instance, some 
requirements apply to price cap or rate-of-return carriers, some to incumbent LECs,
105
and still others to 
common carriers or telecommunications carriers.  We here identify the obligations that apply to 
incumbent LECs in their provision of interstate switched access services solely by virtue of their 
designation as dominant carriers. This question is subtly different from whether a requirement has been 
or could be characterized as dominant carrier regulation.
106
  Our ruling does not affect requirements that 
may fall in this broader category but that do not turn directly on the designation of an incumbent LEC as 
dominant under our rules.
42. USTelecom has presented its own analysis of the regulatory consequences of granting its 
Petition.
107
  This analysis includes a table that purports to identify the “affected rules.”
108
  We find this 
analysis relevant and informative, and it largely tracks the discussion that follows.  We nevertheless make 
clear that USTelecom’s analysis is not dispositive.  The following discussion reflects the Commission’s 
understanding and intent regarding the impact our decision will have on the regulatory treatment of 
incumbent LECs and other carriers under our rules.
109
  
a. Transition to Bill and Keep 
43. The reforms of the USF/ICC Transformation Order lie at the heart of today’s ruling. As 
USTelecom asserts, treating incumbent LECs as non-dominant in their provision of interstate switched 
                                                     
103
See supra Section II.D.1.a. 
104
See Sprint Refresh Comments at 4-5.
105
See 47 U.S.C. § 251(h) (defining “incumbent local exchange carrier” for purposes of Section 251 of the 
Communications Act of 1934, as amended (the Act)).
106
Compare USTelecom Petition at 9-10 (describing the general concept of “dominant carrier regulation”), with
Letter from Diane Griffin Holland, V.P., Law & Policy, USTelecom, to Marlene H. Dortch, Secretary, FCC, WC 
Docket No. 13-3 (filed Apr. 1, 2016) (identifying the specific regulatory consequences of declaring incumbent LECs 
non-dominant in the provision of interstate switched access services) (USTelecom April 1 Ex Parte Letter).
107
See USTelecom April 1 Ex Parte Letter; cf. NCTA Comments to USTelecom Petition at 6 (insisting that 
USTelecom’s petition lacked adequate detail on “the scope of the petition and the consequences of the requested 
relief”) (capitalization removed). 
108
See USTelecom April 1 Ex Parte Letter at Attach. (capitalization removed). 
109
But see South Dakota Telecom. Assoc. Refresh Reply at 3 (arguing that USTelecom has not adequately identified 
the consequences of granting its petition); NCTA Comments on USTelecom Petition at 5-6.  These comments 
predate USTelecom’s April 1 filing. 
Federal Communications Commission FCC 16-90
16
access services will not “alter the substantive requirements” of this transition.
110
  The rules adopted to 
implement this transition set forth requirements that apply respectively to price cap and rate-of-return 
carriers.
111
An incumbent LEC is a price cap carrier if “specified by Commission order” as such.
112
  
Those incumbent LECs that are not price cap carriers are rate-of-return carriers by default.
113
  Because the 
ruling we issue today says nothing about the “specification” of any incumbent LEC as a price cap carrier, 
it does not alter the status of any incumbent LEC as either a price cap or rate-of-return carrier.  
Accordingly, the rules that are not premised on a carrier’s dominant or non-dominant status will continue 
to apply to each incumbent LEC as they do now.  We thus reject Michigan PSC’s argument that dominant 
carrier treatment of incumbent LEC interstate switched access services is necessary to “safeguard 
customers” from unfair or unjust rates for these services.
114
b. Tariffing Obligations and Protections
44. The interstate switched access tariffs filed as part of the transition to bill-and-keep are 
governed by procedural requirements set forth in Parts 51 and 61 of our rules.
115
  These rules permit non-
dominant carriers to file tariffs on one day’s notice;
116
dominant carriers and any carrier seeking deemed 
lawful treatment of its tariff filing must give seven days’ notice for tariff filings that propose only a rate 
decrease and fifteen days’ notice for all other filings.
117
  In addition, supporting data must be filed with 
certain dominant carrier tariff filings.
118
  There are also customer notification and minimum effective 
period requirements that apply only to dominant carriers.
119
By redesignating incumbent LECs non-
dominant with regard to interstate switched access services, we relieve them of tariffing obligations that 
apply only insofar as they are dominant.  
45. We reject GCI’s argument that permitting incumbent LECs to file tariffs on one day’s 
notice would unfairly disadvantage competitive LECs by requiring them to adjust their “benchmark” rates 
more expeditiously.
120
GCI does not cite any requirement that relief properly granted to certain carriers
must never “increase the regulatory burdens of other carriers.”
121
  At any rate, GCI has not made clear the
harm that would befall competitive LECs were incumbent LEC interstate switched access tariffs filed on 
one day’s notice. Competitive LECs would remain entitled to fifteen days from the effective date of an 
                                                     
110
USTelecom Petition at 10 n.16. 
111
See 47 CFR §§ 51.907 (price cap), 51.909 (rate-of-return). 
112
See 47 CFR § 61.41(a)(2).  While the rule subpart that contains Section 61.41 “appl[ies] to all dominant carriers,” 
47 CFR § 61.31, a carrier can be both a price cap carrier and nondominant in its provision of a particular service. 
Our ruling preserves treatment of price cap incumbent LECs as “dominant carriers” in their provision of such 
services as special access.  But even if a price cap LEC ceased to be dominant with regard to any service, it would 
remain a “price cap local exchange carrier” unless the Commission issued an order removing this “specifi[cation].”  
See 47 CFR § 61.41(a)(2).  
113
See 47 CFR § 51.903(g).
114
SeeMich. PSC Refresh Comments at 5.
115
See generally 47 CFR pts. 51 & 61.
116
47 CFR § 61.58(f).
117
47 CFR § 61.58(a)(2)(i); see also 47 U.S.C. § 204(a)(3).
118
47 CFR §§ 61.38-39, 61.41, 61.49, 61.58.
119
47 CFR §§ 61.58(a)(4) (customer notification), 61.59 (minimum effective periods). 
120
See GCI Refresh Comments at 7-8. 
121
See id. at 7 (emphasis omitted).
Federal Communications Commission FCC 16-90
17
incumbent LEC tariff filing to adjust benchmarked rates as necessary.
122
GCI does not explain why 
fifteen days is insufficient. 
46. In any event, we expect that most incumbent LEC interstate switched access tariff filings 
will continue to be filed on seven or fifteen days’ notice as they are now.  Most of these filings are 
submitted as part of an annual tariff filing process prescribed in the Part 51 rules, under which the seven-
and fifteen-day notice periods apply.
123
  More generally, both dominant and non-dominant carriers must 
file on seven or fifteen days’ notice to receive the benefit of “deemed lawful” rates.
124
  Any tariff filed on 
shorter notice is not presumed to be just and reasonable and may be subject to refund.  Filing on shorter 
notice also precludes Commission review before a tariff filing takes effect.  Commission staff carefully 
review interstate switched access tariff filings from incumbent LECs to ensure that ARCs and Connect 
America Fund recovery amounts are computed correctly and to guard against waste, fraud and abuse.
125
  
Because the public interest demands that we preserve this opportunity for review, we will continue to 
require incumbent LECs that participate in the recovery mechanism set forth in the Part 51 transitional 
rules
126
to file interstate switched access tariff filings on as many days’ notice as must be provided today, 
whether seven or fifteen days.
127
  Retaining this requirement is necessary to ensure a smooth and orderly 
implementation of the Commission’s intercarrier compensation reforms, a key premise of today’s 
ruling.
128
  This need arises not from the analysis of whether a LEC is dominant or non-dominant, but 
rather from the fact that the LECs in question receive prescribed recovery amounts, including from the 
Connect America Fund, in connection with the transition to bill-and-keep
47. We also clarify that incumbent LECs may remain obligated to file cost support with their 
interstate switched access tariffs for reasons not “tied to” market power over interstate switched access.
129
  
Those incumbent LECs that participate in the recovery mechanism are already required under the 
transitional rules to submit cost support as part of their annual tariff filings.
130
  Moreover, as USTelecom 
observes, the Commission may require filing of additional cost support “where deemed necessary to serve 
a valid regulatory purpose.”
131
48. Overall, the ruling we issue today will reduce the tariffing obligations of incumbent LECs
while ensuring that the transition to bill-and-keep continues apace.  Tariffing of interstate switched access 
services is an integral component of that transition.  Accordingly, we decline to impose mandatory 
detariffing on such services as some commenters propose.
132
  Finally, we clarify that this ruling leaves in 
                                                     
122
See 47 CFR § 61.26(c).
123
See 47 CFR § 51.919; see also July 1, 2016 Annual Access Charge Tariff Filings, Order, 31 FCC Rcd 2002 
(WCB 2016).
124
See 47 U.S.C. § 204(a)(3).
125
The rules governing ARCs and Connect America Fund recovery amounts contain detailed requirements.  See 47 
CFR §§ 51.915, 51.917.
126
See 47 CFR §§ 51.915, 51.917 
127
See 47 CFR § 61.58(a)(2)(i); see also 47 CFR §§ 51.915, 51.917 (recovery mechanism). 
128
See USTelecom Refresh Comments at 9 (“To the extent the Commission is concerned that [the requested] ruling 
might have unintended consequences such as the elimination of a regulation or requirement that might ultimately 
harm consumers, it has broad discretion to carve out or retain such requirements to the extent they are in the public 
interest.”). 
129
See USTelecom April 1 Ex Parte Letter at 2.
130
See 47 CFR § 51.919.
131
See USTelecom April 1 Ex Parte Letter at 3; see also 47 CFR §§ 61.38(a), 61.39(a).
132
See Sprint Refresh Comments at 7; INCOMPAS Refresh Reply at 4, n.11.
Federal Communications Commission FCC 16-90
18
place the existing requirements that govern NECA pooling,
133
including the requirements set forth in the 
transitional rules.
134
c. Section 214 Oversight
49. Dominant carriers are generally regulated more carefully than non-dominant carriers 
under two application filing procedures rooted in Section 214 of the Act.  We discuss each of these in 
turn. 
50. Service Discontinuances. A common carrier that seeks to discontinue an interstate 
telecommunications service must notify affected customers and file an application for Commission 
approval of the discontinuance.
135
  Unless the Commission notifies the applicant otherwise, an application 
is granted automatically after either 60 days for dominant carriers or 31 days for non-dominant carriers.
136
Built into these respective timelines are 30-day and 15-day comment periods, during which affected 
customers or others may register concerns with the proposed discontinuance.
137
As a result of this 
declaratory ruling, incumbent LEC applications for discontinuance of interstate switched access services 
will be placed on the 31-day timeline for streamlined approval, with its 15-day comment period.  
51. We are not convinced that preserving the 60-day timeline for review of incumbent LEC 
applications to discontinue interstate switched access services is necessary to protect consumers. The 
Michigan PSC does not explain why a streamlined review period would deny adequate protection of 
“rural and underserved customers” of these services.
138
  At any rate, the Commission’s discontinuance 
rules grant the Commission discretion to remove an application from streamlined treatment when the 
public interest demands a more searching review. The Commission has exercised this option in the past 
when addressing discontinuance applications that raised significant issues that required further scrutiny to 
protect consumers and the public interest.
139
The Commission thus has broad flexibility to administer the 
Section 214 process in a manner that serves the public interest, regardless of which review timeline 
applies to any application.
                                                     
133
Cf. GCI Refresh Comments at 7 (urging the Commission to ensure that “any relief granted has no effect on 
pooling, the pooling process, or the substantive or procedural requirements that apply with regard to pooling and 
NECA tariff filing”). 
134
See, e.g., 47 CFR § 51.909(a)(4).
135
47 U.S.C. § 214(a); 47 CFR § 63.71.  For convenience, in certain circumstances this item uses “discontinue” (or 
“discontinued” or “discontinuance,” etc.) as shorthand that encompasses the statutory terms “discontinue, reduce, or 
impair” unless the context indicates otherwise.
136
47 CFR § 63.71.
137
47 CFR § 63.71(a).
138
SeeMich. PSC Refresh Comments at 5.  We similarly reject New Networks Institute’s claim that “once the 
ILECs are ruled non-dominant they will simply have carte blanche to shut off all copper networks they want [and] 
not deliver services.” Net Networks Institute Refresh Comments at 1. Following today’s ruling, incumbent LECs 
will remain obligated under Section 214 to seek Commission approval before discontinuing interstate switched 
access services.
139
See Applications of Verizon New Jersey, Inc. and Verizon New York, Inc. to Discontinue Domestic 
Telecommunications Services Will Not Be Automatically Granted, Public Notice, 28 FCC Rcd 12252, 12253 n.5 
(WCB 2013) (noting that “more than 70 comments” had been received and citing the need for “a thorough 
investigation of the issues involved in this proceeding”); see also, e.g., Application of Sprint Communications 
Company L.P. to Discontinue Domestic Telecommunications Services is Not Automatically Granted, Public Notice, 
30 FCC Rcd 10143 (WCB 2015).  
Federal Communications Commission FCC 16-90
19
52. We reject the Pennsylvania PUC’s argument that placing incumbent LEC service 
discontinuance applications on the 31-day timeline could interfere with state law.
140
First, the 
Commission’s Section 214 authority applies only to interstate telecommunications services; wholly 
intrastate services such as local telephone service are excluded from its reach. Moreover, the Section 214 
process is not intended to preempt or displace carrier of last resort (COLR) or other service obligations 
that states may impose on incumbent LECs.  Section 214 authority to discontinue an interstate switched 
access service does not carry with it relief from any COLR or other state law obligations that require a 
carrier to provide local service.
141
The ruling we issue today has no effect on this balance of regulatory 
oversight between the Commission and the states.  Contrary to Michigan PSC’s suggestion, this ruling 
will not “constrain” states in their efforts to address “unique conditions that may exist” within their 
borders.
142
  Rather, states will remain free to regulate intrastate services to the extent they are now.
143
  
Also, states retain the option of filing comments on any discontinuance application that raises particular 
concerns; the Commission will take seriously concerns from a state government authority in evaluating 
whether to remove an application from streamlined treatment and in evaluating whether to grant. 
53. Transfers of Control. The applications that carriers must file when they seek to transfer 
control of lines are also subject to rules that apply differently based on whether or not an applicant is a 
dominant carrier.
144
Applications that fall within defined categories are eligible for streamlined treatment, 
under which the application is granted on the 31st day after filing unless the Commission notifies the 
applicant otherwise.
145
The dominance status of a carrier is relevant to whether an application falls in a 
streamlined category; for instance, applications may be eligible for streamlining where “[n]either of the 
applicants is dominant with respect to any service.”
146
Today’s declaratory ruling thus expands the range 
of circumstances in which transfers of control involving incumbent LECs would be eligible for 
streamlined treatment. 
54. This relief preserves sufficient Commission oversight of transfers of control. As with 
service discontinuance applications, the Commission retains broad discretion to remove transfer-of-
control applications from streamlined processing. Accordingly, the ruling will not interfere with our 
ability and willingness to “scrutinize incumbent LECs transactions carefully.”
147
We will continue to 
exercise our discretion to remove applications from streamlined processing where circumstances and the 
public interest warrant.  Moreover, the ruling we issue today does not redesignate incumbent LECs as 
non-dominant with respect to all regulated interstate services.
148
  The practical impact of the ruling on 
                                                     
140
See Pa. PUC Reply to USTelecom Petition at 3-5; see also MDTC Comments to USTelecom Petition at 7-8; cf. 
Mich. PSC Refresh Comments at 6-7. 
141
But see ITTA Comments to USTelecom Petition at 6 (implying that the relief USTelecom seeks would remove 
“legacy obligations that require ILECs to maintain POTS”) (quoting National Broadband Plan at 59).  As we 
explain, our ruling does not affect state law obligations to provide local service.  Cf. New Networks Institute Refresh 
Comments at 1 (arguing that the Commission “seem[s] to have forgotten” the oversight role of states).  
142
SeeMich. PSC Refresh Reply at 6-7; see alsoMDTC Comments to USTelecom Petition at 7-8.
143
While the USF/ICC Transformation Order expressly brought intrastate access charges under the Commission’s 
Section 251(b)(5) authority, USF/ICC Transformation Order, 26 FCC Rcd at 17920, para. 772, it disclaimed any 
attempt to preempt or override COLR or similar state law obligations.  Id. at 17672, para. 15, 17694, para. 82.
144
See 47 CFR § 63.03; see also 47 U.S.C. § 214.
145
47 CFR § 63.03(b).
146
47 CFR § 63.03(b)(2)(i).
147
See Cbeyond et al. Comments to USTelecom Petition at 11.
148
In particular, the ruling does not affect treatment of incumbent LECs as dominant with respect to Business Data 
Services (i.e., special access services). 
Federal Communications Commission FCC 16-90
20
Commission review of transfer-of-control applications may therefore be more limited than some 
commenters surmise. 
d. Additional Safeguards 
55. Many of the regulatory protections that apply to incumbent LECs in their provision of 
interstate switched access services do not depend on their status as dominant carriers. Perhaps the most 
significant of these are the pricing rules adopted to implement the transition of interstate switched access 
services to bill-and-keep. Below we discuss additional regulatory safeguards that will remain in place to 
protect consumers and competition. 
56. Regulation of End User Access Charges. As noted above, interstate switched access 
services provide a direct benefit to two distinct customer groups: the IXCs that purchase the regulated 
access service, and end users that rely on that service to place and receive long distance calls.
149
In 
recognition of this benefit for end users, the Commission permits incumbent LECs to assess a flat-rated 
charge on their subscribers to recover a portion of their interstate costs.
150
This subscriber line charge 
(SLC) may not exceed $6.50 per month for any residential customer with a single telephone line.
151
The 
intrastate costs of telephone service for end users are governed by state law. 
57. As USTelecom concedes, treatment of incumbent LECs as non-dominant in their 
provision of interstate switched access services does not relieve them from compliance with the SLC 
cap.
152
The two Commission rules that implement this cap apply respectively to price cap local exchange 
carriers and non-price cap incumbent local exchange carriers.
153
Logically, every incumbent LEC falls 
within one, and only one, of these categories. Therefore, the charges that incumbent LECs impose on end 
users in conjunction with interstate switched access service will remain capped under the existing rules. 
58. Incumbent LEC Obligations. Certain obligations apply generally to incumbent LECs as a 
class, whether or not they are dominant carriers. These include the local competition safeguards set forth 
in Section 251(c) of the Act.
154
This declaratory ruling has no effect on the scope of these obligations, 
which will continue to play a vital role in ensuring that consumers have access to competitive voice 
services. 
59. Other Carrier Obligations. As USTelecom asserts, grant of its Petition has “no impact 
on public policy obligations applicable to all carriers such as 911, customer privacy and disabilities 
access.”
155
The ruling also leaves in place the bedrock protections of Sections 201 and 202 of the Act, 
under which incumbent LECs must act justly and reasonably and without unjust or unreasonable 
discrimination in their provision of interstate switched access services.
156
                                                     
149
See supra Section II.C.2; see also Qwest Phoenix Forbearance Order, 25 FCC Rcd at 8678, para. 111.
150
See Qwest Phoenix Forbearance Order, 25 FCC Rcd at 8678, para. 111; see also 47 CFR §§ 69.104, 69.152.
151
See Access Charge Reform et al., Sixth Report and Order in CC Docket Nos. 96-262 and 94-1, Report and Order 
in CC Docket No. 99-249, and Eleventh Report and Order in CC Docket No. 96-45, 15 FCC Rcd 12962 (2000) 
(CALLS Order); see also 47 CFR §§ 69.104, 69.152.  In the USF/ICC Transformation Order, the Commission 
sought comment on possible changes to the SLC, including the eventual elimination of any distinct end user charge 
for users of voice service.  See USF/ICC Transformation Order, 26 FCC Rcd at 18121-22, paras. 1330-33.
152
See USTelecom April 1 Ex Parte Letter at 2 n.5.
153
47 CFR §§ 69.104, 69.152.
154
See 47 U.S.C. § 251(c); see also USTelecom Petition at 1 n.2 (clarifying that the petition does not seek relief 
from Section 251(c)(3) unbundling obligations). 
155
USTelecom Petition at 1 n.2. 
156
47 U.S.C. §§ 201, 202. 
Federal Communications Commission FCC 16-90
21
III. SECOND REPORT AND ORDER
60. In this Second Report and Order, we update our review and notice procedures governing 
the filing and processing of applications pursuant to Section 214 of the Communications Act of 1934, as 
amended (the Act) to discontinue, reduce, or impair service (the Section 214 discontinuance process).
157
  
Section 214 of the Act and the Commission’s implementing rules generally require telecommunications 
carriers
158
and interconnected Voice over Internet Protocol (VoIP) providers
159
to obtain Commission 
authority to discontinue interstate or foreign service to a community or a party of a community.
160
  We 
start with an overview of the current discontinuance process and then describe our new “adequate 
replacement” test, which will apply solely to the context of Section 214 discontinuance applications that 
involve technology transitions, as defined in detail below.  Finally, this Second Report and Order 
addresses notice and review procedures related to both the 214 discontinuance and copper retirement 
rules.
A. Background
61. The Act charges the Commission with considering the “public convenience and 
necessity” in evaluating any application to discontinue, reduce, or impair service.
161
  All applicants 
seeking to discontinue a service are currently required to file a Section 214 application in accordance with 
rules governing notice, opportunity for comment, review, and processing requirements.
162
  Commenters 
have 15 days to file objections if the applicant is a non-dominant carrier and 30 days to file if the 
applicant is a dominant carrier.
163
  The application is automatically granted on the 31st day after filing for 
non-dominant carriers and on the 60th day after filing for dominant carriers unless the Wireline 
Competition Bureau (Bureau) has notified the applicant that the grant will not be automatically 
effective.
164
  The Bureau has considerable discretion in determining whether to grant such authority based 
on the application, responsive comments, and other filings.
165
  The Bureau will normally authorize the 
discontinuance “unless it is shown that customers would be unable to receive service or a reasonable 
                                                     
157
47 U.S.C. § 214(a).  
158
See 47 U.S.C. § 214(a); see also 47 CFR § 63.61 (“Any carrier subject to the provisions of Section 214 of the 
Communications Act proposing to discontinue, reduce or impair interstate or foreign telephone or telegraph service 
to a community, or a part of a community, shall request authority therefor by formal application or informal request 
as specified in the pertinent sections of this part . . . .”).  The Commission relieved Commercial Mobile Radio 
Service (CMRS) providers of this obligation in 1994.  Implementation of Sections 3(n) and 332 of the 
Communications Act, Regulatory Treatment of Mobile Services, Second Report and Order, 9 FCC Rcd 1411, 1481, 
para. 182 (1994); see also 47 CFR §§ 20.15(b)(3), 63.19(c) (exempting CMRS providers).
159
VoIP Discontinuance Order, 24 FCC Rcd at 6045-46, para. 11 (extending “the Commission’s domestic 
discontinuance requirements to interconnected VoIP providers” in order to “safeguard[ ] the public interest in 
continuity of such services” without classifying interconnected VoIP services as either telecommunications services 
or information services).  The VoIP Discontinuance Order moots any need to find a separate basis of authority over 
VoIP providers in connection with this Second Report and Order, as NARUC previously contended. See Letter 
from James Bradford Ramsay, General Counsel, NARUC, to Chairman Tom Wheeler and Commissioners Mignon 
Clyburn, Jessica Rosenworcel, Ajit Pai, and Michael O’Reilly, GN Docket No. 13-5 at 4 (filed July 7, 2016). 
(NARUC July 7, 2016 Ex Parte Letter).  
160
47 U.S.C. § 214(a).
161
Id.  
162
47 CFR § 63.71(a)-(b).
163
47 CFR § 63.71(a)(i)-(ii).  
164
47 CFR § 63.71(e).  
165
FCC v. RCA Commc’ns, Inc., 346 U.S. 86, 90 (1953); see also 47 CFR § 0.91(d) (delegating authority to the 
Wireline Competition Bureau to adjudicate Section 214 discontinuance applications).
Federal Communications Commission FCC 16-90
22
substitute from another carrier or that the public convenience or necessity is otherwise adversely 
affected.”
166
62. In evaluating whether the discontinuance will harm the public interest, the Commission 
has for many years employed a five factor balancing test to analyze: (1) the financial impact on the 
common carrier of continuing to provide the service; (2) the need for the service in general; (3) the need 
for the particular facilities in question; (4) increased charges for alternative services; and (5) the existence, 
availability, and adequacy of alternatives.
167
  We have concluded that the existence, availability, and 
adequacy of alternatives, or the adequate replacement factor, has heightened importance in the context of 
technology transitions.
168
  Indeed, the public interest demands that we define more specifically what 
carriers’ obligations are when discontinuing voice services as part of a technology transition.
169
B. Overview of Our New Approach for Technology Transitions
63. Consistent with the proposals in the Emerging Wireline Further Notice,
170
we now adopt 
an updated approach for preparing, reviewing, and evaluating Section 214 discontinuance applications 
that relate to technology transitions (technology transition discontinuance applications).
171
  In this section, 
we provide an overview of the framework and address generalized arguments raised by various 
commenters.
64. The Framework for the Adequate Replacement Test.  We conclude that the public interest 
requires that applications seeking to discontinue a legacy TDM-based voice service as part of a transition 
to a new technology, whether IP, wireless, or another type, indicate that a technology transition is 
implicated.
172
  To be clear, the requirements articulated herein for eligibility for automatic grant of 
discontinuance applications involving a technology transition apply only to legacy voice services.
173
For 
                                                     
166
47 CFR § 63.71(a)(5)(i)-(ii).
167
Applications for Authority Pursuant to Section 214 of the Communications Act of 1934 to Cease Providing Dark 
Fiber Service, Memorandum Opinion and Order, 8 FCC Rcd 2589, 2600, para. 54 (1993), remanded on other 
grounds, Southwestern Bell v. FCC, 19 F.3d 1475 (D.C. Cir. 1994).  Although the five factor test described herein 
generally provides the basis for reviewing discontinuance applications, our “public interest evaluation necessarily 
encompasses the ‘broad aims of the Communications Act.’”  Applications of Charter Communications, Inc., Time 
Warner Cable, Inc., and Advance/Newhouse Partnership For Consent to Assign or Transfer Control of Licenses and 
Authorizations, Memorandum Opinion and Order, FCC 16-59, para. 27 (May 10, 2016) (Charter) (quoting Western 
Union Division, Commercial Telegrapher’s Union, A.F. of L. v. United States, 87 F. Supp. 324, 335 (D.D.C. 1949), 
aff’d, 338 U.S. 864 (1949)).
168
Emerging Wireline Order and Further Notice, 30 FCC Rcd at 9481, para. 210.  Previously, the Commission has 
referred to this factor as the adequate substitute factor.  We now conclude using the term adequate replacement more 
accurately captures the concept of “the existence, availability, and adequacy of alternatives” and avoids confusion 
with other related concepts that employ the term substitute.
169
See id. at 9478, para. 204.
170
See id. at 9478, para. 208.  The Commission initiated this rulemaking in November 2014 to help guide and 
accelerate technology transitions and, among other things, sought comment on proposals for possible criteria against 
which to measure what would constitute an adequate replacement for retail services that a carrier seeks to 
discontinue in connection with a technology transition.  Emerging Wireline Notice, 29 FCC Rcd at 15006, para. 93.  
Subsequently, in August 2015, the Commission sought comment on specific criteria for the adequate replacement 
test as well as other aspects of how the test would operate as part of the Section 214 discontinuance process.  
Emerging Wireline Order and Further Notice, 30 FCC Rcd at 9478, para. 202.
171
See infra Section III; Appendix A, Final Rules, new Section 63.60(h).
172
See infra Appendix A, Final Rules, new Section 63.602(a)(2).  
173
In the Further Notice, we sought comment on the scope of legacy services to which the adequate replacement test 
should apply.  Emerging Wireline Order and Further Notice, 30 FCC Rcd at 9481, para. 209.  We conclude that the 
special and long-standing importance of voice service to consumers warrants developing today additional criteria for 
(continued . . .)
Federal Communications Commission FCC 16-90
23
any other domestic service for which a discontinuance application is filed, section 63.71(e) of our rules 
(redesignated as § 63.71(f) herein) shall continue to govern automatic grant procedures.  This approach
furthers the public interest because adopting clear, streamlined criteria will eliminate uncertainty that 
could potentially impede the industry from a prompt transition to newer technologies.  Unlike traditional 
applicants, technology transition discontinuance applicants seeking streamlined treatment will be required 
to submit with their application either a certification or a showing as to whether an adequate replacement 
exists in the service area.  Applications either (i) certifying or (ii) demonstrating successfully through 
their showing that an adequate replacement exists will be eligible for automatic grant pursuant to Section 
63.71(d) of the Commission’s rules as long as the existing requirements for automatic grant are 
satisfied.
174
  We stress that attempting to satisfy the adequate replacement test is entirely voluntary for an 
applicant.
175
  Voice technology transition discontinuance applicants that decline to pursue this path are not 
eligible for streamlined treatment and will have their applications evaluated on a non-streamlined basis 
under the traditional five factor test.  Moreover, the showing made regarding an adequate alternative 
under the five factor test does not require the network performance testing and other specific showings 
required under the adequate replacement test for streamlined treatment.
65. We further conclude that an applicant for a technology transition discontinuance may 
demonstrate that a service is an adequate replacement for a legacy voice service by certifying or showing 
that one or more replacement service(s) offers all of the following:  (i) substantially similar levels of 
network infrastructure and service quality as the applicant service; (ii) compliance with existing federal 
and/or industry standards required to ensure that critical applications such as 911, network security, and 
applications for individuals with disabilities remain available; and (iii) interoperability and compatibility 
with an enumerated list of applications and functionalities determined to be key to consumers and 
competitors.  One replacement service must satisfy all the criteria to retain eligibility for automatic grant.  
66. We decide to codify this three-pronged test in part in response to concerns that the 
proposed eight criteria test would be too complicated and burdensome.
176
This straightforward, 
streamlined approach will promote clarity, certainty, and efficiency.  The test encapsulates the important 
criteria identified in the Emerging Wireline Further Notice, but categorizes them conceptually based on 
the issues raised and the methodology involved in the analysis.  As described in further detail below, we 
group concepts such as service quality and network availability together as they involve a quantitative 
analysis of performance and are susceptible to empirical benchmarks.
177
  Similarly, ensuring continued 
accessibility for 911 and PSAP services is naturally connected to ensuring accessibility to applications for 
(Continued from previous page)                                                            
streamlined treatment during technology transitions.  Other services to which Section 214(a) discontinuance 
obligations apply and voice services subject to Section 214(a) being discontinued in non-technology transitions 
circumstances will continue to be subject to our pre-existing discontinuance process, which provides the public an 
opportunity to comment and to which our traditional five-factor balancing test applies.  We thus decline to apply the 
adequate replacement test to legacy data services, as suggested by some commenters.  See Letter from C. Douglas 
Jarrett, Counsel to NRECA, to Marlene H. Dortch, Secretary, FCC, GN Docket Nos. 13-5 & 12-353, Attach. 1 at 1 
(filed July 8, 2016) (NRECA July 8 Ex Parte Letter).
174
See infra Appendix A, Final Rules, new Section 63.602(b); see also 47 CFR §§ 63.71(a)(5)(i)-(ii), 63.71(d)-(e).  
This approach is conceptually consistent with AT&T’s proposal.  See Letter from David L. Talbott, Asst. V.P., 
Federal Regulatory, AT&T Services Inc., to Marlene H. Dortch, Secretary, FCC, GN Docket Nos. 13-5 & 12-353, 
Attach. 1 at 1 (filed May 31, 2016) (AT&T May 31 Ex Parte Letter).
175
See Letter from Katherine R. Saunders, Assoc. General Counsel, Federal Regulatory and Legal Affairs, Verizon, 
to Marlene H. Dortch, Secretary, FCC, GN Docket No. 13-5 et al. at 1 (filed July 7, 2016) (Verizon July 7 Ex Parte
Letter).
176
See, e.g., ITTA Comments at 7; USTelecom Comments at 7.
177
See infra Section III.C.1.
Federal Communications Commission FCC 16-90
24
individuals with disabilities, as both represent overarching values subject to existing bodies of 
Commission rules to which an applicant can certify.  
67. Technology transition applicants can either demonstrate compliance with these objective 
criteria or make a demonstration that, despite not being able to meet the criteria, the totality of the 
circumstances demonstrates that an adequate replacement nonetheless exists.
178
  If an applicant cannot 
certify or make that showing, or declines to pursue the voluntary path of streamlined treatment, it must 
include in its application an explanation of how its proposed discontinuance will not harm the public 
interest, with specific reference to the five factors the Commission traditionally considers.
179
  The Bureau 
will then weigh that information as part of the traditional multi-factor evaluation,
180
placing particular 
scrutiny on the adequate replacement factor under the newly-enhanced test.
181
68. This streamlined test addresses all of the important criteria identified in the Emerging 
Wireline Further Notice while categorizing them conceptually to focus on the issues most important to 
consumers.  We take this approach to assuage concerns about the perceived sprawling nature of the 
proposed test for a replacement service serving as a barrier to technology transitions.
182
  Nonetheless, the 
approach adopted today retains the strong objective standards outlined in the Emerging Wireline Further 
Notice that ensure that technology transitions benefit all Americans.  
69. This framework is grounded in the values that the public interest requires us to protect 
during technology transitions.  First, consumers expect and deserve a replacement that will provide 
comparable network quality and service performance.
183
  Second, the public needs to be assured that 
critical applications related to public safety and protecting those most vulnerable remain accessible and 
operational through any transition.
184
  Third, consumers should have access to the applications and 
functionalities they have come to associate as—and which currently remain—key components of a legacy 
communications service.
185
  Fourth, the clarity that comes from established criteria gives applicants, 
                                                     
178
See infra Appendix A, Final Rules, new Section 63.602(b); see also 47 CFR § 63.71(b)(5) (requiring that a 
carrier include in its discontinuance application, among other things, “[a]ny other information the Commission may 
require”). 
179
See supra para 62; see also AT&T May 31 Ex Parte Letter, Attach. 1 at 1.
180
See 47 CFR §§ 63.51, 63.71(a)(5)(i)-(ii).  Only meaningful, factual objections regarding the reliability of 
certifications provided will be persuasive.  We find this approach should address concerns, such as those raised by 
USTelecom that “even carriers that certify that they meet all the criteria will bear an increased burden of 
demonstrating that each of the criteria is met, since competitive providers will have incentive to, and thus will 
challenge all such certifications.”  USTelecom Comments at 3.  Conversely, our approach of requiring testing data 
to satisfy the criteria addresses Edison’s concerns that self-certification is not sufficient and applicants should be 
required to make a detailed showing.  Edison Comments at 10.  Edison or any other entity or individual may object 
to the certification or showing, and the Commission will consider the objection and determine if the applicant needs 
to provide additional support.
181
Mich. PSC Comments at 2-4.
182
See, e.g., AT&T Comments at 3, 4; Verizon Comments at 5; Alaska Rural Coalition Comments at 4; USTelecom 
Comments at; CenturyLink Comments at 25; ITTA Comments at 7.
183
See AARP Comments at 25; NARUC Comments at 6; Consumer Advisory Committee to the Federal 
Communications Commission Advisory Recommendation Regarding Technology Transition 08/15 Order and 
FNPRM, GN Docket No. 13-5 et al., at 3 (adopted June 10, 2016) (CAC June 10, 2016 Technology Transition 
Recommendation).
184
SeeMich. PSC Comments at 10-11; NARUC Comments at 5; CAC June 10, 2016 Technology Transition 
Recommendation at 3.
185
See CWA Comments at 12; NASUCA Comments at 10; CAC June 10, 2016 Technology Transition 
Recommendation at 3.  Many of these applications and functionalities, such as fax machines and point-of-sale 
terminals, operate over lines traditionally used for the provision of voice service.
Federal Communications Commission FCC 16-90
25
consumers, and competitors the information they need and should enable us to evaluate these types of 
discontinuance applications more briskly to the benefit of applicants and the American public.
186
70. In adopting objective, quantifiable standards for the adequate replacement test, we seek to 
minimize uncertainty or confusion that could slow or even discourage technology transitions.
187
  
Moreover, we do not want to stifle the new and innovative ways that a replacement service could benefit 
customers.
188
  For that reason, we announce a test that sets clear, achievable benchmarks but leaves 
flexibility, recognizing that a shift from a TDM network to a new technology will never be a purely 
apples-to-apples comparison.  
71. The approach we adopt today places a new prominence on the adequate replacement 
analysis,
189
which we conclude is entirely appropriate.
190
  The five factor test is aimed at promoting—and 
where necessary, balancing—the four missions of our agency, namely to protect consumers, promote 
competition, ensure universal access, and strengthen public safety.
191
  Four of the factors—(1) the 
financial impact on the common carrier of continuing to provide service, (2) the need for the service in 
general, (3) the need for the particular facilities in question, and (4) increased charges for alternative 
services—offer a traditional balancing of the financial and competitive needs of industry against the 
values of consumer affordability and expectations.
192
  
72. The adequate replacement factor, in contrast, aims to balance all four missions as a means 
of ensuring all Americans benefit from these exciting new technologies.  This has always required a 
deeper analysis, but that need is particularly acute in the context of discontinuances involving legacy 
voice services related to technology transitions.
193
  For example, the adequate replacement test must 
balance the benefits to a consumer of requiring a replacement service to offer interoperability with
applications available through the legacy voice service against the cost and difficulty of maintaining the 
application in that form to the industry.
194
  We conclude, however, that certain principles—such as access 
                                                     
186
See Emerging Wireline Order and Further Notice, 30 FCC Rcd at 9480, para. 207; CAC June 10, 2016 
Technology Transition Recommendation at 3.
187
SeeMich. PSC Comments at 2; Pa. PUC Comments at 17-18.
188
See USTelecom Comments at 7; CenturyLink Comments at 25; ITTA Comments at 7.
189
See Emerging Wireline Order and Further Notice, 30 FCC Rcd at 9481, para. 210.
190
We thus disagree with commenters that argue we should not focus so closely on the existence of alternatives.  See
USTelecom Comments at 10 (disagreeing with proposal to present more prominently the adequate replacement 
factor); CenturyLink Comments at 11-12, 15.  The new emphasis on the adequate replacement analysis does not, 
however, displace the Commission’s traditional five-factor test outside the context of technology transition 
discontinuance applications seeking streamlined treatment.  See Letter from Diane Griffin Holland, V.P., Law & 
Policy, USTelecom Association, to Marlene Dortch, Secretary, FCC, GN Docket Nos. 13-5 & 12-353, at 2 (filed 
June 20, 2016) (USTelecom June 20 Ex Parte Letter).
191
Technology Transitions et al., Order, Report and Order and Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, Report and 
Order, Order and Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, Proposal for Ongoing Data Initiative, 29 FCC Rcd 1433, 
1441, para. 23 (2014) (Technology Transitions Order).  
192
Verizon Tel. Cos., Section 63.71 Application to Discontinue Expanded Interconnection Service Through Physical 
Collocation, Order, 18 FCC Rcd 22737, 22742, para. 8 (2003).
193
See Emerging Wireline Order and Further Notice, 30 FCC Rcd at 9478, 9480, paras. 202, 207.
194
See id. at 9480, para. 207.  Compare Greenlining Comments at 2 (“The Commission should ensure that the ‘tech 
transition’ does not simply replace the current network with technology that offers equivalent service; rather, the 
Commission should craft rules that ensure the tech transition fixes historical inequities in telecommunications 
access.”) with AT&T Comments at 5-6 (“Rarely will a new technology duplicate each and every capability of a 
legacy technology, but that hardly means that, on balance, it is not an ‘adequate substitute.’  Indeed, in some 
instances, the new technology obviates the need for the legacy service.”).  We disagree with CenturyLink that the 
action we take today is inconsistent with the Commission’s recent revisions to the universal service program rules, 
(continued . . .)
Federal Communications Commission FCC 16-90
26
to critical applications such as 911—are not subject to balancing and must remain available and fully 
functional as part of any transition.
195
  The streamlined, technology neutral framework that we describe 
below will help to protect those principles.  
73. Limited to the Technology Transition Context.  We conclude that the adequate 
replacement test we discuss here should only apply to any application involving a technology transition 
from TDM to IP or wireline to wireless in which the applicant intends to discontinue completely 
customers’ access to the legacy voice service.
196
  The components of the test we set out below are 
specifically tailored to measure considerations relevant to a technology transition that are not as 
prominent in other contexts.  For example, requiring minor discontinuances of particular applications or 
functionalities (such as operator-assisted functionalities) associated with a service
197
to demonstrate that 
an adequate replacement is available is not necessary.  Although comments on this issue were limited, 
none specifically had concerns about limiting the adequate replacement test to applications involving 
technology transitions.  In fact, Verizon endorsed that approach as preferable to the alternative,
198
and the 
Michigan Public Service Commission (PSC) endorsed it explicitly.
199
  We conclude that limiting the test 
to the context of technology transitions accomplishes our regulatory goals in an appropriately narrow 
manner.
200
  
74. No Presumptions or Exclusions Regarding Specific Technologies.  We reject calls from 
incumbent LECs to presume that particular technologies, by their nature, represent an adequate 
replacement for legacy voice services in all instances.  CenturyLink and Verizon urge adoption of a 
presumption that certain services per se constitute adequate replacements.
201
  Verizon urges the 
Commission to establish a “safe harbor” under which it would automatically grant Section 214 
applications that involve “outdated, legacy services” when discontinuing service will not terminate the 
user’s ability to call 911.
202
75. We reject such requests because our public interest analysis demands that applicants 
provide objective evidence showing a replacement service will provide quality service and access to 
(Continued from previous page)                                                            
particularly in the Connect America Fund proceeding.  See CenturyLink Comments at 18-20.  We made it clear in 
the December 2014 Connect America Order that even though we were forbearing “from enforcing a federal high-
cost requirement that price cap carriers offer voice telephony service throughout their service areas pursuant to 
Section 214(e)(1)(A) in three types of geographic areas,” those carriers are still subject to Section 214(a)’s mandate 
regarding the need for Commission authorization before discontinuing a service.  Connect America Fund et al., 
Report and Order, 29 FCC Rcd 15644, 15663-64, para. 51 (2014) (December 2014 Connect America Order).  
195
See Emerging Wireline Order and Further Notice, 30 FCC Rcd at 9479, para. 205; see alsoMich. PSC 
Comments at 4-5; AARP Comments at 20-22.
196
See Emerging Wireline Order and Further Notice, 30 FCC Rcd at 9478, para. 202; Emerging Wireline Notice, 29 
FCC Rcd at 15014-15, para. 113; see also Verizon Comments at 6-7; AT&T May 31 Ex Parte Letter, Attach. 1 at 1.
197
See, e.g., Section 63.71 Application of AT&T Alaska et al. for Authority Pursuant to Section 214 of the 
Communications Act of 1934, as Amended, to Discontinue the Provision of Service, WC Docket No. 16-13 (filed 
Jan. 6, 2016), http://apps.fcc.gov/ecfs/comment/view?id=60001372231.
198
See Verizon Comments 6-7.
199
SeeMich. PSC Comments at 2.
200
See, e.g., Mich. PSC Comments at 2-4, Verizon Comments 6-7.
201
See CenturyLink Comments at 28; Verizon Comments at 8-9 (specifying VoIP, wireless, and over-the-top service 
over wireline or wireless). CenturyLink contends that facilities-based VoIP has been called a “reasonable substitute” 
in other proceedings and that should close the issue of whether it is an adequate replacement in this context.  See 
CenturyLink Comments at 31.
202
See Verizon Comments at 3-4.
Federal Communications Commission FCC 16-90
27
needed applications and functionalities.
203
  We agree with commenters that IP-based and other new 
services should demonstrate that they meet consumers’ and providers’ fundamental needs through 
satisfaction of performance standards, compliance with Commission rules, and harmony with key legacy 
functionalities and applications before we grant permission to remove existing voice services from the 
marketplace.
204
  Moreover, it is critical that we retain the ability to examine each discontinuance 
application given the potential for variability in different implementations of the same technology. The 
same technology could nonetheless utilize different features, be produced by different vendors with 
different methodologies, and use different quality measurement techniques, any of which could result in 
varied service quality and thus lead to potential interoperability issues.
205
  
76. At the same time, we recognize the importance of promoting speedy transitions and 
therefore reject calls to eliminate the streamlining and automatic grant procedures for discontinuance 
applications related to technology transitions.  For example, we disagree with AARP and others who 
argue that any path to automatic grant should be eliminated.
206
  Our goals here are not only to protect 
consumers and competition but also to do so in a manner that facilitates the benefits of technology 
transitions and promotes their occurrence with all reasonable efficiency. We believe the current 
discontinuance process, subject to the changes adopted today, provides the appropriate balance of 
allowing for public comment and objections while retaining the opportunity for speedy and effective 
resolutions.
77. We intend to retain largely the same standards for automatic grant that apply under the 
current regime for the special context of technology transitions.
207
  We do adopt, however, AT&T’s 
proposal to allow a more streamlined approach for discontinuances involving services that are 
substantially similar to those for which a Section 214 discontinuance has previously been approved, as 
discussed more fully below.  We also take action to streamline our Section 214 process in instances where 
consumers no longer subscribe to legacy voice services.  Although our actions today focus primarily on 
technology transitions, we recognize that the market is constantly evolving even outside the context of 
these crucial transitions.  For that reason, we adopt AT&T’s common sense proposal that a Section 214 
discontinuance application be eligible for automatic grant without any further showing if the applicant can 
demonstrate that the service has zero customers in the relevant service area and no requests for service in 
the last six months.
208
  
78. No Arbitrary Timelines.  We are not persuaded by incumbent LECs that contend that we 
should establish timelines for reviewing applications that are not eligible for automatic grant.
209
  We reject 
                                                     
203
See, e.g., NASUCA Comments at 4-6; Public Knowledge et al. Comments at 1-2; cf. AARP Comments at 14-20 
(discussing the problems associated with CenturyLink’s proposed rebuttable presumption and Verizon’s proposed 
safe harbor)
204
See Pa. PUC Comments at 3.
205
See Technology Transitions Order 29 FCC Rcd at 1527-28, Appendix B, paras. 33-34.  As described in further 
detail below, we will allow testing data from one area to be used to support future discontinuance applications in 
another area, conditioned on certifications that the network is built according to the same detailed design plan as the 
network supporting the service under the prior discontinuance.  See infra Section III.C.1.a.  This requirement 
prevents consumers from being harmed by implementation variability.
206
See AARP Comments at 8-9; cf. Letter from Harold Feld, Sr. V.P., Public Knowledge, to Marlene H. Dortch, 
Secretary, FCC GN Docket Nos. 13-5 and 12-353, at 1 (filed June 6, 2016) (Public Knowledge June 6 Ex Parte
Letter) (“With regard to discontinu[ing ] entire TDM-based systems as part of the tech transition, however, it is 
premature to discuss streamlining.”).
207
See 47 CFR § 63.71.
208
See AT&T May 31 Ex Parte Letter, Attach. 1 at 1; see also Public Knowledge June 6 Ex Parte Letter at 1; 
USTelecom June 20 Ex Parte Letter at 2.
209
See, e.g., Verizon Comments at 7-9; AT&T Comments at 14-16; AT&T May 31 Ex Parte Letter, Attach. 1 at 2.
Federal Communications Commission FCC 16-90
28
this request because the public interest demands that we provide appropriate scrutiny and careful review 
to discontinuance applications related to technology transitions given their novelty and complexity, and 
we cannot guarantee at this time how long that process will take.  If we were to adopt arbitrary timelines 
now, in advance of receiving a significant number of discontinuance applications associated with 
technology transitions, it could force us to shortchange our responsibility to ensure that technology 
transitions result in high service quality and successful customer experiences.  In rejecting this request, 
we note that an application will remain under consideration for automatic grant unless: (i) the 
Commission receives comments setting forth significant, meaningful, evidence-based objections or 
(ii) after reviewing the application, Commission staff has concerns about the impact of the planned 
discontinuance on the public convenience and necessity.
210
  Should such an objection arise, we will 
review the applicant’s and objector’s showings as expeditiously as possible.  We do intend, as described 
in further detail below, to rely on the efficiencies of precedent and data provided regarding similar 
transitions when factually or legally similar disputes arise.  Finally, should it be determined that the 
existing process is resulting in unacceptable delay or inefficiency, we will revisit our decision not to 
establish timeframes for acting on Section 214 applications.
79. Incumbent LECs further contend we should establish benchmarks for when a Public 
Notice should be released for a technology transition discontinuance application following its 
submission.
211
  Although we recognize the importance of processing applications promptly, we decline at 
this time to adopt a hard deadline.  Staff review applications for completeness, accuracy, and fulfillment 
of all predicate requirements, including providing notice to affected customers, before issuing the Public 
Notice.  Imposing a hard deadline could result in issuance of public notice of defective applications, and 
commenters have not identified a pattern of undue delay.  Based on actual experience with the 
streamlined process we adopt today, we can revisit this issue at a future date if necessary.  Moreover, to 
facilitate public input on these types of applications,
212
the Wireline Competition Bureau will not only 
continue to list such notices prominently, but will also identify them specifically as applications related to 
technology transitions on the Commission’s website.
80. An Objective Factor-Based Test Is Preferable To A Subjective Case-by-Case Approach 
for Technology Transition Discontinuances.  We conclude that adopting a criteria-based approach is 
appropriate, and retaining the existing case-by-case approach in the context of technology transitions 
would be ineffective.
213
  We disagree with commenters who argue in conclusory terms that imposing any 
new adequate replacement test will be harmful to the success of technology transitions.
214
  Indeed, the 
three-pronged test tied to specific benchmarks will allow industry to establish reasonable expectations 
about the investments necessary to satisfy the test while also protecting consumers.
215
  Specifically, the 
first prong calls for achievement of objective, measurable benchmarks.  The second prong requires 
certification of compliance with existing Commission rules or industry standards.  The third prong 
requires compatibility and interoperability with an enumerated list of applications and functionalities.  
Notably, through the detailed articulation that we provide today, the adequate replacement standard will 
be substantially clearer than it has been to this point.
                                                     
210
See 47 CFR § 63.71(a)(5); see also Pa. PUC Comments at 18.
211
AT&T July 7 Ex Parte Letter Attach at 3.
212
See Public Knowledge and CWA July 8 Ex Parte Letter at 1-2.
213
See Emerging Wireline Order and Further Notice, 30 FCC Rcd at 9478, para. 204; see also Greenlining 
Comments at 2; Mich. PSC Comments at 2-4; CAC June 10, 2016 Technology Transition Recommendation at 3.
214
See AT&T Comments at 4; CenturyLink Comments at 25; TIA Comments at 5.
215
See infra Section III.C.
Federal Communications Commission FCC 16-90
29
81. Nor does this new approach unfairly burden incumbent LECs. Common carriers have 
always faced a unique set of public interest obligations under the Act, including Section 214,
216
and the 
rules we announce today add meaning and structure to an existing framework.
217
  Moreover, where the 
adequate replacement test we adopt today is in fact tied to Commission rules, those are rules of general 
applicability that apply to all carriers in the context of 911/PSAP, applications for individuals with 
disabilities, and emergency operability requirements.
218
  We conclude that adopting clear, streamlined
criteria will eliminate uncertainty that could potentially impede the industry from a prompt transition to
newer technologies.  Moreover, we limit the burden on applicants by allowing repeat applicants the 
opportunity, where appropriate, to rely on testing data from previously approved applications involving 
networks constructed using the same design plan.
82. Successful Prior Certifications Will Streamline Future Applications.  We adopt a 
modified form of AT&T’s proposal that a repeat applicant for a 214 discontinuance application in the 
technology transition context can rely on its successful certification of compliance with all three prongs of 
the adequate replacement test in a previously approved application involving a substantially similar 
service.
219
  A substantially similar service is one offered by the same applicant relying on the same 
technology and utilizing a comparable network infrastructure.  The practical effect of this rule is to allow 
the applicant to bypass the performance testing requirements described in detail below.
220
  This 
streamlined approach will benefit applicants, while protecting the interests of all stakeholders, industry 
and consumers.
83. This approach should go a long way to addressing incumbent LEC concerns that the 
adoption of new requirements for Section 214 discontinuances will slow technology transitions.
221
  We 
agree that an application should be eligible for an automatic grant where a substantially similar showing 
made by that same applicant has satisfied our public interest considerations. Nonetheless, we recognize 
that expectations do not always match reality.  Therefore, commenters will have the opportunity to rebut 
an applicant’s planned reliance on a previous application if they can offer substantial evidence that the 
technology or network infrastructure are not in fact substantially similar to the service subject to the 
certifications in the previous application or the certifications have been proven unreliable, based on 
significant consumer complaints or new independent data.
84. Treating First and Third Party Services Equally.  We conclude that both first and third 
party services should be eligible as potential adequate replacement services.  The Emerging Wireline 
Further Notice raised the question of whether an applicant must show that its own replacement services, 
or first party services, satisfy the criteria or whether services provided by third parties in the service area 
in question should qualify.
222
  Commenters were generally supportive of allowing third party services to 
be deemed adequate replacement theoretically,
223
but raised legitimate practical concerns about requiring 
applicants to certify to performance and compliance standards on behalf of third parties.
224
  We agree with
                                                     
216
See 47 U.S.C. § 214; Western Union, 87 F. Supp. at 335-36.
217
See Western Union, 87 F. Supp. at 335-36.
218
See infra Section III.C.2.
219
See AT&T May 31 Ex Parte Letter, Attach. 1 at 3.
220
See infra Section III.C.1.a.
221
See, e.g., ACS Comments at 4-5; ITTA Comments at 7; USTelecom Comments at 8-9.
222
See Emerging Wireline Order and Further Notice, 30 FCC Rcd at 9482, para. 213.
223
See, e.g., AARP Comments at 8-9; Mich. PSC Comments at 3; Pa. PUC Comments at 17 ; AT&T Reply at 8-9; 
Joint States Reply at 3; see also USTelecom June 20 Ex Parte Letter at 2. 
224
See, e.g., AICC Comments at 3; AARP Comments at 10; Cal. PUC Comments at 8; CenturyLink Comments at 
16-17; ITTA Comments at 20.  On October 30, 2015, the California PUC filed a motion for acceptance of its late-
(continued . . .)
Federal Communications Commission FCC 16-90
30
commenters that there is no theoretical reason to exclude third party services. Indeed, third party services 
have always been eligible for consideration under the 214 discontinuance process as potential adequate 
replacements.
225
The question is whether an adequate replacement exists in the service area, not who 
provides the service that provides that adequate replacement.
85. Applicants seeking to discontinue a service have the burden of demonstrating that the 
discontinuance will not harm the public interest. Relying on third party services inevitably raises 
questions about competitive considerations and potential gamesmanship; we recognize that in many cases 
third parties would be unwilling to provide access to proprietary information, which would make it 
difficult for an incumbent to rely upon the existence of a third party service.
226
  Moreover, we recognize 
that applicants will not be able to certify on behalf of a third party and will thus be required to rely on the 
option of providing enough information to make an adequate showing to demonstrate that third party 
service is an adequate replacement.  
86. We thus conclude that applicants relying on a third party service should be allowed to 
make a prima facie showing based on publicly available information as to whether the third party service 
meets our test as an adequate replacement.  The adequate replacement test is only part of our public 
interest analysis, and we will take into account an applicant’s faultless inability to access necessary data 
and information from a third party when reviewing any application that relies on the existence of third 
party services to meet the adequate replacement test.  Any commenter opposing grant of a Section 214 
application relying on a third party service must rebut the prima facie showing made by the applicant.  
Should the objecting commenter raise legitimate concerns, we will remove the application from 
consideration for automatic grant.  We note that, in attempting to rebut such a showing, members of the 
public who use the third party service can agree to participate in tests necessary to measure network 
performance, as required under the criteria.  
87. Requiring A Single Service to Satisfy All Prongs.  To ensure that consumers receive the 
integrated service experience they need and deserve, we require that a single service (whether first- or 
third-party) satisfy all three prongs of the adequate replacement test in order to be eligible for automatic 
grant.
227
  Presuming that it is appropriate to force consumers to mix and match different services would 
undermine the entire effort.
228
  It is reasonable for customers to expect a single service to provide 
adequate network infrastructure and service quality, performance from critical applications, and access to 
other key applications and functionalities, as described below – and we accordingly will forgo the more 
exacting review that accompanies non-streamlined applications only where the carrier demonstrates that a 
single service will satisfy all three prongs of the adequate replacement test.
229
(Continued from previous page)                                                            
filed comments, because key staff were out of the office at critical points in the development of the comments and 
an unexpected, significant budget constraint required an internal redirection of resources.  SeeMotion of the Cal. 
PUC for Acceptance of Late-Filed Comments at 1, GN Docket No. 13-5 et al. (filed Oct. 30, 2015).  No oppositions 
to this motion were filed.  We grant the California PUC’s motion and accept its comments, which we cite herein 
without reference to the date filed.
225
In the context of 214 discontinuance applications, applicants have always been able to rely on third party services 
to demonstrate that an adequate replacement exists.  See, e.g., AT&T Corp. Application for Authority under Section 
214 of the Communications Act, as amended, to Discontinue the Offering of High Seas Service and to Close its 
Three Radio Coast Stations (KMI, WOM and WOO), Memorandum Opinion and Order, 14 FCC Rcd 13225, 13230-
31, paras. 12-13 (1999) (AT&T High Seas Order); see also AICC Comments at 3-4.
226
AICC Comments at 3; AARP Comments at 10.
227
See Public Knowledge et al. Comments at 1.
228
See Greenlining Comments at 5; NASUCA Comments at 12; Public Knowledge et al. Comments at 1-2.
229
Public Knowledge et al. Comments at 2.
Federal Communications Commission FCC 16-90
31
C. The Three Prongs of the Adequate Replacement Test
88. Having described this general framework, we now explain in more detail the three prongs 
of the test.
1. Network Infrastructure and Service Quality
89. As described above, the test we announce today measures whether a service based on a 
new technology qualifies as an adequate replacement for a legacy voice service, generally referring to a 
time-division multiplexed (TDM) circuit-switched voice service running on copper loops.
230
  To satisfy 
the first prong of the adequate replacement test,
231
and thereby be eligible for automatic grant, an 
applicant must demonstrate that at least one service provides:
? substantially similar network performance as the service being discontinued;
? substantially similar service availability as the service being discontinued; and 
? coverage to the entire affected geographic service area.
232
  
90. Customers rightfully expect that any adequate replacement for a wireline legacy voice 
service will be available in the same coverage area, allow customers to make and receive high quality 
voice calls consistently, and support the applications and functionalities on which they rely.
233
  However, 
we recognize that a comparison between a legacy voice service and its potential replacement is not an 
apples-to-apples comparison.  We thus provide applicants the flexibility either to demonstrate compliance 
with all of the benchmarks described more fully below, or to provide evidence that demonstrates that, 
despite falling short of certain specified benchmarks, the network providing the replacement service 
nonetheless provides substantially similar performance and availability when considering the totality of 
the circumstances.  Thus, a replacement network’s performance will be evaluated against objective 
benchmarks, but falling short of any single metric will not automatically disqualify it from being 
                                                     
230
See supra para 64.
231
We tentatively concluded in the Emerging Wireline Further Notice that “network capacity and reliability,” 
“service quality,” and “coverage” should serve as criteria as part of the adequate replacement test.  Emerging 
Wireline Order and Further Notice, 30 FCC Rcd at 9480, para. 208.  We further tentatively concluded that 
transmission capability and connection persistence should not be included as separate criteria and that the proposed 
criteria fully captured what would be measured to demonstrate adequate network infrastructure and service quality.  
Emerging Wireline Order and Further Notice, 30 FCC Rcd at 9491, para. 234.  Commenters expressed concern 
about the precision of the terminology used to identify those criteria.  See, e.g., AT&T Comments at 4; cf. Rural 
Associations Comments at 4 (“[A] rule-based approach, which clearly identifies specific concerns and then develops 
solutions or practices to address them, should be the paradigm, rather than vague guidelines that undermine rather 
than promote certainty in investment decisions.”).  We have thus refined and grouped these criteria to reflect more 
precisely the measurements we determine are crucial to determine whether a replacement network provides adequate 
network infrastructure and service quality.
232
These criteria received support from utilities, state utility commissions, and public interest commenters. See,
e.g., NASUCA Comments at 5, 6; AARP Comments at 10-15, 25; NENA Comments at 3, 6; Utilities Telecom 
Council Comments at 3-4; CWA Comments at 13; Edison Comments at 6 (asserting that “special emphasis should 
be given to network capacity, performance, quality of service and reliability”); Pa. PUC Comments at 6-7; Mich. 
PSC Comments at 4; Public Knowledge June 6 Ex Parte Letter at 1; NARUC July 7, 2016 Ex Parte Letter at 1.  In 
contrast, incumbent LECs generally oppose such metrics.  See, e.g., AT&T Comments at 9-10; Verizon Comments 
at 5-6; TIA Comments at 7; Alaska Rural Coalition Comments at 4-5; AT&T May 31 Ex Parte Letter, Attach. 1 at 
6; USTelecom June 20 Ex Parte Letter at 2.  AT&T recommends a rulemaking to set reliability standards for 
providers and to develop an IP standard for communications providers.  See AT&T Comments at 6.  ITTA believes 
carriers should have flexibility in testing methods for network performance.  See ITTA Comments at 5.  
233
Emerging Wireline Order and Further Notice, 30 FCC Rcd at 9484, para. 218, 9485, para. 220, 9488, para. 225; 
see alsoMich. PSC Comments at 4; NARUC Comments at 5; CWA Comments at 7.
Federal Communications Commission FCC 16-90
32
considered adequate.  The actual performance numbers will be evaluated in a holistic manner to 
determine the overall network performance, enabling the carrier to show that the totality of circumstances 
demonstrate adequate performance.
234
  
91. As described in further detail below, we adopt benchmarks related to various metrics that, 
if satisfied, would demonstrate that a service is performing adequately enough to serve as a replacement 
for a legacy TDM service.  There are two ways of demonstrating adequacy:  (i) through performance 
testing that demonstrates satisfaction of each of the benchmarks, or (ii) a demonstration, based on the 
totality of the circumstances, the network still provides substantially similar performance and 
availability.
235
  We interpret “substantially similar” in this context to mean that the network operates at a 
sufficient level with respect to the metrics identified below,
236
such that the network platform will ensure
adequate service quality for interactive and highly-interactive applications or services, in particular voice 
service quality, and support applications and functionalities that run on those services.
237
  Under either 
approach, the applicant initially provides the results of network testing, as well as outage and repair 
reporting, that demonstrate achievement of the benchmarks, although it may rely in subsequent 
applications on testing data from a previously approved discontinuance application.  
92. Overall, this approach to reviewing network performance and service quality and 
availability is necessary in the context of technology transitions.
238
  We rely on metrics that have 
relevance across various technologies that form telecommunications networks.  Moreover, the 
opportunity to demonstrate achievement of objective benchmarks allows for clarity and certainty.  
However, applicants also have the option to make an individualized demonstration of adequacy, thus 
recognizing there may be subjective elements to any apples-to-oranges comparison.  Either way, 
applicants meeting this prong of for an adequate replacement will still have the opportunity for automatic 
grant, allowing for speedy review where an applicant complies with all relevant standards.  Our mission 
here is to ensure a customer experience with the replacement service that is substantially similar to the 
                                                     
234
Retaining a robust network infrastructure and strong service quality is important for all customers, although we 
recognize certain components are more critical for particular types of customers than for others.  See, e.g., Edison 
Comments at 3-4 (“Electric utilities are Critical Industry Infrastructure entities, and they rely on communications for 
such critical functions as network monitoring and substation control, which are vital to maintaining reliability of the 
electric grid.  As a result, utilities require a higher quality of service – both in reliability and in performance – than 
service levels normally provided to residential consumers.”).  As discussed above, legacy data services will not be 
subject to the adequate replacement test and associated streamlined processing that we announce today.  Rather, 
those services would be evaluated under the traditional process, and the Commission will continue to closely 
scrutinize such applications in determining whether the public interest would be harmed by the discontinuance. 
235
As an example, an applicant might fall just short of our data loss benchmark but nonetheless make a showing that 
the totality of the circumstances demonstrates adequate performance.  That showing would presumably include test 
data demonstrating achievement of the remaining benchmarks as well as an explanation for why the network fell 
short of the data loss benchmark and any planned improvements to the network which would allow for enhanced 
performance in the future.
236
See infra Section III.C.1.a.
237
See CWA Comments at 7 (“Consumers expect their voice communications to be clear, understandable, and free 
of distortion and their data connections to be sufficiently robust and reliable to access the video- and data-intensive 
applications on today’s Internet.”).  See International Telecommunications Union, Series Y: Global Information 
Infrastructure, Internet Protocol Aspects and Next-Generation Networks, Network Performance Objectives for IP-
Based Services, ITU-T Recommendation Y.1541, at 12, table 2 (Dec. 2011), http://www.itu.int/rec/T-REC-Y.1541-
201112-I/en (ITU Recommendation Y.1541) (defining classes of service, which include applications such as VoIP 
and Video Teleconferencing (VTC)).  At least one commenter supports referring to standards defined in ITU-T 
Recommendation Y.1541.  See, e.g., CWA Comments at 7.
238
See Emerging Wireline Order and Further Notice, 30 FCC Rcd at 9479-80, n.656.
Federal Communications Commission FCC 16-90
33
customer experience with the service being discontinued,
239
not to create new obligations.
240
  We conclude 
this approach addresses incumbent LEC commenter concerns that the metrics proposed in the Emerging 
Wireline Further Notice would have required the same or better service.
241
93. We disagree with incumbent LECs who question our focus on network infrastructure.
242
  
Indeed, even in this context, the Commission already considers infrastructure in evaluating 
discontinuance applications when it considers the need for the particular facilities in question.
243
  Relying 
on performance measurements obtained through testing and reporting to measure service quality has long 
been a key part of the Commission’s public interest responsibilities.  The Commission has also required 
the disclosure of data regarding compliance with various technical metrics for use in evaluating network 
performance in numerous other contexts and applied the requirements to providers offering services 
encompassing numerous technologies.  Cable operators have been required since 1990 to submit signal 
leakage reports to show compliance with the performance criteria established by the Commission to test 
for the interference potential to aircraft communications and navigation over a cable system’s distribution 
plant.
244
  Our equipment authorization requirements are predicated on testing of radiofrequency device 
emissions and evaluation of that testing data to determine whether marketing of the device is permissible, 
and in some cases the results of these tests must be submitted to the Commission.
245
  As another example, 
the Commission requires carriers that control the initial call path for more than 100,000 subscriber lines to 
file call completion data with the Commission.
246
Covered providers submit detailed call performance 
data regarding interstate and intrastate calls to each rural provider of local telecom service.
247
  Both legacy 
                                                     
239
See, e.g., AARP Comments at 13; Pa. PUC Comments at 9; TIA Comments at 6; Alaska Rural Coalition 
Comments at 4-5; Rural Associations Reply at 5.
240
See, e.g., Verizon Comments at 11; Rural Associations Comments at 3; GVNW Reply at 3.
241
See, e.g., AT&T Comments at 5-6; CenturyLink Comments at 11-15; TIA Comments at 6; Rural Associations 
Comments at 3, 9; Rural Associations Reply at 5 (asserting that it is reasonable to inquire whether a replacement 
service meets existing quality standards); see also Verizon Metallic Services Order, 28 FCC Rcd 13826, 13828-29 
(2013) (“Consistent with our precedent, we will review each discontinuance application to determine . . . whether 
customers or other end users are able to receive service or a reasonable substitute from another carrier . . . .”).
242
See, e.g., Verizon Comments at 1-2, 5-6, 11-12 (asserting that the proposed standards inappropriately focus on 
technology and facilities rather than services); AT&T July 6, 2016 Ex Parte Letter Attach at 3 (contending metrics 
are likely to become obsolete and inconsistent).
243
See Emerging Wireline Order and Further Notice, 30 FCC Rcd at 9478-79, n.656; Section 63.71 Application of 
Verizon New Jersey Inc. and Verizon New York Inc. for Authority to Discontinue Domestic Telecommunications 
Services, Order, 28 FCC Rcd 13826, 13830, para. 4 (WCB 2013) (Verizon Metallic Services Order).  
244
See generally Amendment of Part 76 of the Commission’s Rules to Add Frequency Channeling Requirements & 
Restrictions & to Require Monitoring for Signal Leakage from Cable Television Sys., Report and Order, 65 FCC 2d 
813 (1977); Amendment of Part 76 of the Commission’s Rules to Add Frequency Channeling Requirements & 
Restrictions & to Require Monitoring for Signal Leakage from Cable Television Sys., Second Report and Order, 99 
FCC 2d 512 (1984). 
245
See generally 47 CFR §§ 2.803, 2.901 et seq., 15.1 et seq.; FCC, Equipment Authorization Procedures, 
https://www.fcc.gov/general/equipment-authorization-procedures.  
246
See Rural Call Completion, Report and Order and Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, 28 FCC Rcd 16154, 
16185, para. 68 (2013) (Rural Call Completion Order).
247
See Rural Call Completion Order, 28 FCC Rcd at 16174-91, paras. 40-84.  Specifically, covered providers must 
identify the number of total calls, answered calls, and non-answered calls.  Id. at 16185, para. 68.  For non-answered 
calls, the covered provider identifies whether the attempts were signaled busy, ring no answer, or unassigned 
number.  Id. at 16175, para. 43.  Covered providers also submit these same data on an aggregate nationwide basis 
regarding calls to nonrural carriers.  Id. at 16185, para. 68.
Federal Communications Commission FCC 16-90
34
voice and VoIP providers must file an annual certification documenting efforts to comply with applicable 
accessibility requirements.
248
a. Network Performance
94. We conclude that one aspect of determining whether a service is an adequate replacement 
for a legacy voice service is network performance.  We find that there are two essential metrics used to 
determine whether a particular data transmission network is an adequate replacement for a legacy wireline 
voice service: latency and data loss.
249
  These generic metrics have different names as applied to each 
discrete technology, but they both measure an essential characteristic of a data transmission network.  We 
conclude these metrics are appropriate for replacement networks in order to provide substantially similar 
performance as a legacy TDM service.  We will rely on the specific performance benchmarks in the chart 
below for determining whether a network provides substantially similar performance to be considered an 
adequate replacement for a legacy TDM-based service. We note again that the failure to satisfy a single 
metric is not disqualifying.  An applicant may either demonstrate achievement of both benchmarks, thus 
presumptively showing adequate performance, or demonstrate that the totality of the circumstances, 
including the voice service availability and network coverage criteria, demonstrates adequate network 
performance.
250
95. We note that the Commission received limited responses to our request for comment on 
the appropriate benchmarks and metrics.
251
  We therefore rely on industry technical standards and our 
approaches in other proceedings to adopt the benchmarks we will use in our Section 214 process.
252
The 
performance benchmarks are measured in accordance with our Technical Appendix.
253
  
Metric Benchmark
Latency 100 milliseconds or less for 95% of all peak period round trip 
measurements, a benchmark consistent with previous Commission 
decisions in the universal service context, informed by ITU-T standards, 
and comparable to demonstrated performance under the Commission’s 
Measuring Broadband America program.
254
                                                     
248
See 47 CFR § 14.31. 
249
The ITU-T, which defines metrics, standards for measurement, and performance requirements, is consistent in 
their identification of the essential characteristics.  See ITU-T Recommendation Y.1541, at 25, Table 1 (Mar. 2011), 
https://www.itu.int/rec/T-REC-Y.1540-201103-I/en (ITU-T Recommendation Y.1540); see also id. at 20; see also 
generally International Telecommunications Union, Series G: Transmission Systems and Media, Digital Systems 
and Networks, International telephone connections and circuits – General Recommendations on the transmission 
quality for an entire international telephone connection - One-way transmission time, ITU-T Recommendation 
G.114 (May 2003), https://www.itu.int/rec/T-REC-G.114-200305-I/en (ITU-T Recommendation G.114).
250
By “presumptive” we refer to the fact the Commission may seek additional proof beyond certification.  See supra 
para. 91.  
251
Emerging Wireline Notice, 29 FCC Rcd at 15006-09, paras. 93-101; Emerging Wireline Order and Further 
Notice, 30 FCC Rcd at 9478-86, 9492, paras. 202-21, 234. In the Emerging Wireline Further Notice, we sought 
comment on whether including a throughput metric would help measure network performance and service quality.  
Emerging Wireline Order and Further Notice, 30 FCC Rcd at 9483, para. 217. We find compelling AT&T’s 
argument that such a metric is not independently necessary to determine whether a replacement service will offer 
substantially similar performance and quality as a legacy voice service.  See AT&T July 6, 2016 Ex Parte Letter at 
4-5. 
252
See infra paras. 95-102, notes 254-76.  
253
See infra Appendix B, Technical Appendix, for a description of the measurement process for these metrics.
254
See Connect America Fund et al., Report and Order, Order and Order on Reconsideration, and Further Notice of 
Proposed Rulemaking, 31 FCC Rcd 3087, 3099, para. 28 (2016) (Rate-of-Return Reform Order) (adopting latency 
(continued . . .)
Federal Communications Commission FCC 16-90
35
Data Loss Less than or equal to 1 percent for packet based networks.
255
96. To understand how performance could differ significantly from a legacy voice service, it 
is important to understand the fundamental differences between the circuit-switched networks used for 
most traditional plain old telephone service (POTS) and services utilizing IP networks.  For most data 
communications, a packet-switched network (i.e., an IP network) is more efficient than a circuit-switched 
network (i.e., a TDM network) because a packet-switched network does not dedicate capacity for the 
duration of a particular call or session.  In an IP network, communications are broken down into discrete 
packets that disperse in search of the most effective, least congested route to their destination.  For time-
sensitive applications like voice service, a packet-switched network uses specific performance objectives 
to meet required quality-of-service.
256
  The metrics and benchmarks we describe in Appendix B specify 
where these quality-of-service objectives are measured.
257
97. Latency and data loss are the terms used for the two essential metrics described above for 
measuring network performance as a means of comparison to a legacy wireline voice service.  We plan to 
apply the same metrics and benchmarks to all replacements, whether fixed or mobile, wireline or wireless, 
terrestrial or satellite.  These metrics reflect the type of performance that should be expected of a
sophisticated packet-based network infrastructure that can carry one or more applications including voice 
calls, fax, security/health alerts, gaming, video streaming and video teleconferencing.  In order to be 
(Continued from previous page)                                                            
metrics for rate-of-return carriers electing model-based Connect America Fund support); see also Office of 
Engineering and Technology & Consumer and Governmental Affairs Bureau, FCC, 2015 Measuring Broadband 
America Fixed Broadband Report:  A Report on Consumer Fixed Broadband Performance in the United States, at 17 
(2015), http://data.fcc.gov/download/measuring-broadband-america/2015/2015-Fixed-Measuring-Broadband-
America-Report.pdf (2015 Measuring Broadband America Fixed Broadband Report) (providing data that show ISPs 
meet latency target).  This metric also provides for a latency performance that will allow the applicant’s network to 
perform its portion of an end-to-end voice call.  
255
See J.H. James, et al., Implementing VoIP:  A Voice Transmission Performance Progress Report, Institute of 
Electrical and Electronics Engineers, at 36, 
http://ieeexplore.ieee.org/stamp/stamp.jsp?tp=&arnumber=1316528&tag=1 (last visited July 7, 2016) (IEEE VoIP 
Data Loss Article) (“Considering all the qualifying factors, we believe that VoIP networks must hold packet loss 
below 1 percent in order to deliver a level of voice quality that is public switched telephone network (PSTN) 
equivalent.”); see also 2015 Measuring Broadband America Fixed Broadband Report at 19, Chart 8.  In adopting 
this benchmark, we find compelling AT&T’s argument that “any packet loss below 1 [percent] is not discernable by 
the user.”  See also Letter from David L. Talbott, Asst. V.P., Federal Regulatory, AT&T Services Inc., to Marlene 
H. Dortch, Secretary, FCC GN Docket Nos. 13-5, 12-353, Attach. at 4 (filed July 7, 2016) (AT&T July 7, 2016 Ex 
Parte Letter).
256
Traditionally, “real-time applications proceed far more smoothly in a circuit-switched environment, where 
bandwidth is guaranteed, than in a . . . packet-switched environment,” where there is extensive and constant 
competition for bandwidth.  Jonathan E. Nuechterlein & Phillip Weiser, Digital Crossroads 169 (2d. ed. 2013).  
More specifically, a packet-switched network’s ability to support real-time applications can be undercut by 
“latency” (i.e., “perceptible delays” in the delivery of information packets) and “jitter” (i.e., “disruptive packet-to-
packet variability in delay”).  See Nuechterlein & Weiser at 31 (defining latency and jitter).  In contrast, 
communication through a conventional TDM network occurs through centralized switches, which tightly control 
applications that run on the network.  See Nuechterlein & Weiser at 28-29.  A traditional TDM network 
“guarantee[s] bandwidth by dedicating a circuit to each call, even when no one is talking, while conserving on the 
network’s overall switching and transport needs by limiting the bandwidth assigned to each circuit.”  Nuechterlein & 
Weiser at 168.  See James F. Kurose & Keith W. Ross, Computer Networking: A Top-Down Approach 41(6
th
ed. 
2013), http://www.nylxs.com/docs/cmpnet.pdf (explaining packet loss).  
257
See infra Appendix B, Technical Appendix.
Federal Communications Commission FCC 16-90
36
eligible for automatic grant, an applicant must be prepared to demonstrate the replacement service will 
perform as effectively as the legacy voice service.
258
  
98. Latency.  In order for a replacement service to meet this aspect of the network 
performance prong and be eligible for streamlined treatment, latency must be limited to 100 milliseconds 
or less. Latency measures the time it takes for a data packet to travel from one point to another in a 
network, and is a significant factor in analyzing a network’s performance.
259
  The Commission has 
measured latency as the round-trip time from the consumer’s home to the closest designated speed 
measurement server within the provider’s network and back.
260
  The 2015 Measuring Broadband America 
Fixed Broadband Report found that the differences in average latencies among terrestrial-based 
broadband service areas are small and unlikely to affect the perceived quality of web browsing and video 
streaming.
261
Average latency for all terrestrial technologies ranged from 14 milliseconds to 52 
milliseconds.
262
  In an order reforming rate-of-return universal service mechanisms, the Commission 
required rate-of-return carriers accepting model-based support to certify that 95 percent or more of all 
peak period measurements of network round-trip latency are at or below 100 milliseconds.
263
  
99. AT&T asserts that the 100 millisecond roundtrip benchmark cannot be applied to the 
network architecture of certain non-packet based wireless services and that, as a result, the Commission 
                                                     
258
See ITU-T Recommendation G.114 at 3 (Using the E-Model shows that one-way latency less than approximately 
280 milliseconds will result in an R-factor of 80 or above, which is “users satisfied” or better, and latency less than 
approximately 375 milliseconds will result in an R-factor of 70 or above, which is “some users dissatisfied” or 
better.  Data rate (speed) on for PSTN voice DS-0 (Digital Signal) defines separate 64Kbps upstream and 
downstream data rate (speed) circuits.); see also, e.g., Letter from Harold Feld et al., Public Knowledge, to 
Chairman Tom Wheeler, FCC, GN Docket Nos. 12-353 and 13-5, Attach. CTC Technology & Energy, A Brief 
Assessment of Engineering Issues Related to Trial Testing for IP Transition at 1 (filed Jan. 13, 2014) (stating that 
“the basic core functionality of the PSTN holds critical importance to American citizens, businesses, and 
institutions.  As a result, the transition to IP technology—which is an upgrade to the PSTN, not a replacement—
requires verification that the new IP environment delivers the same capabilities, reliability, and other critical aspects 
of the old technologies upon which Americans have long relied.”); AARP Comments at 14 (“AARP believes that 
replacement services should have availability that is consistent with legacy service standards.”).
259
See Pa. PUC Comments at 8-9.  But see Edison Comments at 9 (asserting that certain utility applications require 
less than 100 millisecond latency).  Measuring Broadband America data shows that wireline broadband providers 
meet this requirement.  See 2015 Measuring Broadband America Fixed Broadband Report at 17.  
260
See Office of Engineering and Technology & Consumer and Governmental Affairs Bureau, FCC, 2014 
Measuring Broadband America Fixed Broadband Report:  A Report on Consumer Fixed Broadband Performance in 
the U.S., at 15-16 (2014) (2014 Measuring Broadband America Fixed Broadband Report), 
http://data.fcc.gov/download/measuring-broadband-america/2014/2014-Fixed-Measuring-Broadband-America-
Report.pdf.
261
2015 Measuring Broadband America Fixed Broadband Report at 18.
262
Id. at 17.
263
Rate-of-Return Reform Order, 31 FCC Rcd at 3099, para. 28; see also Connect America Fund et al., Report and 
Order, Declaratory Ruling, Order, Memorandum Opinion and Order, Seventh Order on Reconsideration, and Further 
Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, 29 FCC Rcd 7051, 7103-04, paras. 149, 152 (2014); Connect America Fund, 
Report and Order, 28 FCC Rcd 15060, 15068-72, paras. 19-25 (WCB 2013) (CAF Phase II Service Obligations 
Order).  More recently, the Commission decided to allow bidders in the Phase II competitive bidding process to 
designate whether their bids would be “low latency” (committing to under 100 milliseconds of latency) or “high 
latency” (committing to under 750 milliseconds of latency and a Mean Opinion Score of 4 or better for voice 
services).  It did so in order to make the auction “as competitive as possible,” while also concluding that it would 
weigh high latency bids differently than low latency bids.  It concluded that it preferred low latency over high 
latency.  Connect America Fund et al., Report and Order and Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, WC Docket 
No 10-90 et al., FCC 16-64, paras. 33, 84 (rel. May 25, 2016).
Federal Communications Commission FCC 16-90
37
should “adopt[ ] a threshold of less than 200 milliseconds measured mouth-to-ear.”
264
  The 100 
millisecond roundtrip standard is consistent with the CAF Phase II Service Obligations Order, where the 
Wireline Competition Bureau explained that it designed the 100 millisecond roundtrip latency standard to 
ensure that consumers ultimately achieve 200 milliseconds mouth-to-ear latency.
265
  That being said, with 
respect to AT&T’s concerns about certain non-packet based wireless voice services for which AT&T 
asserts the 100 millisecond roundtrip benchmark is inappropriate, the totality of the circumstances 
approach allows applicants to provide objective evidence to support their showing that the replacement 
service would offer substantially similar network performance and service availability, even if that 
evidence is not identical to the exact metrics that we identify.
266
  Specifically, because the 100 millisecond 
roundtrip standard is designed to ensure that consumers achieve 200 millisecond mouth-to-ear latency,
267
objective evidence that a non-packet based replacement service meets the underlying 200 millisecond 
mouth-to-ear standard would be compelling as a component of a totality of the circumstances showing.
100. Data Loss.  In order for a replacement service to meet this aspect of the network 
performance prong, data loss should be less than 1 percent for packet-based networks.
268
  We conclude 
that data loss exceeding 1 percent for packet-based networks would cause performance issues that warrant 
further examination.  Applicants would need to demonstrate data loss is lower than this benchmark in 
order to have the opportunity to be eligible for automatic grant.  Data loss is often referred to as the IP 
Packet Loss Ratio (IPLR) in IP networks.
269
  This metric measures the ratio of total lost IP packet 
outcomes to total transmitted IP packets in the environment under review.
270
  Consecutive packet loss is 
of particular concern for certain time-sensitive applications, such as voice and video.
271
  
                                                     
264
AT&T July 7, 2016 Ex Parte Letter at 2. Specifically, AT&T asserts that the 100 millisecond benchmark applies 
to the roundtrip path from the input device to the Internet core, and the network architecture for certain wireless 
voice services that do not utilize Internet Protocol or an Internet Exchange Point.  See id. at 1-2.
265
See CAF Phase II Service Obligations Order, 28 FCC Rcd at 15068-72, paras. 19-24; see also ITU Series G.114 
at 3. After factoring in delays caused by communications equipment and transmittal through the Internet backbone, 
the CAF Phase II Service Obligations Order found that the roundtrip latency to the network core should be no more 
than 100 milliseconds in order to ensure that consumers achieved the 200 millisecond mouth-to-ear latency for VoIP 
calls.  See CAF Phase II Service Obligations Order, 28 FCC Rcd at 15068-72, paras. 19-24. This 200 millisecond 
“mouth-to-ear” transmission delay includes latency caused by the transmission of a data packet from one point to 
another across the Internet, as well as latency generated by sources outside of the network, including data processing 
delays generated by communications equipment.
266
See supra Section III.B. Our metrics, benchmarks, and methodologies measure packet-based technologies, which 
we expect will most frequently be associated with next generation technologies.  See Emerging Wireline Order and 
Further Notice, 30 FCC Rcd at 9373, para. 1 (“Communications networks are rapidly transitioning away from the 
historic provision of time-division multiplexed (TDM) services running on copper to new, all-Internet Protocol (IP) 
multimedia networks using copper, co-axial cable, wireless, and fiber as physical infrastructure.”). We also note 
several examples of packet mobile networks.  See, e.g., ITU-R M.2134, Requirements Related to Technical
Performance for IMT-Advanced Radio Interface(s) at para. 1 & §§ 4.5.2, 4.7, & 4.8 (2008),
https://www.itu.int/dms_pub/itu-r/opb/rep/R-REP-M.2134-2008-PDF-E.pdf (last visited July 7, 2016); see also
Magdalena Nohrborg, LTE Overview, 3GPP, http://www.3gpp.org/technologies/keywords-acronyms/98-lte (last 
visited July 7, 2016); ETSI TS 123 401 V13.6.1, LTE; General Packet Radio Service (GPRS) Enhancements for 
Evolved Universal Terrestrial Radio Access Network (E-UTRAN) Access (3GPP TS 23.401 version 13.6.1 Release 
13) (May 2016), http://www.etsi.org/deliver/etsi_ts/123400_123499/123401/13.06.01_60/.
267
See CAF Phase II Service Obligations Order, 28 FCC Rcd at 15068-72, paras. 19-24.
268
Cf. AT&T July 7, 2016 Ex Parte Letter at 4 (“any packet loss below 1 [percent] is not discernable by the user”).
269
See IEEE VoIP Data Loss Article at 36.
270
See id.  The following resources note metrics for describing one-way loss patterns.  See generally Internet 
Engineering Task Force, Network Working Group, Request for Comment 3357, One-way Loss Pattern Sample 
Metrics (Aug. 2002), https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc3357; see also generally Internet Engineering Task Force, 
(continued . . .)
Federal Communications Commission FCC 16-90
38
101. We have chosen a packet loss rate of less than 1 percent because it will allow for
successful quality voice calls and other highly interactive applications.
272
  We further find that this data 
loss benchmark is appropriate to ensure successful transmission of voice and video communications.
273
102. We reiterate that network performance has long been a hallmark of this country’s 
communications networks and that continues during the technology transitions.  These service metrics 
and benchmarks address regulatory “substance” over “form” as recommended by TIA.
274
  Our metrics are 
designed to “impact[ ] an end user’s expectation regarding service availability and performance” rather 
than address attributes associated with a specific technology.
275
  Our metrics encompass many suggested 
by AARP.
276
  
103. We disagree with Verizon’s argument that measurements for data loss and latency are 
inappropriate because they “relate to the facilities and networks over which services travel, not the 
services themselves.”
277
  As explained above, although the network infrastructure and the services that run 
over the network are distinct, network performance affects the service quality being delivered to 
customers and thus should be measured.
278
  These measurements are an objective tool for determining 
when an application will be eligible for automatic grant; if the applicant cannot demonstrate that, it is 
appropriate to engage in further examination to ensure the services provided over newer technologies are 
adequate replacements for legacy voice services.
279
104. We disagree with CenturyLink that performance metrics are unnecessary if the 
Commission engages in public outreach and consumer education.
280
  Although we expect carriers to 
engage in significant public outreach for their particular discontinuances, we find that adopting objective 
metrics is nonetheless independently beneficial both to the carriers seeking to file Section 214 
discontinuances and the American public.  We recognize, as raised by ITTA, that carriers may incur costs 
(Continued from previous page)                                                            
Network Working Group, Request for Comment 2680, A One-way Packet Loss Metric for IPPM (Sept. 1999), 
https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc2680 (noting metrics for describing one-way loss patterns).
271
Alexander F. Ribadeneira , An Analysis of the MOS under Conditions of Delay, Jitter and Packet Loss and an 
Analysis of the Impact of Introducing Piggybacking and Reed Solomon FEC for VOIP (May 4, 2007), 
http://scholarworks.gsu.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1043&context=cs_theses; VoIPTroubleshooter.com, 
Indepth:  Packet Loss Burstiness, Section 4, http://www.voiptroubleshooter.com/indepth/burstloss.html (last visited 
June 20, 2016).
272
Cf. AT&T July 7, 2016 Ex Parte Letter at 4 (stating that “any packet loss below 1 [percent] is not discernable by 
the user”).
273
Id.  
274
TIA Comments at 6.
275
TIA Comments at 6; see also Public Knowledge et al. Comments at 5 (arguing that measuring the “availability of 
key functions post-transition; adopting metrics for jitter, packet loss, and through-put . . . are all critical to ensuring 
the smoothest possible transition”); CWA Comments at 7 (“In addition to standards for voice service, the 
Commission should adopt standards for data communications, including metrics for jitter, packet loss, and through-
put.”); Public Knowledge June 6 Ex Parte Letter at 1.
276
AARP Comments at 14 (recommending a 99.99 percent data delivery standard, 50 millisecond round-trip latency 
standard, and 3 millisecond one-way jitter standard); see also Public Knowledge et al. Reply at 7 (supporting 
AARP’s proposed metrics).
277
See Verizon Comments at 11-12.
278
See supra para. 93.
279
See Public Knowledge et al. Comments at 2.
280
CenturyLink Comments at 5, 34-35.
Federal Communications Commission FCC 16-90
39
in order to demonstrate they meet these benchmarks.
281
  We have taken steps to limit the burden of 
making these demonstrations in the Section 214 discontinuance process.
282
  As described above, we allow 
successful testing results to be used as support for future applications involving the same applicant 
offering a service on a substantially similar network.  Moreover, carriers are not required to meet these 
standards to file a Section 214 discontinuance; if a carrier does not wish to present such information, its 
Section 214 application will not be eligible for automatic grant, but rather will be subject to the traditional 
review process.  And finally, as discussed more fully below, we exempt small providers from the 
requirement to submit testing results in order to be eligible for automatic grant.
283
  
105. Wireless – Packet Networks.  We intend to rely on the same metrics and benchmarks, 
applicable to both wireline and wireless networks, when we examine whether a mobile or fixed wireless 
network can qualify as an adequate replacement.  Appendix B allows for generalized network testing 
standards which are applicable to both wireline and wireless networks. Specifically, fixed wireless 
broadband access networks are designed to provide high speed connectivity to multiple fixed subscribers’ 
locations where external, directional antennas are used.
284
106. Testing Methodology and Parameters.  We find testing is necessary, at least initially, to 
ensure that applicants actually meet the benchmarks we have established to be eligible for automatic 
grant. We specify the testing methodology to be used in measuring network performance in order to 
avoid confusion and argument over the merits of particular results reported by carriers in their 
discontinuance applications.
285
  Moreover, established testing parameters will ensure that the Commission 
analyzes similar data sets from applicants in the technology transitions.  We offer an overview of those 
parameters here and additional details in Appendix B to this Order.  Although we expect that the Order 
and Technical Appendix will encompass all of the information that applicants need, we delegate authority 
to the Office of Engineering and Technology, working in consultation with the Wireline Competition 
Bureau and the Wireless Telecommunications Bureau, to issue more specific testing requirements, as 
necessary.
286
107. In order to comply with the testing parameters listed below, we note that applicants filing 
their first technology transition discontinuance application will need to begin testing at least 30 days prior 
to filing that application.
287
  The 30-day test period is intended to ensure that the network is in a stable 
state and to allow for long-term projection of network infrastructure performance.  Shorter periods would 
not account for variation in patterns and usage and could allow the applicant time to traffic engineer their 
network so that the chosen test customers performed better for a short period of time.  This is less likely 
to happen with a longer test period.
288
                                                     
281
ITTA Comments at 12 (“For measuring latency, jitter, packet loss, and speed through-put to evaluate the 
performance, successful routing, completion of connections, and quality deterioration of the service being offered is 
a costly and painstaking process that could require changes to the carrier’s network.”).
282
See supra paras. 64, 67, 77, 80-83, 84.
283
See infra paras. 110-11.
284
SeeMike Dano, AT&T testing fixed wireless local loop services with speeds of 15-25 Mbps (Oct. 1, 2015), 
http://www.fiercewireless.com/story/att-testing-fixed-wireless-local-loop-services-speeds-15-25-mbps/2015-10-01.
285
See Emerging Wireline Order and Further Notice, 30 FCC Rcd at 9482, para. 214, 9483-84, para. 217.  We thus 
disagree with ITTA that carriers should have flexibility in how they test network performance.  ITTA Comments at 
15-16.
286
47 CFR §§ 0.31, 0.91, 0.241, 0.291.
287
We note that no commenters addressed what would constitute an appropriate testing period.
288
See 2015 Measuring Broadband America Fixed Broadband Report at 38, Chart 17.1.
Federal Communications Commission FCC 16-90
40
108. To demonstrate that replacement services will have adequate network performance and 
thereby remain eligible for streamlined treatment for a technology transition discontinuance, the provider 
must perform the following actions, which are summarized below and detailed in Appendix B to this 
Order: 
? Conduct 30 days of performance testing.
289
? Use a randomly selected sample group of a total of 50 residential and 50 enterprise customer 
locations per potential replacement service for testing, to ensure a representative sample.
290
? Report results to the Commission.
? Host a website or websites where all test data, results, test plan and all associated 
documentation that is not subject to a confidentiality request or confidential pursuant to 
Section 0.441 et seq. of our rules are available publicly.
291
  
109. While we provide some flexibility in the testing parameters an applicant will use, the 
Commission will include in its evaluation of the discontinuance application whether the testing conditions 
used were appropriate to measure performance.  Thus, in addition to testing results, the Commission will 
consider the testing parameters as a factor in determining whether it needs to remove the application from 
streamlined processing.  If the testing parameters raise sufficient concerns such that the Commission 
removes the application from streamlined processing, the Commission will then consider those testing 
parameters in any totality of the circumstances analysis of the adequacy of the replacement network. 
110. Small Business Exemption from the Network Performance Testing Requirements.  We 
recognize that testing requires time and resources, and that certain commenters are concerned that testing 
would be too burdensome.
292
  We balance that burden against the need to ensure that next-generation 
services meet the needs of consumers. We emphasize that no carrier must conduct testing or otherwise 
meet the criteria we adopt today. Compliance with these criteria merely enables potential automatic grant
of a discontinuance application.  As previously stated, the adequate replacement factor is merely one part 
of a multifactor balancing test,
293
and the benchmarks associated with the criteria provide guidance to 
                                                     
289
We chose 30 days as a reasonable sampling frame for this testing to include a period that experiences an adequate 
amount of usage variation.  This timeframe allows for:  (1) testing of weekday and weekend periods with sufficient 
repetition to ensure a single outlying week was not chosen, and (2) monthly variation in network usage for 
individuals paying bills, 30 day/monthly data caps and enterprise end of month processing. 
290
The Commission recognizes that fully random selection may not be possible because customer consent is 
required and other factors may impact the selection process.  If the area where service is proposed to be discontinued 
is very large, for example covering several states or Tribal lands, more than 100,000 customers, or containing 
several legacy Local Access Target Areas, then several separate sample sets of 30-50 consumer locations would be 
required per state, region, or geographically referenced area.  Use of these numbers and random selection of 
customers are in alignment with the approach outlined in the 2015 Measuring Broadband America Report.  See
2015 Measuring Broadband America Fixed Broadband Report, Technical Appendix at Section 2 (2015) (2015 
Measuring Broadband America Technical Appendix), http://data.fcc.gov/download/measuring-broadband-
america/2015/Technical-Appendix-fixed-2015.pdf.
291
We would generally consider the detailed design document a document that warrants confidential treatment.
292
See, e.g., Rural Associations Comments at 6; ITTA Comments at 15-16.  Cf. Alaska Rural Coalition Comments 
at 7-8 (seeking to extend the Section 251(f) exemption applicable to network change disclosure requirements to 
requirements pertaining to discontinuance applications, noting that “rural LECs simply cannot continue to face 
mounting regulatory obligations in an era of decreasing support and revenue”); Rural Associations Reply at 8 (“[T]o 
the extent the Commission seeks to impose . . . new performance obligations via the 214 review process . . . some 
type of rural exemption may indeed be required to recognize special circumstances faced by RLECs and similarly-
situated carriers.”)
293
See supra paras. 62, 67, 71-72.
Federal Communications Commission FCC 16-90
41
carriers and a path toward automatic grant of their technology transitions discontinuance applications.  
We also reemphasize that once a carrier completes testing of a next-generation service and successfully 
obtains automatic grant, it need not conduct testing again if it files an application involving a substantially 
similar replacement service.
294
111. That being said, the Commission has recognized in other contexts that smaller carriers 
may require more tailored solutions.
295
We recognize that network testing under the parameters 
established in Appendix B could be more burdensome for smaller carriers, given their more limited 
number of customers.  We thus decide to provide smaller carriers more flexibility in how they 
demonstrate network performance under this prong of the three-pronged test.
296
  We conclude that carriers 
with 100,000 or fewer subscriber lines, aggregated across all affiliates, may remain eligible for automatic 
grant without compliance with the specific testing requirements of the network performance criterion we 
articulate today.
297
  We encourage them, however, to share with the Commission whatever information 
they deem probative of their network performance.  
b. Service Availability
112. In order to meet this aspect of the network performance prong and be eligible for 
automatic grant, an applicant must demonstrate a service availability of 99.99 percent.  The test we adopt 
today consists of a standard formula traditionally used by industry to measure telephone service 
availability for which we have defined the variables to ensure that all discontinuing carriers are measuring 
the same information.
298
The replacement service’s availability will be calculated using data regarding 
customer trouble reports, the average repair interval in responding to those reports, the number of lines in 
the service area, and the duration of the observation period to reach a representative measurement of a 
                                                     
294
See supra paras. 82-83.
295
See Rural Call Completion Order, 28 FCC Rcd at 16168-69, para. 27; Multi-Association Group (MAG) Plan for 
Regulation of Interstate Services of Non-Price Cap Incumbent Local Exchange Carriers and Interexchange Carriers 
et al., Second Report and Order and Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking in CC Docket No. 00-256, Fifteenth 
Report and Order in CC Docket No. 96-45, and Report and Order in CC Docket Nos. 98-77 and 98-166, 16 FCC 
Rcd 19613, 19617, para. 4 (2001) (recognizing that smaller carriers “generally have higher operating and equipment 
costs . . .  due to lower subscriber density, smaller exchanges, and limited economies of scale.”).
296
We do not extend this exemption to any other components of the adequate replacement test we adopt today, 
including both of the other aspects of the network infrastructure prong (service quality and network coverage) or the 
other two prongs of the test.
297
See Rural Call Completion Order, 28 FCC Rcd at 16168-69, para. 27.  We further note that this exemption from 
complying with the specific testing parameters announced herein does not apply to any rate-of-return carrier that is 
affiliated with a price cap carrier.  
298
The Quality Excellence for Suppliers of Telecommunications (QuEST) Forum provides this formula for the 
average downtime per year for a 30-day study:  12 x (Sum of (AiPi))/(Sum of Si).  See QuEST Forum, TL 9000 
Quality Management System – SO [System Outage] Examples at 6.1.3 (2013), 
http://www.tl9000.org/handbooks/documents/meas-ex-6-1.pdf (last visited June 16, 2016). If we modify that 
formula to take into account study (observation) periods other than 30 days, and express downtime as a fraction of 
the observation period rather than time/year, the formula becomes 
(Sum of (AiPi))/(Sum of Si)x(Study Period)
We note that average outage duration (average repair interval) is given by (Sum of (AiPi))/((Sum of (Ai)), that the 
total number of outages (trouble reports) is just (Sum of (Ai)), and the total number of systems (lines) in service is 
just (Sum of (Si)).  The formula expressed is for unavailability.  (When downtime is expressed as a fraction of time, 
it is commonly known as unavailability.) Considering that availability = 1 – unavailability, then 1 - (Sum of 
(AiPi))/(Sum of Si)x(Study Period) is equivalent to the formula in paragraph 115, infra.
Federal Communications Commission FCC 16-90
42
“four 9s” benchmark used to measure service availability.
299
  We conclude these variables will provide the 
best measure of customers’ ability to access their provider’s network.
113. In the Emerging Wireline Further Notice, we proposed to measure what we described as 
a replacement service’s “reliability” as a key criterion in determining whether a replacement service 
provides an adequate replacement.
300
  We continue to believe that service reliability is an important 
metric.  We also agree with commenters that argue a service availability standard is necessary,
301
because 
a service that is not generally available for use cannot be considered to be reliable.
302
  Establishing a 
benchmark for service availability protects consumers, schools, libraries, healthcare facilities, utilities, 
and small- and medium-sized businesses, all of which depend on a service to be available when needed 
for everyday or emergency use.
303
  Past experiences, including what occurred on Fire Island after 
Superstorm Sandy, demonstrate the importance of reliability as we undergo technology transitions.
304
  We 
now find that a service availability benchmark will help provide interested stakeholders with clear, 
objective “criteria that will eliminate uncertainty that could potentially impede the industry from actuating 
a rapid and prompt transition to IP and wireless technology.”
305
114. We conclude that a 99.99 percent service availability standard, calculated according to 
the formula and parameters established herein, is a reasonable approach to ensure that a replacement 
service presumptively provides substantially similar service as the service being discontinued.
306
  We find 
that the so-called “five 9s” (i.e., 99.999 percent availability) standard proposed by commenters such as 
NENA, AARP, and AICC,
307
which would allow a subscriber’s service to have, on average,
approximately 5 minutes and 15 seconds of downtime per year,
308
is too high a threshold.  It would 
                                                     
299
See AARP Comments at 11; AICC Comments at 8; NENA Comments at 3; Utilities Telecom Council Reply at 3.
300
See Emerging Wireline Order and Further Notice, 30 FCC Rcd at 9480, para. 208. 
301
See AARP Comments at 4, 11; AICC Comments at 8; CWA Comments at 6-7; Edison Comments at 7; Mich. 
PSC Comments at 4; NASUCA Comments at 6, 12-14; NENA Comments at 3; NRECA Comments at 3; Pa. PUC 
Comments at 8; Utilities Telecom Council Comments at 3, 6-7; Public Knowledge et al. Reply at 7; Public 
Knowledge June 6 Ex Parte Letter at 1.  But see AT&T Comments at 10 (asserting that “there is simply no need for 
metrics relating to service quality”); CenturyLink Comments at 11-12 (asserting that consumer adoption of non-
legacy services demonstrates that they do not care about service quality standards); Verizon Comments at 11-12 
(asserting that reliability and service quality requirements are not necessary); AT&T May 31 Ex Parte Letter, 
Attach. 1 at 6; see also Rural Associations Reply at 6.
302
The ITU defines “reliability” as “[t]he probability that an item can perform a required function under stated 
conditions for a given time interval.”  International Telecommunications Union, Series E: Overall Network 
Operation, Telephone Service, Service Operation and Human Factors, definitions of terms related to quality of 
service, ITU-T Recommendation E.800 at 7(Sept. 2008), http://www.itu.int/rec/T-REC-E.800-200809-I.  It defines 
“availability” as “[a]vailability of an item to be in a state to perform a required function at a given instant of time or 
at any instant of time within a given time interval, assuming that the external resources, if required, are provided.”  
Id. 
303
See Mich. PSC Comments at 4; Edison Reply at 6-7.
304
Emerging Wireline Notice, 29 FCC Rcd at 14970, para. 4 (discussing Verizon’s proposal to replace legacy 
services on Fire Island with wireless services in the wake of Hurricane Sandy).
305
Emerging Wireline Order and Further Notice, 30 FCC Rcd at 9478, para. 203.
306
Network Reliability Council (NRC), Reliability Issues - Changing Technologies Focus Group, New Wireline 
Access Technologies Subteam Final Report at 4 (Feb. 22, 1996), https://transition.fcc.gov/nric/nric-2/fg3-wireline-
access-report.pdf (noting that “[t]he industry’s goal is to provide 99.99 percent reliability for telephony services 
provided over [hybrid fiber coax] and [fiber to the curb] access networks”); id. at 9.  
307
See AARP Comments at 11; AICC Comments at 8; NENA Comments at 3.
308
AICC Comments at 8.
Federal Communications Commission FCC 16-90
43
impose a higher standard than currently applies to TDM-based service.
309
  We also find that the 98 percent 
availability standard proposed by CWA,
310
which would allow, on average, approximately 7 days, 7 
hours, and 12 minutes of downtime per year,
311
is too low a benchmark for an applicant to be eligible for 
automatic grant, because it would allow more downtime than consumers should reasonably expect.
312
  
115. Indeed, a seemingly small difference in an availability standard can lead to significant 
differences in the amount of time a service is available for use.  As AICC points out, the difference 
between a 99.999 percent and a 98 percent reliability standard—less than 2 percent—translates to more 
than seven additional days’ worth of service downtime per year, an amount that we judge would be quite 
meaningful to consumers.
313
  We conclude that if a replacement service faces that much service 
downtime, the Section 214 application should not eligible for automatic grant.  
116. For carriers to demonstrate satisfaction of the 99.99 percent standard, we establish the 
following formula:
314
For the purpose of this calculation, the following definitions apply:
? A “customer trouble report” is any report regarding trouble with service made by a customer 
to a carrier’s service department in which the customer reports either:  (1) a total loss of 
connectivity, or (2) an inability to make and/or receive any voice calls using the carrier’s 
voice replacement service while other services provided over the customer’s connection may 
continue to function.
315
  
? A “repair interval” is the elapsed time, as on a running clock, from when a customer reports a 
trouble to the carrier’s service department until the carrier’s repair of the trouble is complete 
and the customer’s service is restored.
316
  
                                                     
309
See, e.g., CenturyLink Reply at 5 (citing to AICC’s proposal for a 99.999 percent reliability standard as an 
example of a “superior performance standard” requested by the alarm monitoring industry).
310
See CWA Comments at 6-7.
311
AICC Comments at 8.
312
This conclusion does not prejudge, however, how we might view such an application in the context of a holistic 
review.  As noted in Section III.C.1, supra, the Commission will not necessarily deny a Section 214 application if 
the replacement service does not satisfy every benchmark we adopt today, including the service availability 
benchmark.  Rather, it will engage in a balancing test.
313
See Richard Clapp, What Does Availability/Uptime Mean in the Real World? 
https://www.interworks.com/blog/rclapp/2010/05/06/what-does-availabilityuptime-mean-real-world (last visited 
June 16, 2016); AICC Comments at 8; Utilities Telecom Council Reply at 3.
314
Consider, for example, a study of 100 lines for 30 days, or 720 hours.  The total number of line hours in the study 
is 100 times 720, or 72,000, the (Number of Lines) x (Observation Period Duration).  Suppose also that during the 
30-day period, five lines failed, and the mean time to repair for these failures was five hours.  In that case, the total 
number of line hours of unavailability would have been 5 times 5, or 25, the (Number of Customer Trouble Reports) 
x (Average Repair Interval).  Thus the average fraction of the time that all lines were unavailable would have been 
25/72,000 = 0.00035, resulting in availability of 1-0.00035 = 0.99965, or between 99.96 and 99.97 percent 
availability, as given by the formula in the paragraph.  
315
The number of customer trouble reports must be tallied over all lines that are serving customers in the 
replacement network in the affected service area at any time during a contiguous 30-day observation period. 
316
If a customer reports trouble with service during the 30-day observation period that is not resolved by the end of 
the 30-day observation period, the length of the repair interval runs from the time the trouble with service is reported 
(continued . . .)
Federal Communications Commission FCC 16-90
44
? “Number of lines (prorated)” is the number of replacement network lines being served by the 
provider during the 30-day observation period.
317
  
? The “observation period duration” should be expressed in the same units as the average repair 
interval.
117. We believe that the metrics used for this test are sufficiently well-defined to ensure 
accuracy.  Moreover, we expect that service providers will continue to track this sort of information as 
part of managing their businesses, regardless of technology.
318
  And, as with the network performance 
testing, we believe that a 30-day observation period should ensure network stability and allow for long-
term projection of network reliability.
319
  
118. In reporting the results of the availability calculation to the Commission as part of an 
application seeking streamlined treatment for a technology transition discontinuance, the applicant must 
report:  (1) the number of customer trouble reports; (2) the average repair interval; (3) the number of lines 
(prorated); and (4) the calculated availability.   
119. Congestion-Based Voice Call Failure.  Certain non-packet wireless access technologies 
providing fixed services can experience the failure of voice calls because of network congestion.  To 
address this potential issue, we establish a metric that applies solely to these technologies for determining 
the frequency of congestion-based voice call failure, meaning the probability that a customer trying to 
make a call will be unable to do so due to network congestion.  We conclude that probability must be less 
than one percent during each daily peak busy hour, for at least 95 percent of the 30 days in the 
measurement period, to serve as an adequate replacement for a legacy voice service.  
120. Congestion-based voice call failure occurs when inadequate network resources prevent a 
call from being successfully completed.
320
  Non-packet wireless access technologies used to provide fixed 
services are of particular concern here because, unlike service over copper loops which is dedicated to 
(Continued from previous page)                                                            
to the end of the observation period.  The elapsed time may be recorded in measurement units of the applicant’s 
choosing, as precisely as the applicant chooses.  When rounding is required, however, elapsed time must always be 
rounded up to the next higher measurement unit.  The “average repair interval” is then calculated by summing the 
lengths of all repair intervals, over all lines that are serving customers in the replacement network, and dividing that 
sum by the number of customer trouble reports in the 30-day observation period.
317
For the purpose of this calculation, lines served for part of the observation period should be pro-rated.  For 
example, the customer line that is placed into service halfway through the observation period (i.e., 15 days) would 
be counted as 0.5 lines.  Similarly, the line of a customer who initially has service from the provider but discontinues 
service a quarter of the way through the observation period (i.e., 7.25 days) would be counted as 0.25 lines.  A line 
that is in service for the entire duration of the observation period is counted as 1 line.  When required, round 
fractional lines to the nearest hundredth of a line.  Thus, a line that is in service for 1/3 of the observation period 
would be counted as 0.33 lines.
318
See, e.g., Verizon, 2015 Annual Report, at 22-23, 
http://www.verizon.com/about/sites/default/files/annual/verizon-annual-2015/downloads/15_vz_ar.pdf (last visited 
May 13, 2016).  Verizon reports 18,387,000 total voice connections, which “include traditional switched access 
lines in service as well as FIOS digital voice connections,” down 1,408,000 connections from 2014.  See id.
319
See supra para. 107.
320
See generally American Tel. and Tel. Co., Bell Tel. Cos., and Bell Tel. Labs., Telecommunications Transmission 
Engineering, Volume 3 ? Networks and Services, at 133 (2d ed. 1977) (AT&T et al. Networks and Services).  Note 
that we use the term “congestion-based voice call failure” for the purposes of this Order to avoid confusion with the 
more commonly-used term “blocking.” 
Federal Communications Commission FCC 16-90
45
one subscriber, the radio access network is shared by multiple subscribers.
321
  The network could thus 
conceivably lack adequate capacity and result in an unacceptable level of failed calls.
322
  
121. VoiceLink is one type of non-packet wireless access technology providing fixed services.  
At least as it was offered in 2013, potential issues with congestion-based call failure came to prominence 
when the service was initially proposed to replace permanently copper loops that were destroyed on Fire 
Island during Superstorm Sandy.
323
  Indeed, Verizon disclosed in its then-existing terms regarding 
VoiceLink service that 911 service could be subject to blocking due to network congestion.
324
  
122. To calculate this benchmark for purposes of remaining eligible for automatic grant, the
provider must calculate the probability of congestion-based voice call failure for every hour.  For each of 
the 30 days measured, the provider must then determine the hour that had the highest probability of 
congestion-based voice call failure that day.  The probability of congestion-based voice call failure each 
hour should be determined by dividing the number of failed calls during the hour by the total number of 
call attempts during the hour.  For 95 percent of the total days, the failure probability during the hour with 
the highest failure probability must be less than one percent, i.e., for at least 95 percent of the total days, 
less than one percent of all calls may be blocked in the worst hour due to unavailability of a radio access 
channel.
325
  These measurements would not be taken on a sample basis, but would be collected at each 
cell tower over all call attempts to or from customers for a 30-day period.  In addition, if there are 
seasonal differences in traffic load—for example, if the area is a summer resort community—
measurements to determine probability of call failure must be taken during the busy season.
                                                     
321
See generally id. at 133-34 (“The traffic engineering problem is to organize the network and to provide the 
number of trunks necessary to meet various kinds of traffic demands. Sufficient trunks cannot be provided 
economically so that all calls might be served without delay. . . . Economy is achieved by providing just enough 
trunks to limit the probability that offered calls may be blocked (i.e., not successfully completed).” 
322
See Kenneth C. Grover, Foundations of Business Telecommunications Management 19 136 (1986) 
https://books.google.com/books?id=VS7UBwAAQBAJ&pg=PA136&lpg=PA136&dq=inadequate+capacity+failed
+calls&source=bl&ots=yYAWi5f5Em&sig=RoleOWCNy9GEc99ITUUcIRbMF4M&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKE
wjn-6fD0rbNAhXEdR4KHZr3B-
wQ6AEIHDAA#v=onepage&q=inadequate%20capacity%20failed%20calls&f=false (last visited June 20, 2016).  A 
packet-based network could experience voice congestion if routers, call servers, or other network elements 
delivering the voice service are not adequately provisioned.
323
See Public Knowledge, The Phone Network Transition:  Lessons from Fire Island (Mar. 7, 2014) (Lessons from 
Fire Island), https://www.publicknowledge.org/news-blog/blogs/the-phone-network-transition-lessons-from-fire-
island; see also Letter from Joseph A. Post, Deputy Gen. Counsel—New York, Verizon, to Hon. Jeffrey C. Cohen, 
Acting Secretary, New York Pub. Serv. Comm’n, Case 13-C-0197, Attach. at 5 (dated May 20, 2013), 
https://www.publicknowledge.org/files/VZ%20Voice%20Link%20TOS.pdf (Verizon May 20, 2013 Letter to 
NYPSC); Patrick McGeehan, Verizon Backing Off Plans for Wireless Home Phones, N.Y. Times (Sept. 12, 2013) 
(Verizon Backing Off Plans for Wireless Home Phones), http://www.nytimes.com/2013/13/nyregion/verizon-
abandons-plans-for-wireless-home-phones-in-parts-of-new-york.html?_r=2 (“After Hurricane Sandy, Verizon asked 
state regulators in New York for permission to substitute Voice Link, a home phone service that carries calls on a 
cellular network, for what it refers to as ‘plain old telephone service.’  The first place in the state it tried broad use of
Voice Link was on the west end of Fire Island, a resort community on the Atlantic Ocean that incurred heavy 
damage in the late October storm.”).
324
Verizon May 20, 2013 Letter to NYPSC, Attach. at 5.
325
A copper loop dedicated to one consumer experiences no blocking because no other traffic is carried on that loop.  
With wireless technology, the radio access network is shared by multiple subscribers, and it needs to be engineered 
like a trunk group in the legacy public switched telephone network.  “The present service objective is B.01 [one 
percent blocking] for both metropolitan (local) and long haul (toll) trunk groups to meet grade-of-service objectives.  
This objective applies during the average busy season busy hour (ABSBH).”  AT&T et al. Networks and Services at 
149.  
Federal Communications Commission FCC 16-90
46
c. Network Coverage
123. In order to meet this aspect of the network performance prong, and be eligible for 
automatic grant, the applicant must demonstrate that either:  (i) a single replacement service reaches the 
entire geographic footprint of the service area subject to discontinuance; or (ii) there are multiple 
providers who collectively cover the entirety of the affected service area.
326
Simply put, in order to meet 
this prong and thus be eligible for streamlined processing, a replacement service must be available to all 
affected customers covering the entire geographic scope of the service area subject to the application and 
actually function as intended for affected customers, or else it cannot be certified as a replacement service 
for those customers.
327
  We thus promote the core values established by the Act, including that of ensuring 
universal access.
328
  Allowing a carrier to discontinue service when there are no other service options 
available would run contrary to that mission.
329
  
124. If the applicant is relying on a single replacement service, whether its own or that of a 
third party, eligibility for automatic grant will depend on whether it demonstrates that the replacement 
service reaches the entire geographic footprint of the area served by the legacy voice service.  However, 
in service areas where the applicant relies on multiple providers’ services, the applicant must demonstrate 
that other providers cumulatively reach all customers in the affected coverage area.
330
  In order to be 
eligible for automatic grant, the application must:  (i) describe with sufficient particularity the geographic 
scope of the replacement service(s) available from the other provider(s), or (ii) otherwise demonstrate that 
each of these services satisfies the criteria we adopt today.
331
  We find that this requirement, as a part of 
our overarching determination of the public interest implications of a discontinuance application, 
sufficiently addresses any concerns regarding potential disparate impacts on minority communities, as 
raised by Greenlining Institute.
332
  We also find that this requirement does not implicate Verizon’s 
concern that the Commission not require “identical overlapping footprints for coverage to be 
acceptable.”
333
  Finally, it should obviate AT&T’s expressed concern that we might prohibit reliance on 
one or more third-party services as the replacement(s) for the service being discontinued.
334
                                                     
326
See AT&T High Seas Order, 14 FCC Rcd at 13231, para. 13. 
327
Emerging Wireline Order and Further Notice, 30 FCC Rcd at 9491, para. 231; see alsoMich. PSC Comments at 
10; CWA Comments at 12-13; Edison Comments at 8; AT&T May 31 Ex Parte Letter, Attach. 1 at 4-5.
328
See Pa. PUC Comments at 16.
329
See AARP Comments at 25; CWA Comments at 12; Edison Comments at 8; Greenlining Comments at 5; Mich. 
PSC Comments at 10; NASUCA Comments at 10; NRECA Comments at 9; Pa. PUC Comments at 16; Joint States 
Reply at 13-14.  But see ACS Comments at 7 (“Even with universal service support for the annual costs of providing 
service in Bush locations, the viability of traditional wireline service is uncertain.” As aging facilities become un-
repairable, “it is a matter of time before traditional wireline voice service becomes unsustainable, irrespective of the 
wishes of carriers, the Commission, or customers.”).
330
See AT&T High Seas Order, 14 FCC Rcd at 13231, para. 13 (noting that several different providers together 
serve the entire service area affected by the planned discontinuance); see also Section 63.71(c) Application of Puerto 
Rico Tel. Co., Inc. d/b/a Claro for Authority to Discontinue Interconnected VoIP Services, Order, 30 FCC Rcd 188, 
191, para. 7 (2015).  
331
See generally Section III for a discussion regarding the required showings in a technology transitions 
discontinuance application.  CenturyLink expresses concerns regarding a discontinuing carrier’s ability to make 
such a showing regarding a third-party service.  See CenturyLink Comments at 17.  We address such concerns supra
at paragraphs 84-86.
332
See Greenlining Comments at 5-6.
333
Verizon Comments at 13.
334
See AT&T Reply at 8-9.
Federal Communications Commission FCC 16-90
47
125. Based on our consideration of the full record, we decline to adopt a de minimis threshold 
for judging whether a replacement service offers the same coverage.  We do not see a basis for drawing 
such a line.
335
  As noted by NASUCA, “[t]he Commission has an obligation to ensure that all customers 
in a service territory where the legacy voice service is offered continue to have the ability to obtain 
service.”
336
  
2. Access to Critical Applications and Functionalities
126. The second prong of the adequate replacement test that we adopt today requires 
applicants to demonstrate that the replacement service offers access to critical applications and 
functionalities.
337
  Under this second prong, to remain eligible for automatic grant for a technology 
transition discontinuance application, an applicant must certify or show that at least one replacement 
service complies with regulations regarding availability and functionality of 911 service for consumers 
and public safety answering points (PSAPs), industry standards regarding communications security, and 
regulations governing compatibility with assistive technologies.  Incorporating these certifications into 
our Section 214 process benefits consumers, public safety entities, and industry participants alike by 
providing clear, consistent, and certain guidance regarding the importance of ensuring that critical 
applications will continue to function following a technology transition.  
a. 911 and Emergency Services
127. To satisfy the second prong of the adequate replacement test and remain eligible for 
automatic grant, applicants must certify or show that a replacement service complies with Commission 
requirements pertaining to accessible, accurate, and reliable 911 service.  In particular, applicants seeking 
streamlined treatment must certify compliance with: (i) 911 accessibility and location accuracy
requirements; (ii) reliability and continuity of 911 service requirements with respect to backup power; and 
(iii) any other applicable emergency service requirements.
338
Our action today ensures that as our nation 
transitions to new telecommunications technologies, consumer access to 911 remains strong and PSAP 
operations are not impacted by changes in service providers’ underlying network technologies.
128. 911 Accessibility and Location Accuracy Requirements.  The applicant must demonstrate 
that the replacement service complies with applicable regulations regarding the availability and required 
functionality of 911 service.  Those regulations include the rules governing:  (i) 911 call delivery, service, 
and location; (ii) the capabilities and routing necessary for consumers’ continued access to 911
emergency service;
339
and (iii) 911 calls to PSAPs or other appropriate local emergency authorities.
340
  We 
                                                     
335
See NRECA Comments at 9 (“From the perspective of rural communities, the IP transition should be 
systematically implemented by facilities-based carriers throughout their service territories so that another version of 
the ‘digital divide’ does not arise between rural and urban areas.”); Cal. PUC Comments at 4-5, 9; Joint States Reply 
at 13-14.
336
NASUCA Comments at 10; see also Joint States Reply at 13-14.
337
See Emerging Wireline Order and Further Notice, 30 FCC Rcd at 9488-90, 9492, paras. 225-28, 234.
338
See Revision of the Commission’s Rules to Ensure Compatibility with Enhanced 911 Emergency Calling Systems, 
Report and Order and Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, 11 FCC Rcd 18676, 18683 para. 10 (1996) (First 
E911 Report and Order).  The basic 911 service requirement is the simple requirement of transmission of wireless 
911 calls to the PSAP (or designated default answering point or appropriate local emergency authority) without 
respect to their call validation process, and without reference to location accuracy.  47 CFR § 20.18(b); see also
Implementation of 911 Act, Fifth Report and Order, Memorandum Opinion and Order on Reconsideration, 16 FCC 
Rcd 22264, 22275, para. 27 (2001) (recognizing the “overriding public interest for all emergency calls to be 
completed and not dropped for any reason” and that the 911 rules “ensure that there is a destination to which 
emergency calls can be delivered”).  See infra Section III.C.2.a for examples of subsequent Commission actions.
339
See, e.g., 47 CFR § 9.1 et seq. (setting forth 911 and E911 requirements and conditions applicable to 
interconnected VoIP service); 47 CFR § 20.18(a)-(k), (m)-(q) (concerning the requirements applicable to CMRS 
(continued . . .)
Federal Communications Commission FCC 16-90
48
agree with public interest groups and state entities who conclude that consumers have an expectation that 
current levels of 911 service must be maintained when a replacement service is deployed.
341
  Similarly, 
public safety entities agree that an adequate replacement must comply with regulations regarding the 
availability, reliability, and required functionality of 911 service.
342
  
129. We further conclude that, in order to satisfy this prong of the adequate replacement test 
and thus remain eligible for automatic grant, the replacement service must offer a dispatchable address 
capability.
343
  Traditional landline service generally guarantees the provision of Master Street Address 
Guide (MSAG)-validated address information to ensure proper call routing, location determination, and 
dispatch of emergency responders.  We agree with commenters who contend that provision of other types 
of location information, such as wireless 911 ALI coordinates, would not ensure that the service provides 
an adequate replacement for a legacy voice service.
344
  If the rules applicable to the replacement service 
require provision of an MSAG-validated address, the applicant may meet this requirement by certifying 
that its replacement service meets the 911 registered location requirements applicable to that service.
345
  
However, if the 911 requirements for the replacement service do not require provision of a validated 
address, the applicant must further certify that it will register a validated dispatchable address for each 
subscriber and provide the address to the appropriate PSAP for all 911 calls.
346
  If the applicant is relying 
on a third party service, it must make an appropriate showing that the third party service provide meets 
this requirement.
347
  These requirements will ensure that PSAPs continue to receive accurate location 
(Continued from previous page)                                                            
providers); 47 CFR § 64.3000 et seq. (concerning the obligations on all telecommunications carriers to transmit all 
911 calls).
340
See 47 CFR § 20.3 (defining in part that an appropriate local emergency authority is “[a]n emergency answering 
point that has not been officially designated as a [PSAP], but has the capability of receiving 911 calls” and 
“dispatching emergency services personnel or . . . relaying the call to another emergency service provider”); see also
47 CFR § 12.4(c) (requiring covered 911 service providers to certify annually as to the reliability of their circuit 
auditing, backup power, and network monitoring).  
341
See, e.g., CWA Comments at 10-11; Pa. PUC Comments at 12-13; Mich. PSC Comments at 7-8; NARUC 
Comments at 6; Joint States Reply at 11-12; NASUCA et al. Reply at 9; see also AT&T May 31 Ex Parte Letter at 
3-4 (expressing support for this criterion).
342
SeeMich. PSC Comments at 7-8; Joint States Reply at 11-12.
343
See also AT&T May 31 Ex Parte Letter at 3-4 (asserting that the replacement service “must automatically 
provide registered street address location information associated with the subscriber placing a 911/E911 call”).
344
See, e.g., AARP Comments at 20-22 (stating that “[t]he use of wireless 911 ALI is not equivalent to the civic 
addresses associated with wireline ALI.  Wireless 911 ALI is decidedly inferior to traditional ALI database 
information in multitenant buildings.”); Texas 911 Entities Comments at 4-5 (stating that for wireline residential and 
small business customers, “dispatchable address” is the current standard for routing and location display of a 
wireline 911 call); Cal. PUC Comments at 15 (urging the Commission not to authorize a substitute that cannot 
provide a dispatchable address for ALI, in addition to ANI).
345
See IP-Enabled Services; E911 Requirements for IP-Enabled Service Providers, First Report and Order and 
Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, 20 FCC Rcd 10245, 10246 (2005), aff’d sub nom. Nuvio Corp. v. FCC, 473 F.3d 
302 (D.C. Cir. 2007) (adopting 47 CFR § 9.5 concerning the provision of registered location by interconnected VoIP 
service providers); Wireless E911 Location Accuracy Requirements, Fourth Report and Order, 30 FCC Rcd 11259 
(2015) (adding new indoor location accuracy requirements and updating outdoor-based location accuracy 
requirements); see also 47 CFR § 20.18(h),(i)-(k).
346
A dispatchable address is an address that includes street name, building number, and any other information 
critical to dispatching emergency responders to the correct location and one that meets public safety requirements 
for inclusion in and verification by Automatic Location Information databases and PSAP Master Street Address 
Guides or their functional equivalents.
Federal Communications Commission FCC 16-90
49
information to dispatch emergency first responders directly to the correct location of the 911 call, thereby 
serving to minimize the response time critical for saving lives and safeguarding the public.
348
  
130. Backup Power.  To ensure that consumers continue to receive the benefit of continued 
access to 911, applicants seeking to discontinue a legacy line-powered service in favor of a newer service 
that lacks line-powering must certify or make a showing that at least one replacement service in the area 
complies with our residential backup power requirements.
349
  Alternatively, an applicant may show that 
another provider in the affected area offers line-powering or complies with Section 12.5.
350
  We find little 
disagreement about the importance of backup power in the record, and ample support to conclude that the 
technology transition discontinuance applicants seeking streamlined treatment must confirm their 
commitments to public safety. We emphasize that we are not adding to the Rule 12.5 requirements, but 
ensuring that a service provider’s compliance with those requirements is a key consideration in whether 
that service represents an adequate replacement for a legacy line-powered service.   
131. In order to ensure that consumers are aware of technology transitions with sufficient time 
to take action, we also require applicants to provide to consumers the initial notice containing the 
information elements of Section 12.5 pursuant to Section 63.71.
351
  Although Section 12.5 requires 
disclosures be made at the point of sale,
352
we anticipate that, in the context of the Section 214 
discontinuance process, it will not be the individual sale of a non-line powered service to a consumer that 
will trigger the need for notification of the backup power requirements of Section 12.5, but rather the 
transition to a newer technology that may have different backup power capabilities. The underlying 
(Continued from previous page)                                                            
347
As applicable, alternative service providers must also be compliant with other Commission rules for 911 call 
delivery, service, and location in order for the applicant to retain eligibility for streamlined processing.  See, e.g., 47 
CFR §§ 1.7001-02 (to file Form 477); 43.11 (requirements to file local competition data), 54.201 et seq. (concerning 
designation and obligations of Eligible Telecommunications Carriers (ETCs); 64.3001 (provider obligation to 
transmit 911 calls).  For the applicant to retain eligibility for automatic grant, those alternative service providers 
must also comply with any new dispatchable address/location requirements, as applicable, that the Commission may 
adopt in the future.
348
Consistent with the Commission rules regarding discontinuing service to completely exit an industry, the 
applicant seeking streamlined processing is required to provide the same advance notice to all PSAPs in its service 
area, and inform the Commission that it has done so.  47 CFR § 63.71.  These requirements also include notifying all 
affected customers, the applicable state agencies, and federally recognized Tribal Nations.  Id.
349
Section 12.5 applies to providers of Covered Services.  47 CFR § 12.5.  The rules define a Covered Service as 
“any facilities-based, fixed voice service offered as residential service, including fixed applications of wireless 
service, offered as a residential service that is not line powered.  47 CFR § 12.5(a).
350
Specifically, Section 12.5 requires providers to offer subscribers the option to purchase backup power for the 
Covered Service, with a minimum of eight hours of standby backup power.  47 CFR § 12.5(b)(1).  By February 13, 
2019, such providers must also offer at least one option that provides a minimum of twenty-four hours of standby 
backup power.  47 CFR § 12.5(b)(2).  Providers must also notify consumers of the following:  (1) availability of 
backup power sources; (2) service limitations with and without backup power during a power outage; (3) purchase 
and replacement options; (4) expected backup power duration; (5) proper usage and storage conditions for the 
backup power source; (6) consumer backup power self-testing and monitoring instructions; and (7) backup power 
warranty details, if any.  47 CFR § 12.5(d).
351
47 CFR § 63.71.  Section 63.71(b) states that a carrier shall file its 214 application “on or after the date on which 
notice has been given to all affected customers.”  Id.  Section 63.71(d) provides that applications shall be 
automatically granted on the 31st day after filing an application for non-dominant carriers and the 60th day for 
dominant carriers, unless the Commission notifies the applicant that the grant will not be automatically effective.  47 
CFR § 63.71(d).  Consequently, we expect that consumers will receive the initial backup power notice before the 
earliest possible date for grant of a Section 214 discontinuance application—at least 30 days before the change 
occurs.
352
47 CFR § 12.5(d)(1).
Federal Communications Commission FCC 16-90
50
principle remains the same:  prior to initiation of a new service (whether at the point of sale or at the time 
of a technology transition), consumers should have the benefit of understanding how to ensure continuity 
of 911 service through backup power.  We continue to require annual disclosures to be made as described 
in Section 12.5, by any means reasonably calculated to reach the individual consumer.
353
  
132. We include these residential backup power certification requirements as part of the 
Section 214 discontinuance process because “it is essential for all consumers to be able to access 911 
emergency services during commercial power outages, including outages caused by catastrophic storms 
or other unpredictable events, and to understand how to do so.”
354
Although the Emerging Wireline 
Further Notice tentatively concluded that we should not include operability during emergencies as a 
criteria as part of the adequate replacement test,
355
we are persuaded by commenters that these 
requirements are an appropriate part of the critical applications certification requirements.
356
  
133. Commenters contend that the Section 214 process is an inappropriate time and place to 
create new rules regarding residential backup power requirements.
357
  We emphasize that we are not 
adding to the existing backup power requirements.  Instead, we are making clear that in order for a service 
to qualify as an adequate replacement, it must abide by our existing backup power rules so that consumers 
receive information on backup power in advance of being transitioned to a replacement service that lacks 
line-power.  Otherwise, the consumer could become aware of the limitations of the replacement service 
only when his or her 911 call does not go through during a commercial power outage.
358
134. Protecting PSAP Operations.  To successfully meet this second prong, an applicant also 
must certify or show that at least one replacement service complies with 911 network reliability 
requirements.
359
  Our adoption of this requirement will help ensure that the transition to the replacement 
service neither impairs the continuity of 911 service to PSAPs, nor disrupts the configurations and 
connectivity necessary for their 911 operations.  As public safety groups observe, 911 services are 
                                                     
353
Id.
354
Ensuring Continuity of 911 Communications, Report and Order, 30 FCC Rcd 8677, 8681, para. 13 (2015) 
(Ensuring Continuity of 911 Order).  As we noted in the Ensuring Continuity of 911 Order, in the past, consumers 
relied upon service providers for backup power for their residential landline phones.  That is, equipment on 
subscriber premises still served by copper networks continued to work during commercial power outages as long as 
the handset, or other subscriber premises equipment did not need to be plugged into an electrical outlet to function.  
As we transition to newer technologies, many subscribers rely on a battery backup or an uninterruptible power 
supply (UPS) to ensure that service will continue to operate during a commercial power outage, and some 
consumers remain unaware that they must act if they want dial tone to be available in the event of a commercial 
power outage.  Id. at 8678, 8680, paras. 1, 11.  The CAC offers additional recommendations regarding notice of 
backup power changes and community outreach and education on the availability of backup power in commercial 
power outage events.  See CAC June 10, 2016 Technology Transition Recommendation at 3-4; see also Consumer 
Advisory Committee to the Federal Communications Commission Advisory Recommendation Regarding Battery 
Backup Community Outreach and Education, GN Docket No. 13-5 et al., at 1 (adopted June 10, 2016).
355
Emerging Wireline Order and Further Notice, 30 FCC Rcd at 9492, para. 234.
356
CWA Comments at 10-11; see also Cal. PUC Comments at 15; Pa. PUC Comments at 12-13; Mich. PSC 
Comments at 7-8.
357
See, e.g., Verizon Comments at 16; AT&T Comments at 9-11; ACS Comments at 4-5.  
358
Moreover, we disagree with certain commenting parties that urge us to do more than require providers to certify 
compliance with Section 12.5.  For example, AARP argues that meeting the requirements of the Ensuring Continuity 
of 911 Order is insufficient.  It contends that, even with robust CPE backup power requirements, networks will fail 
during power outages because other power-dependent equipment in the networks lacks backup power.  AARP 
Comments at 3-5; see also Edison Reply at 4-5.  We conclude that the adequate replacement analysis is not the 
appropriate place to impose new backup power requirements.  
359
See, e.g., 47 CFR § 12.4.  
Federal Communications Commission FCC 16-90
51
specialized and require advance notice and coordination prior to discontinuance of service or replacement 
of service.
360
  Including this criteria will address those concerns by providing covered 911 service 
providers additional incentive to provide the advance notice and thorough coordination necessary for 
PSAPs to maintain their level of 911 service and emergency responsiveness.  
135. We find that the concerns of industry commenters that these issues are either already 
covered by certain Commission rules requiring 911 service providers to certify to measures associated 
with ensuring adequate service to PSAPs, or are being addressed in other Commission proceedings, are 
misplaced.
361
  This certification or showing imposes no new requirements and will not affect our policy 
work in other Commission proceedings.  We believe the course we take today protects the American 
public, while at the same time allowing applicants seeking to provide a replacement or alternative service 
with sufficient time and information to understand our expectations before seeking discontinuance 
approval.
b. Communications Security
136. To satisfy the second prong of the adequate replacement test and remain eligible for 
automatic grant, an applicant must certify or show that the replacement service offers comparably 
effective protection from network security risks.  We stress that satisfaction of this criterion is part of the 
adequate replacement test required for streamlined processing and is not mandatory to discontinue service 
generally.  We further note that the approach we adopt today allows an applicant relying on a third party 
service to satisfy the adequate replacement test without requiring direct knowledge of that third party’s 
security posture.
137. We recognize that, unlike the other criteria that form the three prongs of the adequate 
replacement test, this criterion does not have a direct linkage to specific requirements that apply to a 
legacy service.  We adopt this criterion nonetheless because unique potential network vulnerabilities 
associated with new technologies requires some assurance that these new technologies will provide 
comparable network security in order to protect our core public interest values of consumer protection 
and public safety throughout the transition.  Cyber risk management is vital in combatting potential 
threats faced by services based on new technologies and the potential harms to consumers from these 
threats.
362
  Compliance with industry best practices can ensure consumers receive comparably effective 
protection from security risks as the previous legacy service.
363
  
138. We adopt different approaches for satisfying this criterion depending on whether the 
applicant relies on its own or a third party replacement service. Our overarching objective is to preserve 
the availability, integrity, and confidentiality (AIC) of the network.  Availability refers to the accessibility 
                                                     
360
See, e.g., NENA Comments at 5-6 (stating that “carriers or alternative service providers should make available 
appropriately-dimensioned and highly-reliable 9-1-1 core services,” and “[w]ithout a requirement for the availability 
of alternative sources for selective routing (or equivalent NG9-1-1 functionality), for example, PSAPs could find 
themselves unable to procure a key service in the 9-1-1 system operational chain”) (internal formatting removed); 
Cal. PUC Comments at 14 (stating that “critical to the FCC’s review should be the need to honor the PSAP 
timeframe for change,” and ensure continuing 911 service that “work[s] in the PSAP’s configuration”); Joint States 
Reply at 11-12 (agreeing with the California PUC that Section 214 discontinuances and technology transitions 
should be coordinated since “[p]rovisioning and migrating communications connectivity to PSAPs requires 
extensive coordination among many agencies and providers to ensure that multiple types of communications are not 
interrupted”).
361
See, e.g., Verizon Comments at 16; AT&T Comments at 13-14; TIA Comments at 9-10.
362
AARP Comments at 23-24); CWA Comments at 11-12; Edison Comments at 8; Mich. PSC Comments at 8; Pa. 
PUC Comments at 13-14.  
363
See, e.g., AARP Comments at 23, 24; Mich. PSC Comments at 8; Joint State Reply at 12-13.
Federal Communications Commission FCC 16-90
52
and usability of a network upon demand.
364
  Integrity refers to the protection against the unauthorized 
modification or destruction of information.
365
  Confidentiality refers to the protection of data from 
unauthorized access and disclosure, both while at rest and in transit.
366
In making the certification or 
showing necessary to demonstrate comparably effective protection from network security risks, the 
applicant must evaluate:  (i) relevant cybersecurity standards and practices—whether industry-recognized 
or related to some other identifiable approach—the replacement service employs at the time of 
certification;
367
(ii) what plans (if any) the replacement service has to incorporate cybersecurity threat 
information sharing as a part of the replacement service’s security operations; and (iii) roles and 
responsibilities for the replacement service’s cybersecurity, both with respect to the provider but also any 
third parties (e.g., the applicant’s vendors or contractors), to promote effective accountability for privacy 
and security.
139. If relying on its own service, the applicant must demonstrate that the replacement service 
offers comparably effective protection from network security risks to remain eligible for automatic 
grant.
368
  That demonstration can be made in one of two ways.  If the applicant’s network security 
management practices are enterprise-wide, i.e., the enterprise safeguards AIC without differentiation 
between services, geographic areas, or service-providing affiliates, a certification to that effect will be 
sufficient to demonstrate that the replacement service offers comparably effective protection from 
network security risks.  
140. Alternatively, the applicant must show that: (i) it has evaluated any known risks and 
vulnerabilities of the replacement service; (ii) it has taken measures to address and mitigate the 
enumerated risks and vulnerabilities; (iii) it will inform consumers as part of the discontinuance notice 
required pursuant to Section 63.71 what security measure(s) the consumers should take vis-à-vis the 
                                                     
364
See, e.g., ATIS, ATIS Telecom Glossary, http://www.atis.org/glossary/definition.aspx?id=5637 (last visited Jun. 
16, 2016).
365
See, e.g., ATIS, ATIS Telecom Glossary, http://www.atis.org/glossary/definition.aspx?id=4584 (last visited Jun. 
16, 2016).
366
See, e.g., ATIS, ATIS Telecom Glossary, http://www.atis.org/glossary/definition.aspx?id=6609 (last visited Jun. 
16, 2016).
367
For example, a replacement service could employ the National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) 
Framework for Improving Critical Infrastructure Cybersecurity (NIST Framework) as a management tool to inform 
decisions about cyber risk analysis and organize mitigation activity.  See NIST, NIST Cybersecurity Framework, 
http://www.nist.gov/cyberframework/ (last visited June 20, 2016); see also The Communications Security, 
Reliability and Interoperability Council IV, Cybersecurity Risk Management and Best Practices Working Group 4: 
Final Report at 8-9 (2015), 
https://transition.fcc.gov/pshs/advisory/csric4/CSRIC_IV_WG4_Final_Report_031815.pdf.  In this report, CSRIC 
IV provided guidance to the Commission on communications market sector implementation of the NIST 
Framework.  See id.  Some commenters support use of the NIST framework.  See, e.g., AARP Comments at 23-24 
(“AARP believes that the NIST Framework could be utilized by the Commission to establish a standardized network 
security benchmark that would enable service providers to demonstrate that they have applied best practices and are 
devoting sufficient resources to network security issues.”); AICC Comments at 10-11 (“Communications providers 
should have a solid risk management plan in place that ensures the organization has processes to identify, assess, 
prioritize, and remediate threats associated with the solution).
368
We note that the certification standard for a replacement service offered by an applicant is different than the 
certification standard for a replacement service offered by a third party.  We conclude the adoption of two distinct 
standards is appropriate, given practical considerations and in light of the sensitive information that would otherwise 
need to be disclosed by the third party in the event we were to adopt equivalent standards.  We also note that we 
sought comment on adopting different requirements.  Emerging Wireline Order and Further Notice, 30 FCC Rcd. at 
9490, para. 228 (“Should an applicant provide more detailed information regarding the provider’s cyber risk 
management practices in general, its implementation of relevant industry best practices, or its engagement with 
fellow providers to address shared risk?”).
Federal Communications Commission FCC 16-90
53
replacement service (e.g., downloading and maintaining up-to-date anti-virus software) and other steps 
consumers may take to ensure safe use of the replacement service; and (iv) it will undertake best efforts to 
identify any vulnerable facilities (e.g., fire, EMS, law enforcement and other critical infrastructure 
facilities) and users, and work to address and mitigate the enumerated risks and vulnerabilities (e.g., the 
use of diverse IP paths for critical infrastructure).  Where an applicant provides written guidance or Public 
Service Announcements to consumers (whether those consumers are individuals or organizations) in 
accordance with (iii) and (iv) above, the applicant should provide a generic copy of such guidance to the 
Commission.  This certification is not a directive on how to address network security.  Applicants retain 
flexibility regarding how to address such risks.  By this approach, we seek to ensure reasonable diligence 
and verifiability for certifications made in connection with applications where the applicant is providing 
the replacement service.
369
141. In those situations where the applicant is relying on a third party service, we take a 
different approach.  We recognize the challenges for an applicant to gain access to information about a 
third party replacement service generally,
370
and understand that the challenges of gaining access to the 
third party service’s cyber risk management process would be particularly acute.  Therefore, an applicant 
relying on a third party service instead must exercise reasonable diligence to identify the security profile 
of the technology of the replacement service, based on the replacement technology’s ability to provide 
availability, integrity, and confidentiality.
371
  Focusing on the established key considerations of 
confidentiality, integrity, and availability provides a frame of reference for identifying the risks associated 
with the replacement technology.
372
  We note that a security profile is not intended to identify any specific 
cyber risk management process or specific vulnerabilities associated with a particular third party’s 
replacement service, but instead serves to identify the general cyber risks, from a consumer’s perspective, 
associated with the replacement service’s technology.  This is a particularly effective solution for 
applicants relying on third party services because a security profile may be gleaned from open source 
information and does not require specific knowledge of the inherent security of the replacement service.  
While a security profile can be identified using publicly available information, it should be arrived at after 
the applicant undertakes an analysis centered on the availability, integrity, and confidentiality model 
described above under the certification approach.  In this regard, the security profile can adjust to new 
threats and vectors as they emerge.
142. Because we will allow an applicant relying on a third party service to base its showing on 
publicly available information, we have addressed the concerns of commenters who question the 
                                                     
369
Cf. AT&T June 22, 2016 Ex Parte Letter at 3 (“[T]he Commission should adopt an alternative approach that 
would provide the Commission and the public confidence that the carrier is applying appropriate security practices 
to its substitute services.  Under this alternate proposed test, the applicant would certify in its § 214 Certification #2 
application that it has a cybersecurity risk management program in place to ensure the ‘reasonable’ security of its IP 
network.  Carriers would be deemed to satisfy the reasonableness standard if they have adopted one or more 
commonly accepted industry cybersecurity standards in their cybersecurity risk management program that applies to 
the network over which the substitute service is provisioned.”).
370
See supra Section III.B.
371
For example, the security profile for “IPv6 technology” would include identification of any IPSec security 
extensions associated with the replacement VoIP.
372
See, e.g., WhatIs.com, confidentiality, availability and integrity (Nov. 2014), 
http://whatis.techtarget.com/definition/Confidentiality-integrity-and-availability-CIA; see also National Security 
Telecommunications Advisory Council, An Assessment of the Risk to the Cybersecurity of the Public Network, 
(Aug. 2009) (noting the importance of providing network security to physical communications network components 
“which if damaged or manipulated, could degrade the confidentiality, integrity, and availability of data transiting the 
Internet.”).
Federal Communications Commission FCC 16-90
54
feasibility of requiring an applicant to know the security posture of a third party.
373
  We reiterate that 
reliance on the security profile of the third party service allows the applicant to remain eligible for 
streamlined processing without requiring direct knowledge of a third party’s security posture, or 
potentially confidential or sensitive details of the third party entity’s cyber risk management plans.  We 
recognize the concerns of commenters that comparing networks may not result in an “apples to apples” 
equivalency,
374
particularly when a third party service is involved, and for that reason we adopt this 
alternative certification approach when an applicant intends to rely on a third party service.  By this 
approach, we seek to ensure that an applicant has established a sound basis for its representations about 
the comparable effectiveness of the protections from network security risks employed by a third-party 
replacement service, by exercising a reasonable degree of diligence in making those representations in 
light of all the facts and circumstances.
143. We disagree with industry commenters that contend that a communications security 
criterion is an attempt to impose new requirements on industry.
375
  As an initial matter, no carrier is 
required to comply with any specific network security standards.
376
  We do not dictate what measures a 
company must take, nor do we require that they submit potentially sensitive information to the 
Commission as part of their Section 214 application.  Rather, meeting this criterion is only necessary to 
satisfy the adequate replacement test, and that in turn is only required if they wish to remain eligible for 
automatic grant.
377
  
144. Beyond that, the Commission has always recognized the importance of network security 
and agrees with commenters that it is a crucial consideration in determining whether an adequate 
replacement service exists.
378
  Transitioning from legacy-based services to new technologies presents new 
network vulnerability issues that did not exist with legacy technologies.
379
  As we have noted above, 
                                                     
373
ITTA Comments at 13; Verizon Comments at 17.  ITTA also claims that disclosing such information would itself 
present significant security risks.  ITTA Comments at 13.
374
AT&T May 31, 2016 Ex Parte Letter Attach. 1 at 7.
375
See, e.g., AT&T Comments at 13-14; USTelecom Comments at 13; Verizon Comments at 17; AT&T May 31, 
2016 Ex Parte Letter Attach. 1 at 7; AT&T June 22, 2016 Ex Parte Letter at 3; NTCA July 5, 2016 Ex Parte Letter 
at 2; NTCA July 8, 2016 Ex Parte Letter at 2; USTelecom June 20, 2016 Ex Parte Letter at 2.
376
See USTelecom June 20, 2016 Ex Parte Letter at 2 (“There is no one-size fits all with cybersecurity. . . .”); 
USTelecom June 23 Ex Parte Letter at 1-2 (“Imposing a new cybersecurity compliance regime on such granular 
levels runs counter to an enterprise-wide risk management process.”); Verizon June 24, 2016 Ex Parte Letter at 1-2 
(asserting “a one-size-fits-all approach—particularly one involving proscriptive regulations—is not the best way to 
address cybersecurity concerns”).
377
Cf. Verizon June 30, 2016 Ex Parte Letter at 1 (encouraging the Commission not to require cybersecurity 
certifications as a condition for getting an application on the streamlined track).
378
Public Knowledge Ex Parte Letter at 1 (“The traditional phone network is the primary ‘tent pole’ of the 
numerous communications networks that, together, make up the wireless and wireline communications system for 
the United States.  All these networks, whether IP based or not, depend on the stability and reliability of the PSTN.  
Without some metric to ensure that the system will remain secure and reliable post-transition, the entire 
communications network for the United States becomes vulnerable.”); cf. AT&T June 22, 2016 Ex Parte at 2 (“[I]f 
AT&T discontinues POTS in a specified geography, it would not affect the network reliability and efficacy of 
cybersecurity relating to local or interexchange interconnection.  If and when an ILEC discontinues a service that is 
used for interconnection, such as TDM-based interstate access-type services, those services and replacement 
services will have the opportunity to be scrutinized by the Commission during the applicable discontinuance 
process.”)..
379
Id. 
Federal Communications Commission FCC 16-90
55
comparing legacy services to new technologies is in part an apples-to-oranges comparison.
380
  Thus, in 
order to demonstrate that a replacement service is offering comparable security, we find that a security 
benchmark that measures the unique risks associated with new technologies is necessary.  To maintain 
our core values of consumer protection and public safety throughout the transition, it is appropriate for an
applicant seeking to retain eligibility for automatic grant to certify or make a showing that the 
replacement service provides comparably effective protection from network security risks.  
145. We conclude the flexible, individualized approach we take to network security addresses 
concerns that applying a rigid standard would be counter-productive.
381
  Additionally, while we recognize 
that there is no universal cybersecurity standard to apply,
382
we believe that there are generally accepted 
guidelines and best practices that carriers should consider when evaluating their own cybersecurity 
posture or the security profile of the replacement technology.
383
  Several commenters note that the 
Commission is utilizing alternate forums to evaluate cyber risk management best practices, and question 
whether the Commission’s Section 214 discontinuance authority is the appropriate vehicle to address the 
issue.
384
  The approach we adopt today allows for all interested parties to continue to develop and refine 
best practices in dealing with cyber security risks.  Finally, while AT&T and USTelecom note that 
providers have market based incentives to protect their networks from attacks,
385
  we believe that it would 
be inconsistent with our values of ensuring consumer protection and public safety to ignore network 
security as part of the adequate replacement analysis.  
                                                     
380
Supra para. 90; see also AT&T May 31, 2016 Ex Parte Letter Attach. 1 at 7; AT&T June 22, 2016 Ex Parte
Letter at 2-3 (“[T]the security risks applied to the TDM network are likewise fundamentally different from an all-IP 
network.”).
381
AT&T May 31, 2016 Ex Parte Letter Attach. 1 at 7 (“Cyber security doesn’t lend itself to a rigid ‘checklist’ of 
standards and such a ‘checklist’ would be counter-productive.  Complying with ‘fixed’ standards rather than 
focusing on risk management would limit a provider’s ability to manage its networks effectively in response to 
changing cyber threats, and it would remove their incentive to innovate.”); AT&T June 22, 2016 Ex Parte Letter at 
2; USTelecom June 20, 2016 Ex Parte Letter at 2 (“Any suggestion that the Commission could develop a list of 
factors that would be appropriately applied to all providers is contrary to the widely-accepted view of our member 
companies. . . .”).. 
382
Verizon Comments at 17 (“The NIST cybersecurity framework referenced by the proposed criteria does not 
contain rules or standards; the agency has made clear cybersecurity issues should not be addressed by a one-size-
fits-all approach.”); Rural Associations Reply at 6 (noting standards are “still being evaluated for tailored adoption 
and implementation by carriers on a voluntary basis consistent with the NIST Framework and the Executive Order 
that contemplated such a voluntary framework”); AT&T May 31, 2016 Ex Parte Letter at 7; AT&T June 22, 2016 
Ex Parte Letter at 2-3; USTelecom June 20, 2016 Ex Parte Letter at 2. 
383
See USTelecom June 20, 2016 Ex Parte Letter at 2 (asserting “today’s primary framework for addressing 
cybersecurity involves the application of industry-developed risk management principles and best practices to 
improve the security and resilience of critical infrastructure on an individualized basis that companies—regardless 
of size, degree of cyber risk or cybersecurity sophistication—can apply to fit their needs.”)
384
AT&T Comments at 13 (“The Commission and the industry have traditionally worked through organizations 
such as the Communications Security Reliability and Interoperability Council (CSRIC) to address cybersecurity 
concerns.”); Pa. PUC Comments at 15 (“[t]he Pa. PUC urges the Commission to rely on the previous and continuing 
work of its own Communications Security, Reliability, and Interoperability Council (CSRIC) to address the 
questions and concerns articulated in the proposed rulemaking.”); TIA Comments at 7 (“...this issue is best left to 
other existing initiatives in which the issue is already being considered.  The Commission’s Section 214 
discontinuance authority for TDM services offers very limited utility to address the dynamic nature of this issue.”); 
Verizon Comments at 17 (“These issues are already being reviewed in other proceedings and venues.  For example, 
pursuant to Executive Order 28, the Department of Homeland Security and the National Institute for Standards and 
Technology (NIST) are actively exploring cyber protection frameworks.”). 
385
AT&T May 31, 2016 Ex Parte Letter Attach. 1 at 7; USTelecom June 23, 2016 Ex Parte Letter at 2.
Federal Communications Commission FCC 16-90
56
c. Services for Individuals with Disabilities
146. Under the critical applications prong, applicants will certify that at least one replacement 
service complies with the Commission’s applicable accessibility, usability, and compatibility 
requirements governing services benefiting individuals with disabilities as a means to ensure that the 
replacement service offers accessibility levels at least as effective as those offered by the legacy voice 
service.
386
147. We tentatively concluded in the Emerging Wireline Further Notice that we should 
consider compatibility with assistive technologies as a criterion for whether a new service represents an 
adequate replacement for a legacy voice service.
387
  As noted above, both industry and public interest 
groups generally support ensuring that applications serving individuals with disabilities, notably assistive 
technologies, are compatible with any replacement service.
388
  However, there is limited consensus in the 
record as to the appropriate scope or implementation of such a requirement.  
148. The Commission’s rules governing three sets of telecommunications-related accessibility 
requirements function similarly in practice.  The rules govern standards for accessibility, usability, and 
compatibility for:  (i) telecommunications services and functionalities;
389
(ii) voicemail and interactive 
menu functionalities
390
; and (iii) advanced communications services (ACS),
391
defined by statute to 
include both interconnected and non-interconnected VoIP service.
392
  The rules obligate service providers 
to ensure that a service is accessible to and usable by individuals with disabilities “if readily achievable”
for services subject to Part 6 or 7 of the rules, and “unless not achievable” for services subject to Part 14 
of the rules.
393
  When a standard of accessibility or usability is not achievable, service providers are 
required to ensure the relevant service, functionality, or application is compatible with existing peripheral 
devices or specialized customer premises equipment commonly used by individuals with disabilities.
394
  
To remain eligible for automatic grant, providers also must comply with rules regarding:  (i) product 
design, development and evaluation;
395
(ii) accessible information pass through;
396
and (iii) customer 
access to information, documentation, and training.
397
                                                     
386
47 CFR §§ 6.1-6.11, 7.1-7.11, 14.1-14.21, 14.60-14.61.
387
Emerging Wireline Order and Further Notice, 30 FCC Rcd at 9486-87, paras. 222-23.
388
See, e.g., AARP Comments at 17; Cal. PUC Comments at 10-11; CenturyLink Comments at 3, 23; CWA 
Comments at 10; Disability Coalition Comments at 2; Mich. PSC Comments at 6; Joint States Reply at 8-11; 
NASUCA et al. Reply at 11-12; Utilities Telecom Council Reply at 3; AT&T May 31 Ex Parte Letter, Attach. 1 at 
4-5.
389
See 47 CFR pt. 6.
390
See 47 CFR pt. 7.
391
See 47 CFR pt. 14.
392
47 CFR § 14.10(c)(1)-(2).
393
47 CFR §§ 6.5(b)(1), 7.5(b)(1), 14.20(a)(1)-(2), 14.21(a); see also 47 CFR §§ 6.3(h), 7.3(h), 14.10(b) (defining 
“readily achievable” and “achievable”).  The rules also include performance objectives defining what is meant by 
“accessible,” “usable,” and “compatible.”  47 CFR §§ 6.3, 7.3, 14.21.  To remain eligible for streamlined processing, 
an applicant must demonstrate that any public mobile service proposed as an adequate replacement complies with 
Sections 14.60 and 14.61 of the rules.  47 CFR §§ 14.60, 14.61.
394
47 CFR §§ 6.5(b)(2), 7.5(b)(2), 14.20(a)(3).
395
47 CFR §§ 6.7, 7.7, 14.20(b).
396
47 CFR §§ 6.9, 7.9, 14.20(c).
397
47 CFR §§ 6.11, 7.11, 14.20(d).
Federal Communications Commission FCC 16-90
57
149. The existing rules thus establish a standard cabined by its technological achievability.  
Thus, in order to meet this factor under the critical applications prong, any new service must provide 
levels of accessibility, usability, and compatibility as effective as the legacy voice service to be deemed 
an adequate replacement utilizing a new technology.
398
  For certain new technologies, the rules of the road 
have already been established through our rules regarding access to advanced communication services, 
which cover the VoIP technologies that could make up a significant portion of the technology transition 
discontinuance applications.
399
150. We also expect that, due to reduced costs and heightened capabilities of next-generation 
services,
400
more accessibility features and functionalities will be achievable within the meaning of our 
rules.  Thus, we encourage carriers to proffer replacement services that have the potential to provide new 
accessibility features and functionalities and to make newly achievable features and functionalities 
available to their customers with disabilities.
401
151. We also remind carriers and interconnected VoIP service providers of their obligation 
under the existing telecommunications relay service rules to provide access to TRS, including 711 dialing 
access.
402
  The proposed replacement service or the alternative services available from other providers
must provide such access, where required under the Commission’s rules.
403
  
152. We conclude that the approach described above strikes an appropriate balance between 
providing clarity and objectivity in the standards developed across the Commission and limiting 
substantive burdens on applicants which might place them at a competitive disadvantage or hinder the 
deployment of broadband and new technologies.  We acknowledge the perspective of consumer advocacy 
groups and state and local governments that argue that when the transition to a replacement service 
requires upgrade of assistive technologies, the applicant should not only inform affected users of the 
associated costs, but help subsidize them.
404
  We disagree, however, and continue to believe that this 
                                                     
398
47 CFR §§ 6.3(a)-(b), 7.3(a)-(b), 14.21(b), (d); see also AT&T May 31 Ex Parte Letter, Attach. 1 at 3, 4.
399
See 47 CFR pt. 14; Implementation of Sections 716 And 717 of the Communications Act of 1934, as Enacted By 
the Twenty-First Century Communications and Video Accessibility Act of 2010 et al., Report and Order and Further 
Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, 26 FCC Rcd 14557, 14568-74, paras. 30-41 (delineating the scope of advanced 
communications services subject to Part 14, including VoIP services), 14647-48, paras. 210-12 (adopting general 
performance objectives for covered equipment) (2011).
400
See, e.g., AT&T Comments at 4 (IP services offer “countless advantages” over legacy TDM services); 
CenturyLink Comments at 11 (citing “mobility and convenience of wireless services and the lower cost, greater 
capacity and flexibility of VoIP and other IP-enabled features” over legacy services); TIA Comments at 10 (IP-
based messaging services providing improved functionality for persons with disabilities); USTelecom Comments at 
5 (asserting that modern networks and services bring new and improved communications services, as conversion to 
digital from analog did for television).
401
See, e.g., Transition from TTY to Real-Time Text Technology, et al., CG Docket No. 16-145 et al., Notice of 
Proposed Rulemaking, FCC 16-53, at para. 43 & n.151 (rel. Apr. 29, 2016) (RTT Notice) (“[G]iven the age and 
limitations of TTY technology, including its slow transmission speed, limited characters, and lack of synchronicity, 
we do not believe the capabilities of TTYs should serve as a performance benchmark for current, IP-based text 
technologies . . . .Thus, we believe it is preferable for our rules to promote or require implementation of the 
improved accessibility features made possible by [new] technologies where there is a factual record justifying this 
approach.”).  
402
47 CFR § 64.601 et seq.
403
As discussed in the RTT Notice, wireless carriers are undertaking to make RTT backward compatible with TTY.  
RTT Notice at para. 61. 
404
See, e.g., AARP Comments at 17; Cal. PUC Comments at 11; Disability Coalition Comments at 2; Joint States 
Reply at 8.
Federal Communications Commission FCC 16-90
58
proceeding is not the appropriate forum in which to impose any new financial obligations upon providers 
that are not necessary to ensure service comparable to the legacy voice service.
405
  
153. To the extent persons with disabilities need to transition to new equipment in order to 
maintain the same functionality or make use of improved functionality such as described above, we 
encourage service providers to make that transition as simple and inexpensive as possible, particularly for 
those who do not qualify for existing state and federal equipment distribution programs, and for those 
who are replacing devices not covered by equipment distribution programs. For example, the 
transitioning provider could offer the eligible subscriber, at no additional cost, new equipment that is 
compatible with the provider’s services, or financial assistance and information to eligible subscribers to 
alleviate the burden of purchasing new equipment. Interfaces between the network and user equipment 
and applications should facilitate interconnection of low-cost devices and software applications that 
provide accessibility.  
154. We find misplaced the concerns of industry commenters contending that standards
regarding service for individuals with disabilities should only be imposed in proceedings that would be 
universally applicable.
406
  As noted above, carriers have always faced a unique set of public interest 
obligations under the Act, and the rules we announce today provide meaning and structure to an existing 
framework.
407
  Here, we are simply making compliance with existing requirements one factor we consider 
as part of our Section 214 process.  Because we impose no new requirements here, we reject the 
contention of commenters like Rural Associations that assert that the Commission wants to impose a 
“superior service” standard.
408
  
155. Relatedly, we decline to impose an independent requirement with respect to real-time text 
(RTT) technology in this proceeding, but note that any requirements adopted in the RTT docket would 
become part of our analysis under this factor.
409
  The RTT Notice proposed rules defining the obligations 
of wireless service providers and equipment manufacturers to support RTT over IP-based wireless voice 
services, and establishing technical standards for minimum required functionalities,
410
the support 
providers must offer for those functionalities,
411
and timelines for implementation of this transition.
412
  
The RTT NPRM further sought comment on whether to amend the Commission’s rules to place 
comparable responsibilities to support RTT on providers and manufacturers of wireline IP services and 
equipment that enable consumers to initiate and receive communications by voice.
413
  Applicants would
be required to adhere to whatever applicable RTT implementation obligations and timetables are 
established by any final rules adopted in the RTT Notice proceeding.
156. In the Emerging Wireline Further Notice, we also asked whether our rules should include 
requirements that any adequate replacement service would develop certain specific applications—such as 
HD Voice and multi-party video calling—that would benefit persons with disabilities.
414
  We 
                                                     
405
See supra Sections III.C.1, C.2.a.
406
See, e.g., AT&T Comments at 10; CenturyLink Comments at 26-28; Verizon Comments at 10-11, 14-16.
407
See supra Section II.B.
408
Rural Associations Reply at 5.
409
See RTT Notice at Appendix A (text of proposed rules).
410
RTT Notice at paras. 43-84.
411
Id. at paras. 85-88.
412
Id. at paras. 25-31.
413
Id. at paras. 2, 95-99.
414
Emerging Wireline Order and Further Notice, 30 FCC Rcd at 9487-88, para. 224.  Consumer advocate 
commenters express concern regarding the need for specific additional applications for individuals with disabilities.  
(continued . . .)
Federal Communications Commission FCC 16-90
59
acknowledge the importance of implementing improved accessibility features that are made possible by 
emerging technologies, which can greatly enhance accessibility and are often uniquely feasible on IP 
services.
415
  However, as explained above, we conclude this is not the appropriate forum in which to 
impose new substantive requirements on these issues. The active proceedings examining such issues will 
develop appropriate rules, which then would become part of the overarching analysis in a Section 214 
discontinuance.
416
3. Interoperability with Key Applications and Functionalities.
157. Using this third prong of the adequate replacement test, we recognize the importance of 
specified key applications and functionalities that today are associated with legacy voice services, while 
at the same time recognizing that consumer preferences will evolve as part of technology transitions.
417
  
Requiring applicants to demonstrate that a replacement service offers compatibility with an enumerated 
set of applications and functionalities ensures consumers will have continued access to them for a period 
of time.
418
  At the same time, we make clear that carriers are not required to provide access to these 
capabilities in perpetuity.  This approach will provide clarity to service providers, manufacturers and end 
users alike.
158. We first identify a list of applications and functionalities we have concluded are key and 
thus must be interoperable with any replacement service to satisfy the test and remain eligible for 
(Continued from previous page)                                                            
See, e.g., AARP Comments at 17; Cal. PUC Comments at 11; Disability Coalition Comments at 2; Pa. PUC 
Comments at 11-12; TDI Comments at 5-9.  In contrast, incumbent LECs’ raise concerns that unique responsibilities 
imposed on them alone in the context of Section 214 discontinuances would place them at a competitive 
disadvantage, and contend that any rule expansion should be accomplished through a general rulemaking proceeding 
or other industry-wide context rather than 214 adjudications.  See AT&T Comments at 7-8; CenturyLink Comments 
at 25-28; TIA Comments at 7-10.  Certain commenters specifically favor adoption of the IETF RFC 4103 standard 
for RTT services and the HD Voice requirement identified in the Emerging Wireline Order and Further Notice.  See
TDI Comments at 5-9.
415
See, e.g., RTT Notice, at paras. 95-99 (seeking comment on whether to require implementation of RTT in wireline 
as well as wireless IP-based networks).
416
The pending RTT Notice discussed above will produce a more complete record on RTT-specific matters, 
including whether RFC 4103 is an appropriate safe harbor technical standard for RTT, and will ultimately address 
implementation of RTT technology as a replacement for TTY.  See RTT Notice at paras. 49-59.  We decline to 
prejudge the outcome of that proceeding by adopting RTT requirements here, particularly given the limited record 
on RTT issues in this docket.
417
SeeMich. PSC Comments at 5; CWA Comments a 10; Pa. PUC Comments at 10; NASUCA Comment at 6-7; 
Joint States Reply at 8; AARP Comments at 15-16 (all arguing that transitions to alternative services should not 
cause consumers to lose functionality or benefit of services or equipment upon which they rely).  But see AT&T 
Reply at 4 (arguing interoperability could place on incumbent LECs “a Hobson’s choice – redesign their next 
generation services to incorporate features and capabilities that the Commission, not consumers, believes are 
appropriate, or continue to maintain their TDM networks and services in perpetuity.”); CenturyLink Reply at 9 
(“The Commission also should avoid criteria that would force ILECs to provide dead or dying services and 
functionalities, simply because they are supported by legacy networks.”); USTelecom Comments at 13-14.
418
Consistent with the Emerging Wireline Further Notice, we define applications as offerings that run on TDM-
based service, such as home alarm systems and modems, whereas functionalities are offerings included in the 
service, such as call-waiting and operator services. See Emerging Wireline Order and Further Notice, 30 FCC Rcd 
at 9485, para. 219 and n.681 (seeking comment on “interoperability of both voice and non-voice devices, or newer 
technology-based equivalent devices”); see also id. at 9490, para. 229 (stating that consumers “have come to expect 
that their phone service provides certain functionalities, such as caller ID, transport of touch tones, and the ability to 
make calling card, dial-around, collect, or third-party number billed calls”).  Either the applicant or a third party may 
provide these offerings. 
Federal Communications Commission FCC 16-90
60
automatic grant.
419
  We adopt AT&T’s proposal to require replacement services to be compatible with a 
defined list of devices, subject to sunset in 2025.  We then describe a framework for identifying whether 
other applications and functionalities not specifically identified in this order should receive a similar 
status and adopt a Commission process for modifying this list.  We also conclude it would be appropriate 
to assess regularly whether items should be removed from the list as the marketplace evolves.  Finally, we 
explain how applicants will appropriately demonstrate that a replacement service offers interoperability 
with the identified list of key applications. 
a. Identifying Key Applications
159. We adopt AT&T’s proposal that widely adopted low-speed modem devices—in 
particular, fax machines, home security alarms, medical monitoring devices, analog-only caption 
telephone sets, and point-of-sale terminals—should make up the initial list of key applications for which 
applicants seeking automatic grant must demonstrate that any replacement service offers 
interoperability.
420
  We conclude that it is appropriate to expect that replacement services offer 
compatibility with these devices until 2025, to provide time for the marketplace to migrate to new 
services and applications that will provide similar functions.
421
  
160. We recognize that there may be other applications and functionalities for which 
interoperability is critical.  We recognize the challenges, as raised in the record, to identify these 
applications and functionalities and the costs of making them available.
422
  Because the list we adopt 
today may not be fully inclusive of all applications and functionalities that are significantly valued by 
stakeholders, we also adopt a process to supplement this list.  We direct the Office of Engineering and 
Technology, working in consultation with the Wireline Competition Bureau (Bureaus) and subject to the 
guidelines below, to seek comment and, based on the record developed, propose additions to the list of 
key applications and functionalities adopted above for Commission review and approval. 
161. Within three months of the effective date of the order, the Bureaus will release a public 
notice inviting consumers and industry stakeholders to indicate whether additional functionalities and 
applications should be added to the list.  The Bureaus will also engage in outreach to solicit input from 
consumer and industry groups.  
                                                     
419
We include the operation of these applications and functionalities over lines traditionally used to provide voice 
service within the definition of legacy voice service for purposes of the adequate replacement test we adopt today.
420
AT&T May 31 Ex Parte Letter at 4.
421
AT&T proposed that the Commission require that any replacement service for a discontinued data service have a 
low latency option.  AT&T May 31 Ex Parte Letter Attach at 5.  We agree with AT&T that because the specific 
streamlining criteria we adopt are limited to ensuring adequate replacements for legacy voice services, it is not 
appropriate to adopt a low-latency option requirement.  AT&T July 7 Ex Parte Letter at 1.  We reiterate that non-
voice services to which Section 214(a) discontinuance obligations apply and voice services subject to Section 214(a) 
being discontinued in non-technology transitions circumstances will continue to be subject to our pre-existing 
discontinuance process, which provides the public an opportunity to comment and to which our traditional five-
factor balancing test applies. 
422
SeeMich. PSC Comments at 5 (“Device and Service Interoperability is important to the function of numerous 
customer devices and includes features such as Caller ID and voicemail, as well as specifications necessary for the 
function of essential public safety devices such as medical alert services and assistive devices for the hearing 
impaired.”); Pa. PUC Comments at 10 (stating the Commission should “consider not only the functionality related to 
voice calls (e.g., ability to use caller ID, access to 911/E911) but also non-call functions, third-party customer 
premises equipment (CPE), and/or services such as home alarms, fax machines and medical alert monitors.”); CWA 
Comments at 10.  But see AT&T Reply at 4 (arguing that the adequate replacement criteria “ignore the 
overwhelming advantages of IP services, and would require ILECs (and only ILECs) to duplicate all of the features, 
functions and capabilities of outdated services that have been rejected by all but a small and dwindling minority of 
consumers.”).
Federal Communications Commission FCC 16-90
61
162. We outline here our views on relevant considerations in determining whether an 
application or functionality retains value to consumers in the marketplace such that it should be made 
interoperable with any replacement service.  These considerations include whether:  (i) customers rely on 
the application or functionality for health or safety reasons; (ii) the application or functionality is used as 
a wholesale input by other providers; (iii) the application or functionality relies on vendor equipment or 
inputs that have been discontinued; and (iv) the service provider, as opposed to the end-user customer, is 
the least-cost avoider.
423
163. These guidelines reflect our goal of ensuring that the technology transitions broadly 
benefit consumers, including those who still value certain applications and functionalities associated with 
legacy voice services.
424
  Applying certain market-based considerations and adopting a sunset for this 
requirement is intended to address incumbent LECs’ concerns about being placed at a potential 
competitive disadvantage by requiring them indefinitely to retain applications and functionalities that are 
no longer important to consumers.
425
  
164. The first “health and safety” factor will determine whether consumers are using or 
ordering an application or functionality based on a TDM service and their relative significance in those 
consumers’ lives.  Indeed, we identified medical monitoring devices and home security alarms as the type 
of “health and safety” applications that remain key in the marketplace.
165. The second factor focuses on the consumers who subscribe to an application or 
functionality from a provider who relies on the TDM-based service being discontinued.  The third factor 
focuses on whether an application or functionality is outdated or operating on equipment that is 
obsolete.
426
  The fourth and final factor will look at whether the applicant or the end-user customer is able 
to address the interoperability concerns at the least cost.  We conclude these factors represent a reasonable 
framework for identifying key applications and functionalities that should be maintained during the 
technology transitions.
166. We recognize that interoperability considerations will likely change over time, as new 
applications and functionalities are developed for new services, and consumers increasingly are no longer 
relying on applications and functionalities associated with legacy voice services.  For that reason, we also 
conclude it important to review regularly the list of key applications to determine whether elements of
that list no longer are key.  We direct staff to examine this list as part of each internal biennial review of 
agency regulations.  We also direct the Bureaus to propose changes or updates, in particular to remove 
any applications or functionalities that may become obsolete, to the Commission.  The Bureaus will 
continue their biennial review of the key applications and functionalities list and certification 
requirements through the year 2025, at the end of which the Bureaus will advise the Commission whether 
the list remains necessary given the status of technology transitions.
                                                     
423
In this context, either the applicant or certain types of end users face costs to maintain compatibility with certain 
applications in the event of technological change in the applicant’s provision of telecommunications services.  The 
least cost avoider is whichever of these two parties faces the least costs of adapting to the technological change.  
Thus, the applicant would be the least cost avoider if the cost of making adjustments to its upgraded service would 
allow existing applications to continue to operate were much lower than the aggregate costs to end users of updating 
their applications.
424
See supra notes 417, 422.
425
See, e.g., AT&T Comments at 8; CenturyLink Comments at 25; Verizon Reply at 8-9. 
426
See Emerging Wireline Order and Further Notice, 30 FCC Rcd at 9491, para. 229 (seeking comment on 
“whether similar functionalities as those provided by legacy services, such as medical alert monitors and credit card 
processing, are feasible with new technologies and whether new end-user equipment would be required”); see also,
e.g., supra note 417, 422 (discussing ILEC arguments against maintaining outdated functionalities); TIA Comments 
at 3 (“Legacy TDM platforms are typically already approaching a 40 year plus lifespan.  Essential expertise and 
equipment spares are becoming scarce.”). 
Federal Communications Commission FCC 16-90
62
b. Satisfying the Interoperability Standard for Key Applications
167. To maintain eligibility for potential automatic grant status, covered applicants must 
certify or make an appropriate showing that a replacement service offers interoperability and 
compatibility of the replacement service with the list of key applications and functionalities.  Conversely, 
applicants will not be required to demonstrate interoperability with applications and functionalities that 
are not on the list adopted today or as modified in the future.  We find this approach protects consumers’ 
access to applications and functionalities they deem valuable while also supporting the technology 
transitions and promoting applications and functionalities designed for newer technologies and platforms. 
168. When seeking a Section 214 discontinuance, applicants should only certify compliance 
with this prong if the replacement service allows the key application to function or perform in a 
substantially similar manner as it did on the legacy voice service.  We note that demonstrating 
applications’ adherence to established technical standards would be influential in demonstrating 
achievement of the compliance criteria discussed above.  Although we decline to adopt any specific 
standards, such as the as the ITU T.38 standard,
427
or the Managed Facilities-Based Voice Network 
(MFVN) standards proposed by ADT,
428
adherence to these standards would be persuasive evidence of 
compliance with this prong should the underlying certification be challenged.
429
  We also note that 64-
kbps encoding in accordance with ITU G.711 standard would allow a replacement service, such as a 
wireless replacement, to carry any signal that a customer can use today with a legacy TDM service.
430
  
This would also be persuasive evidence of compliance.  The Commission also supports any further 
industry standard testing efforts.
431
169. We disagree with incumbent LEC arguments that including interoperability as part of our 
adequate replacement analysis will “unreasonably shift” the costs of the technology transitions to 
incumbent LECs, or that interoperability undermines the forward-looking principles underlying tech 
transitions.
432
  We consider costs to users and providers, as well as other market-based factors, as part of 
our key application analysis, and thus we are mindful of such considerations in establishing a framework 
that balances consumer needs with seamless transitions.
                                                     
427
Emerging Wireline Order and Further Notice, 30 FCC Rcd at 9486, para. 221; see alsoMich. PSC Comments at 
5 (arguing the Commission should consider the ITU T.38 as a starting point for developing criteria); Joint States 
Reply at 8.
428
Emerging Wireline Order and Further Notice, 30 FCC Rcd at 9486, para. 221; see also ADT Comments at 3 (the 
“proposed MFVN rule sets the condition that would ensure that alarm system providers will be able to provide 
service without interruption during and after technology transitions benefiting millions of consumers.”)  But see
Verizon Comments at 13-14 (“[T]he Commission should not adopt ADT’s proposal to incorporate the Managed 
Facilities-Based Voice Network standards into its evaluation of service discontinuances; such network-standards 
have little relevance to the assessment of a specific service.”); AT&T Reply at 5 (arguing that adoption of proposed 
standards is “wholly unworkable”).
429
We disagree with CenturyLink argument that the Commission cannot adopt a standard proposed in the record as 
part of its list and certification development.  See CenturyLink Reply at 6-7.
430
Lower bit rate signals cannot carry all the information carried in a 64-kbps signal and therefore 64-kbps encoding 
in accordance with ITU G.711 would support applications such as fax, credit card transactions, and medical 
monitoring.  Analog signals for these applications are carried over copper loops and then through the digital interior 
of the PSTN after 64-kbps digital encoding in accordance with ITU G.711.  See ITU-T Recommendation G.711, 
Pulse Code Modulation (PCM) of Voice Frequencies, https://www.itu.int/rec/T-REC-G.711-198811-I/en (last 
visited June 7, 2016).
431
See, e.g., AARP Comments at 16 (discussing standards testing for continuity of operations).
432
See CenturyLink Reply at 2-3; see also Verizon Comments at 13; TIA Comments at 7.
Federal Communications Commission FCC 16-90
63
170. We acknowledge that incumbents LECs are concerned that we may require 
interoperability with TDM-based applications and functionalities in perpetuity.
433
We reiterate that the 
approach we announce today will sunset in 2025, as AT&T recommended, at which point the 
interoperability requirement will no longer be part of our Section 214 analysis.  By that time, consumers 
will have had ample time to transition to newer functionalities and applications.  Until then, of course, 
parties are always free to request changes by petition or submissions in the biennial review process.
D. Other Issues Regarding the Adequate Replacement Test
171. We also sought comment on whether to include:  (i) a partial or full exemption from the 
adequate replacement test for rural LECs, and (ii) affordability as a separate criteria under the test.  For 
the reasons stated below, we decline to adopt an exemption.  Because affordability already plays an 
important role in our pre-existing evaluation process and for the additional reasons stated below, we also 
decline to include an exemption or to consider affordability within the adequate replacement test.
1. No Rural LEC Exemption.
172. In the Emerging Wireline Further Notice, the Commission sought comment on whether 
rural LECs should be exempt from any criteria adopted for the adequate replacement test.
434
  Specifically, 
the Commission sought comment on whether all or some rural LECs should be exempt from some or all 
of the proposed criteria, and what the standard should be to qualify for such an exemption.
435
  Based on 
the record in this proceeding, we decline to provide any rural LEC exemption.  We find that rural LECs 
have offered no compelling justification as to why these criteria would not be just as beneficial to their 
customers as they would be to the customers of other 214 discontinuance applicants in demonstrating the 
adequacy of replacement services.  However, as discussed above, we are exempting small businesses, 
including rural LECs that satisfy the standard for this designation, from the network testing requirements 
we adopt today to remain eligible for automatic grant.
436
173. We recognize that rural LECs such as members of the Alaska Rural Coalition, the Rural 
Broadband Coalition, and others serve many of the highest cost areas in the country, and we appreciate 
their concerns about overly burdensome regulatory obligations.
437
  However, the broad exemption 
proposed by certain commenters, i.e., that rural LECs should not be subject to Section 214 discontinuance 
requirements for transitioning their networks from TDM to IP,
438
is not appropriate.
439
  Moreover, these 
commenters have presented no compelling arguments why they should not be subject to the proposed 
adequate replacement criteria.
440
  We emphasize that the Commission is committed to supporting quick 
                                                     
433
See, e.g., AT&T Comments at 13
434
Emerging Wireline Order and Further Notice, 30 FCC Rcd at 9492, para. 235.
435
Id. at 9492, para. 235.
436
See supra Section III.C.1.a.
437
See Alaska Rural Coalition Comments at 2-3; see also Rural Associations Comments at 6; GVNW Reply at 2. 
438
See, e.g., Alaska Rural Coalition Comments at 7-8; Rural Associations Reply at 4-5; GVNW Reply at 3.
439
The Further Notice did not seek comment on an overall rural LEC exemption of the Section 214 discontinuance 
requirement, but rather only a possible exemption from one prong of the Section 214 discontinuance test.  See 
Emerging Wireline Order and Further Notice, 30 FCC Rcd at 9492, para. 235.  
440
Commenters offer several arguments in favor of a rural LEC exemption but not with respect to the adequate 
replacement criteria at issue.  See, e.g., Rural Associations Reply at 4 (“At the very least, the Commission should 
make clear that RLECs would rarely, if ever, need to file applications for approval under Section 214 simply as a 
consequence of converting legacy TDM voice services to IP technology.”); see also GVNW Reply at 3.  We note 
that, commenter assertions to the contrary, there is no rural LEC exemption from Section 214.  Compare 47 U.S.C. 
§ 214 with 47 U.S.C. § 251(f) (providing for a qualified exemption for rural LECs from the provisions of Section 
(continued . . .)
Federal Communications Commission FCC 16-90
64
and efficient transitions to IP in rural areas, and we do not burden rural LECs uniquely or excessively.  
Nevertheless, we find that rural consumers, with often limited choice in service providers, should equally 
benefit from full consideration of the adequacy of any replacement service to ensure continued network 
performance and service quality, as well as access to critical applications, and interoperability with valued 
services.
441
2. Affordability
174. The evaluation of how potential price increases for alternative services could impact 
consumers is a critical part of the traditional five-factor test for evaluating discontinuance applications.
442
  
When applying the traditional five-factor test to determine whether a discontinuance would adversely 
affect the public convenience and necessity, the Commission can fully evaluate issues involving price and 
assess the needs of consumers who may only have access to a more expensive replacement service as part 
of a technology transition.
443
  When called upon to apply this standard in the context of technology 
transitions, the Commission’s focus will be on the price to consumers before and after a discontinuance 
resulting from transition to a newer technology.
444
  Numerous carriers have touted the reduced costs and 
improved capabilities of their next-generation services and networks,
445
and we anticipate that we will see 
those benefits accrue to consumers.  
(Continued from previous page)                                                            
251(c) of the Act); see also Alaska Rural Coalition Comments at 7 (“The ARC believes that the Section 251 rural 
exemption already exempts many ILECs from the proposed regulations.”).  
441
See Appalachian RC Comments at 2 (“ARC believes that rural areas should have comparable services at 
comparable prices to urban and suburban counterparts.”); see also AT&T Comments at 18 (“If the criteria are 
important enough for the Commission to impose on any carrier, they should be important enough to apply to rural 
carriers as well.”).
442
Verizon Tel. Cos. Section 63.71 Application to Discontinue Expanded Interconnection Service Through Physical 
Collocation, 18 FCC Rcd 22737, 22742, para. 8 (2003) (Verizon Expanded Interconnection Order) (listing the five 
factors considered in evaluating an application for discontinuance authority, including increased charges for 
alternative services, although this factor may be outweighed by other considerations).
443
See Verizon Expanded Interconnection Order, 18 FCC Rcd at 22751, para. 27 (stating that the Commission “will 
consider increased charges to consumers in determining whether grant of a service discontinuance adversely affects 
the public convenience and necessity.”).  We appreciate commenters’ suggestions on possible ways to evaluate price 
increases in the context of the technology transitions.  See, e.g., AARP Comments at 7 (“[T]he requesting carrier 
should be required to present data on existing service prices and representative customer bills associated with 
existing technologies, and identify service prices and projected customer bills under the alternative technology, 
including the projected impact of data caps, should data caps be associated with proposed alternative services.”); 
Cal. PUC Comments at 11 (suggesting that the transitioning provider should offer certain alternatives to disabled 
subscribers including “financial assistance and information on a source from which the subscriber can purchase . . . 
new” compatible equipment).
444
Cf. USTelecom June 20 Ex Parte Letter at 2-3 (“[A]ny ‘increased charges for alternative services’ [should] be 
measured against charges for existing alternative services available in the market, rather than the legacy service 
being replaced.”)
445
See, e.g., AT&T Comments at 2 (noting the IP network infrastructure is “far more capable and efficient”); 
Verizon Comments at 13 (“Just as customers have become accustomed to and benefitted from technology upgrades 
in Internet technology, with applications and devices updating frequently as they are improved, similar benefits will 
accrue from providers’ abilities to upgrade here.”); USTelecom Comments at 4 (“ILECs have systematically been 
moving away from legacy to modern networks for some time. This shift is both prudent (given the cost of 
maintaining copper infrastructure, especially where fiber plant exists), and necessary to achieving our short-term and 
longer-term broadband deployment goals.”).
Federal Communications Commission FCC 16-90
65
175. We nonetheless acknowledge the concerns expressed in the record about the potential for 
increased prices to customers for replacement services due to technology transitions,
446
and emphasize 
that the Commission is committed to ensuring that technology transitions do not unduly impact our most 
vulnerable citizens.
447
  Congress expressed its intent in the Act to make available communications service 
to “all the people of the United States,”
448
and more recently, in the Telecommunications Act of 1996, 
Congress asserted the principle that rates should be “affordable,” and that access should be provided to 
low-income consumers in all regions of the nation.
449
More broadly, we are taking actions to promote 
affordability of next-generation services in a variety of proceedings.
450
  Under the Commission’s rules, 
recipients of high-cost universal service support are required to offer voice and broadband services at 
rates that are reasonably comparable to offerings of comparable services in urban areas.
451
Consistent with 
these statutory objectives, affordability has always been—and will continue to be—a critical component 
of the Commission’s determination as to whether a particular discontinuance request is consistent the 
Commission’s obligation to ensure the public interest is protected.  
176. Nothing we adopt today limits that obligation.  While we do not include affordability as a 
separate criterion under the adequate replacement test we adopt today, affordability remains a critical part 
                                                     
446
See, e.g., Neb. PSC Comments at 3 (stating that affordability “is a critical component in keeping consumers 
connected”); AARP Comments at 5-7; Cal. PUC Comments at 11; CWA Comments at 4-6; Disability Coalition 
Comments at 8; Greenlining Comments at 4; Public Knowledge et al. Comments at 4-5; Joint States Reply at 15; see 
also NASUCA et al. Reply at 11; CAC June 10, 2016 Technology Transition Recommendation at 3; Civil Rights 
and Public Interest Organizations July 7, 2016 Ex Parte Letter at 2.  Electric utilities are concerned about increased 
costs to monitor and support replacement services over new technologies.  See Edison Comments at 9; Utilities 
Telecom Council Comments at 6.
447
A coalition of public interest and civil rights groups urges that we require applicants to conduct an impact 
assessment of the discontinuance on low-income people and people of color.  Civil Rights and Public Interest 
Organizations July 7, 2016 Ex Parte Letter at 2.  We decline to mandate such an impact analysis requirement as part 
of our framework for streamlined processing because we consider it unduly burdensome on applicants.  
448
Communications Act of 1934, Pub. L. No. 73-416, § 1 (1934) (codified as amended at 47 U.S.C. § 151) (creating 
the Federal Communications Commission).
449
Telecommunications Act of 1996, Pub. L. No. 104-104, § 101(a) (1996) (codified at 47 U.S.C. § 254(b)); see 
also Lifeline and Link Up Reform and Modernization et al., Third Report and Order, Further Report and Order, and 
Order on Reconsideration, 31 FCC Rcd 3962, 3964, para4 (2016) (Lifeline and Link Up Reform and Modernization 
Order); Federal-State Joint Board on Universal Service, Report and Order, 12 FCC Rcd 8776, 8955, para. 335 
(1997).
450
We recently modernized our Lifeline program by taking a variety of actions that work together to encourage 
more Lifeline providers to deliver supported broadband services as we transition from primarily supporting voice 
services to targeting support at modern broadband services.  Lifeline and Link Up Reform and Modernization Order, 
31 FCC Rcd at 3963-64, paras. 1-5.  In approving Charter’s acquisition of Time Warner Cable and Bright House, the 
Commission imposed a condition requiring the combined company to make available a discounted broadband 
service for low-income consumers.  Charter Order at 203, para. 453.  In the Order approving the AT&T/DIRECTV 
transaction, the Commission required as a condition of this transaction that the combined company make available 
an affordable, low-price standalone broadband service to low-income consumers in the combined AT&T/DIRECTV 
wireline footprint.  AT&T and DIRECTV for Consent to Assign or Transfer Control of Licenses and Authorizations, 
Memorandum Opinion and Order, 30 FCC Rcd 9131, 9279, para. 397 (2015).  Altice and Cablevision also 
committed to providing a low-income broadband package to all eligible customers in Cablevision’s footprint within 
fifteen months after closing.  Applications Filed by Altice N.V. and Cablevision Systems Corporation to Transfer 
Control of Authorizations from Cablevision Systems Corporation to Altice N.V., WC Docket No. 15-257, 
Memorandum Opinion and Order, FCC 16-485, para. 47 (May 3, 2016).
451
47 CFR § 54.308(a); Wireline Competition Bureau Announces Results of 2016 Urban Rate Survey for Fixed 
Voice and Broadband Services, Posting of Survey Data and Explanatory Notes, and Required Minimum Usage 
Allowance for ETCs Subject to Broadband Public Interest Obligations, Public Notice, 31 FCC Rcd 3393, 3395 
(WCB 2016); see also 47 U.S.C. § 254(b), 47 CFR § 54.313(a)(10), (12).
Federal Communications Commission FCC 16-90
66
of the Commission’s underlying evaluation of discontinuance requests.  Therefore, the cost of 
replacement services will be considered both before issuing the Public Notice and during the comment 
period.  As noted above, Bureau staff review applications for completeness, accuracy, and fulfillment of 
all predicate requirements, including providing notice to affected customers, before issuing the Public 
Notice.  In order to be considered for streamlined processing, applicants must include information about 
the price of replacement services compared to the legacy service in their application.  The Bureau will not 
place an application on streamlined processing if there is a material increase in price for the replacement 
service compared to the service to be discontinued.  Moreover, consumers affected by potential 
discontinuances and their advocates will continue to have the opportunity to offer comments and 
objections in the streamlined process.  Should we receive evidence of material price increases for 
comparable services, particularly those with a disproportionate impact on vulnerable populations, we 
would remove that application from consideration for automatic grant. 
177. Certain commenters also contend that the adequate replacement test should include a 
requirement that the discontinuance will not result in the loss of Lifeline service.
452
  We emphasize that 
the test we announce today does not change or disturb in any way the eligible telecommunications carrier 
(ETC) obligations of any incumbent carrier to offer Lifeline service.
453
In the recent Lifeline Reform 
Order, the Commission concluded that if an incumbent LEC is the only Lifeline provider in a given 
census block, it retains the ETC obligation to offer voice service.
454
That requirement exists independent 
of the Section 214 discontinuance process. Thus, if there is no other Lifeline provider in the community 
for which discontinuance is sought, the incumbent LEC cannot terminate voice service to Lifeline 
subscribers, and it must continue to offer Lifeline voice service to any qualifying Lifeline household.
455
E. Other Issues Related to the Discontinuance Process
178. In the Emerging Wireline Further Notice, we sought comment on several additional 
issues relating to the Section 214 discontinuance process, including whether to require consumer 
education materials and issues relating to the timing of notice, the form of notice, and providing notice to 
Tribal governments.  We will establish a requirement that an applicant offer an adequate customer 
outreach plan accompanied by adequate consumer education materials when discontinuing legacy retail 
services.  We further conclude that we should revise our rules to permit carriers to provide customers 
notice of discontinuances via email where those customers have previously agreed to receive notice from 
the carrier that way, or by any other means to which a customer has previously agreed.  We additionally 
will require all carriers to provide notice of discontinuance applications to Tribal governments in the state 
in which the discontinuance is proposed, in addition to the notice already required to state PUCs, state 
Governors, and the Department of Defense, thus aligning our discontinuance notice rules with our 
recently revised copper retirement rules.  Finally, we conclude that the record does not indicate that a 
change to the timing of notice provisions of Section 63.71 is necessary at this time.  
1. Consumer Education
179. In this section, we adopt the proposal set forth in the Emerging Wireline Further Notice
that an applicant must offer an adequate outreach plan and accompanying consumer education materials 
when discontinuing legacy retail services.
456
The establishment of clear guidance on education outreach 
                                                     
452
Civil Rights and Public Interest Organizations July 7, 2016 Ex Parte Letter at 2; Public Knowledge and CWA 
July 8, 2016 Ex Parte Letter at 3.  
453
See 47 U.S.C. § 214(e); see also 47 CFR § 54.205.  
454
See Lifeline and Link Up Reform and Modernization et al., Third Report and Order, Further Report and Order, 
and Order on Reconsideration, 31 FCC Rcd 3962, 4004, para. 121 (2016).
455
See id.  
456
Emerging Wireline Order and Further Notice, 30 FCC Rcd at 9491-92, para. 233.  
Federal Communications Commission FCC 16-90
67
materials will help promote seamless technology transitions, consumer choice, and the fulfillment of 
consumer information needs.
457
  We also find that the plan’s additional protections for vulnerable 
consumers, as well as the required hotline, further promote these values.
180. We explained in the Emerging Wireline Further Notice that discontinuance of an existing 
service on which customers rely creates a need for customer education
458
and thus proposed that 
discontinuance applications involving a technology transition must include an adequate consumer 
outreach plan.
459
  The Commission sought comment on what specific requirements should be imposed and 
how best to work with state commissions and Tribal governments on such education and outreach 
plans.
460
181. To help ensure seamless transitions, we conclude that an applicant must offer adequate
customer education materials and outreach plans when discontinuing a service as part of a technology 
transition.  We wish to establish guidelines, not impose an unduly rigid mandate that forecloses 
flexibility.  Nonetheless, those guidelines need to be clear enough to allow applicants to understand how 
to achieve compliance.
461
  To be clear, this consumer education requirement applies to the same universe 
                                                     
457
See, e.g., AARP Comments at 25; Cal. PUC Comments at 16-17; CWA Comments at 14; Greenlining Comments 
at 6; Pa. PUC Comments at 18-19; Public Knowledge et al. Comments at 3-4; see also Joint States Reply at 14-15; 
NASUCA et al. Reply at 15; Public Knowledge et al. Reply at 6-7; Civil Rights and Public Interest Organizations 
July 7, 2016 Ex Parte Letter at 2; Public Knowledge June 6 Ex Parte Letter at 1; cf. AT&T Comments at 17 
(asserting a consumer education and outreach plan is unnecessary); ITTA Comments at 13-14 (contending the 
Commission does not need to include adequacy if consumer education and outreach plans in the evaluation because 
“the [214] application process already entails provision of notice to affected customer and other stakeholder”).  The 
CAC recommends that the Commission “provide consumer information about the Technology Transition on its 
Consumer Help Center webpage and by issuing additional Wireline Consumer Guides.”  CAC June 10, 2016 
Technology Transition Recommendation at 3.  It also recommends that the Commission “conduct significant 
outreach to organizations that work with consumers, older adults, low-income households, non-English-speaking
consumers, and deaf, hard-of-hearing, blind, sight-impaired, and deaf-blind consumers, to have these organizations 
assist the Commission in educating the public about the Technology Transition.”  Id. at 4.  Our Consumer and 
Governmental Affairs Bureau regularly provides educational materials to the public.  See Consumer and 
Governmental Affairs Bureau, Consumer Guide, Tech Transitions:  From Copper Wires to Fiber Optics, 
https://www.fcc.gov/consumers/guides/tech-transitions-copper-fiber-optics.
458
Emerging Wireline Order and Further Notice, 30 FCC Rcd at 9491, para. 233 (noting the Commission’s 
continued concern about customer education around technology transitions); see also Emerging Wireline Notice, 29 
FCC Rcd at 15001-02, paras. 74-75.  The Commission further explained that it was for this reason that, in the 
January 2014 Technology Transitions Order, the Commission set forth an expectation that providers conducting any 
experiment would “engage in customer outreach and education efforts.”  Emerging Wireline Order and Further 
Notice, 30 FCC Rcd at 9491-92, para. 233 (citing January 2014 Technology Transitions Order, 29 FCC Rcd at 
1436, para. 6).
459
Emerging Wireline Order and Further Notice, 30 FCC Rcd at 9492, para. 233. 
460
Id. at 9492, para. 233.
461
For example, AARP, with support from various consumer advocacy groups, asserts that notification materials 
should clearly address:  (i) the changes to the network; (ii) the impact on existing services, applications, and 
functionalities that are purchased by individual customers, including whether all existing services, applications, and 
functionalities will be available following the transition; (iii) any impact on the price of services, applications, and 
functionalities associated with the technology transition; and (iv) additional points of contact for individuals with 
disabilities, as well as information on the transition of specialized systems that are more likely to be utilized by those 
with disabilities, such as health and personal monitoring, access to emergency services, and the potential need to 
replace legacy devices.  AARP Comments at 25-27; see also CWA Comments at 14; CWA Reply at 5; Public 
Knowledge et al. Reply at 6.  AARP and Public Knowledge also recommend that additional educational material 
should be given to customers required to utilize services from a third-party carrier they did not choose as a result of 
the Section 214 discontinuance.  AARP Comments at 26; see also Public Knowledge et al. Reply at 6.  Civil rights 
and public interest groups assert that the Commission “should require any consumer education notice to include a 
(continued . . .)
Federal Communications Commission FCC 16-90
68
of discontinuance applications as the new adequate replacement test, and the procedures governing all 
other discontinuance applications are undisturbed.  Specifically, an adequate customer outreach plan 
must, at a minimum, involve: (i) the development and dissemination of educational materials provided to 
all customers affected containing specific information pertinent to the transition, as specified in detail 
below; (ii) the creation of a telephone hotline and the option to create an additional interactive and 
accessible service to answer questions regarding the transition; and (iii) appropriate training of staff to 
field and answer consumer questions about the transition.  All aspects of the consumer outreach plan, 
including the educational materials, the telephone hotline, and a carrier’s contact information must be 
provided in accessible and usable formats.
462
Moreover, to ensure that customers understand the notice 
that they receive, any applicant who in the ordinary course of business regularly uses a language other 
than English in its communications with customers must provide the education materials to customers in 
both English and that regularly used language.
463
  The Commission will consider a carrier’s certification 
of its compliance with these requirements as part of its overall analysis of whether granting the 
application would be in the public interest.
182. First, similar to the DTV transition outreach requirements, the required educational 
materials to customers may be provided as a “bill stuffer,” an information section on the bill itself, or as a 
discrete communication sent in the manner most commonly used to communicate with the customer.
464
  
The materials must be delivered in accessible and usable formats
465
and include, at minimum:  (i) a 
general description of the changes to the service, written in a non-technical manner that can be readily 
(Continued from previous page)                                                            
clear explanation of how a consumer can register his or her concern about the proposed discontinuance of legacy 
service with the FCC . . . .”  Civil Rights and Public Interest Organizations July 7, 2016 Ex Parte Letter at 2.  The 
public notice required under Section 63.71(a) already requires applicants to provide consumers with a contact 
address where consumers can provide comments or objections, which applies to all discontinuances of domestic 
services.  See 47 CFR § 63.71(a)(5).
462
See, e.g., 47 CFR §§ 6.11 (accessible information requirements for telecommunications service providers and
equipment manufacturers), 14.20(d) (accessible information requirements for advanced communications service
providers and equipment manufacturers); see also AARP Comments at 26-27; Civil Rights and Public Interest 
Organizations July 7, 2016 Ex Parte Letter at 2.
463
See Civil Rights and Public Interest Organizations July 7, 2016 Ex Parte Letter at 2 (“The Commission should 
require consumer education in languages other than English and in a manner that can be used by people with 
disabilities.”); Public Knowledge and CWA July 12, 2016 Ex Parte Letter at 6 (stating that as part of the community 
outreach plan, the Commission should require applicants to “provide information in languages other than English 
that are spoken in the community of service”).
464
DTV Consumer Education Initiative, Report and Order, 23 FCC Rcd 4134, 4160, para. 53 (2008).  We recognize 
that certain customers do not receive a monthly bill (e.g., those using auto-payment plans), and thus provide a 
separate option.  As billing practices change over time, the way in which customers receive educational materials is 
subject to change as well.  
465
CWA Comments at 14; see also AARP Comments at 26-27; Public Knowledge et al. Reply at 6; Civil Rights and 
Public Interest Organizations July 7, 2016 Ex Parte Letter at 2.  Greenlining and NASUCA assert the Commission 
should evaluate whether a carrier’s customer education and outreach plan is provided in other languages.  
Greenlining Comments at 6; see also NASUCA et al. Reply at 15 (recommending that any customer education plan 
be “at a minimum in any language that the customer’s state publishes in voter guides”); Public Knowledge et al. 
Reply at 6-7 (recommending the Commission utilize FTC guidelines if it “decides to mandate specific language 
standards for consumer notification”); Civil Rights and Public Interest Organizations July 7, 2016 Ex Parte Letter at 
2 (asserting the “Commission should require consumer education in languages other than English.”); Public 
Knowledge and CWA July 12, 2016 Ex Parte Letter at 6 (stating that providers who make promotional material 
available in non-English languages “demonstrate[ ] (a) that there is a sufficiently large number of primary speakers 
in that language to warrant the expense of preparing non-English marketing materials; and, (b) the carrier has the 
capacity to perform the translation”).
Federal Communications Commission FCC 16-90
69
understood by the average consumer;
466
(ii) the impact on existing applications and functionalities that are 
liked to be purchased by individual customers, including whether such applications, and functionalities 
will be available following the transition;
467
(iii) any change in the price of the service and impact on 
applications and functionalities which run on the service to be discontinued;
468
and (iv) points of contact
who will address technology transitions issues,
469
as much as is practicable.
470
  If the applicant is relying 
on a third party service, we will further require the applicant to provide:  (i) contact information for that 
third party and (ii) upon inquiry from a consumer, information regarding the interoperability and 
compatibility of applications benefiting individuals with disabilities that run on the applicant legacy voice 
service.
183. We also encourage, but do not require, applicants to submit their consumer education 
materials to the relevant state commission(s) and/or Tribal government.
471
  We emphasize that there is an
important role for state commissions and Tribal governments in promoting consumer education around 
the discontinuance of legacy voice services.
472
As we noted in the Emerging Wireline Order in the 
context of copper retirement, states traditionally have played a critical role in consumer protection, and 
we strongly encourage carriers seeking to discontinue legacy voice services to partner with state public 
service commissions, Tribal entities, and other state and local entities to ensure consumers understand and 
are prepared for the transition.
473
  We will not, however, impose a mandate regarding outreach to state 
commissions and Tribal entities because we believe it would unduly burden both industry and state and 
Tribal entities.
474
184. Second, the applicant is required to provide an accessible
475
telephone hotline staffed at 
least 12 hours per day, including between the hours of 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., to answer questions regarding 
the discontinuance,
476
as some individuals with disabilities cannot afford Internet access, or may lack a 
                                                     
466
See AARP Comments at 26; see also CWA Reply at 5; Public Knowledge et al. Reply at 6.
467
See AARP Comments at 26; see also CWA Reply at 5; Public Knowledge et al. Reply at 6.
468
See AARP Comments at 26; see also CWA Reply at 5; Public Knowledge et al. Reply at 6; Civil Rights and 
Public Interest Organizations July 7, 2016 Ex Parte Letter at 2; Public Knowledge et al. July 7, 2016 Ex Parte Letter 
at 2-3. 
469
See AARP Comments 26-27; see also CWA Comments at 14; Public Knowledge et al. Reply at 6; Civil Rights 
and Public Interest Organizations July 7, 2016 Ex Parte Letter at 2; Public Knowledge and CWA July 8 Ex Parte
Letter at 2-3.
470
We recognize that third parties unrelated to the applicant provide many applications that run on the service.  We 
would encourage third parties to cooperate with these consumer education efforts, but acknowledge that access to 
third party information may not be possible.  
471
See Pa. PUC Comments at 18-19; Joint States Reply at 14-15; see also Cal. PUC Comments at 16-17; Public 
Knowledge et al. Reply at 6 (noting “effective consumer education will require coordination among multiple 
players” and the Commission “must reach out to a broad range of community organizations, including non-profits 
and state and local governments in order to achieve broad dissemination of critical information.”); NARUC July 7, 
2016 Ex Parte Letter at 2.
472
Emerging Wireline Order and Further Notice, 30 FCC Rcd at 9409, para. 64.  
473
Id.  
474
Pa. PUC Comments at 18-19; see also Joint States Reply at 14-15. 
475
Supra note 462.
476
See Public Knowledge et al. Comments at 3 (“At a minimum, consumers should have a well-publicized method 
of contacting human beings who can answer these questions.  A single mailed letter or online FAQ is unable to 
answer the specific and often individualized questions that consumers will have during the transition.”); Civil Rights 
and Public Interest Organizations July 7, 2016 Ex Parte Letter at 2.
Federal Communications Commission FCC 16-90
70
reliable means of Internet access in their area.
477
  The applicant also has the option additionally to provide 
other interactive and accessible services (e.g., an online chat with a customer service representative) to 
answer questions regarding the discontinuance.
478
  We expect applicants already have strong business 
incentives to answer customers’ questions in a competent and timely manner.
479
185. Third, an applicant must designate staff trained to assist consumers with disabilities with 
the complex disability access issues related to the transition.
480
  The method for contacting these staff 
must be posted on an applicant’s website.
481
  To accommodate consumers who may not be able to access 
the Internet, such contact information should be also publicized via alternate means that are up to the 
applicant’s discretion, such as in the required education materials included with billing statements, 
promotional materials, or publications disseminated by national consumer organizations.
482
  
186. The establishment of clear guidance on education outreach materials promotes the 
smoothest possible technology transitions, consumer choice, and the fulfillment of consumer information 
needs.  Additional protections for vulnerable consumers, as well as the required hotline that will ensure
that questions will be answered in a competent and timely manner, further promote these values.
Moreover, we do not find these requirements to be overly burdensome as much of the information we are 
requiring is similar to the information required through copper retirement notices under the rules adopted 
in the Emerging Wireline Order.
483
2. Email Notice
187. Based on the record in this proceeding, we conclude that we should revise our rules to 
explicitly permit carriers to provide customers notice of discontinuances via email where those customers 
have previously agreed to receive notice from the carrier by that method.  The Commission’s rules 
currently require a carrier planning to discontinue, impair, or reduce service as defined under Section 214 
of the Act to notify all affected customers, the governor of the state affected, that state’s public utility 
commission, and the Secretary of Defense.
484
  In the Emerging Wireline Further Notice, the Commission 
sought comment on whether to revise these rules to allow email-based or other forms of electronic notice 
of discontinuance to customers, including whether alternative forms of notice should be permissible only 
with customer consent and, if so, what methods to obtain consent should be permissible.
485
188. The record confirms our belief that email is the preferred method of notice for many 
carriers seeking discontinuance, as well as for consumers.
486
  We also explicitly permit carriers to provide 
                                                     
477
See Disability Coalition Comments at 4.
478
See Public Knowledge et al. Comments at 3; Public Knowledge et al. Reply at 6.
479
Public Knowledge et al. Comments at 3-4; Public Knowledge et al. Reply at 6.
480
See, e.g., AARP Comments at 26-27.
481
Supra note 462.
482
Id. 
483
Emerging Wireline Order and Further Notice, 30 FCC Rcd at 9400-05, paras. 46-55.  
484
47 CFR § 63.71(a).  A copy of the relevant Section 214 application also must be submitted to the public utility 
commission, governor, and secretary of defense.  Id.
485
Emerging Wireline Order and Further Notice, 30 FCC Rcd at 9394-95, para. 239.
486
See, e.g., AARP Comments at 27; AT&T Comments at 17; Cal. PUC Comments at 17; Joint States Reply at 16; 
NASUCA et al. Reply at 15; see also Emerging Wireline Order and Further Notice, 30 FCC Rcd at 9394-95, para. 
239.  The Michigan PSC proposes requiring methods of verifying receipt of the emails.  Mich. PSC Comments at 
13.
Federal Communications Commission FCC 16-90
71
notice by any other alternative method to which the customer has previously agreed.
487
  In both instances, 
the same provisos adopted in connection with the recently-adopted copper retirement rules shall apply.  
For example, notice must be made in a clear and conspicuous manner; and may not contradict or be 
inconsistent with any other information with which it is presented.
488
  In addition, (a) the incumbent LEC 
must have previously obtained express, verifiable, prior approval from retail customers to send notices via 
e-mail regarding their service in general, or planned network changes in particular; (b) an incumbent LEC 
must ensure that the subject line of the message clearly and accurately identifies the subject matter of the 
e-mail; and (c) any email notice returned to the carrier as undeliverable will not constitute the provision of 
notice to the customer.
489
  As in the copper retirement context, this requirement should be sufficient to 
ensure that customers receive notice, without imposing unnecessary additional burdens on incumbent 
LECs.
490
  This outcome affords carriers greater flexibility in providing notice of discontinuances and 
establishes a measure of symmetry between the email notice requirements for discontinuances and the 
copper retirement rules.  
3. Notice to Tribal Governments
189. We conclude that we should revise our rules to require all carriers to provide notice of 
discontinuance applications to any federally-recognized Tribal Nations with authority over the Tribal 
lands in which the discontinuance, reduction, or impairment of service is proposed, in addition to the 
notice already required to state PUCs, state Governors, and the Department of Defense. Commenters who 
addressed this issue support requiring carriers to provide such notice to Tribal governments.
491
  
190. In the Emerging Wireline Order, the Commission extended notice of copper retirements 
to include notice to the public utility commission and the governor of the state in which the retirement 
will occur and to the Secretary of Defense, consistent with the current Section 214 discontinuance rules.
492
  
It also extended notice of copper retirements to include notice to affected Tribal governments so they may 
prepare for network changes affecting their communities.
493
  The Further Notice sought comment on 
requiring notice to Tribal governments in the state in which a Section 214 discontinuance is proposed, 
regardless of the reason for the discontinuance, as part of the application process.
494
191. We will adopt the proposed extension of our notice requirements.  This outcome aligns 
the notice requirements for Section 214 discontinuance applications and copper retirement network 
changes,
495
imposes the same requirement on all carriers serving Tribal lands, and places Tribal 
governments in all states in a position to prepare and address any concerns from consumers in their Tribal 
                                                     
487
AT&T Comments at 17; see also Cal. PUC Comments at 17; NASUCA et al. Reply at 15.  But see AARP 
Comments at 27 (“Absent specifics regarding the potential ‘other forms of electronic or other notice,’ AARP does 
not support the use of alternative methods.”).  We decline, however, to afford carriers the blanket ability to give 
notice to customers in whatever form those carriers believe is most efficient, regardless of whether the customer has 
agreed to that method.  See, e.g., Alaska Rural Coalition Comments at 10-11.
488
See Emerging Wireline Order and Further Notice, 30 FCC Rcd at 9395-9402, paras. 39-51, and 9407, paras. 60-
61; see also NASUCA et al. Reply at 15.
489
Id.; see also 47 CFR § 51.332(b)(3).
490
Emerging Wireline Order and Further Notice, 30 FCC Rcd at 9407, para. 60.
491
See, e.g., Mich. PSC Comments at 13; Neb. PSC Comments at 3; Joint States Reply at 16; Alaska Rural Coalition 
Reply at 7-8 (supporting a requirement to notify Tribal governments, but urging flexibility in notice requirements); 
CAC June 10, 2016 Technology Transition Recommendation at 4.
492
Emerging Wireline Order and Further Notice, 30 FCC Rcd at 9411, para. 70.
493
Id. at 9411-13, para. 70.  
494
Id. at 9495, para. 240.
495
See id. at 9411-13, paras. 70-71.
Federal Communications Commission FCC 16-90
72
communities.  We decline to adopt the Alaska Rural Coalition’s request for flexibility in Alaska.
496
  The 
coalition has provided no persuasive reason why such flexibility is in the public interest and offered no 
alternative to our proposed rule. We therefore reject its request. 
4. Timing of Notice
192. In the Emerging Wireline Further Notice, the Commission sought further comment on 
whether it should require advance notice of discontinuance,
497
whether it should update the earliest date 
on which the Commission may grant automatic approval, and whether to align timing for notices of 
discontinuance with that of the newly revised copper retirement notices.
498
  Based on the record in this 
proceeding, we conclude that there is no evidence of actual harm.
499
  We therefore decline to revise 
Section 63.71 to require advance notice of a planned discontinuance or to lengthen the discontinuance 
process by changing the existing timeline for filing objections and/or allowing automatic grant.
500
  Despite 
two opportunities to do so, parties advocating for a longer notice period have not provided specific 
examples of harms posed by the present notice timelines.
501
  We nonetheless recognize that large-scale 
technology transition-related discontinuances have not yet occurred.  Thus, while we do not take action 
                                                     
496
Alaska Rural Coalition Comments at 11-12.  
497
Section 63.71 sets out two timelines that are relevant to applicants and customers with respect to Section 214(a) 
discontinuance applications.  47 CFR § 63.71(a)-(b), (e) (stating that a carrier shall file its 214 application “on or 
after the date on which notice has been given to all affected customers,” that customers have until on or before the 
15th day after the Commission releases public notice of the proposed discontinuance for non-dominant carriers and 
on or before the 30th day for dominant carriers to file objections, and that an application can be granted on the 31st 
day after filing for non-dominant carriers and the 60th day for dominant carriers, unless the Commission removes 
the application from streamlined processing and notifies the applicant that the grant will not be automatically 
effective).
498
Emerging Wireline Order and Further Notice, 30 FCC Rcd at 9494, para. 238.  The scope of the timing issues 
raised in the Emerging Wireline Order and Further Notice is limited to discontinuances occurring in the context of a 
technology transition.  See Emerging Wireline Notice, 29 FCC Rcd at 15014-15, para. 113; Emerging Wireline 
Order and Further Notice, 30 FCC Rcd at 9493, paras. 237-38.
499
Commenters requesting longer advance notice periods for carrier-customers, utilities, and other retail customers 
express generalized concerns regarding potential harm that could be caused to competitors and consumers, but have 
not offered specific evidence of actual harm caused by the notice provisions in Section 63.71.  See, e.g., CWA 
Comments at 14-15; Disability Coalition Comments at 12; INCOMPAS Comments at 3-8; Mich. PSC Comments at 
12-13; Neb. PSC Comments at 3; NRECA Comments at 8; Preferred Long Distance Comments at 6; Utilities 
Telecom Council Comments at 4-5; Edison Reply at 6; Joint States Reply at 16; Windstream Reply at 8-9; XO 
Reply at 2-7; Civil Rights and Public Interest Organizations July 7, 2016 Ex Parte Letter at 2; Public Knowledge 
and CWA July 8 Ex Parte Letter at 1-2. Unlike the Emerging Wireline Order, where the record on the copper 
retirement notice period reflected numerous instances in which competitors and their customers suffered actual harm 
due to the notice period, commenters in this proceeding have not offered specific evidence of actual harm caused by 
the discontinuance notice provisions in Section 63.71.  See Emerging Wireline Order and Further Notice, 30 FCC 
Rcd at 9389, para. 28.
500
Incumbent LEC commenters oppose extending notice requirements.  See, e.g., Alaska Rural Coalition Comments 
at 10; CenturyLink Comments at 35; AT&T Reply at 7-8; CenturyLink Reply at 13; Verizon Reply at 9-10.  
Incumbent LECs have specifically argued that the Commission should not extend the notice period as there is no 
indication that the current process is not working—i.e., commenters have not provided evidence of actual harm.  
See, e.g., ITTA Comments at 4; see also USTelecom Comments at 14-15.  
501
See Emerging Wireline Notice, 29 FCC Rcd at 15014, para. 113; see also Emerging Wireline Order and Further 
Notice, 30 FCC Rcd at 9493-94, paras. 237-38.
Federal Communications Commission FCC 16-90
73
today to revise Section 63.71, we emphasize that the Commission may revisit this issue if presented with 
evidence of such a need in the future.
502
  
F. Non-Substantive Change to Code of Federal Regulations 
193. We also make a technical correction to our codified network change notification rules.  
Our current rules require that public notices of network changes, which include copper retirement notices, 
be labeled with one of a variety of enumerated titles, “as appropriate.”
503
  In the Emerging Wireline 
Order, we adopted a unique set of network notification requirements specific to incumbent LEC 
retirement of copper facilities.
504
  However, none of the titles enumerated in Section 51.329(c) relate 
specifically to copper retirement notices.
505
  To alleviate this potential confusion and to allow the public to 
readily differentiate copper retirement notices from all other types of network change disclosures, we 
adopt two new titles to those already included in Section 51.329(c):  “Public Notice of Copper Retirement 
Under Rule 51.332” and “Certification of Public Notice of Copper Retirement Under Rule 51.332.”  This 
action is consistent with our desire to ensure that everyone potentially affected by a planned copper 
retirement “has the information they need to adapt to an evolving communications environment.”
506
  
G. Clarification of Copper Retirement Notice Rules
194. We also clarify the intersection between the requirements of our general network change 
disclosure rules and our specific copper retirement rules.  Under the recently adopted revised copper 
retirement rules, copper retirement notices to retail customers must include “[t]he name and telephone 
number of a contact person who can supply additional information regarding the planned changes.”
507
  
Those same notices must also include “a toll-free number for a customer service help line” in the requisite 
neutral statement of the services available to the incumbent LEC’s retail customers.
508
  To alleviate 
potential confusion regarding whether an incumbent LEC must include the name and phone number of a 
specific individual in copper retirement notices in addition to a toll-free number for a customer service 
center, we clarify that copper retirement notices to enterprise customers must include the name and 
address of a contact person who can provide additional information regarding the planned change, as 
required by Section 51.327(a)(2).
509
  For copper retirement notices to mass market customers,
510
however, 
                                                     
502
See Emerging Wireline Order and Further Notice, 30 FCC Rcd at 9389, para. 28; see also USTelecom 
Comments at 14 (noting that it does not generally oppose revisions to these rules to the extent that a specific issue 
needs to be addressed).
503
47 CFR § 51.329(c).
504
See generally Emerging Wireline Order and Further Notice, 30 FCC Rcd at 9383-418, paras. 15-78.
505
See 47 CFR § 51.329(c)(1).  
506
Emerging Wireline Order and Further Notice, 30 FCC Rcd at 9381, para. 12.
507
47 CFR §§ 51.327(a)(2), 51.332(c)(2)(i)(A).
508
47 CFR § 51.332(c)(2)(i)(C).
509
Enterprise customers are all business customers other than those considered very small.  See Review of the 
Section 251 Unbundling Obligations of Incumbent Local Exchange Carriers et al., CC Docket No. 01-338 et al., 
Report and Order and Order on Remand and Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, 18 FCC Rcd 16978, 17063, 
paras. 128-29 (2003) (Triennial Review Order), corrected by Triennial Review Order Errata, 18 FCC Rcd 19020, 
aff’d in part, remanded in part, vacated in part, United States Telecom Ass’n v. FCC, 359 F.3d 554, 564-93 (D.C. 
Cir. 2004) (USTA II), cert. denied, 543 U.S. 925 (2004), on remand, Unbundled Access to Network Elements et al., 
WC Docket No. 04-313 et al., Order on Remand, 20 FCC Rcd 2533, 2541, para. 12 (2004), aff’d, Covad Commc’ns 
Co. v. FCC, 450 F.3d 528 (D.C. Cir. 2006).
510
“Mass market customers consist of residential customers and very small business customers.”  Triennial Review 
Order, 18 FCC Rcd at 17063, para. 127.  “Very small businesses typically purchase the same kinds of services as do 
residential customers, and are marketed to, and provided service and customer care, in a similar manner.  Therefore, 
we will usually include very small businesses in the mass market for our analysis.”  Id. at 17063, para. 127 n.432.
Federal Communications Commission FCC 16-90
74
inclusion of the toll free number for a customer service help line required by Section 51.332(c)(2)(i)(C) 
will be sufficient to satisfy the requirements of Section 51.327(a)(2).  We find this distinction appropriate 
because enterprise customers, other than those that are very small, have more specialized 
telecommunications needs than mass market customers.
511
IV. ORDER ON RECONSIDERATION
195. In response to a Petition for Reconsideration filed by TelePacific,
512
we revise the 
Commission’s rules to make a competitive LEC’s application for discontinuance deemed granted on the 
effective date of any copper retirement that made the discontinuance unavoidable, so as long as the 
discontinuance application is filed at least 40 days prior to the retirement effective date.  This will address 
a gap in our rules that left competitive LECs potentially vulnerable to violating our discontinuance rules 
for reasons entirely outside of their control.  We thus grant in part TelePacific’s Petition for 
Reconsideration, but deny it to the extent it seeks more extensive relief, as discussed below.
A. Background
196. The Commission addresses changes in carriers’ facilities and changes to their services 
through separate rules.  Changes to a carriers’ facilities are subject to the Commission’s network change 
disclosure rules, which are notice-based.
513
  Changes to a carrier’s service, however, are subject to the 
Commission’s service discontinuance rules, which require Commission approval.
514
  
197. In the Emerging Wireline Order, the Commission revised its copper retirement notice 
rules to require 180 days’ advance notice to interconnecting entities and non-residential retail customers 
and 90 days’ advance notice to residential retail customers.
515
  The Commission also eliminated the 
existing objection procedure and instead adopted a requirement that incumbent LECs communicate in 
good faith with interconnecting entities seeking additional information to assist them in accommodating 
the planned copper retirement.
516
  
198. On November 18, 2015, U.S. TelePacific Corp. (TelePacific) filed a Petition for 
Reconsideration of the Emerging Wireline Order to address what it perceives to be a gap between the 
Commission’s copper retirement and discontinuance processes that could require a competitive LEC to 
seek Commission authorization to discontinue broadband service to its end user customers when a 
                                                     
511
See id. at 17063, paras. 128-29.  The Commission has previously found that small and medium enterprise 
customers tend to be “very sensitive to reliability and quality of service issues” because “their ability to do business 
may depend on their telecommunications networks.”  Id. at 17063, para. 128.  It further found that “[l]arge 
enterprises demand extensive, sophisticated packages of services.  Reliability of service is essential to these 
customers, and they often expect guarantees of service quality.”  Id. at 17063, para. 129. 
512
See Petition for Clarification of U.S. TelePacific Corp., GN Docket No. 13-5 et al. (filed Nov. 18, 2015) 
(TelePacific Petition or Petition).
513
See 47 U.S.C. § 251(c)(5); 47 CFR § 51.325 et seq.
514
See 47 U.S.C. § 214(a); 47 CFR § 63.60 et seq.  All references to the Section 214 discontinuance process 
encompass the reduction or impairment of service under Section 214 as well.
515
Emerging Wireline Order and Further Notice, 30 FCC Rcd at 9390, 9407-08, paras. 29, 62.  Under the prior 
rules, a carrier could provide as little as 90 days’ notice of a planned copper retirement to interconnecting telephone 
exchange service providers, and it was not required to provide any notice to retail customers.  47 CFR § 51.333(a), 
(c) (2015).
516
Emerging Wireline Order and Further Notice, 30 FCC Rcd at 9391-92, paras. 31-32; see also 47 CFR 
§ 51.332(d)(9).  We did not eliminate the objection procedure as it applies to short-term notices for non-copper 
retirement network changes.  See Emerging Wireline Order and Further Notice, 30 FCC Rcd at 9391, n.116; 47 
CFR § 51.333(c) (effective Mar. 24, 2016).
Federal Communications Commission FCC 16-90
75
planned retirement would cause the loss of access to copper facilities over which it provides broadband 
service.
517
  
199. TelePacific provides high-speed broadband service to small- and medium-sized 
businesses, schools, health care clinics, and community anchor institutions.
518
  It does so using last-mile 
access purchased from incumbent LECs.
519
  According to TelePacific, an incumbent LEC retirement of 
any portion of the copper loops on which TelePacific relies to provide its Ethernet over Copper (EoC) 
service will likely render TelePacific unable to continue to provide that service.  
200. Among other problems,
520
TelePacific could unavoidably find itself out of compliance 
with the Commission’s rules if the copper retirement becomes effective, and the incumbent LEC cuts off 
access to its copper before the Commission approves TelePacific’s discontinuance application.
521
  The 
Commission’s rules require that a carrier file its Section 214 discontinuance application “on or after the 
date on which notice has been given to all affected customers.”
522
  The rules provide for automatic grant 
of applications on the 31st day after filing for non-dominant carriers and the 60th day after filing for 
dominant carriers, unless the Commission removes the application from streamlined processing.
523
    The 
Commission may in its discretion remove the discontinuance application from streamlined processing.  
Thus, the application could remain pending at the time the copper retirement becomes effective.  These 
potential outcomes, TelePacific contends, arise from an unintended defect in the competitive safety net 
the Commission created in the Emerging Wireline Order by the combination of the 180-day copper 
                                                     
517
See generally TelePacific Petition.  While the Petition is styled a petition for clarification, at least one of the 
forms of relief it seeks would require a modification to the Commission’s rules.  As a result, the Commission’s 
Wireline Competition Bureau determined that the Petition is more properly treated as a petition for reconsideration, 
for the purpose of seeking public input.  See 80 Fed. Reg. 76923 (Dec. 11, 2015).
518
TelePacific Petition at 3.
519
Id. at 3.
520
TelePacific asserts that loss of access to bare copper loops or feeder by means of an incumbent LEC copper 
retirement creates the potential for numerous other problems.  A competitive LEC could be forced to preemptively 
file a discontinuance application because of its likely inability to meet the broadband service needs of its end user 
customers.  Id. at 7; see also XO Comments to Petition for Recon at 3 (noting that after reviewing the potential 
impact of an incumbent LEC planned copper retirement, XO “may determine that it is infeasible to continue 
providing services to customers in the area that will be impacted by the copper retirement” and that it thus would 
need to file a discontinuance application).  But see Verizon Opposition to Petition for Recon at 3 (contending that 
TelePacific’s concerns are speculative); ADTRAN Opposition to Petition for Recon at 2 (contending that 
TelePacific’s concerns are speculative); AT&T Reply to Petition for Recon at 23 (agreeing with Verizon’s 
assessment of TelePacific’s concerns).  Moreover, TelePacific argues that by having no choice but to start the 
discontinuance process prematurely, the competitive LEC could be forced out of the market because it would likely 
start losing customers without being given a reasonable opportunity to make alternative arrangements.  TelePacific 
Petition at 8.  But see Verizon Opposition to Petition for Recon at 3 (noting that incumbent LECs “may continue to 
offer services over other facilities that could meet the need of competing carriers”); ADTRAN Opposition to 
Petition for Recon at 3-4 (noting the availability of alternative technologies).  Also, an end user customer could be 
faced with lack of access to the level of broadband service it needs, because, according to TelePacific, the incumbent 
likely will not have such service available.  See Letter from Tamar E. Finn, Counsel for TelePacific, to Marlene H. 
Dortch, Secretary, FCC, GN Docket No. 13-5 et al., at 1 (filed Feb. 11, 2016) (TelePacific Feb. 11 Ex Parte Letter at 
1; Letter from Tamar E. Finn, Counsel for TelePacific, to Marlene H. Dortch, Secretary, FCC, GN Docket No. 13-5 
et al., at 1-2 (filed Mar. 7, 2016) (TelePacific March 7 Ex Parte Letter).
521
TelePacific Petition at 5.
522
47 CFR § 63.71(b).  
523
47 CFR § 63.71(e).  Today’s declaratory ruling will eliminate this timeline distinction as to interstate switched 
access services.  See supra Section II.D.2.c.
Federal Communications Commission FCC 16-90
76
retirement notice period and the interim reasonably comparable wholesale access rule,
524
“work[ing] to 
the benefit of ILECs and to the detriment of customer choice and competition.”
525
201. To address potential harm to its competitors and consumers, TelePacific asserts that the 
Commission should clarify and harmonize the copper retirement and discontinuance processes.
526
  It 
recommends either:  (i) automatically granting a Section 214 application on the date of a copper 
retirement as long as the application is submitted at least 60 days before implementation of a copper 
retirement; or (ii) ”requir[ing] a delay in the copper retirement until the competitive LEC’s discontinuance 
no longer creates ‘an unreasonable degree of customer hardship.’”
527
  Competitive LEC commenters 
support the Petition, in whole or in part.
528
  Incumbent LEC commenters oppose TelePacific’s request to 
delay a copper retirement.
529
  
B. Discussion  
202. For the reasons discussed below, we conclude that we should revise the Commission’s 
rules to harmonize the discontinuance and newly-revised copper retirement processes.  Accordingly, if a
competitive LEC files a Section 214(a) discontinuance application based on an incumbent LEC’s copper 
retirement notice in situations where the incumbent is not discontinuing TDM-based service, the 
competitive LEC’s application will be automatically granted on the effective date of the copper retirement 
as long as it satisfies two conditions.  First, the competitive LEC’s discontinuance application must be 
submitted to the Commission
530
at least 40 days before the incumbent LEC’s copper retirement effective 
date.
531
  Second, the competitive LEC’s discontinuance application must contain a certification that the 
basis for the application is the incumbent LEC’s planned copper retirement.  Under this new requirement, 
competitive LECs will have more than four months to consider the implications of the planned copper 
retirement and weigh their alternatives.
532
  
203. As discussed above, the copper retirement and discontinuance processes are distinct, the 
former based on notice and the latter on approval.  We conclude this approach strikes the right balance 
                                                     
524
TelePacific Petition at 4.
525
Id. at 8.
526
Id. at 9.  
527
Id. at 9.  As TelePacific notes, there is currently no mechanism for delaying a copper retirement, assuming the 
incumbent LEC’s notice complies with the Commission’s rules.  Id.
528
See generally XO Comments to Petition for Recon (supporting both proposed forms of relief); Sonic Comments 
to Petition for Recon (supporting both proposed forms of relief); TEXALTEL Comments to Petition for Recon 
(supporting only the option of delaying copper retirement).  
529
See Verizon Opposition to Petition for Recon at 2-4; AT&T Reply to Petition for Recon at 2; ADTRAN 
Opposition to Petition for Recon at 2.
530
Section 63.71(e) of the Commission’s rules provides that “an application will be deemed filed on the date the 
Commission releases public notice of the filing.”  47 CFR § 63.71(e).  For purposes of the requirement we adopt 
today, the 40 days will be measured from the date of submission for filing rather than on the date the application is 
deemed filed under Section 63.71(e).  See INCOMPAS Reply to Petition for Recon at 2; TelePacific Reply to 
Petition for Recon at 2 n.2.
531
While TelePacific proposed a 60-day advance filing period, XO asserts that 40 days is more appropriate “because 
it maximizes the opportunity for the competitor to find alternative wholesale inputs, or provision its own, and 
potentially reduces the need to file for a discontinuance and maximizes the potential for preserving the level of 
competition.”  XO Comments to Petition for Recon at 4-5.  TelePacific does not oppose this revision to its proposed 
“shot clock” relief.  See TelePacific Feb. 11 Ex Parte Letter at 1.  
532
See Verizon Opposition to Petition for Recon at 3; see also ADTRAN Opposition to Petition for Recon at 2; 
AT&T Reply to Petition for Recon at 2.
Federal Communications Commission FCC 16-90
77
and harmonizes the two processes.  A competitive LEC will not be faced with a pending discontinuance 
application after it loses access to copper following a copper retirement,
533
and, as discussed more below, 
incumbent LECs maintain certainty in the timing of their copper retirements.  We therefore grant in part 
TelePacific’s petition, an outcome supported by Verizon.
534
204. However, we deny the portion of the Petition that seeks broader relief.  Indefinitely 
delaying a planned copper retirement is an untenable option.
535
  In the Emerging Wireline Order, we 
noted that “retaining a time-limited notice-based process ensures that our rules strike a sensible and fair
balance between meeting the needs of interconnecting carriers and allowing incumbent LECs to manage 
their networks.”
536
  Thus, in extending the copper retirement notice period, we rejected the opportunity to 
provide for a notice period longer than six months.
537
  We agree with Verizon, AT&T, and ADTRAN that 
creating the potential for an indeterminate period of time before an incumbent LEC can proceed with a 
planned copper retirement would insert delay and uncertainty into the process and might deter 
deployment of next-generation technologies,
538
thus undermining the balance we sought to attain when 
adopting the 180-day copper retirement notice period.
539
  Indeed, delaying copper retirements until any 
unreasonable degree of hardship to a competitive LEC’s customers is eliminated would transform the 
copper retirement process from notice-based to approval-based.
540
  Because the Act requires only that 
                                                     
533
Competitive LEC commenters support this course of action, see XO Comments to Petition for Recon at 3-4; 
Sonic Comments to Petition for Recon at 5, while incumbent LEC commenters merely do not oppose this result.  
See Verizon Opposition to Petition for Recon at 4-5; Letter from Katherine Saunders, Assoc. Gen. Counsel, Verizon, 
to Marlene H. Dortch, Secretary, FCC, GN Docket No. 13-5 et al., at 1 (filed Feb. 29, 2016) (Verizon Feb. 29 Ex 
Parte Letter).  AT&T and ADTRAN express no opinion one way or the other about this option.  Rather, AT&T’s 
opposition focuses on the imposition of additional burdens on incumbent LECs, including delays in the copper 
retirement process, see AT&T Reply to Petition for Recon at 2, while ADTRAN’s opposition focuses on the 
perceived lack of need for the relief sought by TelePacific.  See generally ADTRAN Opposition to Petition for 
Recon.  These positions would not be implicated by the automatic grant option.  
534
See Verizon Opposition to Petition for Recon at 4-5; Verizon Feb. 29 Ex Parte Letter at 1 (calling the automatic 
grant option a “straightforward, unopposed solution”).  Neither AT&T nor ADTRAN expressed an opinion about 
this option.  See generally ADTRAN Opposition to Petition for Recon; AT&T Reply to Petition for Recon.
535
While TelePacific does not urge such an undefined period, see TelePacific March 7 Ex Parte Letter at 2, 
TEXALTEL does.  See TEXALTEL Comments to Petition for Recon at 2.
536
Emerging Wireline Order and Further Notice, 30 FCC Rcd at 9384, para. 17.
537
Commenters proposed notice periods ranging from ninety days to an unspecified amount of time.  See id. at 9389, 
para. 28 n.99; see also Verizon Opposition to Petition for Recon at 2; ADTRAN Opposition to Petition for Recon at 
2; AT&T Reply to Petition for Recon at 2.
538
Verizon, AT&T, and ADTRAN argue in their oppositions to the Petition that the relief sought is unnecessary and 
would unduly burden and delay fiber deployment.  See Verizon Opposition to Petition for Recon at 4; AT&T Reply 
to Petition for Recon at 2; ADTRAN Opposition to Petition for Recon at 1.  Verizon and ADTRAN also assert that 
other technologies may well be available from the incumbent LEC or other providers in the area, or the competitive 
LEC could decide to invest in its own facilities.  See Verizon Opposition to Petition for Recon at 3; ADTRAN 
Opposition to Petition for Recon at 3-5.
539
See Verizon Opposition to Petition for Recon at 2.
540
At least one commenter supports such a transformation of the copper retirement process.  See TEXALTEL 
Comments to Petition for Recon at 2 (“At a minimum, the Commission should ensure that copper cannot be 
abandoned until the Commission has approved customer abandonment.”).  But see Verizon Opposition to Petition 
for Recon at 4 (noting the Commission’s reliance on Section 251(c)(5)’s requirement that incumbent LECs provide 
reasonable public notice of network changes in concluding that the copper retirement process should remain notice-
based); AT&T Reply to Petition for Recon at 1.
Federal Communications Commission FCC 16-90
78
incumbent LECs “provide reasonable public notice” of network changes such as copper retirements,
541
we 
rejected such a result in the Emerging Wireline Order.
542
  We reaffirm that conclusion here.  
205. Although delaying a copper retirement would provide carrier-customers and end user 
customers with the additional time they need to consider their options and take steps to minimize 
disruption of service and might even prevent the need for a competitive LEC to file a preemptive Section 
214 application, this also would create a subjective standard with resulting uncertainty in timing for the 
incumbent LEC such that it would not be able to plan the specific timeframe of its network changes with 
confidence.  This in itself might discourage or delay certain technology transitions, contrary to the 
Commission’s commitment to support and encourage the deployment of innovative and improved 
communications networks.
543
V. PROCEDURAL MATTERS
A. Paperwork Reduction Act Analysis 
206. The Report and Order contains new and modified information collection requirements 
subject to the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (PRA), Public Law 104-13. It will be submitted to the 
Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for review under Section 3507(d) of the PRA. OMB, the 
general public, and other Federal agencies are invited to comment on the new or modified information 
collection requirements contained in this proceeding. In addition, we note that pursuant to the Small 
Business Paperwork Relief Act of 2002, Public Law 107-198, see 44 U.S.C. § 3506(c)(4), we previously 
sought specific comment on how the Commission might further reduce the information collection burden 
for small business concerns with fewer than 25 employees.
544
  In this present document, we: (1) require 
carriers to demonstrate that a service is an adequate replacement for a legacy voice service by certifying 
or showing that one or more replacement service(s) offers each of the following:  (i) substantially similar 
levels of network infrastructure and service quality as the applicant service; (ii) compliance with existing 
federal and/or industry standards required to ensure that critical applications such as 911, network 
security, and applications for individuals with disabilities remain effective; and (iii) interoperability and 
compatibility with an enumerated list of applications and functionalities determined to be key to 
consumers and competitors; (2) explicitly permit carriers to provide customers notice of discontinuances 
via email where those customers have previously agreed to receive notice from the carrier by that method; 
(3) require carriers to provide notice of planned discontinuances to Tribal governments in the state in 
which the discontinuance is proposed; (4) require carriers to provide pricing information about the 
applicant service subject to discontinuance and the proposed replacement service; and (5) require carriers 
to offer an adequate outreach plan and accompanying consumer education materials when discontinuing 
legacy retail services. .  We also revise Section 51.329(c) of the Commission’s rules to include two new 
titles that may be used to label public notices of network changes.  And in the Order on Reconsideration, 
we revise the Commission’s rules to provide that if a competitive LEC files a Section 214(a) 
discontinuance application based on an incumbent LEC’s copper retirement notice without an
accompanying discontinuance of TDM-based service, the competitive LEC’s application will be 
automatically granted on the effective date of the copper retirement as long as (1) the competitive LEC 
submits its discontinuance application to the Commission at least 40 days before the incumbent LEC’s 
copper retirement effective date, and (2) the competitive LEC’s discontinuance application contains a 
certification that the basis for the application is the incumbent LEC’s planned copper retirement.  We 
                                                     
541
47 U.S.C. § 251(c)(5).
542
Emerging Wireline Order and Further Notice, 30 FCC Rcd at 9382, para. 14; see also Verizon Opposition to 
Petition for Recon at 4; AT&T Reply to Petition for Recon at 2.
543
Emerging Wireline Order and Further Notice, 30 FCC Rcd at 9373, para. 1; see also Emerging Wireline Notice, 
29 FCC Rcd at 14969, paras. 1-2.
544
See Emerging Wireline Order and Further Notice, 30 FCC Rcd at 9499, para. 249.
Federal Communications Commission FCC 16-90
79
have assessed the effects of these requirements and find that any burden on small businesses will be 
minimal because:  (1) we do not require carriers to conduct testing or otherwise meet the criteria we adopt 
today; (2) carriers already conduct testing when developing their networks; (3) once a carrier completes 
testing of a next-generation service and successfully obtains automatic grant, it need not provide testing 
results again if it files an application involving a substantially similar replacement service; (4) we include 
a small business exemption from the testing requirements; (5) we are not imposing new standards of 
service on carriers seeking to discontinue existing services; (6) we are permitting carriers to provide 
notice to customers by means through which the customer has already agreed to receive communications 
from the carrier; (7) the notice that carriers must provide to Tribal governments is the very same notice 
they must already provide to the public utility commission and to the governor of the state in which the 
discontinuance, reduction, or impairment of service is proposed, and to the Secretary of Defense; 
(8) carriers must already appropriately label their network change disclosures; and (9) we address a gap in 
our rules such that now a competitive LEC will not be faced with a pending discontinuance application 
after it loses access to copper following a copper retirement and incumbent LECs maintain certainty in the 
timing of their copper retirements.
207. The Declaratory Ruling does not contain new or modified information collection 
requirements subject to the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (PRA), Public Law 104-13. Therefore, it 
does not contain any new or modified information collection burden for small business concerns with 
fewer than 25 employees, pursuant to the Small Business Paperwork Relief Act of 2002, Public Law 107-
198, see 44 U.S.C. § 3506(c)(4).
B. Congressional Review Act
208. The Commission will send a copy of this Report and Order and Order on Reconsideration
to Congress and the Government Accountability Office pursuant to the Congressional Review Act.
545
C. Final Regulatory Flexibility Analysis
209. As required by the Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980 (RFA),
546
an Initial Regulatory 
Flexibility Analysis (IRFA) was incorporated into the Emerging Wireline Further Notice.
547
  The 
Commission sought written public comment on the possible significant economic impact on small entities 
regarding the proposals addressed in the Emerging Wireline Further Notice, including comments on the 
IRFA.  Pursuant to the RFA, a Final Regulatory Flexibility Analysis is set forth in Appendix D.
VI. ORDERING CLAUSES
210. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that, pursuant to Sections 1-4, 201, 214, 251, and 303(r), 
of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. §§ 151-154, 201, 214, 251, 303(r), this 
Declaratory Ruling, Second Report and Order, and Order on Reconsideration ARE ADOPTED.
211. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Petition for Declaratory Ruling filed by the United 
States Telecom Association on December 19, 2012, WC Docket No. 13-3, is GRANTED.  IT IS 
FURTHER ORDERED that this Declaratory Ruling is ADOPTED and SHALL BE EFFECTIVE upon 
release.
212. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that parts 51 and 63 of the Commission’s rules ARE
AMENDED as set forth in Appendix A, and that any such rule amendments that contain new or modified 
information collection requirements that require approval by the Office of Management and Budget under 
the Paperwork Reduction Act SHALL BE EFFECTIVE after announcement in the Federal Register of 
Office of Management and Budget approval of the rules, and on the effective date announced therein.  
                                                     
545
See 5 U.S.C. § 801(a)(1)(A).  
546
See 5 U.S.C. § 603.
547
Emerging Wireline Order and Further Notice, 30 FCC Rcd at 9530, Appx. F.
Federal Communications Commission FCC 16-90
80
213. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that this Report and Order, and Order on Reconsideration 
SHALL BE effective 30 days after publication in the Federal Register, except for 47 CFR §§ 51.329(c), 
63.19(a), 63.60, 63.71, 63.602, and the outreach plan and consumer education requirements set forth in 
this Second Report and Order, which contain information collection requirements that have not been 
approved by OMB.  The Federal Communications Commission will publish a document in the Federal 
Register announcing the effective date.
214. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Petition for Reconsideration filed by TelePacific IS 
GRANTED IN PART AND DENIED IN PART.
215. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Commission’s Consumer & Governmental Affairs 
Bureau, Reference Information Center, SHALL SEND a copy of this Report and Order and Order on 
Reconsideration to Congress and the Government Accountability Office pursuant to the Congressional 
Review Act, see 5 U.S.C. § 801(a)(1)(A).
216. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Commission’s Consumer & Governmental Affairs 
Bureau, Reference Information Center, SHALL SEND a copy of this Report and Order and Order on 
Reconsideration, including the Final Regulatory Flexibility Analysis, and this Declaratory Ruling to the 
Chief Counsel for Advocacy of the Small Business Administration.
FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION
Marlene H. Dortch
Secretary
Federal Communications Commission FCC 16-90
81
APPENDIX A
Final Rules
For the reasons set forth above, Parts 51 and 63 of Title 47 of the Code of Federal Regulations are 
amended as follows: 
PART 51 – INTERCONNECTION
1. The authority citation for part 51 continues to read as follows:  
Authority:  47 U.S.C. 151-55, 201-05, 207-09, 218, 220, 225-27, 251-54, 256, 271, 303(r), 332, 1302.
2. Section 51.329 is amended by revising paragraph (c)(1) to read as follows:
§ 51.329 Notice of network changes:  Methods for providing notice.
* * * * *
(c) Specific filing requirements.  Commission filings under this section must be made as follows:
(1) The public notice or certification must be labeled with one of the following titles, as 
appropriate: “Public Notice of Network Change Under Rule 51.329(a),” “Certification of Public 
Notice of Network Change Under Rule 51.329(a),” “Short Term Public Notice Under Rule 
51.333(a),” “Certification of Short Term Public Notice Under Rule 51.333(a),” “Public Notice of 
Copper Retirement Under Rule 51.332,” or “Certification of Public Notice of Copper Retirement 
Under Rule 51.332.”
* * * * *
PART 63 – EXTENSION OF LINES, NEW LINES, AND DISCONTINUANCE, REDUCTION, 
OUTAGE AND IMPAIRMENT OF SERVICE BY COMMON CARRIERS; AND GRANTS OF 
RECOGNIZED PRIVATE OPERATING AGENCY STATUS
3. Section 63.19 is amended by revising paragraph (a) introductory text to read as follows:
§ 63.19 Special procedures for discontinuances of international services.
(a) With the exception of those international carriers described in paragraphs (b) and (c) of this section, 
any international carrier that seeks to discontinue, reduce, or impair service, including the retiring of 
international facilities, dismantling or removing of international trunk lines, shall be subject to the 
following procedures in lieu of those specified in §§ 63.61 through 63.602:
* * * * *
4. Section 63.60 is amended by adding paragraph (h) to read as follows:
§ 63.60 Definitions.
* * * * *
(h) The term “technology transition” means any change in service that would result in the replacement of 
a wireline TDM-based voice service with a service using a different technology or medium for 
transmission to the end user, whether Internet Protocol (IP), wireless, or another type; except that
retirement of copper, as defined in § 51.332(a) of this chapter, that does not result in a discontinuance, 
reduction, or impairment of service requiring Commission authorization pursuant to this part shall not 
constitute a “technology transition” for purposes of this part.
Federal Communications Commission FCC 16-90
82
5. Section 63.71 is amended by revising paragraph (a) introductory text, adding paragraphs (a)(6) 
and (7), redesignating paragraphs (b) through (e) as (c) through (f), adding new paragraph (b), adding a 
sentence to the end of newly-designated paragraph (f), adding paragraphs (g), (h), and (i), and 
redesignating paragraph (f) as (j), to read as follows::
§ 63.71 Procedures for discontinuance, reduction or impairment of service by domestic carriers.
Any domestic carrier that seeks to discontinue, reduce, or impair service shall be subject to the 
following procedures:
(a) The carrier shall notify all affected customers of the planned discontinuance, reduction, or impairment 
of service and shall notify and submit a copy of its application to the public utility commission and to 
the Governor of the State in which the discontinuance, reduction, or impairment of service is 
proposed; to any federally-recognized Tribal Nations with authority over the Tribal lands in 
which the discontinuance, reduction, or impairment of service is proposed; and also to the 
Secretary of Defense, Attn. Special Assistant for Telecommunications, Pentagon, Washington, DC 
20301.  Notice shall be in writing to each affected customer unless the Commission authorizes in 
advance, for good cause shown, another form of notice. For purposes of this section, notice by e-
mail constitutes notice in writing.  Notice shall include the following:
* * * * *
(6) For applications to discontinue, reduce, or impair an existing retail service as part of a 
technology transition, as defined in § 63.60(h) of this part, in order to be eligible for 
automatic grant under § 63.71(f) of this part, (i) a statement that any service offered in place 
of the service being discontinued, reduced, or impaired may not provide line power and 
(ii) the information required by § 12.5(d)(1) of this chapter. 
(7) For applications to discontinue, reduce, or impair an existing retail service as part of a 
technology transition, as defined in § 63.60(h) of this part, in order to be eligible for 
automatic grant under § 63.71(f) of this part, (i) a description of any security responsibilities 
the customer will have regarding the replacement service, and (ii) a list of the steps the 
customer may take to ensure safe use of the replacement service.
(b) If a carrier uses e-mail to provide notice to affected customers, it must comply with the following 
requirements in addition to the requirements generally applicable to the notice:
(1) The carrier must have previously obtained express, verifiable, prior approval from retail 
customers to send notices via e-mail regarding their service in general, or planned 
discontinuance, reduction, or impairment in particular;
(2) A carrier must ensure that the subject line of the message clearly and accurately identifies the 
subject matter of the e-mail; and 
(3) Any email notice returned to the carrier as undeliverable will not constitute the provision of 
notice to the customer.
* * * * *
(f) * * * An application to discontinue, reduce, or impair an existing retail service as part of a technology 
transition, as defined in § 63.60(h) of this part, may be automatically granted only if the applicant 
provides affected customers with the notice required under § 63.71(a)(6) and (a)(7) of this part, and 
the application contains the showing or certification described in § 63.602(b) of this part. 
Federal Communications Commission FCC 16-90
83
(g) An application to discontinue, reduce, or impair a service for which the requesting carrier has had no 
customers or reasonable requests for service during the 180-day period immediately preceding 
submission of the application shall be automatically granted on the 31st day after its filing with the 
Commission without any Commission notification to the applicant, unless the Commission has 
notified the applicant that the grant will not be automatically effective
(h) An application to discontinue, reduce, or impair an existing retail service as part of a technology 
transition, as defined in § 63.60(h) of this part, shall contain the information required by § 63.602 of 
this part.  The certification or showing described in § 63.602(b) of this part is only required if the 
applicant seeks eligibility for automatic grant under § 63.71(f) of this part.
(i) An application to discontinue, reduce, or impair a service filed by a competitive local exchange 
carrier in response to a copper retirement notice filed pursuant to § 51.332 of this chapter shall be 
automatically granted on the effective date of the copper retirement; provided that (1) the competitive 
local exchange carrier submits the application to the Commission for filing at least 40 days prior to 
the copper retirement effective date, and (2) the application includes a certification, executed by an 
officer or other authorized representative of the applicant and meeting the requirements of § 1.16 of 
this chapter, that the copper retirement is the basis for the application.  
6.  Section 63.602 is added to read as follows:
§ 63.602 Additional contents of applications to discontinue, reduce, or impair an existing retail 
service as part of a technology transition.
(a) The application shall include: 
(1) The contents specified in § 63.505 of this part;  
(2) A statement identifying the application as involving a technology transition, as defined in 
§ 63.60(h) of this part;
(3)  Information regarding the price of the service for which discontinuance authority is sought 
and the price of the proposed replacement service; and
(4) A certification, executed by an officer or other authorized representative of the applicant and 
meeting the requirements of § 1.16 of this chapter, that the information required by this 
section is true and accurate.
(b) In order to be eligible for automatic grant under § 63.71(f) of this part, an applicant must demonstrate 
that a service(s) identified pursuant to § 63.505(k)(2) of this part is an adequate replacement for the 
voice service identified pursuant to § 63.505(k)(1) of this part by either certifying or showing, based 
on the totality of the circumstances, that one or more replacement service(s) satisfies all of the 
following criteria:
(1) Offers substantially similar levels of network infrastructure and service quality as the service 
being discontinued;  
(2) (i) complies with regulations regarding the availability and functionality of 911 service for 
consumers and public safety answering points (PSAPs), specifically §§ 1.7001-.7002, 9.5, 
12.4, 12.5, 20.18, 20.3, 64.3001 of this chapter; (ii) offers comparably effective protection 
from network security risks as the service being discontinued; and (iii) complies with 
regulations governing accessibility, usability, and compatibility requirements for:  
(A) telecommunications services and functionalities; (B) voicemail and interactive menu 
functionalities; and (C) advanced communications services, specifically 47 CFR §§ 6.1-6.11, 
7.1-7.11, 14.1-14.21, 14.60-14.61; and
(3) Offers interoperability with key applications and functionalities.
NOTE TO PARAGRAPH (b)(1):  For purposes of this section, “substantially similar” means 
Federal Communications Commission FCC 16-90
84
that the network operates at a sufficient level such that it will allow the network 
platform to ensure adequate service quality for interactive and highly-interactive 
applications or services, in particular voice service quality, and support applications 
and functionalities that run on those services.
Federal Communications Commission FCC 16-90
85
APPENDIX B
Technical Appendix
1. This Appendix provides additional discussion regarding how applicants seeking 
automatic grant of a discontinuance application can satisfy the first prong of the adequate replacement test 
by meeting benchmarks showing that a replacement service provides substantially similar performance to 
a legacy TDM-based service.
1
  It also sets forth the parameters that will govern testing to measure the 
network performance and service quality of any service identified in a Section 214 discontinuance 
application as a potential adequate replacement for a legacy voice service as part of a technology 
transition.
2
  We note that these requirements would not apply to Applicants subject to the small business
exemption described in the Second Report and Order (Order).
2. As discussed in the Order above, one aspect of determining whether a service is an 
adequate replacement for a legacy voice service is network performance.  The Order thus adopts 
benchmarks for measuring network performance, specifically, latency and data loss. And, as noted in the 
Order, the Office of Engineering and Technology (OET), working in consultation with the Wireline 
Competition Bureau (WCB) and the Wireless Telecommunications Bureau (WTB), will issue more 
specific testing requirements as necessary.
3
  
3. The Applicant must submit the test plan to OET 30 days prior to the start of performance 
testing, describing:  (1) the network architecture
4
; (2) the testing infrastructure; (3) the technical details of 
the individual tests; (4) the geographic dispersion of the test locations; (5) the period, frequency, and 
temporary delay criteria; and (6) all other technical and process information the Applicant determines is 
applicable.  
4. The network performance measurements must adhere to all the conditions provided in 
this Appendix and Section III.C.1.a of the Order.  In addition, measurement techniques and 
instrumentation must conform to best engineering practices.
5. The Applicant must also make its performance test plan available to all applicable state 
and Tribal authorities to remain eligible for automatic grant.
6. The test plan and other supporting documents also are to be submitted to the Commission 
through its Electronic Comment Filing System (ECFS), and the test plan and other supporting documents 
should be made publicly available to retain eligibility for streamlined processing.  As discussed in the 
Order, the testing necessarily takes place prior to submission of a given discontinuance application related 
to a technology transition, as the testing results must accompany the application.
5
  OET, WCB, and WTB 
may provide additional guidance on the proper filing methods.  
7. This Appendix specifically examines:  (1) testing duration and sample size; (2) testing 
conditions; and (3) result reporting requirements.  To remain eligible for automatic grant, the testing 
employed in applications must meet all specifications set forth in this Appendix.
                                                     
1
As noted in the Order, failure to satisfy any one metric will not disqualify the application from consideration.  
Rather, it will result in the application being subject to a more thorough review.  See supra Order, paras. 90, 94.
2
See supra Order, Section III.C.1.a.
3
See supra Order, para. 106.
4
A detailed description of all relevant network components and all network-to-network interfaces must be included 
as part of a successful showing under this prong. 
5
See supra Order, Section III.C.1.a.
Federal Communications Commission FCC 16-90
86
1. Testing Duration and Sample Size
6
8. For Applicants subject to and seeking to rely on the network performance testing 
benchmark for streamlined processing, tests must be conducted continuously—i.e., 24 hours per day, 
seven days per week, for a consecutive 30-day period—as established by the Appendix and Order. 
9. Tests must be completed using randomly selected sample sizes for a minimum of a total 
of 50 residential and 50 enterprise locations per potential replacement service, if there are 10,000 or more 
existing customers for the replacement service.  If the proposed replacement service has fewer than 
10,000 customers, including both residential and enterprise customers, then a randomly-selected sample 
size of not fewer than 30 customers may be used for that service.  To the extent an Applicant subject to 
this requirement has fewer than 30 customers for a replacement service, it must undertake efforts in good 
faith to provide testing results for all customers using the service.
10. Generally, the testing must strive for a geographic dispersion of the customer locations 
throughout the areas where the replacement service is offered over the new network. A description of the 
methodology and/or formula used to determine the split between residential and enterprise customer 
premises to be tested must be made publicly available to remain eligible for automatic grant.
2. Testing Conditions
11. The Applicant may conduct the performance testing with a software, hardware, or hybrid-
based system and follow best engineering practices.  The Applicant must also determine the 
implementation method, which could be a custom Applicant-designed system, existing Applicant 
systems, systems from other vendors, or a hybrid approach including elements of any or all of these 
systems or other systems.
12. All tests must be measured from customer premises to nodes (servers) in Internet 
Exchange Point (IXP) cities,
7
at or generally near a major IXP.  
13. Off-Net Test Servers.  To ensure that the testing reflects actual customer experience with 
the Internet, consistent with the MBA program, the test node (servers) must be located outside of the 
Applicant’s network and at the edge of the Internet backbone.
8
  This placement is referred to as off-net 
because the servers are not within the Applicant’s network.
9
                                                     
6
As noted in the Order, supra Section III.C.1.a, carriers with 100,000 or fewer subscriber lines, aggregated across 
all affiliates, are exempt from these testing parameters.
7
For the purposes of this Order, we define IXP cities as occurring in the following locations: New York City, NY; 
Washington, DC; Atlanta, GA; Miami, FL; Chicago, IL; Dallas-Fort Worth, TX; Los Angeles, CA; San Francisco, 
CA; Seattle, WA; and Denver, CO. For testing purposes, Applicants may use publicly available servers or other 
resources at these locations. All of the IXP cities identified above, except Denver, are the current locations used by 
the MBA program, which selected these locations because they are geographically distributed major U.S. Internet 
peering locations.  See, e.g., 2011 Measuring Broadband America Fixed Broadband Report, Technical Appx. at 19-
20, http://transition.fcc.gov/cgb/measuringbroadbandreport/technical_appendix/Technical_Appendix_Full.pdf.  
Denver was added to ensure all contiguous areas in the USA are within 700 miles of a Commission-designated IXP 
city.  Applicants located in non-contiguous areas of the United States can use a point at which traffic is consolidated 
for transport to an IXP in the continental United States.
8
“Backbone networks are interconnected, long-haul fiber-optic links and high-speed routers capable of transmitting 
vast amounts of data.”  Verizon v. FCC, 740 F.3d 623 (D.C. Cir. 2014) (citing Verizon Commc’ns Inc. and MCI, Inc. 
Applications for Approval of Transfer of Control, 20 FCC Rcd 18433, 18493 (2005)).
9
See 2015 Measuring Broadband America Technical Appendix at 23-26, http://data.fcc.gov/download/measuring-
broadband-america/2015/Technical-Appendix-fixed-2015.pdf.  Note that ITU-T Recommendations Y.1541 and 
Y.1545 define a UNI-UNI performance objective, which may differ from the result obtained by this Appendix.  See
ITU-T Recommendation Y.1541, at 12, table 2; International Telecommunications Union, Series Y:  Global 
Information Infrastructure, Internet Protocol Aspects and Next-Generation Networks, Roadmap for the quality of 
(continued . . .)
Federal Communications Commission FCC 16-90
87
14. The Applicant is responsible for delivering suitable quality of service for its residential 
and enterprise customers.  To accomplish this in the case of an IP-based replacement service, the 
Applicant must ensure an IP infrastructure is capable of meeting performance requirements from the 
customer premises to the Internet cloud.
10
  In some cases, the Applicant’s network may not extend to the 
edge of the Internet cloud, as diagrammed in the figure below.  In these cases, the Applicant typically 
obtains backhaul services from a transit provider to connect to major IXPs and the core of the Internet.  
Although the Applicant may not have ownership or direct control of this backhaul infrastructure to a 
Commission-designated IXP city, the Applicant is presumed to have contractual arrangements in place 
regarding the level of service that it receives from its transit provider.  The Applicant thus can influence 
the quality of the service it receives from the transit provider through the terms of the contract and a 
Service Level Agreement it negotiates with the transit provider.
15. The Applicant must measure latency and data loss to satisfy this prong and remain 
eligible for automatic grant.  
16. Latency.  The Order adopts a benchmark for latency of 100 milliseconds or less for 95
percent of all peak period round trip measurements.
11
  This benchmark is consistent with previous 
Commission decisions in the universal service context, informed by ITU-T standards, and comparable to 
demonstrated performance under the Commission’s Measuring Broadband America program.
12
Latency 
(Continued from previous page)                                                            
service of interconnected networks that use the Internet protocol, ITU-T Recommendation Y.1545 at 3-5 (May 
2013), https://www.itu.int/rec/T-REC-Y.1545-201305-I/en.
10
See id.
11
See supra Order, para. 98.
12
See supra Section III.C.1.a.  For VoIP calls, IT standards state that consumers are “very satisfied” with the quality 
of VoIP calls up to a mouth-to-ear latency of approximately 200 milliseconds.  International Telecommunications 
Union, Series G:  Transmission Systems and Media, Digital Systems and Networks, International telephone 
connections and circuits—General Recommendations on the transmission quality for an entire international 
telephone connection—One-way transmission time, ITU-T Recommendation G.114, at 3, Fig. 1 (May 2003), 
https://www.itu.int/rec/T-REC-G.114-200305-I/en.
Federal Communications Commission FCC 16-90
88
test measurements must be based upon Round Trip Time from client premises to node/servers in the 
designated IXP cities.
13
  This test can also be used as the data loss test when the number of successes and 
failures is tracked and reported.
14
  The Applicant can substitute alternative tests such as ICMP-based 
PING tests, keeping in mind it must be a very short interval, i.e. very frequent tests per hour.  
Measurements are to be run regardless of customer load.
17. Data Loss.  The Order adopts a benchmark for data loss of less than 1 percent over all 
peak period round trip measurements for packet-based networks, which is informed by ITU-T standards.
15
  
This metric measures the ratio of total lost IP packet outcomes to total transmitted IP packets in the 
environment under review.
16
  Regardless of the technology used, controlling data loss is essential to any 
successful data transmission network for telecommunications.  Measurements are to be run regardless of 
customer load.
18. Peak period is defined as weekdays 7 p.m. to 11 p.m. local time.
19. Applicants must not trim data observations—i.e., they must not drop test observations if 
they exceed a certain limit if they intend to retain eligibility for automatic grant.  For example, in some 
latency testing systems, a latency test that takes longer than three seconds is dropped.  Applicants are not 
to do that with the data to be collected for this testing.  All test data must be provided.  If the test never 
completes, then that fact shall be reported as part of that test observation as a failure. 
20. Additional detailed technical specifications may be made available by OET, WCB, and 
WTB at a later date as needed.
3. Reporting
21. The Applicant must meet the reporting requirements set forth in this Appendix to remain 
eligible for automatic grant.  The requirements for the Applicant performance testing reporting are as 
follows:
• Results of all peak period testing for latency and data loss will be reported through an overall 
summary of the network testing results and the percentage of customer locations satisfying each 
performance requirement.
• The Applicant will submit official copies of the results of its performance testing to the 
Commission.  Additionally, the raw test data will be made available upon request, subject to the 
requirements set forth below regarding protection of Consumer Personally Identifiable 
Information.
17
  
• The Applicant must host a website or websites where the publicly available performance test 
results and test plan are available.  
                                                     
13
See 2015 Measuring Broadband America Fixed Broadband Report, Technical Appx. at 24 (defining FCC-
designated IXP cities). 
14
We recommend that tests for latency and data loss be done similarly to the Measuring Broadband America test 
methodology.
15
See supra Order, para. 100.
16
See IEEE VoIP Data Loss Article at 36.  The following resources note metrics for describing one-way loss 
patterns.  See Internet Engineering Task Force, Network Working Group, Request for Comment 3357, One-way 
Loss Pattern Sample Metrics (Aug. 2002), https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc3357; Internet Engineering Task Force, 
Network Working Group, Request for Comment 2680, A One-way Packet Loss Metric for IPPM (Sept. 1999) 
(noting metrics for describing one-way loss patterns), https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc2680. 
17
See infra paras. 22-24.
Federal Communications Commission FCC 16-90
89
• The Applicant will include a sufficiently detailed description, and any documentation, analysis, 
data, or other supporting information of their testing methodology for measuring latency and data 
loss.  The description should include a statement regarding how this methodology meets the 
requirements set forth in the Order and this Appendix.  Raw data measurements should be time-
stamped and should uniquely identify the test device(s) or software clients that generated the test 
results.  Identification of devices/clients should be done in a manner compliant with requirements 
regarding protection of Consumer Personally Identifiable Information (PII).
18
22. Consumer Personally Identifiable Information Protection.  To retain access to 
streamlined processing by satisfying this benchmark, the Applicant must use processes similar to the
MBA program to protect PII,
19
and ensure compliance with Section 222 of the Communications Act of 
1934, as amended, and the Commission’s implementing rules.
20
  For purposes of these testing and 
reporting requirements, that information includes but is not limited to detailed location, name, and IP
address information.  Specifically, all customers must be volunteers who knowingly and explicitly opt 
into the Applicant’s testing program.  The Applicant must prepare materials to be used both to inform the 
participants regarding the details of the program and to gain the explicit consent of each participant for 
the provider to share the information with the Commission.  The Applicant, to retain the opportunity for 
automatic grant, must submit drafts of these documents to the Commission’s Office of General Counsel 
for review prior to their use.  All documentation confirming that participation is voluntary and that all 
necessary disclosures were made and consent was received will be maintained by the Applicant for a 
period of five years.  
23. Detailed location information, such as street address and longitude/latitude, will be 
protected by the Applicant and not released to anyone unless required by a federal or state department or 
agency.
21
  However, census block group location will be included in the test data information sent to the 
Commission and published publicly.  In cases where the census block group does not provide sufficient 
anonymity, then the census tract will be reported for the individual customer(s).
24. All personal data will be processed by the Applicant in conformity with relevant U.S. 
law(s), including but not limited to Section 222 of the Act,
22
and in accordance with policies developed to 
govern the conduct of the parties handling the data.  Any performance measurement data reported as 
required above will be with all PII removed.
                                                     
18
See infra paras. 22-24.
19
See 2014 Measuring Broadband America Fixed Broadband Report, Technical Appx. at 13, 44.
20
47 U.S.C. § 222; 47 CFR pt. 64, subpt. U.
21
If a court, or a federal or state department or agency issues a subpoena or orders production of such, the Applicant 
shall promptly notify each affected customer of the pendency of such subpoena or order. Consistent with the 
independent authority of any court, department or agency, such notification must be accomplished such that the 
affected customers have a full opportunity to oppose such production prior to the production or disclosure of any 
PII.
22
47 U.S.C. § 222.
Federal Communications Commission FCC 16-90
90
APPENDIX C
Comments, Oppositions, & Replies
List of Comments on USTelecom Petition for Declaratory Ruling
(WC Docket No. 13-3)
Comments (2013 Public Notice) Abbreviation
Ad Hoc Telecommunications Users Committee Ad Hoc
AT&T AT&T
Cbeyond, EarthLink, Integra, Level 3 and tw telecom Cbeyond et al.
Competitive Carriers Association CCA
COMPTEL COMPTEL
Cox Communications, Inc. Cox
Digital Policy Institute and Kleinhenz and Associates DPI
Free State Foundation Free State Foundation
Granite Telecommunications, LLC Granite
Internet Innovation Alliance IIA
ITTA – The Voice of Mid-Size Communications Companies ITTA
Massachusetts Department of Telecom and Cable Mass. DTC
National Cable & Telecommunications Association NCTA
Sprint Nextel Corporation Sprint
Verizon and Verizon Wireless Verizon and Verizon Wireless
ViaSat, Inc. ViaSat
Replies (2013 Public Notice) Abbreviation
COMPTEL COMPTEL
Cox Communications, Inc. Cox
Pennsylvania Public Utility Commission Pa. PUC
United States Telecom Association USTelecom
XO Communications, LLC XO
Comments (2016 Public Notice) Abbreviation
CenturyLink CenturyLink
General Communication, Inc. GCI
Michigan Public Service Commission Mich. PSC
Sprint Corp. Sprint
United States Telecom Association USTelecom
Verizon Verizon
Replies (2016 Public Notice) Abbreviation
Alaska Communications Alaska Communications
AT&T AT&T
INCOMPAS INCOMPAS
New Networks Institute New Networks Institute
Massachusetts Department of Telecom and Cable Mass. DTC
Pennsylvania Public Utility Commission Pa. PUC
South Dakota Telecommunications Association SD Telecom Ass’n.
United States Telecom Association USTelecom
Federal Communications Commission FCC 16-90
91
List of Comments and Replies to Emerging Wireline Networks and Services Further Notice
(GN Docket No. 13-5 et al.)
Comments Abbreviation
AARP AARP
Access Point, Inc., Birch Communications Inc., Wholesale Voice Line Coalition
Matrix Telecom, Inc., Manhattan Telecommunications
Corporation d/b/a Metropolitan Communications, New
Horizon Communications Corp., and Xchange Telecom LLC –
The Wholesale Voice Line Coalition
ADT ADT
Alarm Industry Communications Committee AICC
Alaska Communications Systems ACS
Alaska Rural Coalition Alaska Rural Coalition
Appalachian Regional Commission Appalachian RC
AT&T Services Inc. AT&T
California Public Utilities Commission Cal. PUC
CenturyLink CenturyLink
Communications Workers of America CWA
Disability Coalition for Technology Transition Disability Coalition
Edison Electric Institute Edison 
Granite Telecommunications Granite
INCOMPAS INCOMPAS
ITTA - The Voice of Mid-Size Communications Companies ITTA
Michigan Public Service Commission Mich. PSC
National Association of State Utility Consumer Advocates
and the Maryland Office of People’s Counsel NASUCA et al.
National Association of Regulatory Utility Commissioners NARUC
Nebraska Public Service Commission Neb. PSC
NENA: The 9-1-1 Association NENA
National Rural Electric Cooperative Association NRECA
NTCA – The Rural Broadband Association, WTA – Advocates Rural Associations
for Rural Broadband, Eastern Rural Telecom Association, and
the National Exchange Carrier Association, Inc.
Pennsylvania Public Utility Commission Pa. PUC
Preferred Long Distance, Inc. Preferred Long Distance
Public Knowledge, Virginia Rural Health Association, Public Knowledge
National Consumer Law Center, Center for Rural
Strategies, TURN, and the Benton Foundation
Telecommunications for the Deaf and Hard of Hearing, Inc., TDI et al.
Association of Late Deafened Adults, Cerebral Palsy and Deaf
Organization, Deaf Seniors of America, Hearing Loss Association
Of America, National Association of the Deaf, and the 
Rehabilitation Engineering Research Center on 
Telecommunications Access
Telecommunications Industry Association TIA
The Greenlining Institute Greenlining
The Texas 9-1-1 Alliance, Texas Commission on State Texas 9-1-1 Alliance et al.
Emergency Communications, and the Municipal Emergency
Communication Districts Association
United States Telecom Association USTelecom
Federal Communications Commission FCC 16-90
92
Utilities Telecommunications Council Utilities Telecom Council
Verizon Verizon
WorldNet Telecommunications, Inc. WorldNet
XO Communications, LLC XO
Replies Abbreviation
AARP AARP
Access Point, Inc., Birch Communications Inc., Wholesale Voice Line Coalition
Matrix Telecom, Inc., Manhattan Telecommunications
Corporation d/b/a Metropolitan Communications, New
Horizon Communications Corp., and Xchange Telecom LLC –
The Wholesale Voice Line Coalition
Alarm Industry Communications Committee AICC
Alaska Rural Coalition Alaska Rural Coalition
AT&T Services Inc. AT&T
BlueGreen Alliance BlueGreen Alliance
CenturyLink CenturyLink
Communications Workers of America CWA
Edison Electric Institute Edison Electric Inst.
Frontier Communications Frontier
Granite Telecommunications Granite
GVNW Consulting, Inc. GVNW Consulting
Industry Council for Emergency Response Technologies (iCERT) iCERT
Michigan Public Service Commission, Idaho Public Utilities Joint States
Commission, Michigan Public Service Commission, 
Minnesota Department of Commerce, Minnesota Public 
Utilities Commission, Nebraska Public Service Commission, 
Pennsylvania Public Utility Commission, and the Washington
Utilities and Transportation Commission
National Association of State Utility Consumer Advocates NASUCA
National Cable & Telecommunications Association NCTA
NTCA – The Rural Broadband Association, WTA – Advocates Rural Associations
for Rural Broadband, Eastern Rural Telecom Association, and
the National Exchange Carrier Association, Inc.
Public Knowledge, Access Humboldt, Appalshop, Public Knowledge
The Benton Foundation, The Broadband Alliance of
Mendocino County, Center for Rural Strategies, Common
Cause, Rural Broadband Policy Group, Institute for Local
Self-Reliance, National Consumer Law Center, on behalf of
Its Low-Income Clients, and the Virginia Rural Health
Association
Utilities Telecommunications Council Utilities Telecom Council
Verizon Verizon
Windstream Windstream
XO Communications, LLC XO
Federal Communications Commission FCC 16-90
93
List of Oppositions and Replies to U.S. TelePacific Corporation Petition for Reconsideration
(GN Docket No. 13-5 et al.)
Comments/Oppositions Abbreviation
ADTRAN, Inc. ADTRAN
Sonic Telecom, LLC Sonic
TEXALTEL TEXALTEL
Verizon Verizon
XO Communications, LLC XO
Replies Abbreviation
AT&T Services Inc. AT&T
Association of Competitive Telecommunications Companies CALTEL
INCOMPAS INCOMPAS
U.S. TelePacific Corp. TelePacific
XO Communications, LLC XO
Federal Communications Commission FCC 16-90
94
APPENDIX D
Final Regulatory Flexibility Analysis 
1. As required by the Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980, as amended (RFA),
1
the Federal 
Communications Commission (Commission) included an Initial Regulatory Flexibility Analysis (IRFA) 
of the possible significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities of the policies and 
rules proposed in the Emerging Wireline Order and Further Notice in GN Docket No. 13-5.
2
  The 
Commission sought written public comment on the proposals in the Emerging Wireline Further Notice, 
including comment on the IRFA.  This Final Regulatory Flexibility Analysis (FRFA) conforms to the 
RFA.
3
  
A. Need for, and Objectives of, the Final Rules
2. In the Emerging Wireline Order and Further Notice, the Commission emphasized the 
importance of speeding market-driven technological transitions and innovations while preserving the core 
statutory values as codified by Congress: competition, consumer protection, universal service, and public 
safety.
4
  In this Second Report and Order (Order), we further those values by updating our review and 
notice procedures governing the filing and review of technology transitions discontinuance applications 
filed pursuant to Section 214 of the Act.
5
  Furthering these core values will accelerate customer adoption 
of technology transitions.  The Order adopts rules that will appropriately manage the technology 
transitions, and develop the right framework for new technologies.  To fulfill the Commission’s goal of 
stripping away the outdated and unnecessary, we have provided common sense solutions in the interim 
until this as yet not fully formed new technology regime emerges.  
3. In this Order, we define our expectations for what the public interest will require before a 
carrier can take a legacy voice service off the market and refine our Section 214 discontinuance notice 
requirements to ensure that the public is aware of and prepared for such transitions.  The action we take is 
in the public interest as we are providing certainty to carriers, thereby advancing technology transitions.
4. Technology Transitions Discontinuance Applications.  In the context of discontinuance 
applications related to technology transitions, the public interest requires that applicants filing to 
discontinue a legacy TDM-based voice service as part of a transition to a new technology, whether IP, 
wireless, or another type (technology transition discontinuance applicants) must identify in the application 
that a technology transition is implicated.  Unlike traditional discontinuance applications, in order to 
retain eligibility for streamlined processing and potential automatic grant, the Order requires that 
technology transition discontinuance applicants submit with their application either a certification or a 
showing as to whether an adequate replacement exists in the service area.  Applicants also must submit 
price information about the service subject to discontinuance and the proposed replacement service.
5. Specifically, the Order requires that an applicant for a 214 discontinuance demonstrates 
that a service is an adequate replacement for a legacy voice service by certifying or showing that one or 
more replacement service(s) offers each of the following:  (i) substantially similar levels of network 
infrastructure and service quality as the applicant service; (ii) compliance with existing federal and/or 
                                                     
1
See 5 U.S.C. § 603.  The RFA, see 5 U.S.C. §§ 601-612, has been amended by the Small Business Regulatory 
Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996 (SBREFA), Pub. L. No. 104-121, Title II, 110 Stat. 847 (1996). 
2
Emerging Wireline Order and Further Notice, 30 FCC Rcd at 9530-38, Appx. F, Initial Regulatory Flexibility 
Analysis.
3
5 U.S.C. § 604.  
4
Emerging Wireline Order and Further Notice, 30 FCC Rcd at 9373, para. 1.
5
47 U.S.C. § 214(a).  Supra Section III.  
Federal Communications Commission FCC 16-90
95
industry standards required to ensure that critical applications such as 911, network security, and 
applications for individuals with disabilities remain available; and (iii) interoperability and compatibility 
with an enumerated list of applications and functionalities determined to be key to consumers and 
competitors.
6
  
6. Technology transition applicants can either demonstrate compliance with these objective 
criteria or make a demonstration that, despite not being able to meet the criteria, the totality of the 
circumstances demonstrates that an adequate replacement nonetheless exists.
7
  Applicants either 
(i) certifying or (ii) demonstrating successfully through their showing that an adequate replacement exists 
remain eligible for automatic grant pursuant to Section 63.71(d) of the Commission’s rules as long as the 
existing requirements for automatic grant are satisfied.
8
  To ensure that consumers receive the integrated 
service experience they need and deserve, the Order requires that a single service (whether first- or third-
party) satisfy all three prongs of the adequate replacement test in order to be eligible for automatic grant.
9
  
7. The Order explains that if an applicant cannot certify or make that showing, or declines to 
pursue the voluntary path of streamlined treatment, it must include in its application an explanation of 
how their proposed discontinuance will not harm the public interest with specific reference to the five 
factors the Commission traditionally considers.
10
  The Wireline Competition Bureau, acting on delegated 
authority, will then weigh that information as part of the traditional multi-factor evaluation, but with the 
adequate replacement factor subject to increased scrutiny under the newly enhanced test.  
8. The Order rejects calls from incumbent LECs to presume that particular technologies, by 
their nature, represent an adequate replacement for legacy voice services in all instances.  Our public 
interest analysis demands that applicants provide objective evidence showing a replacement service will 
provide quality service and access to needed applications and functionalities.  At the same time, we 
recognize the importance of promoting speedy transitions 
11
  Therefore, the Order allows a for a more 
streamlined approach for discontinuances involving services that are substantially similar to those for 
which Section 214 discontinuance has previously been approved.
12
  Commenters will have the 
opportunity to rebut an applicant’s planned reliance on a previous application if they can offer substantial 
evidence that the technology or network infrastructure are not in fact substantially similar to the service 
subject to the certifications in the previous application or the certifications have been proven unreliable, 
based on significant consumer complaints or new independent data.  The practical effect of this rule is to 
allow the applicant to bypass the performance testing requirements.
13
  This streamlined approach benefits 
applicants, while protecting the interests of all stakeholders, industry and consumers.
9. The Order further streamlines the Section 214 process in instances where consumers no 
longer subscribe to legacy voice services.  Although this rulemaking is focused primarily on technology 
transitions, the Commission emphasizes the market is constantly evolving, even outside the context of 
these crucial transitions.  For that reason, the Commission adopts AT&T’s commonsense proposal that a 
Section 214 discontinuance application be eligible for automatic grant without any further showing if the 
                                                     
6
Supra Section III.C.
7
Supra Section III.B.
8
Id.
9
Id.
10
Id.
11
Id.
12
Id.
13
Id.
Federal Communications Commission FCC 16-90
96
applicant can demonstrate that the service has zero customers in the relevant service area and no requests 
for service in the last six months.
14
10. The Order also rejects incumbent LECs’ contention that we should establish timelines for 
reviewing applications that are not eligible for automatic grant.
15
  The Order rejects this request because 
the public interest demands that we provide appropriate scrutiny and careful review to discontinuance 
applications related to technology transitions given their novelty and complexity, and we cannot 
guarantee at this time how long that process will take.  Such timelines could force the Commission to 
shortchange its responsibility to ensure that technology transitions result in high service quality and 
successful customer experiences.   
11. The Order finds that both first and third party services should be eligible as potential 
adequate replacement services.
16
  The Order concludes that applicants relying on a third party service 
should be allowed to make a prima facie showing based on publicly available information as to whether 
the third party service meets our test as an adequate replacement.  The Order emphasizes that the adequate 
replacement test is only part of the public interest analysis, and the Commission will take into account an 
applicant’s faultless inability to access necessary data and information from a third party when reviewing 
any application that relies on the existence of third party services to meet the adequate replacement test.  
An objector to a Section 214 application relying on a third party service must rebut the prima facie
showing made by the applicant.  Should the objector raise legitimate concerns, the Commission will 
remove the application from consideration for automatic grant.  In attempting to rebut such a showing, 
members of the public who use the third party service can agree to participate in tests necessary to 
measure network performance, as required under the criteria.
12. The Order declines to provide any rural LEC exemption.
17
  The order concludes that rural 
consumers, with often limited choice in service providers, should equally benefit from full consideration 
of the adequacy of any replacement service to ensure continued network performance and service quality, 
as well as access to critical applications, and interoperability with valued services.  Moreover, the Order 
concludes that rural LECs have offered no compelling justification as to why the adequate replacement 
criteria would not be just as beneficial to their customers as they would be to the customers of other 214 
discontinuance applicants in demonstrating the adequacy of replacement services.  However, as discussed 
below, we are exempting small businesses, including rural LECs that satisfy the standard for this 
designation from the network testing requirements we adopt today to remain eligible for automatic grant.
13. The Order does not include affordability as a separate criterion under the adequate 
replacement test but states that the cost of replacement services will be considered during the application 
review process.
18
  The Order concludes that if there is a material increase in the price for the replacement 
service compared to the service to be discontinued, the Bureau will not place the application on 
streamlined processing.
19
1. Adequate Replacement Test  
14. After adopting the general framework, the Order details a three-prong adequate 
replacement test that enables potential automatic grant of a discontinuance application.  We emphasize 
that no carrier must meet these criteria or conduct testing.  Also, the adequate replacement factor is 
                                                     
14
Id.
15
Id.
16
Id.
17
Supra Section III.D.1.
18
Supra Section III.D.2.
19
Id.
Federal Communications Commission FCC 16-90
97
merely one part of a multifactor balancing test,
20
and the benchmarks associated with the criteria provide 
guidance to carriers and a path toward automatic grant of their technology transitions discontinuance 
applications.  We also emphasize that once a carrier completes testing of a next-generation service and 
successfully obtains automatic grant, it need not conduct testing again if it files an application involving a 
substantially similar replacement service.
21
15. Prong One:  Network Infrastructure and Service Quality.  First, consumers expect and 
deserve a replacement for an applicant service that will provide comparable network quality and service 
performance.
22
  Therefore, the Order requires that to satisfy the first prong of the adequate replacement 
test and thus remain eligible for automatic grant, an applicant must demonstrate that a service or
combination of services provides:  (a) substantially similar network performance as the service being 
discontinued, which involves satisfying benchmarks for latency and data-loss; (b) substantially similar 
service availability as the service being discontinued, which involves satisfying a benchmark of 99.99
percent availability calculated by using data regarding customer trouble reports, the average repair 
interval in responding to those reports, the number of lines in the service area, and the duration of the 
observation period; and (c) coverage to the entire affected geographic service area, which involves 
demonstrating that either: (i) a single replacement service reaches the entire geographic footprint of the 
service area subject to discontinuance, or (ii) there are multiple providers who collectively cover the 
entirety of the affected service area.
23
  The Order interprets “substantially similar” in this context to mean 
that the network operates at a sufficient level with respect to the metrics identified in the Order, such that 
the network platform will ensure adequate service quality for time-sensitive applications, and support 
applications and functionalities that are associated with these services.
24
  
16. Network Performance.  The Order finds that 30 days of network performance testing is 
necessary, at least initially, to ensure that applicants actually meet the benchmarks we have established to 
be eligible for automatic grant and to ensure that the network is in a stable state and to allow for long-term 
projection of network infrastructure performance.
25
  The Order emphasizes that network performance has
long been a hallmark of this country’s communications networks and that must continue during the
technology transitions.  The Order specifies the testing methodology to be used in measuring network 
performance in order to avoid confusion and argument over the merits of particular results reported by 
carriers in their discontinuance applications.
26
  Moreover, established testing parameters will ensure that 
the Commission analyzes similar data sets from applicants in the technology transitions.  While the Order 
provides some flexibility in the testing parameters an applicant will use, the Commission will include in 
its evaluation of the discontinuance application whether the testing conditions used were appropriate to 
measure performance.  Thus, in addition to testing results, the Commission will consider the testing 
parameters as a factor in determining whether it needs to remove the application from streamlined 
processing.  If the testing parameters raise sufficient concerns such that the Commission removes the 
application from streamlined processing, the Commission will then consider those testing parameters in 
any totality of the circumstances analysis of the adequacy of the replacement network.  
17. The Order provides smaller carriers more flexibility in how they demonstrate network 
performance under this prong of the three-prong test.
27
  We recognize that network testing under the 
                                                     
20
Supra Section III.B.
21
Id.
22
Supra Section III.C.1.
23
Id.
24
Id.
25
Supra Section III.C.1.a.
26
Id.; see also Emerging Wireline Order and Further Notice, 30 FCC Rcd at 9483-84, para. 217.  
27
Supra Section III.C.1.a.
Federal Communications Commission FCC 16-90
98
parameters established in Appendix B could be more difficult for smaller carriers and relatively speaking 
burdensome, given the more limited number of customers.  Thus, the Order concludes that carriers with 
100,000 or fewer subscriber lines, aggregated across all affiliates, may remain eligible for automatic grant 
without compliance with the specific testing requirements of the network performance criterion we 
articulate today.
28
  The Order does not extend this exemption to any other components of the adequate 
replacement test we adopt today, including both of the other aspects of the network infrastructure prong 
(service quality and network coverage) or the other two prongs of the test.
18. Service Availability.  The Order concludes that a 99.99 percent service availability 
standard, calculated according to the formula and parameters established in the Order, is a reasonable 
approach to ensure that a replacement service presumptively provides substantially similar service as the 
service being discontinued.
29
  The Order adopts a test that consists of a standard formula traditionally 
used by industry to measure telephone service availability for which the Order defined the variables to 
ensure accuracy and that all discontinuing carriers are measuring the same information.
30
  The 
replacement service’s availability will be calculated using data regarding customer trouble reports, the 
average repair interval in responding to those reports, the number of lines in the service area, and the 
duration of the observation period to reach a representative measurement of a “four 9s” benchmark used 
to measure service availability.  The Order concludes these variables will provide the best measure of 
customers’ ability to access their provider’s network.
31
  And, as with the network performance testing, the 
Order requires a 30-day observation period to ensure network stability and allow for long-term projection 
of network reliability.
19. Certain non-packet wireless access technologies providing fixed services can experience 
the failure of voice calls because of network congestion.  To address this potential issue, we establish a 
metric that applies solely to these technologies for determining the frequency of congestion-based voice 
call failure, meaning the probability that a customer trying to make a call will be unable to do due to 
network congestion.  We conclude that, to satisfy this benchmark and remain eligible for automatic grant, 
the probability must be less than one percent during the daily peak busy hour for at least 95 percent of the 
30 days in the measurement period, for this type of network to serve as an adequate replacement for a 
legacy voice service.  Non-packet wireless access technologies used to provide fixed services are of 
particular concern here because, unlike service over copper loops which is dedicated to one subscriber,
the radio access network is shared by multiple subscribers.
32
  The network could thus conceivably lack 
adequate capacity and result in an unacceptable level of failed calls due to congestion.
33
  
20. Establishing a benchmark for service availability protects consumers, schools, libraries, 
healthcare facilities, utilities, and small- and medium-sized businesses, all of which depend on a service to 
be available when needed for everyday or emergency use. Past experiences, including what occurred on 
Fire Island after Superstorm Sandy, demonstrate the importance of reliability as we undergo technology 
transitions.  We now find that a service availability benchmark will help provide interested stakeholders 
with clear, objective “criteria that will eliminate uncertainty that could potentially impede the industry 
                                                     
28
See id.; see also Rural Call Completion, WC Docket No. 13-39, Report and Order and Further Notice of Proposed 
Rulemaking, 28 FCC Rcd 16154 (2013).  We further note that this exemption from complying with the specific 
testing parameters announced herein does not apply to any rate-of-return carrier that is affiliated with a price cap 
carrier.  
29
Supra Section III.C.1.
30
Id.
31
Id.
32
Id.
33
Id.
Federal Communications Commission FCC 16-90
99
from actuating a rapid and prompt transition to IP and wireless technology.”
34
21. Network Coverage.  The Order requires that to meet this prong and thus be eligible for 
streamlined processing, a replacement service must be available to all affected customers covering the 
entire geographic scope of the service area subject to the application and actually function as intended for 
affected customers, or else it cannot be certified as a replacement service for those customers.
35
  
Specifically, in order to be eligible for automatic grant, the application must describe with sufficient 
particularity the geographic scope of the replacement service(s) available from the other provider(s) and 
must otherwise demonstrate that each of these services satisfies the criteria we adopt today.
36
  This 
requirement promotes the core values established by the Act, including that of ensuring universal access.
Allowing a carrier to discontinue service when there are no other service options available would run 
contrary to that mission.
37
  Additionally, this requirement, as a part of our overarching determination of 
the public interest implications of a discontinuance application, sufficiently addresses any concerns 
regarding potential disparate impacts on minority communities.  The Order declined to adopt a de minimis
threshold for judging whether a replacement service offers the same coverage as to ensure that all 
customers in a service territory where the legacy voice service is offered continue to have the ability to 
obtain service.
38
  
22. Prong Two:  Critical Applications.  Second, the public relies on assurances that critical 
applications related to public safety and protecting those most vulnerable remain accessible and 
operational through any transition.  Therefore, to satisfy the second prong of the adequate replacement
test and remain eligible for automatic grant, applicants must demonstrate that access to critical 
applications and functionalities as required under our rules remains available.
39
  Under this second prong, 
an applicant for discontinuance of service must certify that at least one replacement service complies with 
Commission regulations regarding availability and functionality of 911 service for consumers and public 
safety answering points (PSAPs), provides comparably effective network security, and complies with 
Commission regulations regarding compatibility with assistive technologies.
40
  Incorporating these 
certifications into our Section 214 process benefits consumers, public safety entities, and industry 
participants alike by providing clear, consistent, and certain guidance regarding the importance of 
ensuring that critical applications will continue to function following a technology transition and are free 
from network vulnerabilities.  
23. The Order specifically concludes that, in order to satisfy the consumer access to 911 
requirement and remain eligible for automatic grant, the replacement service must offer a dispatchable 
address capability.  If the rules applicable to the replacement service require provision of an MSAG-
validated address, the applicant may meet this requirement by certifying that its replacement service 
meets the 911 registered location requirements applicable to that service in the Commission’s rules.
41
  
However, if the 911 requirements for the replacement service do not require provision of a validated 
address, the applicant must further certify that it will register a validated dispatchable address for each 
subscriber and provide the address to the appropriate PSAP for all 911 calls.  If relying on a third party 
                                                     
34
Id; see also Emerging Wireline Order and Further Notice, 30 FCC Rcd at 9478, para. 203.
35
Supra Section III.C.1.
36
Id.
37
Id.
38
Id.
39
Supra Section III.C.2; see also Emerging Wireline Order and Further Notice, 30 FCC Rcd at 9488-90, 9492, 
paras. 225-28, 234.
40
Supra Section III.C.2.
41
Id.
Federal Communications Commission FCC 16-90
100
service, the applicant must show that the third party service provide meets this requirement to allow the 
applicant to remain eligible for streamlined processing.
42
  These requirements will ensure that PSAPs 
continue to receive accurate location information to dispatch emergency first responders directly to the 
correct location of the 911 call, thereby serving to minimize the response time critical for saving lives and 
safeguarding the public.
43
24. The Commission declined to impose any new financial obligations on carriers under this 
prong.  For example, while we acknowledge the perspective of consumer advocacy groups and state and 
local governments that argue that when the transition to a replacement service requires upgrade of 
assistive technologies, the applicant should not only inform affected users of the associated costs but help 
subsidize them, we emphasize that that this is not the appropriate forum in which to impose any new 
financial obligations upon providers.
44
  
25. Prong Three:  Interoperability.  Third, we also emphasize in the Order that consumers 
should have access to the applications and functionalities they have come to associate as—and which 
currently remain—key components of the applicant service.  Therefore, to satisfy the third prong of the 
adequate replacement test and retain eligibility for streamlined processing, the Order requires that an 
applicant must demonstrate that a replacement service offers compatibility with an enumerated set of 
applications and functionalities.
45
  The Order adopts AT&T’s proposal that widely adopted low-speed 
modem devices such as fax machines, home security alarms, medical monitoring devices, analog-only 
caption telephone sets, and point-of-sale terminals should make up the initial list of key applications for 
which interoperability is required.
46
  
26. The Order directs the Office of Engineering and Technology, working in consultation 
with the Wireline Competition Bureau and the Wireless Telecommunications Bureau (Bureaus) and 
subject to the guidelines below, to seek comment and, based on the record developed, propose additions 
to the list of key applications and functionalities adopted above for Commission review and approval
47
  
These guidelines are: (i) whether customers rely on the application or functionality for health or safety 
reasons; (ii) whether the application or functionality is used as a wholesale input by other providers; 
(iii) whether the application or functionality relies on vendor equipment or inputs that have been 
discontinued; and (iv) whether the service provider, as opposed to the end-user customer, is the least-cost 
avoider.  The Order concludes that it is appropriate to expect that replacement services offer compatibility 
with these devices until 2025.
48
  These guidelines reflect our goal of ensuring that the technology 
transitions broadly benefit consumers, including those who still value certain applications and 
functionalities associated with legacy voice services.
49
  Applying certain market-based considerations and 
adopting a sunset for this requirement is intended to address incumbent LECs’ concerns about being 
placed at a potential competitive disadvantage by requiring them indefinitely to retain applications and 
functionalities that are no longer important to consumers.
50
  
                                                     
42
Id.
43
Id.
44
Id.
45
Supra Section III.C.3.
46
Id.
47
Supra Section III.C.3.a.
48
Id.
49
Id.
50
Supra Section III.C.3.b.
Federal Communications Commission FCC 16-90
101
27. Again, whether by certification or appropriate showing, applicants meeting this adequate 
replacement test will still have the opportunity for automatic grant, allowing for speedy review where an 
applicant complies with all relevant standards.  Our mission here is to ensure a customer experience with 
the replacement service that is substantially similar to the customer experience with the service being 
discontinued,
51
not to create new obligations.
2. Other Issues
28. Customer Education & Outreach Plan.  The Order requires that an applicant offer an 
adequate customer education and outreach plan in accessible and usable formats.  An adequate customer 
outreach plan includes:  (i) the development and dissemination of educational materials, provided to all 
customers affected, containing specific information pertinent to the transition; (ii) the creation of a 
telephone hotline and the option to create an additional interactive and accessible service to answer 
questions regarding the transition; and (iii) appropriate training of staff to field and answer consumer 
questions about the transition.
52
  The educational materials must include, at minimum:  (i) a general 
description of the changes to the service, written in a non-technical manner that can be readily understood 
by the average consumer; (ii) the impact on existing applications and functionalities that are likely to be 
purchased by individual customers, including whether such applications and functionalities will be 
available following the transition; (iii) any change in the price of the service and impact on applications 
and functionalities which run on the service to be discontinued; and (iv) points of contact who will 
address technology transitions issues, as much as is practicable.
53
  If the applicant is relying on a third 
party service, we require the applicant to provide:  (i) contact information for that third party; and 
(ii) upon inquiry from a consumer, information regarding the interoperability and compatibility of 
applications and functionalities benefiting individuals with disabilities that run on the applicant’s legacy 
voice service.
54
  Moreover, to ensure that customers understand the notice that they receive, any applicant 
who in the ordinary course of business regularly uses a language other than English in its communications 
with customers must provide the education materials to customers in both English and that regularly used 
language.
55
  We find that the establishment of clear guidance on education outreach materials will help 
promote the smoothest possible technology transition, consumer choice, and the fulfillment of consumer 
information needs.  We also find that the plan’s additional protections for vulnerable consumers, as well 
as the required hotline, further promote these values.  Moreover, we do not find these requirements to be 
overly burdensome, as much of the information we are requiring is similar to the information required 
through copper retirement notices under the rules adopted in the Emerging Wireline Order.
56
  The 
Commission will consider a carrier’s certification to these requirements as part of its overall analysis of 
whether granting the application would be in the public interest.
29. Email Notice.  The rules adopted in the Order allow carriers to provide email notice to 
customers of a planned discontinuance where those customers have previously agreed to receive notice 
from the carrier by that method.
57
  The Order allows carriers to provide notice by any other alternative 
method to which the customer has previously agreed.
58
  In both instances, the same provisos adopted in 
connection with the recently-adopted copper retirement rules shall apply (e.g., notice must be made in a 
                                                     
51
Supra Section III.B.
52
Supra Section III.E.1.
53
Id.
54
Id.
55
Id.
56
Emerging Wireline Order and Further Notice, 30 FCC Rcd at 9400-05, paras. 46-55.  
57
Supra Section III.E.2.
58
Id.
Federal Communications Commission FCC 16-90
102
clear and conspicuous manner; and may not contradict or be inconsistent with any other information with 
which it is presented).
59
  In addition, (a) the incumbent LEC must have previously obtained express, 
verifiable, prior approval from retail customers to send notices via e-mail regarding their service in 
general, or planned network changes in particular; (b) an incumbent LEC must ensure that the subject line 
of the message clearly and accurately identifies the subject matter of the e-mail; and (c) any email notice 
returned to the carrier as undeliverable will not constitute the provision of notice to the customer.
60
  As in 
the copper retirement context, this requirement should be sufficient to ensure that customers receive 
notice, without imposing unnecessary additional burdens on incumbent LECs.
61
  This outcome affords 
carriers greater flexibility in providing notice of discontinuances and establishes a measure of symmetry 
between the email notice requirements for discontinuances and the copper retirement rules.
30. Notice to Tribal Governments.  Further, the rules adopted in the Order require all carriers 
to provide notice of discontinuance applications to Tribal governments in the state in which the 
discontinuance is proposed, in addition to the notice already required to state PUCs, state governors, and 
the Department of Defense.
62
  This outcome aligns the notice requirements for Section 214 
discontinuance applications and copper retirement network changes,
63
imposes the same requirement on 
all carriers serving Tribal lands, and places Tribal governments in all states in a position to prepare and 
address any concerns from consumers in their Tribal communities.  The Order also rejected proposals to 
revise the discontinuance timing of notice rules in Section 63.71.
31. Timing of Notice.  The Order rejects revising Section 63.71 to require advance notice of a 
planned discontinuance or to lengthen the discontinuance process by changing the existing timeline for 
filing objections and/or allowing automatic grant.
64
  Based on the record, we conclude that there is no 
evidence of actual harm; however, we recognize that large-scale technology transition-related 
discontinuances have not yet occurred.
65
  Thus, while we do not revise Section 63.71 in this Order, we 
emphasize that the Commission may revisit this issue if presented with evidence of such a need in the 
future.
32. Order On Reconsideration.  The Order on Reconsideration revises the Commission’s
rules to make a competitive LEC’s application for discontinuance deemed granted on the effective date of 
any copper retirement that made the discontinuance unavoidable as long as the discontinuance application 
is filed at least 40 days prior to the retirement effective date and the competitive LEC certifies that the 
copper retirement was the basis for the discontinuance.
66
  This is intended to address a gap in the 
Commission’s rules that left competitive LECs potentially without recourse to avoid violating the 
discontinuance rules.  Under this new requirement, competitive LECs will have more than four months to 
consider the implications of the planned copper retirement and weigh their alternative
                                                     
59
Id.; see also Emerging Wireline Order and Further Notice, 30 FCC Rcd at 9395-9402, paras. 39-51, and 9407, 
paras. 60-61.
60
Id.; see also 47 CFR § 51.332(b)(3)(ii).
61
Id.; see also Emerging Wireline Order and Further Notice, 30 FCC Rcd at 9407, para. 60.
62
Supra Section III.E.3.
63
Id.; see also Emerging Wireline Order and Further Notice, 30 FCC Rcd at 9411-13, paras. 70-71.
64
Supra Section III.E.4.
65
Id.
66
Supra Section IV.
Federal Communications Commission FCC 16-90
103
B. Summary of Significant Issues Raised by Public Comments to the IRFA
33. There were no comments raised that specifically addressed the proposed rules and 
policies presented in the Emerging Wireline Further Notice IRFA.
67
  Nonetheless, the Commission 
considered the potential impact of the rules proposed in the IRFA on small entities and reduced the 
compliance burden for all small entities in order to reduce the economic impact of the rules enacted 
herein on such entities.
C. Response to Comments by the Chief Counsel for Advocacy of the Small Business 
Administration
34. Pursuant to the Small Business Jobs Act of 2010, which amended the RFA, the 
Commission is required to respond to any comments filed by the Chief Counsel of the Small Business 
Administration (SBA), and to provide a detailed statement of any change made to the proposed rule(s) as 
a result of those comments.
68
35. The Chief Counsel did not file any comments in response to the proposed rule(s) in this 
proceeding.  
D. Description and Estimate of the Number of Small Entities to Which Rules May 
Apply
36. The RFA directs agencies to provide a description of and, where feasible, an estimate of 
the number of small entities that may be affected by the proposed rules, if adopted.
69
  The RFA generally 
defines the term “small entity” as having the same meaning as the terms “small business,” “small 
organization,” and “small governmental jurisdiction.”
70
  In addition, the term “small business” has the 
same meaning as the term “small business concern” under the Small Business Act.
71
  A small business 
concern is one that:  (1) is independently owned and operated; (2) is not dominant in its field of operation; 
and (3) satisfies any additional criteria established by the Small Business Administration (SBA).
72
  A 
small business is an independent business having less than 500 employees.  Nationwide, there are a total 
of approximately 28.2 million small businesses, according to the SBA.
73
  
37. The majority of the rules and policies adopted in the Order will affect obligations on 
incumbent LECs and, in some cases, competitive LECs.  Our actions, over time, may affect small entities 
that are not easily categorized at present.  We therefore describe here, at the outset, the comprehensive
small entity size standards that could be directly affected herein.
74
  
                                                     
67
See Emerging Wireline Order and Further Notice, 30 FCC Rcd at 9530-38, paras. 1-28.
68
5 U.S.C. § 604(a)(3).
69
5 U.S.C. § 603(b)(3).
70
5 U.S.C. § 601(3)-(6).
71
5 U.S.C. § 601(3) (incorporating by reference the definition of “small business concern” in 15 U.S.C. § 632).  
Pursuant to the RFA, the statutory definition of a small business applies “unless an agency, after consultation with 
the Office of Advocacy of the Small Business Administration and after opportunity for public comment, establishes 
one or more definitions of such term which are appropriate to the activities of the agency and publishes such 
definition(s) in the Federal Register.”  5 U.S.C. § 601(3).
72
See 15 U.S.C. § 632.
73
See SBA, Office of Advocacy, Frequently Asked Questions (March 2014), 
http://www.sba.gov/sites/default/files/FAQ_March_2014_0.pdf. 
74
See 5 U.S.C. § 601(3)-(6); see also U.S. Census Bureau, 2012 NAICS Definitions, 517919 All Other 
Telecommunications at 339, http://www.census.gov/eos/www/naics/2012NAICS/2012_Definition_File.pdf (last 
visited June 17, 2016).
Federal Communications Commission FCC 16-90
104
1. Wireline Providers
38. Wired Telecommunications Carriers.  The SBA has developed a small business size 
standard for Wired Telecommunications Carriers, which consists of all such companies having 1,500 or 
fewer employees.
75
  According to Census Bureau data for 2007, there were 3,188 firms in this category, 
total, that operated for the entire year.
76
  Of this total, 3,144 firms had employment of 999 or fewer 
employees, and 44 firms had employment of 1000 employees or more.
77
  Thus, under this size standard, 
the majority of firms can be considered small.
39. Local Exchange Carriers (LECs).  Neither the Commission nor the SBA has developed a 
size standard for small businesses specifically applicable to local exchange services.  The closest 
applicable size standard under SBA rules is for Wired Telecommunications Carriers.  Under that size 
standard, such a business is small if it has 1,500 or fewer employees.
78
  According to Commission data, 
1,307 carriers reported that they were incumbent local exchange service providers.
79
  Of these 1,307 
carriers, an estimated 1,006 have 1,500 or fewer employees and 301 have more than 1,500 employees.
80
  
Consequently, the Commission estimates that most providers of local exchange service are small entities 
that may be affected by rules adopted pursuant to the Further Notice.
40. Incumbent Local Exchange Carriers (Incumbent LECs).  Neither the Commission nor the 
SBA has developed a small business size standard specifically for incumbent local exchange services.  
The closest applicable size standard under SBA rules is for the category Wired Telecommunications 
Carriers.  Under that size standard, such a business is small if it has 1,500 or fewer employees.
81
  
According to Commission data,
82
1,307 carriers reported that they were incumbent local exchange service 
providers.
83
  Of these 1,307 carriers, an estimated 1,006 have 1,500 or fewer employees and 301 have 
more than 1,500 employees.
84
  Consequently, the Commission estimates that most providers of incumbent 
local exchange service are small businesses that may be affected by rules adopted pursuant to the Further 
Notice.
41. We have included small incumbent LECs in this present RFA analysis.  As noted above, 
a “small business” under the RFA is one that, inter alia, meets the pertinent small business size standard 
(e.g., a telephone communications business having 1,500 or fewer employees), and “is not dominant in its 
field of operation.”
85
  The SBA’s Office of Advocacy contends that, for RFA purposes, small incumbent 
                                                     
75
13 C.F.R. § 121.201; see also U.S. Census Bureau, 2012 NAICS Definitions, 517110 Wired Telecommunications 
Carriers at 337, http://www.census.gov/eos/www/naics/2012NAICS/2012_Definition_File.pdf (last visited June 17, 
2016).
76
U.S. Census Bureau, 2007 Economic Census, Information:  Subject Series – Establishment and Firm Size: 
Employment Size of Firms for the United States, 2007 NAICS Code 517110, Wired Telecommunications Carriers, 
http://factfinder.census.gov/faces/tableservices/jsf/pages/productview.xhtml?pid=ECN_2007_US_51SSSZ5&prodT
ype=table (last visited June 17, 2016).
77
See id. 
78
13 C.F.R. § 121.201, NAICS Code 517110.
79
Wireline Competition Bureau, Industry Analysis and Technology Division, FCC, Trends in Telephone Service, 
tbl. 5.3 (Sept. 2010), https://apps.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-301823A1.pdf (Trends in Telephone 
Service).
80
See id.
81
13 C.F.R. § 121.201, NAICS Code 517110.
82
See Trends in Telephone Service at tbl. 5.3.  
83
See id. 
84
See id.
85
5 U.S.C. § 601(3).
Federal Communications Commission FCC 16-90
105
LECs are not dominant in their field of operation because any such dominance is not “national” in 
scope.
86
  We have therefore included small incumbent LECs in this RFA analysis, although we emphasize 
that this RFA action has no effect on Commission analyses and determinations in other, non-RFA 
contexts.
42. Competitive Local Exchange Carriers (Competitive LECs), Competitive Access Providers 
(CAPs), Shared-Tenant Service Providers, and Other Local Service Providers.  Neither the Commission 
nor the SBA has developed a small business size standard specifically for these service providers.  The 
appropriate size standard under SBA rules is for the category Wired Telecommunications Carriers.  Under 
that size standard, such a business is small if it has 1,500 or fewer employees.
87
  According to 
Commission data, 1,442 carriers reported that they were engaged in the provision of either competitive 
local exchange services or competitive access provider services.
88
  Of these 1,442 carriers, an estimated 
1,256 have 1,500 or fewer employees and 186 have more than 1,500 employees.
89
  In addition, 17 carriers 
have reported that they are Shared-Tenant Service Providers, and all 17 are estimated to have 1,500 or 
fewer employees.
90
  In addition, 72 carriers have reported that they are Other Local Service Providers.
91
  
Of the 72, seventy have 1,500 or fewer employees and two have more than 1,500 employees.
92
  
Consequently, the Commission estimates that most providers of competitive local exchange service, 
competitive access providers, Shared-Tenant Service Providers, and other local service providers are 
small entities that may be affected by rules adopted pursuant to the Further Notice.
43. Interexchange Carriers.  Neither the Commission nor the SBA has developed a small 
business size standard specifically for providers of interexchange services.  The appropriate size standard 
under SBA rules is for the category Wired Telecommunications Carriers.  Under that size standard, such a 
business is small if it has 1,500 or fewer employees.
93
  According to Commission data,
94
359 carriers have 
reported that they are engaged in the provision of interexchange service.  Of these, an estimated 317 have 
1,500 or fewer employees and 42 have more than 1,500 employees.  Consequently, the Commission 
estimates that the majority of IXCs are small entities that may be affected by rules adopted pursuant to the 
Further Notice.
44. Other Toll Carriers.  Neither the Commission nor the SBA has developed a size standard 
for small businesses specifically applicable to Other Toll Carriers.  This category includes toll carriers 
that do not fall within the categories of interexchange carriers, operator service providers, prepaid calling 
card providers, satellite service carriers, or toll resellers.  The closest applicable size standard under SBA 
rules is for Wired Telecommunications Carriers.  Under that size standard, such a business is small if it 
has 1,500 or fewer employees.
95
  According to Commission data, 284 companies reported that their 
                                                     
86
Letter from Jere W. Glover, Chief Counsel for Advocacy, SBA, to William E. Kennard, Chairman, FCC (filed 
May 27, 1999). The Small Business Act contains a definition of “small business concern,” which the RFA 
incorporates into its own definition of “small business.”  15 U.S.C. § 632(a); 5 U.S.C. § 601(3).  SBA regulations 
interpret “small business concern” to include the concept of dominance on a national basis.  13 C.F.R. § 121.102(b).
87
13 C.F.R. § 121.201, NAICS Code 517110.
88
See Trends in Telephone Service at tbl.5.3.
89
See id.
90
See id.
91
See id.
92
See id.
93
13 C.F.R. § 121.201, NAICS Code 517110.
94
Trends in Telephone Service at tbl. 5.3.
95
See 13 C.F.R. § 121.201, NAICS Code 517110.
Federal Communications Commission FCC 16-90
106
primary telecommunications service activity was the provision of other toll carriage.
96
  Of these, an 
estimated 279 have 1,500 or fewer employees and five have more than 1,500 employees.
97
  Consequently, 
the Commission estimates that most Other Toll Carriers are small entities that may be affected by rules 
adopted pursuant to the Further Notice.
2. Wireless Providers
45. Wireless Telecommunications Carriers (except Satellite).  Since 2007, the Census Bureau 
has placed wireless firms within this new, broad, economic census category.
98
  Under the present and 
prior categories, the SBA has deemed a wireless business to be small if it has 1,500 or fewer employees.
99
  
For the category of Wireless Telecommunications Carriers (except Satellite), census data for 2007 show 
that there were 1,383 firms that operated for the entire year.
100
  Of this total, 1,368 firms had employment 
of 999 or fewer employees and 15 had employment of 1000 employees or more.
101
  Since all firms with 
fewer than 1,500 employees are considered small, given the total employment in the sector, we estimate 
that the vast majority of wireless firms are small.
46. Wireless Telephony.  Wireless telephony includes cellular, personal communications 
services, and specialized mobile radio telephony carriers.  The SBA has developed a small business size 
standard for Wireless Telecommunications Carriers (except Satellite).
102
  Under the SBA small business 
size standard, a business is small if it has 1,500 or fewer employees.
103
  According to Commission data, 
413 carriers reported that they were engaged in wireless telephony.
104
  Of these, an estimated 261 have 
1,500 or fewer employees and 152 have more than 1,500 employees.
105
  Consequently, the Commission 
estimates that approximately half or more of these firms can be considered small.  Thus, using available 
data, we estimate that the majority of wireless firms can be considered small.
3. Cable Service Providers
47. Cable and Other Program Distributors.  Since 2007, these services have been defined 
within the broad economic census category of Wired Telecommunications Carriers; that category is 
defined as follows:  “This industry comprises establishments primarily engaged in operating and/or 
providing access to transmission facilities and infrastructure that they own and/or lease for the 
transmission of voice, data, text, sound, and video using wired telecommunications networks.  
                                                     
96
See Trends in Telephone Service at tbl. 5.3.
97
See id.
98
U.S. Census Bureau, 2012 NAICS Definitions, 517210 Wireless Telecommunications Categories (Except 
Satellite) at 338, http://www.census.gov/eos/www/naics/2012NAICS/2012_Definition_File.pdf (last visited June 17, 
2016).
99
13 C.F.R. § 121.201, NAICS Code 517210.  The now-superseded, pre-2007 C.F.R. citations were 13 C.F.R. 
§ 121.201, NAICS Codes 517211 and 517212 (referring to the 2002 NAICS).
100
U.S. Census Bureau, 2007 Economic Census, Information:  Subject Series – Establishment and Firm Size: 
Employment Size of Firms for the United States, 2007 NAICS Code 517210, Wireless Telecommunications Carriers 
(Except Satellite), http://factfinder2.census.gov/bkmk/table/1.0/en/ECN/2007_US/51SSSZ5/naics~517210 (last 
visited June 17, 2016).
101
See id.
102
13 C.F.R. § 121.201, NAICS Code 517210.
103
Id.
104
Trends in Telephone Service at tbl. 5.3.
105
Id.
Federal Communications Commission FCC 16-90
107
Transmission facilities may be based on a single technology or a combination of technologies.”
106
  The 
SBA has developed a small business size standard for this category, which is:  all such firms having 1,500 
or fewer employees.  To gauge small business prevalence for these cable services we must, however, use 
current census data that are based on the previous category of Cable and Other Program Distribution and 
its associated size standard; that size standard was all such firms having $13.5 million or less in annual 
receipts.
107
  According to Census Bureau data for 2007, there were a total of 3,188 firms in this category 
that operated for the entire year.
108
  Of this total, 2,684 firms had annual receipts of under $10 million, 
and 504 firms had receipts of $10 million or more.
109
  Thus, the majority of these firms can be considered 
small and may be affected by rules adopted pursuant to the Order.
48. Cable Companies and Systems.  The Commission has also developed its own small 
business size standards, for the purpose of cable rate regulation.  Under the Commission’s rules, a “small 
cable company” is one serving 400,000 or fewer subscribers, nationwide.
110
  Industry data shows that 
there are 660 cable operators in the country.
111
  Of this total, all but eleven cable operators nationwide are 
small under this size standard.
112
  In addition, under the Commission’s rules, a “small system” is a cable 
system serving 15,000 or fewer subscribers.
113
  Current Commission records show 4,945 cable systems 
nationwide.
114
  Of this total, 4,380 cable systems have less than 20,000 subscribers, and 565 systems have 
20,000 or more subscribers, based on the same records.
115
  Thus, under this standard, we estimate that 
most cable systems are small entities.
                                                     
106
U.S. Census Bureau, 2012 NAICS Definitions, 517110 Wired Telecommunications Carriers at 337 (partial 
definition), http://www.census.gov/eos/www/naics/2012NAICS/2012_Definition_File.pdf (last visited June 17, 
2016).
107
13 C.F.R. § 121.201, NAICS Code 517110.
108
U.S. Census Bureau, 2007 Economic Census, Information:  Subject Series – Establishment and Firm Size, 
Employment Size of Firms for the United States, 2007 NAICS Code 517110, Wired Telecommunication Carriers,. 
http://factfinder.census.gov/faces/tableservices/jsf/pages/productview.xhtml?pid=ECN_2007_US_51SSSZ5&prodT
ype=table (last visited June 17, 2016).
109
Id.
110
47 C.F.R. § 76.901(e).  The Commission determined that this size standard equates approximately to a size 
standard of $100 million or less in annual revenues.  Implementation of Sections of the 1992 Cable Act: Rate 
Regulation, Sixth Report and Order and Eleventh Order on Reconsideration, 10 FCC Rcd 7393, 7408, para. 28 
(1995).  The Commission also applied this size standard to MVPD operators in its implementation of the CALM 
Act.  See Implementation of the Commercial Advertisement Loudness Mitigation (CALM) Act, Report and Order, 26 
FCC Rcd 17222, 17245-46, para. 37 (2011) (CALM Act Report and Order).
111
NCTA, Industry Data, Number of Cable Operators and Systems in the U.S., https://www.ncta.com/industry-data 
(last visited June X, 2016).  Depending upon the number of homes and the size of the geographic area served, cable 
operators use one or more cable systems to provide video service.  See Annual Assessment of the Status of 
Competition in the Market for Delivery of Video Programming, Fifteenth Report, 28 FCC Rcd 10496, 10505-06, 
para. 24 (2013).
112
These data are derived from R.R. Bowker, Broadcasting & Cable Yearbook 2006, “Top 25 Cable/Satellite 
Operators,” pages A-8 & C-2 (data current as of June 30, 2005); Warren Communications News, Television & 
Cable Factbook 2006, “Ownership of Cable Systems in the United States,” pages D-1805 to D-1857.  CALM Act 
Report and Order, 26 FCC Rcd 17222, 17245-46, para. 37.
113
47 C.F.R. § 76.901(c).
114
The number of active, registered cable systems comes from the Commission’s Cable Operations and Licensing 
System (COALS) database on Aug. 28, 2013.  A cable system is a physical system integrated to a principal headend.
115
See id.
Federal Communications Commission FCC 16-90
108
4. All Other Telecommunications
49. The Census Bureau defines this industry as including “establishments primarily engaged 
in providing specialized telecommunications services, such as satellite tracking, communications 
telemetry, and radar station operation.  This industry also includes establishments primarily engaged in 
providing satellite terminal stations and associated facilities connected with one or more terrestrial 
systems and capable of transmitting telecommunications to, and receiving telecommunications from, 
satellite systems.  Establishments providing Internet services or Voice over Internet Protocol (VoIP) 
services via client-supplied telecommunications connections are also included in this industry.”
116
  The
SBA has developed a small business size standard for this category; that size standard is $32.5 million or 
less in average annual receipts.
117
  According to Census Bureau data for 2007, there were 2,383 firms in 
this category that operated for the entire year.
118
  Of these, 2,346 firms had annual receipts of under $25 
million and 37 firms had annual receipts of $25 million or more.
119
  Consequently, we estimate that the 
majority of these firms are small entities that may be affected by our action.
E. Description of Projected Reporting, Recordkeeping, and Other Compliance 
Requirements for Small Entities
50. A number of our rule changes will result in additional reporting, recordkeeping, or 
compliance requirements for small entities. All of the rules we implement impose some compliance 
burdens on small entities by requiring them to become familiar with the new rules to comply with them.  
In certain cases, the burden of becoming familiar with the new rule in order to comply with it is the only 
additional burden the rule imposes.  For all of the rule changes, we have determined that the benefit the 
rule change will bring for consumers, competition, and innovation outweighs the burden of the increased 
requirement/s.  Other rule changes decrease reporting, recordkeeping, or compliance requirements for 
small entities.  We have noted the applicable rule changes below impacting small entities.  
51. Adequate Replacement Test.  Any carrier that wants the potential for automatic grant of a 
technology transition discontinuance application must comply with the new adequate replacement test 
explained above.  Although this will increase reporting, recordkeeping, and compliance requirements for 
small businesses these certification and compliance requirements are minimally necessary to enable us to 
evaluate these types of discontinuance applications more briskly to the benefit of applicants, consumers, 
and public safety entities.  We specifically balance these burdens against the need to ensure that next-
generation services meet the needs of consumers.  These standards will create certainty regarding 
technology transitions discontinuances, and will benefit consumers, public safety entities, and industry 
participants by clarifying the importance of ensuring that network performance will be sufficient, that 
critical applications will continue to function, and that consumers will have access to the applications they 
associate as key components of the applicant service following a technology transition.
120
  
52. Allowing transition applicants to either demonstrate compliance with objective criteria or
make a demonstration that, despite not being able to meet the criteria, the totality of the circumstances 
demonstrates that an adequate replacement nonetheless exists, while remaining eligible for automatic
grant gives applicants flexibility and decreases the burdens associated with strict compliance rules.
121
  
                                                     
116
U.S. Census Bureau, 2012 NAICS Definitions, 517919 All Other Telecommunications at 339, 
http://www.census.gov/eos/www/naics/2012NAICS/2012_Definition_File.pdf (last visited June 17, 2016).
117
See 13 C.F.R. § 121.201, NAICS Code 517919.
118
U U.S. Census Bureau, 2007 Economic Census, Information:  Subject Series – Establishment and Firm Size: 
Employment Size of Firms for the United States, 2007 NAICS Code 517919, All Other Telecommunications, 
http://factfinder2.census.gov/bkmk/table/1.0/en/ECN/2007_US/51SSSZ4/naics~517919 (last visited June 17, 2016).
119
See id.
120
Supra Section III.B.
121
Id.
Federal Communications Commission FCC 16-90
109
Additionally, the Commission evaluating first and third party services equally and allowing applicants 
relying on a third party service to make a prima facie showing based on publicly available information as 
to whether the third party service meets our test as an adequate replacement gives applicants flexibility 
and decreases compliance burdens. The Order further promotes speedy transitions and decreases 
compliance burdens by allowing for a more streamlined approach for discontinuances involving services 
that are substantially similar to those for which Section 214 discontinuance has previously been approved 
and streamlining the Section 214 process in instances where consumers no longer subscribe to legacy 
voice service.
122
  These rules allow the applicant to bypass the performance testing requirements.
123
  Thus, 
the streamlined approach benefits applicants by reducing the reporting, recordkeeping and compliance 
burdens resulting from performance testing requirements, while protecting the interests of all 
stakeholders, industry and consumers.  It also ensures a customer experience with the replacement service 
that is substantially similar to the customer experience with the service being discontinued, without 
creating new overly burdensome obligations.
124
  
53. Moreover, as described above, established network performance testing parameters will 
avoid confusion over the merits of particular results and ensure that the Commission analyzes similar data 
sets from applicants in the technology transitions. Although network testing increases compliance 
burdens, the Order provides some flexibility in the testing parameters an applicant will use.  If the testing 
parameters raise sufficient concerns such that the Commission removes the application from streamlined 
processing, the Commission will still consider those testing parameters in any totality of the 
circumstances analysis of the adequacy of the replacement network.  We conclude these metrics are 
appropriate for replacement networks in order to provide substantially similar performance as a legacy 
TDM service.
54. Another rule that will decrease recording, recordkeeping and compliance burdens on 
small businesses is the performance test exemption for small carriers.  We recognize that in other contexts 
smaller carriers may require more tailored solutions and network testing under the parameters established 
in Appendix B could be more difficult for smaller carriers and relatively speaking burdensome, given the 
more limited number of customers.  Therefore, the Order provides smaller carriers more flexibility in how 
they demonstrate network performance under this prong of the three-prong test.
125
  The Order concludes
that carriers with 100,000 or fewer subscriber lines, aggregated across all affiliates, may remain eligible 
for automatic grant without compliance with the specific testing requirements of the network performance 
criterion we articulate today.
126
  
55. The Order’s established benchmarks for network performance, service availability, and 
network coverage protect consumers that depend on a network performing properly and service to be 
available when needed for everyday or emergency use.
127
  Similarly, consumer access to 911 and the 
dispatchable address requirement are critical to ensuring public safety.  The Order also notes that 
transitioning from legacy-based services to new technologies presents new network vulnerability issues 
that did not exist with legacy technologies and comparing legacy voice services to new technologies is in 
part an apples-to-oranges comparison.  Thus, in order to demonstrate that a replacement service is
offering comparable security, the Order finds that a security benchmark that measures the unique risks 
associated with new technologies is necessary.  The Order notes that satisfaction of this criterion is part of 
the adequate replacement test required for streamlined processing and is not mandatory to discontinue 
                                                     
122
Id.
123
Id.
124
Supra Section III.C.1.a.
125
Id.
126
Id.
127
Supra Section III.C.2.
Federal Communications Commission FCC 16-90
110
service generally.  Moreover, the Order’s interoperability guidelines reflect our goal of ensuring that 
technology transitions broadly benefit consumers of all types, including those who still value certain 
applications and functionalities associated with legacy voice services.
128
  
56. Therefore, the benefits of the adequate replacement test outweigh any additional 
reporting, recordkeeping, or compliance obligations upon small businesses.  
57. Application Requirements.  Applicants filing technology transition discontinuance 
applications and seeking streamlined treatment are also required to provide pricing information about the 
applicant service subject to discontinuance and the proposed replacement service.  Although they are 
required to provide this information, it allows the Commission to evaluate the application in a streamlined 
manner without further information collections.  This also ensures that consumer interests are protected 
throughout technology transitions.
58. Consumer Education & Outreach Plan.  While the Order’s establishment of consumer 
education and outreach materials requires a modest increase in a carrier’s compliance burden, an 
overwhelming majority of commenters support its inclusion as it will help promote the smoothest 
possible technology transition, consumer choice, and the fulfillment of consumer information needs.  The 
outreach plan’s additional protections for vulnerable consumers, as well as the required hotline, further 
promotes these values.  The Commission does not find these requirements to be overly burdensome as 
much of the information we are requiring is similar to the information required through copper retirement 
notices under the rules adopted in the Emerging Wireline Order.
129
  It also enables providers to respond to 
any customers who need assistance during the technology transitions process.  The Commission will 
consider a carrier’s certification to these requirements as part of its overall analysis of whether granting 
the application would be in the public interest to minimize the burdens of strict compliance.  
59. Email Notice and Notice to Tribal Governments.  Allowing providers to send email and 
alternative forms of notifications previously accepted by consumers decreases the burden of the 
discontinuance notification requirement for small businesses.  Thus, making the discontinuance process 
more manageable for small businesses.  Requiring carriers to provide notice of discontinuance 
applications to Tribal governments in the state in which the discontinuance is proposed may increase the 
burden on small entities, but it aligns the notice requirements for Section 214 discontinuance applications 
and copper retirement network changes, imposes the same requirement on all carriers serving Tribal 
lands, and places Tribal governments in all states in a position to prepare and address any concerns from 
consumers in their Tribal communities.
60. Order On Reconsideration.  The Order on Reconsideration’s revisions to the 
Commission’s rules address a gap in the former rules that clarifies and harmonizes the copper retirement 
and discontinuance processes.  Allowing a competitive LEC’s application for discontinuance to be 
deemed granted on the effective date of any copper retirement that made the discontinuance unavoidable 
(if they meet certain requirements described above) reduces the compliance burdens on competitive 
LECs.
130
  Additionally, permitting competitive LECs to have more than four months to consider the 
implications of the planned copper retirement and weigh their alternative further reduces their compliance 
burdens.
131
  
                                                     
128
Supra Section III.C.3.
129
Emerging Wireline Order and Further Notice, 30 FCC Rcd at 9400-05, paras. 46-55.  
130
Supra Section IV.
131
Id.
Federal Communications Commission FCC 16-90
111
F. Steps Taken to Minimize the Significant Economic Impact on Small Entities, and 
Significant Alternatives Considered
61. The RFA requires an agency to describe any significant, specifically small business, 
alternatives that it has considered in reaching its proposed approach, which may include the following 
four alternatives (among others): “(1) the establishment of differing compliance or reporting 
requirements or timetables that take into account the resources available to small entities; (2) the 
clarification, consolidation, or simplification of compliance and reporting requirements under the rule for 
such small entities; (3) the use of performance rather than design standards; and (4) an exemption from 
coverage of the rule, or any part thereof, for such small entities.”
132
62. The Commission is aware that this rulemaking could impact small entities by imposing 
costs and administrative burdens. For this reason, in reaching its final conclusions and taking action in 
this proceeding, the Commission has taken a number of measures to minimize or eliminate the costs and 
burdens generated by compliance with the adopted regulations. As described in Section A of this FRFA, 
for example, we considered alternatives to the rulemaking changes that could have increased the burden 
of compliance for small businesses.
133
  We conclude that the new and updated requirements are minimally 
necessary to ensure we meet our statutory responsibilities with respect to technology transitions while 
preserving the core values of consumer protection, competition, universal service, and public safety.  We 
believe that it is unlikely that small business will be impacted significantly by the final rules so as to 
outweigh the benefits of the rules.
63. In fact, we anticipate that in many instances, small businesses will find their burden 
decreased by the new rules.  For example, permitting email-based notice of planned technology 
transitions discontinuances to customers or notice by any other alternative method to which the customer 
has previously agreed affords carriers greater flexibility in providing notice and establishes a measure of 
symmetry between the email notice requirements for discontinuances and the copper retirement rules.
134
  
The requirement is sufficient to provide customers notice of discontinuance without imposing additional 
burdens on carriers.  Requiring carriers to provide notice of discontinuance applications to Tribal 
governments in the state in which the discontinuance is proposed aligns the notice requirements for 
Section 214 discontinuance applications and copper retirement network changes, imposes the same 
requirement on all carriers serving Tribal lands, and places Tribal governments in all states in a position 
to prepare and address any concerns from consumers in their Tribal communities.
135
  
64. Specifically, allowing technology transition applicants to either demonstrate compliance 
with objective criteria or make a demonstration that, despite not being able to meet the criteria, the 
totality of the circumstances demonstrates that an adequate replacement nonetheless exists, while 
remaining eligible for automatic grant, gives applicants flexibility and decreases the economic burdens on 
small businesses associated with strict compliance rules.
136
  Additionally, the criteria established in the 
three-prong test provides clarity that should enable us to evaluate these types of discontinuance 
applications more briskly, to the benefit of applicants and consumers, including small businesses.  
Incorporating these certifications into our Section 214 process benefits consumers, public safety entities, 
and industry participants alike by providing clear, consistent, and certain guidance regarding the 
importance of ensuring that network performance will be sufficient, critical applications will continue to 
                                                     
132
5 U.S.C. § 603(c)(1)-(c)(4).
133
Supra FRFA Section A, paras. [8, 10, 12-13, 22, 26, 31].
134
Supra Section III.E.2.
135
Supra Section III.E.4.
136
Supra Section III.B.
Federal Communications Commission FCC 16-90
112
function, and that consumers will have access to the applications they associate as key components of the 
applicant service following a technology transition.
137
  
65. Similarly, the Commission evaluating first and third party services equally and allowing 
applicants relying on a third party service to make a prima facie showing based on publicly available 
information as to whether the third party service meets our test as an adequate replacement gives small 
business applicants flexibility and decreases the economic burdens associated with strict compliance 
rules. Furthermore, requiring that a single service (whether first- or third-party) satisfy all three prongs of 
the adequate replacement test in order to be eligible for automatic grant ensures consumers receive the 
integrated service experience they need and deserve and also reduces the potential the economic impact of
consumers having to find and employ multiple service providers to satisfy their needs.
66. The Order recognizes the importance of promoting speedy transitions by allowing for a 
more streamlined approach for discontinuances involving services that are substantially similar to those 
for which Section 214 discontinuance has previously been approved and streamlining the Section 214 
process in instances where consumers no longer subscribe to legacy voice service.
138
  The practical effect 
of these rules is to allow the applicant to bypass the performance testing requirements.
139
  The streamlined 
approach benefits applicants by reducing the economic burdens resulting from performance testing 
requirements, while protecting the interests of all stakeholders, industry and consumers.  As discussed 
above, this also ensures a customer experience with the replacement service that is substantially similar to 
the customer experience with the service being discontinued, without creating new overly burdensome 
obligations.
140
67. Furthermore, the established benchmarks for network performance, service availability, 
and network coverage protect small businesses that depend on a network performing properly and service 
to be available when needed for everyday or emergency use.
141
  Another rule that will decrease the 
economic burden on small businesses is the performance test exemption for small businesses or carriers.
Network testing under the parameters established in Appendix B could be more difficult for smaller 
carriers and relatively speaking economically burdensome, given the more limited number of customers.  
Therefore, the Order provides smaller carriers more flexibility in how they demonstrate network 
performance under this prong of the three-prong test.
142
  The Order’s interoperability guidelines also 
reflect our goal of ensuring that the technology transitions broadly benefit consumers of all types, 
including those who still value certain applications and functionalities associated with legacy voice 
services.
143
  
68. The Order’s communications security criterion will ensure that consumers receive 
comparably effective protection from network security risks as they do with legacy networks.  Limiting 
this criterion to the context of streamlined processing and noting that compliance will be examined 
flexibly will reduce the impact on small businesses.
69. The Order’s establishment of clear guidance on education outreach materials will help 
promote the smoothest possible technology transition, consumer choice, and the fulfillment of consumer 
information needs which effectively protects small businesses that depend on an applicant’s services by 
minimizing any negative economic impact due to lack of understanding about a technology transition.  
                                                     
137
Id. 
138
Id.
139
Id.
140
Id.
141
Id.
142
Supra Sections III.C.1 and C.2.
143
Supra Section III.C.1.a.
Federal Communications Commission FCC 16-90
113
The outreach plan’s additional protections for vulnerable consumers, as well as the required hotline, 
further promotes these values.  
70. By declining to provide any rural LEC exemption, the Order also protects small 
businesses that depend on a network performing properly and service to be available when needed for 
everyday or emergency use.
144
  The Order concludes that rural consumers or small businesses, with often 
limited choice in service providers, should equally benefit from full consideration of the adequacy of any 
replacement service to ensure continued network performance and service quality, as well as access to 
critical applications, and interoperability with valued services.  
71. The Order on Reconsideration’s revisions to the Commission’s rules to make a 
competitive LEC’s application for discontinuance deemed granted on the effective date of any copper 
retirement that made the discontinuance unavoidable as long as the discontinuance application is filed at 
least 40 days prior to the retirement effective date and the competitive LEC certification that the copper 
retirement was the basis for the discontinuance are intended to address a gap in the Commission’s rules 
that left competitive LECs potentially without recourse to avoid violating the discontinuance rules.
145
  
Permitting competitive LECs to have more than four months to consider the implications of the planned 
copper retirement and weigh their alternative reduces burdens the former rules did not properly address.  
These revisions reduce the economic impact on competitive LECs and therefore burdens on consumers by 
clarifying and harmonizing the copper retirement and discontinuance processes.  
G. Federal Rules that Might Duplicate, Overlap, or Conflict with the Rules
72. None.
H. Report to Congress
73. The Commission will send a copy of this Second Report and Order, Order on 
Reconsideration, and Declaratory Ruling, including the FRFA, in a report to be sent to Congress pursuant 
to the SBREFA.
146
  In addition, the Commission will send a copy of this Second Report and Order, Order 
on Reconsideration, and Declaratory Ruling, including this FRFA, to the Chief Counsel for Advocacy of 
the SBA.  A copy of the Second Report and Order, Order on Reconsideration, and Declaratory Ruling, 
and the FRFA (or summaries thereof) will also be published in the Federal Register.
147
                                                     
144
Supra Section III.C.
145
Supra Section IV.B.
146
See 5 U.S.C. § 801(a)(1)(A).
147
See 5 U.S.C. § 604(b).
Federal Communications Commission FCC 16-90
114
STATEMENT OF
CHAIRMAN TOM WHEELER
Re: Technology Transitions, GN Docket No. 13-5; USTelecom Petition for Declaratory Ruling That 
Incumbent Local Exchange Carriers Are Non-Dominant in the Provision of Switched Access 
Services, WC Docket No. 13-3; Policies and Rules Governing Retirement Of Copper Loops by 
Incumbent Local Exchange Carriers, RM-11358.
For the past several years, there has been much discussion at the Commission about the so-called 
“tech transitions.”  The move from traditional circuit-switched voice services running on copper loops to 
all-Internet Protocol (IP) multi-media networks offers the possibility of better performing and lower 
priced phone service for consumers.  In embracing such advances we must not, however, erase the 
historic responsibilities of network operators to the users of their services. 
The Commission has acted on numerous occasions to facilitate these analog-to-IP transitions.  
Each time re-affirming enduring values that have long defined our networks: competition, consumer 
protection, universal service, and public safety.  Building on this progress, the Commission acts today to 
eliminate outdated legacy requirements that are no longer necessary, to develop the proper framework for 
the transition to new technologies, and to preserve basic network operator responsibilities.     
First, we are removing the anachronistic designation of incumbent carriers as dominant in the 
legacy switched access marketplace.  In particular, we grant a petition from the United States Telecom 
Association seeking a declaratory ruling that incumbent local exchange carriers (LECs) are non-dominant 
in their provision of interstate switched access services.  Dominant carrier regulation was developed in the 
1980s and has played a critical role in promoting competitive balance.  But, over the past 40 years, the 
role of legacy switched access service in the marketplace has changed dramatically.  Today’s ruling 
brings our requirements in line with those realities.
Second, we are establishing a framework for evaluating requests to discontinue a legacy voice 
service as part of technology transitions.  Congress charged the Commission with ensuring the public 
interest would not be harmed through a service discontinuance.  We have determined that discontinuances 
that involve the promotion of technology transitions will benefit from a straightforward, streamlined 
review process that focuses on clarity, certainty, and efficiency.
To that end, we announce a three-pronged test for determining whether an application to 
discontinue legacy voice service on which consumers have long-relied merits streamlined treatment.  The 
test will ensure that consumers can continue to expect strong service quality, access to critical 
applications such as 911, and that the applications that consumers value – such as security alarms –
continue to function properly with the new service. 
This adequate replacement test is a gateway to streamlined treatment.  It is entirely voluntary for 
applicants, and small businesses are exempted from the network testing requirements associated with it.
This is a win for everyone.  Industry and the public alike benefit from these clear, technology 
neutral guideposts to next-generation services that preserve the core values of the longstanding Network 
Compact.   
Third, we are requiring Section 214 discontinuance applicants seeking streamlined treatment to 
implement customer outreach plans and provide consumer education materials.  We will allow applicants 
to offer notice via email to increase industry and customer convenience, and require notice to Tribal 
governments in the state where a discontinuance is proposed. 
Federal Communications Commission FCC 16-90
115
We are mindful of the critical importance of ensuring that services remain affordable for 
consumers, and we will rely on our public interest authority where appropriate to provide a careful review 
of any transition that could burden our most vulnerable citizens.  
The broadband network revolution continues, and FCC policies must keep pace.  With today’s 
actions, the Commission renews its commitment to adapting to the changed communications landscape. 
Federal Communications Commission FCC 16-90
116
STATEMENT OF 
COMMISSIONER MIGNON L. CLYBURN 
Re: Technology Transitions, GN Docket No. 13-5; USTelecom Petition for Declaratory Ruling That 
Incumbent Local Exchange Carriers Are Non-Dominant in the Provision of Switched Access 
Services, WC Docket No. 13-3; Policies and Rules Governing Retirement Of Copper Loops by 
Incumbent Local Exchange Carriers, RM-11358.
During my travels across the country over the past four months, as part of my 
#ConnectingCommunities tour, I have seen powerful examples of how modern communications 
technology can make a positive impact in rural and urban communities. 
In May, I saw how Charleston County’s Consolidated 9-1-1 Center in North Charleston, South 
Carolina, is using the power of IP communications to improve service reliability for its community. And 
last month, as I witnessed how the administrators at Palo Alto’s Lucile Packard Children’s Hospital have 
embraced the use of telehealth and electronic medical records to improve patient care outcomes, I 
marveled at just how far we have come from when we adopted the Emerging Wireline Order. Now, I am 
thinking about how far we still need to go.
For decades, consumers have come to expect, that when they pick up their telephone, whether it 
is to contact emergency personnel during a natural or man-made disaster, or simply reconnect with a 
loved one, that their call will be completed. However, the basic infrastructure delivering those telephone 
calls is changing. Copper lines are being replaced by optical fiber and sometimes wires are being replaced 
by wireless technology. Today’s Order is our means of ensuring that consumers will receive in the future 
what they expect now: reliable and secure, voice service.
While a few providers have already undergone these technology transitions, much change is still 
ahead: change we need to evaluate carefully. I am pleased to say we will have a chance to do just that, 
thanks to the authority granted to the Commission under Section 214 of the Communications Act. 
The statute requires the Commission to determine whether it is in the public interest for a carrier 
to discontinue service, and it is our duty to ensure that consumers continue to receive critical service 
functionality, like calling 9-1-1, and having that operator know where they are located. 
That is why we need to carefully evaluate any proposed discontinuances, in the context of 
technology transitions, to ensure that there is an adequate substitute for services poised to be 
discontinued. This is particularly critical when it comes to the most vulnerable in our society, for we 
cannot have, nor can we afford to have, a disconnected community of low-income, elderly or disabled 
citizens, as a result of any technology transition.
How do we best realize this? I have said this before, and will repeat it again: robust consumer 
education. It is unfortunate that this transition does not have the type of funding that enabled FCC staff to 
travel the country to ensure that consumers were notified, like during the DTV transition. Nonetheless, I 
am pleased that the item contains a requirement that carriers develop and disburse educational materials 
to all customers who will be affected by any transition. It also makes available trained staff to answer 
consumer questions about technology transitions. 
I am also grateful that the item contains my suggestion to expand the availability of the consumer 
hotline beyond normal business hours, and make consumer education materials available in other 
languages. Consumers who cannot get to a phone during what is referred to as “regular” business hours, 
which is not so regular if you work shift hours, or are not so proficient in “telecom English,” can get their 
Federal Communications Commission FCC 16-90
117
transition questions answered in a way in which they can understand just what is going on with their vital 
communications service.
  
We also must look out for those who are price sensitive – like the currently unemployed, or those 
on fixed incomes. A new fiber line that results in an unaffordable service is a technology that does not 
hold out much promise for those most in need. So we must make sure that the next great thing in voice is 
not actually a foreclosed opportunity for some, masquerading as progress for all. 
And while I am pleased that the item contains my suggestion that material changes in cost of a 
replacement service can be the basis for an application to not receive streamlined treatment, I believe a 
broader opportunity has been missed. 
We could have ensured that affordability was truly a lynchpin, of the discontinuance analysis, and 
that the particularly-price-sensitive receive special consideration, when service providers, are 
discontinuing service. However, I am comforted that this item has changed to improve consideration for a 
discontinuance’s impact on these vulnerable populations for whom voice service is particularly vital.
I would like to thank the staff of the Wireline Competition Bureau for their hard work on this 
item, which seeks to ensure that consumers remain protected during these important technology 
transitions.
Federal Communications Commission FCC 16-90
118
STATEMENT OF
COMMISSIONER JESSICA ROSENWORCEL
Re: Technology Transitions, GN Docket No. 13-5; USTelecom Petition for Declaratory Ruling That 
Incumbent Local Exchange Carriers Are Non-Dominant in the Provision of Switched Access 
Services, WC Docket No. 13-3; Policies and Rules Governing Retirement Of Copper Loops by 
Incumbent Local Exchange Carriers, RM-11358.
Today we are focused on the future because our networks are changing.  To understand how, take 
a look at the not-so-distant past.  A year ago, when we last visited the issues in this proceeding, there were 
85 million traditional phone lines across the country—down from nearly 200 million at the turn of the 
millennium.  But now our most recent data show that the number of traditional phone lines has fallen 
again—to 73 million lines.  That’s a decrease of 14% in one year alone.  Meanwhile, Americans are 
increasingly choosing other ways to communicate—including a growing number of VoIP and wireless 
connections.  
This is what network change looks like—and our decision today recognizes this reality and 
embraces this change.  It has my full support.    
We acknowledge that our traditional distinction between certain dominant and non-dominant 
services is out of date and out of touch.  As a result, we change our policy framework for incumbent 
providers offering interstate switched access.  This means less red tape and a more competitive playing 
field.  
We also provide a clear path for providers to retire legacy service and move to next generation 
voice technologies, while ensuring key functions like access to 911 are available over what is new and 
next.    
Finally, our decision takes steps to make sure that consumers are informed about network change.  
This is critical.  We require providers to develop outreach plans and keep users informed about how 
network updates can affect their service.  
There are four values that have always informed our communications policy—public safety, 
universal access, competition, and consumer protection.  They have capably guided us in the past, they 
are supported in our decision today, and I believe they can continue to guide us as we navigate the 
network change in our future.    
Federal Communications Commission FCC 16-90
119
STATEMENT OF 
COMMISSIONER AJIT PAI
APPROVING IN PART AND CONCURRING IN PART
Re: Technology Transitions, GN Docket No. 13-5; USTelecom Petition for Declaratory Ruling that 
Incumbent Local Exchange Carriers Are Non-Dominant in the Provision of Switched Access 
Services, WC Docket No. 13-5; Policies and Rules Governing Retirement of Copper Loops by 
Incumbent Local Exchange Carriers, RM-11358.
There are some franchises that you just love.  James Bond thrills.  Terminator explodes with 
action.  And Rocky inspires.  But not every iteration of a franchise has the same magic.  Recall The Living 
Daylights, Terminator: Salvation, or Rocky Balboa—if you can.  It’s not that these are terrible films;
there’s just not much going for them.
This Order—the latest in our IP Transition franchise—carries forward the tradition.  The Order
claims to advance that transition, something I certainly support.  Indeed, for four years, I’ve been calling 
on the FCC to expedite the IP Transition, to end the burdensome regulations that tie up carrier resources 
and slow the deployment of next-generation networks.
1
  And the headlines accompanying today’s release 
are catchy:  It will “strip away the outdated and unnecessary,” “modernize our rules,” and “maximize 
opportunities for creative disruption.”
2
But like many summer blockbusters, this film doesn’t live up to the trailer.  In a world where 
consumers are embracing the IP Transition in growing numbers each and every day, this agency shouldn’t 
be timid—and yet we are.  The highlights of this Order include letting incumbents file certain tariffs a 
few days later,
3
correcting a technicality regarding copper retirement,
4
and automatically granting 
petitions to discontinue services with no customers.
5
  Not much action there.  And the bulk of the Order is 
devoted to laying out the various tests, numerous conditions, and multiple obligations of carriers that 
volunteer to undergo a “streamlined” discontinuance process for voice services—a framework sure to 
scare away most, if not all, volunteers and thus unlikely to have much practical impact.
6
And so, much like the final season of Lost, that recent James Patterson novel, and every Super 
Bowl halftime show since Janet Jackson, there’s just not that much new being revealed.  That said, I do 
approve of the limited relief granted, and I concur on the remainder of the Order.
                                                     
1
Remarks of FCC Commissioner Ajit Pai, “Unlocking Investment and Innovation in the Digital Age: The Path to a 
21st-Century FCC,” Carnegie Mellon University, Pittsburgh, PA (July 18, 2012), http://go.usa.gov/xxZnJ; Remarks 
of FCC Commissioner Ajit Pai: “Two Paths to the Internet Protocol Transition,” Hudson Institute, Washington, DC 
(Mar. 7, 2013), http://go.usa.gov/xxZQY; Remarks of FCC Commissioner Ajit Pai, “The IP Transition: Great 
Expectations or Bleak House?”, Internet Innovation Alliance, Washington, DC (July 24, 2014), 
http://go.usa.gov/xxZnA; Remarks of FCC Commissioner Ajit Pai on Receiving the 2015 Jerry B. Duvall Public 
Service Award at the Phoenix Center 2015 Annual U.S. Telecoms Symposium (Dec. 1, 2015), 
http://go.usa.gov/xxZQB.
2
Order at para. 3 (internal punctuation omitted).
3
Order at para. 44.
4
Order at para. 195.
5
Order at para. 77.
6
See Order at paras. 88–192.
Federal Communications Commission FCC 16-90
120
STATEMENT OF 
COMMISSIONER MICHAEL O’RIELLY
APPROVING IN PART AND DISSENTING IN PART
Re: Technology Transitions, GN Docket No. 13-5; USTelecom Petition for Declaratory Ruling That 
Incumbent Local Exchange Carriers Are Non-Dominant in the Provision of Switched Access 
Services, WC Docket No. 13-3; Policies and Rules Governing Retirement Of Copper Loops by 
Incumbent Local Exchange Carriers, RM-11358.
I agree wholeheartedly with the Commission’s assessment that “[t]here has been an indisputable 
‘societal and technological shift’ away from switched telephone service as a fixture of American life.”  
While switched access service “once dominated the landscape”, demand for the service has 
“plummet[ed]” as consumers have switched to wireless and VoIP platforms—to the extent they make 
calls at all.  Instead, consumers have voluntarily switched to a degree for some and to a considerable 
amount for others to text, email, video chat, and social networking applications to meet their 
communications needs.  
I am pleased that the Commission recognizes this and has finally issued a Declaratory Ruling 
granting USTelecom’s long-pending petition for relief from dominant carrier regulations with respect to 
switched access voice.  While I would have decided the petition on broader grounds, and provided even 
greater relief, any step to remove unnecessary regulation is a step in the right direction. 
However, I find it hard to reconcile the Commission’s findings in the Declaratory Ruling that 
consumers are “increasingly able and willing to abandon their landlines in favor of communications 
technologies that do not rely on local telephone switches” with the statement in the Second Report and 
Order that “the special and long-standing importance of voice service to consumers warrants developing 
… additional criteria for streamlined treatment during technology transitions.”  This particular technology 
transition is nearly over.  The item states that almost 75 percent of U.S. residential customers 
(approximately 88 million households) no longer receive telephone service over traditional copper 
facilities.  
If it were so important to adopt criteria to ensure consumers receive an adequate replacement, that 
train left the station years ago.  The millions of consumers that have already abandoned legacy voice 
service seem to have their own criteria in mind, and there are a plethora of options that apparently meet 
those criteria.  To the extent legacy voice service remains “special” to some consumers, the Commission 
could continue to ensure that consumers receive adequate notice of discontinuances so that they can plan 
accordingly.  But in general, the proper role for the Commission, at this stage, is to remove obstacles to 
innovation and consumer choice, not create new ones.  
When I think of a streamlined process for discontinuing legacy services, I envision fast tracking 
applications for services that are no longer widely used by consumers.  It would not entail things like 
three more prongs, network testing, cybersecurity certifications, promises to support fax machines for 
another nine years, or a “totality of the circumstances” review, whatever that means.  Only the FCC could 
create a process that imports all of the existing rules, adds some new ones, makes no assurances about 
timing, and call it “streamlined” with a straight face.  And let’s face facts that despite how it is portrayed, 
this new process is going to become the sole standard for getting Commission approval on such matters.  
I am not surprised that the Commission goes to great length to stress how voluntary this process 
is because it does not actually comport with section 214 of the Act.  I do not begrudge any carrier that 
decides to take advantage of the new process.  However, I do not support the expansion of section 214 to 
implicitly regulate new services.  By effectively subjecting replacement offerings to rules originally 
Federal Communications Commission FCC 16-90
121
adopted for legacy voice service, the Commission is further extending its regulatory overreach, and that is 
terrible precedent.  
Even worse, the Commission uses this optional process as an excuse to create cybersecurity 
requirements for replacement offerings that never applied to legacy voice services.  As I have said many 
times, the Commission has no authority to adopt cybersecurity requirements. While I certainly appreciate 
being lectured at our last meeting that somehow raising objections to illogical network protections was 
highly irresponsible, nothing changes the fact that cybersecurity is an important issue and Congress has 
assigned authority to oversee it to other agencies.  Therefore, I do not support its inclusion in this item, 
voluntary or not. 
Moreover, the cybersecurity section stands in stark contrast to other parts of the item, where the 
Commission concludes “this is not the appropriate forum in which to impose new substantive 
requirements”.  Of course, the Commission falls back on the familiar refrain that the new cybersecurity 
requirements are limited to the voluntary process.  But the Commission has consistently dispelled the 
notion that its foray into cybersecurity is either limited or voluntary.  
Regarding the Order on Reconsideration, I support the common sense fix to ensure that 
competitive LECs are not potentially liable for violating our discontinuance rules for reasons entirely 
outside of their control.
In sum, I thank the Chairman and staff for working with me to come to resolution on the 
Declaratory Ruling, but I had hoped to see more progress made to remove legacy rules and barriers to 
discontinue services that most consumers no longer use.  Two and a half years ago, when the Commission 
set up a voluntary process for technology transition trials, it was so laden with conditions that there were 
almost no participants.  I am skeptical that this latest voluntary process will be any different.