WCB_Comprehensive Market Data Collect for ISAS_SS Part A rev 081514

WCB_Comprehensive Market Data Collect for ISAS_SS Part A rev 081514.pdf

Comprehensive Market Data Collection for Interstate Special Access Services, FCC 12-153

OMB: 3060-1197

Document [pdf]

Download: pdf | pdf

3060-xxxx
December 2013 (rev. August 2014)
Comprehensive Market Data Collection for Interstate Special Access Services

SUPPORTING STATEMENT
This submission is being made pursuant to 44 U.S.C. § 3507 of the Paperwork Reduction Act of
1995 (PRA) to obtain approval from the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for a new information
collection to obtain data and information for an analysis of the special access market.
A. Justification:
1.
On December 11, 2012, the Federal Communications Commission (Commission) adopted a
Report and Order and Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking calling for the mandatory collection of
data and information for a comprehensive analysis of the special access market.1 The Commission
proposes to collect data from Providers and Purchasers of Dedicated Services as well as from certain
entities that provide Best Efforts Business Broadband Internet Access Service.2 The collected data
include, among other things, information on Locations served with facilities, billing at the circuit-level,
network maps, revenues and expenditures. The Commission delegated authority to the Wireline
Competition Bureau (Bureau) to implement the collection.
Special access encompasses all communications services that do not use local switches. This
includes services that employ dedicated facilities that run directly between the end user and a service
provider’s point-of-presence, between the service provider’s network and the network of another
provider, or between two discrete end user locations. Mostly provisioned via high-capacity circuits,
special access – also referred to herein as Dedicated Service - plays a critical role in our economy and the
provision of broadband services. For example, competitive local exchange carriers rely on special access
to reach customers; enterprise customers rely on special access – directly or indirectly – to conduct their
business; and “[s]chools, libraries, and other institutions of state and local government depend on special
access to provide services to their constituents.”3
The Commission subjects Incumbent Local Exchange Carriers (ILECs) to dominant carrier
regulation for the provision of certain special access services, capping the prices charged and only
1

See Special Access for Price Cap Local Exchange Carriers; AT&T Corporation Petition for Rulemaking to Reform
Regulation of Incumbent Local Exchange Carrier Rates for Interstate Special Access Services, WC Docket No. 0525, RM-10593, Report and Order and Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, 27 FCC Rcd 16318 (2012) (referred
to as either Special Access Data Collection Order or Special Access Data Collection FNPRM); 78 Fed. Reg. 2572
(Jan. 11, 2013) (providing the public with a summary of the Special Access Data Collection Order).
2

Capitalized and italicized terms contained herein are defined in the collection. See Attachment A § I, Definitions.
The data collection uses the term Dedicated Service, which is defined as a service that “transports data between two
or more designated points, e.g., between an End User’s premises and a point-of-presence, between the central office
of a local exchange carrier (LEC) and a point-of-presence, or between two End User premises, at a rate of at least
1.5 Mbps in both directions (upstream/downstream) with prescribed performance requirements that include
bandwidth-, latency-, or error-rate guarantees or other parameters that define delivery under a Tariff or in a servicelevel agreement.” See Attachment A, Definition of Dedicated Service. Dedicated Service includes regulated and
unregulated “special access” service and its functional equivalents. See Special Access Data Collection Order, 27
FCC Rcd at 16319, para. 1 n.1 (defining special access). Dedicated Service does not include “best efforts” services,
which are handled separately in the data collection. See Attachment A, Definitions for Dedicated Service and Best
Efforts Business Broadband Internet Access Service.
3

Special Access for Price Cap Local Exchange Carriers; AT&T Corporation Petition for Rulemaking to Reform
Regulation of Incumbent Local Exchange Carrier Rates for Interstate Special Access Services, WC Docket No. 0525, RM-10593, Report and Order, 27 FCC Rcd 10557, 10559, para. 2 (2012) (Pricing Flexibility Suspension Order).

3060-xxxx
December 2013 (rev. August 2014)
Comprehensive Market Data Collection for Interstate Special Access Services
allowing pricing flexibility when the specified regulatory triggers are satisfied. Under price cap
regulation, the Commission’s Price Cap Index is designed to limit the price ILECs charge for service.
With the grant of pricing flexibility, ILECs can “offer special access services at unregulated rates through
generally available and individually negotiated tariffs.”4 Special access service subject to price cap
regulation largely consists of time-division multiplexing (TDM)-based services, DS1s and DS3s, which
have a symmetrical bandwidth of about 1.5 Mbps and 44 Mbps, respectively.5 The Commission estimates
that the four largest ILECs generated more than $12 billion in revenues from regulated special access
services in 2010 alone and more than $40 billion in revenues were generated by Providers when
considering the broader special access market.6
In August 2012, the Commission suspended its rules for the further grant of pricing flexibility for
special access services in areas subject to price cap regulation.7 The Commission took this step based on
“significant evidence that these rules, adopted in 1999, are not working as predicted, and widespread
agreement across industry sectors that these rules fail to accurately reflect competition in today’s special
access markets.”8 As the Commission found, the pricing flexibility triggers, which are tied to the extent
of collocations in an ILEC’s wire centers within such ILEC’s service territory within a Metropolitan
Statistical Area (MSA), “are a poor proxy for the presence of competition sufficient to constrain special
access prices or deter anticompetitive practices . . . .”9 The Commission then set course for a one-time
data collection “to identify a permanent reliable replacement approach to measure the presence of
competition for special access services.”10
On December 18, 2012, the Commission released the Special Access Data Collection Order,
outlining the data collection.11 Because the Commission found that “[c]ompetition in the provision of
special access appears to occur at a very granular level—perhaps as low as the building/tower,” the
Commission designed the collection to obtain data at an equally granular level to better understand why
competition occurs in certain locations but not in other areas.12 Services covered by the collection include
traditional TDM-based special access service (including DS1s and DS3s), Packet-Based Dedicated
Service (PBDS) such as Ethernet, and Best Efforts Business Broadband Internet Access Service to ensure
4

Pricing Flexibility Suspension Order, 27 FCC Rcd at 10563, para. 11.

The Commission has granted forbearance from price cap regulation for certain packet-based and optical
transmission special access services to the largest ILECs.
6

See Pricing Flexibility Suspension Order, 27 FCC Rcd at 10559, para. 2; Federal and State Staff for the FederalState Joint Board on Universal Service, Universal Service Monitoring Report, CC Docket No. 98-202,
Supplementary Report Material (2012), available at http://transition.fcc.gov/wcb/iatd/monitor.html (click
Supplementary Report Material link, 2012 Monitoring Report Supplementary Material directory, Other directory,
Revenue Details – 2010.xlsx).
7

See Pricing Flexibility Suspension Order, 27 FCC Rcd at 10557-58, para. 1.

Id. The U.S. Government Accountability Office (GAO) has also encouraged the Commission to collect data to
better understand competition in the special access market. See GAO, FCC Needs to Improve its Ability to Monitor
and Determine the Extent of Competition in Dedicated Access Services 43-44 (2006) (“Consider collecting
additional data and developing additional measures to monitor competition on an ongoing basis that more accurately
represents market developments and individual customer choice (e.g., price indices and the extent of competitors’
networks.”), available at http://www.gao.gov/assets/260/254069.pdf.
9

Pricing Flexibility Suspension Order, 27 FCC Rcd at 10560, para. 5.

Id. at 10560, para. 6.

See Special Access Data Collection Order, 27 FCC Rcd at 16360, App. A.

Id. at 16327-28, para. 22.

3060-xxxx
December 2013 (rev. August 2014)
Comprehensive Market Data Collection for Interstate Special Access Services
a “clear picture of all competition in the marketplace.”13 Those required to respond include Providers and
Purchasers of special access and certain entities providing Best Efforts Business Broadband Internet
Access Service.14 The geographic and temporal scope includes data on a nationwide basis for areas where
the Incumbent Local Exchange Carrier (ILEC) is subject to price cap regulation (i.e., price cap areas)
with the majority of the data obtained from calendar years 2010 and 2012.15 Respondents are required to
retain data and information “prepared for, or in connection with, their responses . . . for a period of three
years or until the Commission releases a notice relieving respondents of this retention requirement . . . .”16
The general categories of data and information identified by the Commission for collection are:
market structure, pricing, demand, terms and conditions, and competition and pricing decisions.17 Under
each category, most of which would be collected from Providers, the Commission highlighted the types
of data and information covered. For example, market structure included, among other things, data
exclusively from Providers on facilities used to provide Dedicated Service, non-price factors affecting
deployment, collocations, and network maps.18 The pricing information included data exclusively from
Providers on the “quantities sold and prices charged for special access services, by circuit element” and
required ILECs to “list the form of price regulation that applies . . . on a wire-center-by-wire-center
basis.”19 The demand data included not only information on the bandwidth of special access sold and
revenues earned by Providers but also on the expenditures made by Purchasers.20 The terms and
conditions section called for information and data from both Providers and Purchasers, seeking details on
topics such as the discounts and benefits associated with Tariff plans and the business rationale for those
plans.21 The Commission also sought information on Requests for Proposals and advertised and marketed
services to help evaluate competition and pricing decisions for special access services. Lastly, the
Commission described the coverage area and price information it sought to collect from entities providing
Best Efforts Business Broadband Internet Access Service.22 The Commission provided an “initial
version” of the questions and definitions for the collection as an appendix to the order.23
On September 18, 2013, the Bureau released a Report and Order clarifying the scope of the
collection; providing instructions on how to respond to the data collection questions; and providing a list
of all modifications and amendments to the data collection questions and definitions.24 These actions
13

Id. at 16326-27, paras. 16-19.

Id. at 16327-28, para. 22 (exempting those entities providing Best Efforts Business Broadband Internet Access
Service with fewer than 15,000 customers and fewer than 1,500 business broadband customers).
15

Id. at 16328-31, paras. 23-29.

Id. at 16340, para. 54.

Id. at 16331, para. 30.

Id. at 16331-33, paras. 31-35.

Id. at 16333, paras. 36-37.

Id. at 16333-34, para. 38.

Id. at 16334, para. 39.

Id. at 16335-37, paras. 40-46.

Id. at 16331, para. 30.

See Special Access for Price Cap Local Exchange Carriers; AT&T Corporation Petition for Rulemaking to
Reform Regulation of Incumbent Local Exchange Carrier Rates for Interstate Special Access Services, WC Docket
No. 05-25, RM-10593, Report and Order, DA 13-1909, para. 7 (Wireline Comp. Bur. rel. Sept. 18, 2013) (Data
Collection Implementation Order).

3060-xxxx
December 2013 (rev. August 2014)
Comprehensive Market Data Collection for Interstate Special Access Services
were based on feedback received from potential respondents, including the PRA comments filed with the
Commission during the 60-day public comment period, and the Bureau’s further internal review.25
The Commission plans to use the data collected for a one-time, multi-faceted market analysis.26
The analysis will evaluate “how the intensity of competition (or lack thereof), whether actual or potential,
affects prices, controlling for all other factors that affect prices.”27 The analysis will include
“econometrically sound panel regressions . . . of the prices for special access on characteristics such as 1)
the number of facilities-based competitors (both actual and potential); 2) the availability of, pricing of,
and demand for best efforts business broadband Internet access services; 3) the characteristics of the
purchased service; and 4) other factors that influence the pricing decisions of special access providers,
including cost determinants (e.g., density of sales) and factors that deliver economies of scale and scope
(e.g., level of sales).”28 Because of the various factors that may influence competition at a particular
location, the Commission has designed the collection to obtain detailed data at the location level;
aggregated data at the national level will not provide the level of granularity needed for the Commission’s
analysis of the special access market. For an additional discussion on the Commission’s decision to use a
census approach instead of a sample survey, see the response to Item B.2. The Commission also plans to
analyze the information from Purchasers, as well as Providers, to assess the reasonableness of terms and
conditions offered by ILECs for special access service.29
Once the data are analyzed, the Commission can evaluate whether to make changes to its existing
pricing flexibility rules to better target regulatory relief in particular geographic areas where “actual and
potential competition for special access is likely to constrain prices.”30 The Commission’s existing
pricing flexibility rules, which are currently suspended, are based on predictive proxies instead of data
and are not working as predicted. ILECs operating in areas that are arguably competitive are denied
pricing flexibility under the current rules and relief is instead granted in areas where competition is
lacking; “this mismatch is causing real harm to American consumers and businesses and hindering
investment and innovation.”31 The Commission now plans to undertake a data-driven approach to better
understand the factors that influence competition in a particular location. With the data and analysis, the
Commission can then evaluate whether to use a different proxy-based approach to granting regulatory
relief based on the presence of specifically identified factors within an area that are indicative of actual or
potential for special access competition, a case-by-case approach, or some hybrid of the two.32
Changes to the Collection in accordance with OMB’s PRA review process.
1. Where data sought for 2010 and/or 2012, only require the reporting of data for a single
year, and use the most recent year (i.e., calendar year 2013).

See id. at para. 7.

Special Access Data Collection FNPRM, 27 FCC Rcd at 16343-49, paras. 66-71.

Id. at 16346-47, paras. 68-69.

Id. at 16346, para. 68.

Id. at 16354-56, paras. 91-93.

See Special Access Data Collection FNPRM, 27 FCC Rcd at 16346, para. 69.

See Pricing Flexibility Suspension Order, 27 FCC Rcd at 10559, para. 3.

See Special Access Data Collection FNPRM, 27 FCC Rcd at 16352, paras. 81-84.

3060-xxxx
December 2013 (rev. August 2014)
Comprehensive Market Data Collection for Interstate Special Access Services
2. Revise definition of Purchasers to exclude entities from the collection that purchased less
than $5 million in Dedicated Services in 2013 (in areas where the ILEC is subject to price
cap regulation).
3. Do not require Purchasers to answer Questions II.E.4-8, II.E.14, II.F.3-7, and II.F.13.
Purchasers can provide information in response to such questions on a voluntary basis.33
4. Require the reporting of revenues and expenditures broken down by bandwidth as set
forth in Questions II.A.16, II.B.9, II.E.7-8, and II.F.6-7, only if respondent keeps such
information in the normal course of business. Otherwise, respondent can provide
information on a voluntary basis.
5. Only require the reporting of CLLI code for ILEC wire center in response to Question
II.E.2.d if kept in the normal course of business. Otherwise, respondent can provide
information on a voluntary basis.
6. In Question II.A.11 directed at Competitive Providers, only require responses where the
respondent was selected as the winning bidder on a Request for Proposal (RFP).
Respondents can provide information on unsuccessful RFP bids and business rules relied
upon to submit bids on a voluntary basis.
7. In Questions II.A.4.c and II.B.3.c regarding the reporting of Locations with Connections,
Providers are only required to provide the geocode for the Location if the respondent
keeps such information in the normal course of business. Respondent can, however,
provide such information on a voluntary basis.
8. In Question II.A.5 directed at Competitive Providers regarding fiber maps and the
reporting of Nodes used to interconnect with third party networks, do not require cable
companies to show the feeder links to locations, only their interoffice transport fiber
network. In addition, cable companies are only required to report their headends (i.e.,
Nodes) that they have upgraded to provide metro Ethernet service, or its functional
equivalent.
We have made revisions to the questionnaire and instructions consistent with the above
changes.34 Parts A and B of the supporting statement have also been revised to reflect these changes.
Authority for the Information Collection. There is widespread accord in the record of this docket
that the Commission has the authority to require the collection of the data and information it needs to
inform its future actions.35 The Commission’s statutory authority for the collection stems from several
parts of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (the “Act” or the “Communications Act”). Section
201 of the Act, 47 U.S.C. § 201, requires the agency to ensure that rates, terms, and conditions for
communications services are just and reasonable. Section 202 of the Act, 47 U.S.C. § 202, prohibits
33

Note that the Bureau already made optional in its September 2013 order the following questions: II.E.9-11, 13
and II.F.8-10, 12. Data Collection Implementation Order, 28 FCC Rcd at 13209, paras. 51-52. Accordingly, with
the above revisions, the only remaining mandatory questions directed at Purchasers are as follows: II.E.1-3, II.E.12,
II.E.15, II.F.1-2, II.F.11, and II.F.14.
34

See Attachments A and B (rev. August 2014).

See Special Access Data Collection Order, 27 FCC Rcd at 16339, para. 50 n.104.

3060-xxxx
December 2013 (rev. August 2014)
Comprehensive Market Data Collection for Interstate Special Access Services
unjust or unreasonable discrimination in “charges, practices, classifications, regulations, facilities, or
services for or in connection with like communication service.” Section 706 of the Act, 47 U.S.C.
§ 1302(a), requires the Commission to “encourage the deployment of advanced telecommunications
capability . . . by utilizing, in a manner consistent with the public interest, convenience, and necessity,
price cap regulation, regulatory forbearance, measures that promote competition in the local
telecommunications market, or other regulating methods that remove barriers to infrastructure
investment.”
The data that respondents submit will enable the Commission not only to determine whether
carriers’ special access rates, terms, and conditions are just and reasonable under section 201, but also
whether they are nondiscriminatory under section 202 and encourage the deployment of advanced
telecommunications capability pursuant to section 706. Sections 201, 202, and 706 provide ample
statutory authority for this collection, augmented by the Commission’s authority in 47 U.S.C. § 154(i) to
“perform any and all acts . . . and issue such orders . . . as may be necessary in the execution of [our]
functions” and 47 U.S.C. § 201(b), which authorizes the Commission to “prescribe such rules and
regulations as may be necessary in the public interest to carry out the provisions” of the Communications
Act.
The above provisions give the Commission the authority to collect data, information, and
documents from ILECs, which is the class of providers whose services are potentially subject to
regulatory change in this proceeding. Additionally, section 218 of the Act, 47 U.S.C. § 218, requires the
Commission to keep itself informed of the conduct of business of all carriers subject to Title II of the Act,
and permits the Commission to obtain from carriers full and complete information necessary to enable the
Commission to perform the duties and carry out the objects for which it was created. Thus, we also have
authority under section 218 to obtain data from ILECs, competitive local exchange carriers (CLECs),
commercial mobile radio service providers, and other common carriers, whether or not they provide or
purchase special access service or other relevant services. Finally, under section 1 of the Act, 47 U.S.C.
§ 151, the Commission has the authority to extend the data collection beyond common carriers to include
other market participants that provide interstate communications by wire or radio.
This data collection is mandatory as defined by the PRA. Those failing to comply are subject to
monetary forfeitures of up to $160,000 for each violation or each day of a continuing violation, up to a
maximum of $1,575,000 for any single act or failure to act that is a continuing violation.36 False
statements or misrepresentations to the Commission may be punishable by fine or imprisonment under
Title 18 of the U.S. Code.
This information collection does not affect individuals or households. Therefore, there are no
privacy impacts.
2.
The Commission will use this data and information to conduct a one-time comprehensive
evaluation of competition in the special access market, and to assess whether certain terms and conditions
of sale for special access service are just and reasonable. The Commission will use the results of this
analysis to evaluate potential changes to its existing pricing flexibility rules in a notice-and-comment
rulemaking proceeding. Changes, if appropriate, will better target regulatory relief to areas where actual

47 U.S.C. § 503(b)(2)(B); see also 47 C.F.R. § 1.80(b)(2). Part 1.80(b) of the Commission's rules was recently
amended to increase penalty amounts to account for inflation. See Amendment of Section 1.80(B) of the
Commission's Rules, Adjustment of Civil Monetary Penalties to Reflect Inflation, Order, DA 13-1615 (Enf. Bureau
rel. Aug. 2, 2013); see also 78 Fed. Reg. 49370 (Aug. 14, 2013).

3060-xxxx
December 2013 (rev. August 2014)
Comprehensive Market Data Collection for Interstate Special Access Services
or potential competition is acting as a constraint to ensure just and reasonable rates and terms and
conditions for special access services.
3.
The Commission will create a secure web portal for the electronic submission of responses.
Filers will login using an FCC Registration Number (FRN) and password and download a data container
that will include record specifications for compiling data responses and software tools to verify that data
are submitted in the appropriate format. Filers will subsequently log in using their FRN and password
and electronically submit responses (both data and narrative responses) to the data collection. In addition
to using a web portal, we are considering using an SSH File Transfer Protocol (SFTP) for the electronic
submission of larger files to the Commission (up to eleven gigabytes in size) and allowing for the manual
submission of even larger files on storage devices. The Bureau will provide additional details on the
electronic filing process in advance of the submission deadline. There will be no paper submissions
associated with this data collection.
4.
There is no avoidable duplication in any question in this information collection request. No other
agency imposes a similar information collection on the respondents. No information is requested if it could
reasonably be found in publicly available sources.
Certain requests for data are complimentary, as when we ask both Providers and Purchasers for
information on the Tariffs used to provide and purchase Dedicated Service. Such overlapping questions
allow Commission analysts to cross-check submissions for accuracy and to follow up in case of
significant variation. The reliability of the data collection would be impaired without this verification.
Some respondents may conclude that qualitative inquiries concerning terms and conditions could
essentially require them to duplicate comments that they have already filed in this proceeding.
Respondents may cut and paste prior comments that are still timely and accurate. In addition, we have
made certain qualitative questions directed at Purchasers optional.37
5.
With two exceptions detailed below – entities in rate-of-return areas and certain entities providing
Best Efforts Business Broadband Internet Access Service – the Commission declined to exempt small
providers, even providers with twenty-five or fewer employees, from responding to this data collection.
The Commission found that competition “appears to occur at a very granular level – perhaps as low as the
building/tower” and concluded that even a very small provider can have a large effect on a local market if
it competes to serve an office park or central business district.38 Accordingly, the data must be
comprehensive to understand how competitive entry – even the threat of entry posed by small, perhaps
nascent competitors – affects the market for special access. The Commission thus declined to exclude
providers of special access based on their size from this information collection.
The focus of the underlying rulemaking proceeding is on the regulation of special access services
in price-cap territories. Accordingly, entities that only provide or purchase Dedicated Service or provide
Best Efforts Business Broadband Internet Access Service in areas subject to interstate rate-of-return
regulation are not required to provide data and information in response to the collection. However, if an
entity in an interstate rate-of-return area reported broadband connections to end user locations on the
Form 477 “Local Telephone Competition and Broadband Reporting,” the entity would have to certify to
the Commission that it is outside the scope of the collection, but this burden is minimal.39

See response to Item A.8.

Special Access Data Collection Order, 27 FCC Rcd at 16327, para. 22.

See Data Collection Implementation Order at paras. 16-18; Response to Item B.1.

3060-xxxx
December 2013 (rev. August 2014)
Comprehensive Market Data Collection for Interstate Special Access Services
By limiting the scope of the data collection to price cap areas, we substantially reduce the burden
on smaller carriers. Price cap areas are typically more urban, metropolitan whereas rate-of-return areas
are predominantly rural in nature.40 Carriers operating in rural interstate rate-of-return areas are typically
smaller in size. For example, at the holding-company level, there are 13 price cap ILECs with an average
of more than 6,000,000 lines each.41 In comparison, there are 754 rate-of-return ILECs with an average
of fewer than 8,000 lines each.42 Limiting the collection to price cap areas inevitably reduces the number
of smaller carriers affected.
The Commission further reduced the burden on smaller entities by exempting entities that only
provide Best Efforts Business Broadband Internet Access Service if they have fewer than 15,000
customers and fewer than 1,500 business broadband customers. For those entities above this threshold,
the Commission will not require information if the entity did not submit data for the State Broadband
Initiative (SBI) Grant Program in 2010 or 2012. In these ways, the Commission further tailors its
collection to those providers with the resources to compile the data.
In addition to the limited exceptions noted above, the Bureau clarified in the Data Collection
Implementation Order that the Commission intended a narrower scope for Purchasers subject to the
collection. The term Purchasers is broadly defined by the Commission to include “any entity subject to
the Commission’s jurisdiction . . . that purchases special access services.”43 There are potentially
hundreds of thousands of license and authorization holders, information service providers, or others that
are “subject to the Commission’s jurisdiction” but otherwise are simply consumers of Dedicated Services
and are unfamiliar with, and perhaps completely unaware of, the Commission’s requirements and
proceedings involving the regulation of ILECs in price cap areas.
Consistent with the Commission’s overall intent, the Bureau clarified that the definition of
Purchasers excludes from the collection entities that are subject to the Commission’s jurisdiction only
because they fall within one or more of the categories listed below. These exclusions do not apply to
entities that hold licenses, authorizations or registrations under any other Part of the Commission’s rules
not listed below, or that provide a Dedicated Service or a Best Efforts Business Broadband Internet
Access Service in a price cap area.44





End Users that provide an information service;
Equipment authorization holders regulated under Parts 2 and 15 of the Commission’s rules;
Accounting authorization holders in the maritime and maritime mobile-satellite radio services
regulated under Part 3 of the Commission’s rules;
Experimental radio authorization holders regulated under Part 5 of the Commission’s rules;

A map depicting the study areas where incumbent local exchange carriers (ILECs) are subject to price cap and
rate-of-return regulation is available on the Commission’s website. See FCC, http://www.fcc.gov/maps/regulatorytype-holding-company-level-study-area.
41

See FCC, Universal Service High-Cost Program Disbursements, http://www.fcc.gov/document/universal-servicehigh-cost-program-disbursements (analyzing 2010 data) (last visited July 17, 2013).
42

Id.

Special Access Data Collection Order, 27 FCC Rcd at 16327, para. 20.

For example, an entity holding an earth station license issued under Part 25 of the Commission’s rules that also
has an experimental license issued under Part 15 (a listed exclusion category), is not excluded from the collection if
it purchased Dedicated Service in a price cap area during the relevant reporting periods. Likewise, an entity holding
an antenna structure registration under Part 17 (a listed exclusion category) is not excluded from the collection if it
provided a covered Best Efforts Business Broadband Internet Access Service in a price cap area.

3060-xxxx
December 2013 (rev. August 2014)
Comprehensive Market Data Collection for Interstate Special Access Services











Commercial radio operators regulated under Part 13 of the Commission’s rules;
Antenna structure registration holders regulated under Part 17 of the Commission’s rules;
Television and radio broadcasters regulated under Part 73 of the Commission’s rules;
Holders of authorizations issued pursuant to Part 74 of the Commission’s rules such as
experimental radio, auxiliary, special broadcast and other program distribution service
authorizations;
Maritime service authorization holders regulated under Part 80 of the Commission’s rules;
Aviation service authorization holders regulated under Part 87 of the Commission’s rules;
Private land mobile radio service authorization holders regulated under Part 90 of the
Commission’s rules except for holders of authorizations under Part 90 for the provision of
point-to-point fixed microwave services and authorizations in the Wireless Broadband
Services frequency band, 3650-3700 MHz;
Personal radio service authorization holders regulated under Part 95 of the Commission’s
rules; and
Amateur radio service authorization holders regulated under Part 97 of the Commission’s
rules.

As explained in the Data Collection Implementation Order, excluding the above listed entities
that could potentially purchase special access from the collection will not adversely affect the
Commission’s analysis. The analysis will rely more heavily on the data obtained from Providers, e.g.,
Locations served and prices charged at the circuit-level, than the limited information on terms and
conditions obtained from Purchasers.45 Although the data obtained from Purchasers will help to identify
harmful, anticompetitive conduct in the sale of Dedicated Service, it need not, and indeed cannot, be
comprehensive to serve this purpose. Moreover, these consumers of Dedicated Service are unlikely to
respond with any additional information on terms and conditions that we would not otherwise obtain from
a smaller respondent pool and so the benefit of having a broader array of Purchasers respond is
outweighed by the burden. Clarifying the scope of Purchaser respondents was therefore appropriate.
Purchasers that purchased less than $5 million in Dedicated Services in 2013 (in areas where the
ILEC is subject to price cap regulation) are not required to respond to the collection.
For details on additional efforts taken to minimize the collection’s burden on small entities, see
the responses to the concerns of smaller entities discussed in Item A.8 below.
6.
As discussed in Item A.1, special access plays a critical role in our economy. The Commission
has suspended its pricing flexibility rules because the regulatory mechanism for granting pricing
flexibility to ILECs is not working as predicted. Absent reform, ILECs will be denied regulatory relief in
areas where actual or potential competition may exist and will continue to enjoy relief where there may be
insufficient competition to constrain rates, terms, and conditions at just and reasonable levels. The
resulting mismatch is a “real harm to American consumers and businesses” and a hindrance to
“investment and innovation.”46
The Commission has already tried rules based on predictive judgments; according to the record
evidence, these rules are a poor proxy for the presence of actual or potential competition. The
45

See, e.g., Special Access Data Collection FNPRM, 27 FCC Rcd at 16346, para. 68 (proposing to undertake
econometric modeling to develop panel regressions on special access prices by taking into account, among other
things, the number of facilities-based competitors and the characteristics of purchased service).
46

Pricing Flexibility Suspension Order, 27 FCC Rcd at 10559, para. 3.

3060-xxxx
December 2013 (rev. August 2014)
Comprehensive Market Data Collection for Interstate Special Access Services
Commission now turns to a data-driven analysis to measure competition in the special access market, an
approach that is supported by industry. Informed rulemaking for special access rates and conditions
depends on the collection and analysis of the data and information sought.
Because the Commission has found that competition may occur at a very granular level, the
collection is designed to capture data at an equally granular level, e.g., collecting information on
Locations served and billing at the circuit-level. This inevitably limits our ability to implement a
collection that is minimally burdensome on all respondents.
7.
There are no special circumstances that would cause the information collection to be conducted in
an unusual manner, i.e., none of the listed situations described in the instructions for this question applies
to this data collection.47 Though respondents will submit information that is commercially sensitive and
considered confidential, the Commission will provide detailed procedures to maintain confidentiality.48
Additional information on these procedures is provided in Item A.10.
8.
Pursuant to 5 CFR Section 1320.8(d), the Commission published a notice in the Federal Register
on February 12, 2013 (78 Fed. Reg. 9911), soliciting comment on the information collection prior to
submission to OMB. Comments were due by April 15, 2013, and thirteen comments were filed by the
following parties:
















American Cable Association (ACA);
Alaska Communications Systems (ACS);
The Ad Hoc Telecommunications Users Committee (Ad Hoc);
AT&T Inc. (AT&T);
BT Americas Inc. (BT Americas), Cbeyond Communications, LLC (Cbeyond), EarthLink,
Inc. (EarthLink), Integra Telecom, Inc. (Integra), Level 3 Communications, LLC (Level 3),
and tw telecom inc. (TW Telecom) (filing jointly and collectively referred to as “BT
Americas et al.”);
Chariton Valley Telephone Corporation (Chariton);
Cincinnati Bell, Inc. (Cincinnati Bell);
Independent Telephone and Telecommunications Alliance (ITTA);
National Cable and Telecommunications Association (NCTA);
NTCA–The Rural Broadband Association (NTCA);
Smith Bagley, Inc., Cellular Network Partnership, an Oklahoma Limited Partnership d/b/a
Pioneer Cellular, Cross Telephone, L.L.C., Cellular Properties, Inc. d/b/a Cellular One of
East Central Illinois, and Nex-Tech Wireless, LLC (filing jointly and collectively referred to
as “Smith Bagley et al.”);
Sprint Nextel Corporation (Sprint); and
Union Telephone Company, AST Telecom, LLC d/b/a Blue Sky Communications, Illinois
Valley Cellular RSA 2-I Partnership and Illinois Valley RSA 2-II Partnership, d/b/a Illinois
Valley Cellular, Leaco Rural Telephone Cooperative, Bluegrass Cellular, Inc., and Eastern

See OMB, http://www.whitehouse.gov/sites/default/files/omb/inforeg/83i-fill.pdf (providing instructions for the
supporting statement for PRA submissions).
48

See Wireline Competition Bureau Seeks Comment on Protective Order for Special Access Data Collection, Public
Notice, DA 13-1470 (Wireline Comp. Bur. rel. June 28, 2013).

3060-xxxx
December 2013 (rev. August 2014)
Comprehensive Market Data Collection for Interstate Special Access Services
Kentucky Network, LLC d/b/a Appalachian Wireless (filing jointly and collectively referred
to as “Union Telephone et al.”).49
The comments are summarized and discussed below as follows: (1) comments on the general
utility and necessity of the collection; (2) comments on the specific topics and questions contained in the
collection; (3) comments on the burden on small entities; and (4) comments on the burden hour and costs
estimates.
General Utility/Necessity of the Collection
Support for the collection: Many commenters affirm the usefulness and need for this data
collection. Ad Hoc (at 12) states that the Commission needs the information to set rates and send pricing
signals that let purchasers make economically rational technology choices, and that the compliance costs
are offset by avoided litigation costs. Ad Hoc (at 3-4) and BT Americas et al. (at 14-15) state that the
burden of the data collection is justified by the need to prevent harmful effects of inflated special access
prices on the national economy, which the Commission cannot regulate without a data-based evidentiary
record. BT Americas et al. (at 6-7) and Sprint (at 3-4) state that the collection is needed to investigate
firms with “substantial and persisting market power” that have both the incentive and ability to charge
rates that are unreasonable high and/or discriminatory. BT Americas et al. (at 8-9 and 11-12) states that
gathering data over two non-consecutive years is justified in order to examine how competition develops
(or does not develop) over time. BT Americas et al. (at 9-10 and 12-13) and Sprint (at 4-5) state that
collecting data for both circuit-based and packet-based special access services is useful and necessary in
light of the Commission’s statutory obligation to ensure that special access rates, terms, and conditions
are just and reasonable. AT&T (at 11-12) states that requesting data about the location of providers’
network facilities is important because such data reasonably measure competition, and the Commission
must collect the data because it has suspended the pricing flexibility rules for special access services
pending this data collection.50
Excessive or unreasonable burden: ACS (at 4-6) and Cincinnati Bell (at 5-6) state that the
collection requires manual, labor-intensive review of data stored in archived paper records or not kept at
all. AT&T (at 22) states that developing, running, and testing queries against billing tables for AT&T’s
regions would be challenging and complex, and that the results would need to be manually verified.
Cincinnati Bell (at 5) states that the request would require both a substantial programming effort to
design, develop, code, implement and operate systems to extract existing data, and to arrange and format
the data in order to respond to the information collection. ITTA (at 6) states that many respondents have
not been required to comply with relevant recordkeeping or reporting obligations, and for this reason
gathering, creating, compiling, and submitting the requested information will require substantial time
from employees who are already fully occupied with other roles and functions within their companies.
Cincinnati Bell (at 3) and NTCA (at 2-3) state the collection includes information that is not necessary or
useful and the level of detail requested is unjustified in light of the burden on respondents. Cincinnati
Bell (at 9-10) and NCTA (at 9) state the Commission should only require carriers to supply data that
currently exist and then only in formats that are readily retrievable in an automated manner and that do
not require manual analysis. NCTA (at 8-13) states its members will have to manually sort through
records of every special access circuit they have deployed in order to provide pricing data (at 8); revenue
data (at 9); purchaser and tariff data (at 12); and headquarters affiliate data (at 13). Smith Bagley et al. (at
49

Union Telephone et al. submitted their comments after expiration of the 60-day comment period but we
nonetheless include their comments in this supporting statement.
50

AT&T and BT Americas et al. generally support the data request, but, as discussed below, AT&T opposes
collecting data on prices and BT Americas et al. opposes collecting data on best-efforts services.

3060-xxxx
December 2013 (rev. August 2014)
Comprehensive Market Data Collection for Interstate Special Access Services
5, 10-11) and AT&T (at 13) raise the concern that the sheer volume of information collected will prevent
the Commission from processing the data in a useful and timely fashion.
The suspended pricing flexibility rules, based on predictive judgments, are not working as
predicted. To evaluate improvements to these rules, the Commission will conduct a one-time, datadriven analysis of the market; an approach supported by industry and the GAO.51 Until the data are
collected and analyzed, ILECs are unable to obtain further grants of pricing flexibility and relief granted
in any non-competitive areas will continue. There is an urgent need to move quickly on this data
collection.
The new collection seeks with limited exception information from 2013. Providers and
Purchasers could not have retroactively designed their databases to track every conceivable data point
required by the Commission for its analysis. However, given the urgency of the proceeding, the
Commission cannot structure the collection to obtain data prospectively. In addition, the Commission
cannot design a collection that will seamlessly work with the databases and billing systems used by the
various types of providers that supply Dedicated Service, i.e., traditional telephone companies, cable
system operators, wireless providers, etc. To produce quality data for the Commission’s analysis, certain
types of respondents will inevitably incur a significant burden, especially those not familiar or designed to
comply with the Commission’s regulation of incumbent telephone companies. Nonetheless, the
Commission has decided that the benefit to the American public gained from reforming the
Commission’s special access rules outweighs the burden of a large-scale data collection.
The Bureau released the Data Collection Implementation Order on September 18, 2013,
providing clarifications and instructions for responding to the collection.52 The order largely addresses
the more burdensome aspects of the collection raised by commenters. That said, the collection remains a
significant undertaking for Providers and Purchasers. The hour and cost estimates in Items A.12 and
A.13 incorporate the burden of processing the requested data manually, coordinating disparate data sets,
and gathering new data.
The Commission is capable of making thorough and timely use of the data. Resources devoted to
timely processing of the data are quantified in the response to Item A.14. In brief, the Commission is
prepared to categorize and reconcile data; convert disparate values into a coherent format permitting
analysis; and perform the analysis. The Commission will also purchase and configure secure storage and
networking resources for the data collection and will segregate data from other Commission data
collections. A web portal and data container are also under development specifically for this collection,
and the Commission will provide for the general maintenance of the dedicated IT infrastructure as well as
ongoing IT support.
Comments on Specific Questions or Topics
Location Data: In the collection, the Commission plans to obtained detailed information from
Providers on their Connections to Locations for the competition analysis. This data will help the
Commission evaluate market structure and demand. AT&T (at 3-4, 13) supports the collection of this
information, saying that, although the volume of the facilities information collected is sizable, the
Commission can analyze the information in a reasonable amount of time without extraordinary effort.
51

See GAO, FCC Needs to Improve its Ability to Monitor and Determine the Extent of Competition in Dedicated
Access Services 43-44 (2006), available at http://www.gao.gov/assets/260/254069.pdf.
52

Data Collection Implementation Order.

3060-xxxx
December 2013 (rev. August 2014)
Comprehensive Market Data Collection for Interstate Special Access Services
According to AT&T (at 12-13), omitting geocode data (latitude and longitude) would adversely affect the
utility of the collection.
Several commenters are concerned about the Location information sought in the data collection,
namely the requirement that the Provider (1) indicate whether the connected Location is a building, cell
site, or other man-made structure, i.e., reporting the location type and (2) report the geocode for each
Location. For example, ACS (at 5-6) states that data such on facilities, geocoding, and location types are
not programmed into its systems. ACA (at 7, 11-12) states that almost all of its members rely on
customers’ addresses rather than geocoding and asks the Commission to accept information that already
exists. ACA (at 5-6) further states that small cable operators are relatively new entrants in the provision
of Dedicated Services, and their local market presence is not significant enough to warrant the hours of
staff time and physical visits to survey sites and obtain geographic coordinates. Cincinnati Bell (at 3-4, 7)
states that it does not relate billing and inventory data to geographic coordinates of a certain degree of
accuracy, that the Commission has not justified collecting coordinates instead of addresses, and that
geocoding to a certain level of precision might underestimate competition if not all Providers report
serving the exact same geocoded Location. NCTA (at 10) states that collecting information on
geographic coordinates and location type is inordinately burdensome because site visits may be necessary
to confirm such information.
After considering the burdens and benefits of the Location information fields, we have clarified in
the instructions that if the filer does not know the location type, it can simply report the type as
“unknown.” While we intend to use the location type to further understand the demand segments for
Dedicated Services, we can offset gaps in this data with information reported elsewhere in the collection.
As for the location geocode, we intend to use this information to identify where Connections and
Locations are located, which gives us a better understanding of where special access competition exists.
We understand that Providers are more likely to have coordinate information for connected cell sites than
for connected buildings. As a result of the further changes to the collection pursuant to the OMB review
process, Providers are now only required to provide the geocode for the Location if the respondents keep
such information in the normal course of business. Respondents can, however, provide such information
on a voluntary basis. Where geographic coordinates are not provided, the Commission will use the street
addresses provided by respondents to determine the geocode through use of a geocoding platform.
These clarifications will eliminate the need for site visits to verify location type and geographic
coordinates, significantly decreasing the collection burden. For example, Comcast Corporation
(Comcast), a larger cable company, will not have to incur “expenses close to $450,000” and spend “in
excess of 15,000” hours for such site visits (NCTA, L. Panepinto Decl. at 4). ImOn Communications,
LLC (ImOn) and Frankfort Plant Board (Frankfort Plant), both smaller cable companies, will no longer
need to spend nearly 200 and 60 hours, respectively, on this facet of the collection (ACA, M. Edl Decl. at
3, J. Higginbotham Decl. at 3). For Cox Communications Inc. (Cox), another large cable company, this
will significantly reduce the “most onerous aspect of this data collection” (NCTA, R. Hattori Decl. at 4).
Mapping requirements: The collection requires Competitive Providers to file maps showing the
fiber routes constituting their network, including those fiber routes connecting their network to Locations.
Competitive Providers must also include the Nodes used to interconnect with other providers and the year
each Node went live. The maps showing fiber routes help the Commission identify where Competitive
Providers can or potentially could provide Dedicated Service. The location of the interconnection Nodes
helps the Commission understand the “non-price factors that may impact where special access providers
build facilities or expand their network via [Unbundled Network Elements (UNEs)].”53 In addition, cable
53

See Special Access Data Collection Order, 27 FCC Rcd at 16332, para. 33.

3060-xxxx
December 2013 (rev. August 2014)
Comprehensive Market Data Collection for Interstate Special Access Services
companies in their local franchise service areas are now not required to show the feeder links to locations
on their maps, only their interoffice transport fiber network. In addition, cable companies are only
required to report their headends (i.e., Nodes) that they have upgraded to provide metro Ethernet service,
or its functional equivalent.
AT&T (at 12-13) supports the submission of maps, saying the burden is outweighed and justified
by the importance of detailed maps to accurately gauge competition. According to AT&T, reducing this
request would adversely affect the practical utility of the entire collection effort.
Some commenters, namely those representing cable companies and smaller carriers, object to the
request for maps. ACA (at 6, 10-11) and NCTA (at 6-7) state that their members do not have fiber maps
showing facilities to Locations, and that the requirement to create maps is the most burdensome element
of the collection. NCTA (at 7) alternatively proposes that the Commission: (1) allow companies to
simply submit whatever network maps they have or “a list or ‘airline’ map showing the network footprint
(headend locations and customer locations served by those headends)” and (2) eliminate the Node
identification requirements. ACS (at 5-6) states that it does not record whether a connection is fiber or
copper. Cincinnati Bell (at 7) states that the Commission has not provided enough detail about the
required format for fiber route maps.
As discussed in the Data Collection Implementation Order, although we do not eliminate the
mapping obligations, we did make certain clarifications to reduce the burdens while ensuring the
Commission has sufficient data for its analysis.54
Because the Commission has found that competition for Dedicated Service “appears to occur at a
very granular level—perhaps as low as the building/tower,”55 it needs to collect information at an equally
granular level, i.e., the level of the connected Location. The mapping obligation is already limited by
focusing solely on fiber routes and not requiring the mapping of other transmission media. Relative to
copper or coaxial cable, a Competitive Provider can easily add additional Dedicated Services or other
managed services to a fiber line. The presence of fiber down a street is thus a good indicator of a
Competitive Provider’s ability to serve nearby Locations. To further reduce the burdens, we clarify in the
instructions that the scale used for shapefile mapping data is 1:24,000, which is the standard used by the
U.S. Geological Survey National Map and the same scale used by the Bureau for the study area boundary
(SAB) map collection. This standard will give the Commission sufficient data on the streets and paths
traversed by fiber while eliminating the need to report the exact location of fiber on the street. We expect
that Competitive Providers would know the streets and routes where their fiber runs without having to
conduct site surveys so this clarification should significantly reduce the reporting burden for Competitive
Providers while still giving the Commission data on fiber routes to a sufficient level of accuracy for its
analysis. We do not intend to penalize filers who undertake reasonable, good faith efforts to identify the
routes and paths traversed by fiber.
We rejected NCTA’s alternative proposal to otherwise reduce the mapping requirement for two
reasons. First, the alternatives would produce non-uniform and less granular data, affecting the
Commission’s analysis. Maps would vary by respondent with some simply showing the boundaries of
their network coverage and others providing details on some fiber routes but unlikely to the level of the
connected Location. Even a “list or ‘airline’ map showing the network footprint” would not necessarily
give the Commission the fiber routes to Locations, at least not to a sufficient level of accuracy. Second,
the variability of the maps would substantially increase the burden on Commission staff. For example,
54

See Data Collection Implementation Order at paras. 34-45.

See Special Access Data Collection Order, 27 FCC Rcd at 16327-28, para. 22.

3060-xxxx
December 2013 (rev. August 2014)
Comprehensive Market Data Collection for Interstate Special Access Services
the Commission would have to create a base map from the non-uniform data and offset gaps with
information collected elsewhere or through third-party data sets. Even if the Commission could somehow
fill any data gaps, the result would not be as detailed, uniform, or accurate as with having Competitive
Providers submit maps showing their fiber facilities to each Location. It would also divert Commission
resources from analyzing the data to create data necessary to begin the analysis. That said, the additional
changes to the mapping requirements for cable companies, i.e., only providing maps showing their
interoffice transport network, go towards addressing NCTA’s concerns.
In addition to addressing the mapping of fiber routes, we clarified the obligations for identifying
interconnection Nodes in the instructions to reduce burdens. First, we clarified that Competitive
Providers can provide information reported to the Central Location Online Entry System (CLONES)
database on their interconnection points in lieu of reporting information from their own internal records.56
Competitive Providers electing this option must certify that their CLONES data are current and accurately
identify their points of interconnection and the associated “live” dates to the best of their knowledge. 57
Second, we clarified in the instructions that Node locations need only be accurate to the nearest ±0.0005
decimal degrees. Third, respondents do not have to report the year the Node went “live” if it occurred
before 1995 and is unknown.58 In addition, cable companies are now only required to report their
headends (i.e., Nodes) that they have upgraded to provide metro Ethernet service, or its functional
equivalent
These clarifications and changes will not adversely affect the data needed for the Commission’s
analysis but will reduce burdens. The Commission intends to gather data on interconnection points to
understand whether the decision to deploy in an area is in response to the demand for Dedicated Service.
The deployment and interconnecting decisions of non-cable Competitive Providers are largely driven by
the demand for high-capacity, business services. The reporting of interconnection points by these entities
is thus valuable to the Commission. In contrast, a cable system operator’s incentives for deploying and
interconnecting its facilities, unlike those of non-cable Competitive Providers, were historically driven by
the demand for residential services.
The CLONES database is widely used by industry to create, update, and maintain codes to
uniquely identify the location of geographic places and certain equipment. It also contains historical data
on interconnection points as reported by the service providers. Competitive Providers can therefore
provide the information reported to CLONES without affecting the analysis provided they certify to the
best of their knowledge that the data accurately reflect their interconnecting points and “live” dates.
As for the location accuracy level for those Nodes identified, the Commission needs to know the
neighborhood of the interconnection point. Clarifying the accuracy level for Nodes to the nearest ±0.0005
decimal degrees accomplishes this. In addition, reporting the year a Node went “live” going as far back
as 1995 will help the Commission understand decisions to deploy facilities to meet the demand for
Dedicated Service. After 1995, significant competitive entry and merger activity occurred following the
enactment of the Telecommunications Act of 1996.59 This timeframe will capture that activity along with
56

The CLONES database is managed by Telcordia Technologies, Inc. d/b/a Iconectiv, a wholly owned subsidiary of
Ericsson. See Systems and Tools, Iconectiv, https://codecenter.commonlanguage.com/systems.asp?#clones
(providing information about CLONES) (last visited Sept. 9, 2013).
57

See Attachment B, Instructions at 14.

See id. at 17.

The number of reported Competitive Access Providers/CLECs increased substantially from 20 in 1993 to 109 in
1996 with an annual average growth rate of 76 percent during that timeframe. See Trends in Telephone Service,
FCC, Common Carrier Bur., Industry Analysis Div. at Table 8.1 (July 1998). In addition, from 1995-1999, the

3060-xxxx
December 2013 (rev. August 2014)
Comprehensive Market Data Collection for Interstate Special Access Services
those headends recently upgraded by cable operators to provide Metro Ethernet (or its equivalent)
service.60 Accordingly, we will not adversely affect the Commission’s analysis if we permit respondents
to only report “live” dates prior to 1995 if available.
These clarifications will ease the reporting burden for Competitive Providers while ensuring that
the Commission has sufficient data for its analysis. Entities do not always retain historical data on
interconnection points, so allowing for the submission of CLONES data and for the reporting of “live”
dates prior to 1995 only if available will ease the burden on these respondents. These clarifications will
also reduce, or completely eliminate, the need to conduct walkouts or surveys at the street or manhole
level.
Billing information: The collection contains a section of questions asking for data on the
Dedicated Services billed to customers by Competitive Providers and ILECs. The billing section consists
of three interrelated questions: (1) reporting monthly billing information, billed at the level of the rate
element, but tied to the circuit; (2) identifying adjustment codes; and (3) identifying billing codes.
Pricing information plays an important role in any competition analysis.
BT Americas et al. (at 8) supports the collection of billing data, saying it will allow the
Commission to compare ILECs’ wholesale and retail prices for DS1, DS3, and PBDS to the prices
charged by other ILECs and competitors, and that such comparisons will enable the Commission to assess
whether ILECs are exercising market power in violation of Sections 201(b) or 202(a) of the Act.
Although AT&T supports the data collection as a whole, AT&T opposes the collection of pricing
data (at 4-5, 16-17, 23-24), saying that pricing data have no practical utility for a regression analysis
because location-specific prices do not exist for most special access arrangements, and Providers will
have to arbitrarily derive a “by circuit” price. AT&T (at 5-6 and 17-19) further states that peer-reviewed
regression analysis of pricing information would require years, so the data collection would be out of date
by the time it was analyzed. In addition, ACS (at 5-6) states that it does not record non-recurring charges
or adjustments outside the billing cycle. ACA (at 12-14) states that its members cannot supply the data
from automated systems but would rather have to manually review customer contracts to respond to the
request, which would be unreasonably time-consuming. NCTA (at 9) agrees, and states that pricing data
in particular should be limited to automated billing records.
There is no insight into whether or where competition disciplines price without first collecting
information indicating what those prices are. It is an open question whether or not the results of a
regression analysis will yield meaningful or coherent patterns from which inferences can be drawn. But
even if there were no regression analysis, pricing data are still vital to any market analysis. For example,
the Commission would need the data to compare prices for similar services supplied at similar locations
number of telecom mergers filed for governmental approval increased almost 50 percent. Mergers in the Telecomm.
Indus.: Hearing before the Senate Comm. on Commerce, Science, and Transp., 106th Cong. 2 (1999) (opening
statement of John McCain, U.S. Senator from Arizona). Further, between 1996 and 2001, 42 mergers between
telecom providers were consummated, 33 of which occurred in 1997 and 1998 alone. See Mark N. Cooper et al.,
Successes and Failures of the 1996 Telecommunications Act: Telecom Mergers (1996-2001), available at
http://www.civilrights.org/publications/1996_telecommunications/telecom-mergers.html (last visited Sept. 9, 2013).
60

A cable company’s decision to upgrade headends to provide Metro Ethernet (or its equivalent) service is relevant
to the demand for Dedicated Services because these upgrades reflect areas in which the cable system operator
anticipated that sufficient demand was likely to exist for Dedicated Services. We therefore also clarify in the
instructions that cable system operators must separately indicate those Nodes that have been upgraded to provide a
Metro Ethernet (or its equivalent) service. See Attachment B, Instructions at 15.

3060-xxxx
December 2013 (rev. August 2014)
Comprehensive Market Data Collection for Interstate Special Access Services
by different carriers; or to compare prices for similar services supplied across different territories by the
same carriers; or to compare price structures for similar services supplied at similar locations by different
carriers. Without pricing data, the Commission is forced to largely rely on a market structure analysis,
focusing on the market shares of Providers and barriers to entry, only augmented by the highly limited
and aggregated data on market conduct, including pricing changes that can be gleaned from public
sources.
Moreover, the Commission needs data in a uniform format that allows for comparison. Because
different companies and industry sectors record billing differently, respondents cannot simply upload
automated records. Such uploads would be unintelligible. We do not discount the burden on some
Providers to convert their records to fit the questions, but it is at least possible for respondents to answer
the questions either with in-house resources or by hiring consultants. By contrast, no amount of
Commission resources can replicate the capacity of the companies’ owners, managers, and staff to report
what their special access prices are. The burden estimates in Items A.12 and A.13 factor in all estimates
in the record, including the burden of collecting pricing data.
With respect to the concerns raised about the lengthy time period associated with analyzing price
data, the Commission is devoting substantial resources to ensure that the market analysis is timely, as
discussed in Item A.14. In a dynamic market like this one, any data collection can be disparaged as a
snapshot of the past and not the future. But the alternative—making policy without data—has been tried
without success.
Marketing and Requests for Proposals (RFPs): The Commission asks Competitive Providers in
the collection to provide (1) data, maps, information, marketing materials, and/or documents identifying
areas where Dedicated Services were advertised or marketed as of December 31, 2010 and as of
December 31, 2012 and (2) information on the five most recent RFPs won and the five largest RFPs
where the bid was unsuccessful.61 The Commission seeks the advertising and marketing information to
evaluate assertions by parties that such efforts may impact pricing and deployment decisions. RFP
information will also help the Commission assess competition in the market. With the additional changes
to Question II.A.11 regarding RFPs, Competitive Providers are now only required to provide information
where the respondent was selected as the winning bidder. Respondents can provide information on
unsuccessful RFP bids and business rules relied upon to submit bids on a voluntary basis.
Commenters argue that the burden of collecting this information outweighs the benefit. NCTA
(at 14-15) and ACA (at 7) state that the Commission should inquire only about 2013 marketing because
backward-looking information is irrelevant and future marketing plans are speculative. NCTA (at 15) and
ACA (at 7) state that the Commission should ask only about those winning RFP responses where the
facilities are not yet operational, as served Locations are covered elsewhere in the collection, and the
“customer location associated with losing RFP responses,” as it might show where a competitor might be
able to serve. NCTA (at 11) further states that the requirement to rank RFPs should be replaced by a
sample of RFPs because the request for “largest unsuccessful” RFPs calls for records that companies do
not keep, and the request for “most recent” successful RFPs calls for information that is constantly
changing.
On the marketing materials, the Commission seeks information over a two-year time series to
help determine whether plans for expansion and providing service actually materialize – and have bearing

See Attachment A, Questions II.A.10-11.

3060-xxxx
December 2013 (rev. August 2014)
Comprehensive Market Data Collection for Interstate Special Access Services
on the market – or are merely speculative.62 Limiting the information to 2013 will not accomplish this
task. Moreover, the question is not particularly burdensome and provides the respondent with ample
flexibility on how to respond. The Commission is not asking for all relevant documents but gives the
respondent the option of providing relevant material from several different categories of documents. It is
not so difficult for a company to map, or at least describe, the territory where it marketed its services.
As for RFPs, parties urged the Commission to collect such information, saying that for a forwardlooking analysis, it is necessary to obtain data on where competitors respond to RFPs.63 The
Commission therefore plans to collect and investigate the value of such information. We cannot fully
assess the predictive value of RFPs until collected. Moreover, the burden of submitting RFP information
is overstated. Competitive Providers are not required to submit their actual RFPs but only report
information about them, e.g., the geographic areas covered, prices offered, etc. That said, the recent
changes go towards addressing the commenters’ concerns.
Headquarters Information: In the collection, the Commission asks Competitive Providers to
report the location of their U.S. headquarters and the headquarters of certain acquired entities and
affiliates, going as far back as 1995.64 The purpose of this question is to assess certain non-price factors
that may be relevant to where Competitive Providers build or expand their network.
ACA (at 7) and NCTA (at 14), representing the interest of cable system operators, state the
headquarters location and affiliate structure information going back to 1995 is irrelevant for the purpose
of analyzing the current market for special access and that compiling such information could be extremely
burdensome because such information that is not readily available or normally maintained by companies.
In the Data Collection Implementation Order, we acknowledged that for certain Competitive
Providers, namely cable system operators, the decision of where to deploy Dedicated Service facilities is
significantly influenced by the franchise areas awarded to the cable operator, which are often unrelated to
the location of its headquarters.65 Accordingly, we clarified in the instructions that cable operators are not
required to provide information in response to this question other than to say, “Not Applicable.”66 The
same reasoning, however, does not apply to other Competitive Providers, so only cable providers are
excused from reporting headquarters and affiliate data.
Best Efforts Business Broadband Internet Access Service: The collection asks for coverage and
pricing information on the Best Efforts Business Broadband Internet Access Service provided by entities
with 15,000 or more customers or 1,500 or more business broadband customers.67 The Commission is
looking to collect this data because some parties contend that, in some circumstances, enterprise
customers may view such services as special access substitutes based on record showings that such
services are marketed with express comparisons to special access services.

By cross-checking data on Locations served, the Commission can confirm whether the advertised coverage
footprints match deployments in existence at the time.
63

See Letter from Donna Epps, Verizon, to Marlene H. Dortch, Secretary, FCC, WC Docket No. 05-25, at (filed
Sept. 18, 2012).
64

See Attachment A, Question II.A.9.

See Data Collection Implementation Order at para. 49.

See Attachment B, Instructions at 20-22.

See Attachment A, Question II.C.1.

3060-xxxx
December 2013 (rev. August 2014)
Comprehensive Market Data Collection for Interstate Special Access Services
BT Americas et al. (at 15-17) and Sprint (at 4) urge the Commission to eliminate this inquiry
because “best efforts” services and Dedicated Services do not belong in the same product market. BT
Americas et al. (at 17-18) further states that, if best efforts data were truly necessary, the Commission
would not limit the requirement to only those providers that submitted data in connection with the SBI
Grant Program.
It is an open question whether or not “best efforts” services compete in the same market as
special access services. Given the record, the Commission cannot completely discount the possibility that
Best Efforts Business Broadband Internet Access Service is a substitute without obtaining additional
information. We limit the burden as much as possible by tailoring the requirement to entities that have
already submitted data in connection with the SBI Grant Program. We also excuse carriers with smaller
customer bases from this requirement.
Miscellaneous comments on terminology, bandwidth, and revenue: ACA (at 9) states that small
cable companies are overwhelmed by the complexity of the questions, which use terminology that small
cable companies do not understand. Cincinnati Bell (at 6-7) states that, if “billing codes” refers to
anything other than “universal service ordering codes” (USOCs) the revenue request unreasonably
burdens respondents, and also states that the term “adjustments” is vague. Cincinnati Bell (at 8) and
NCTA (at 9) state that carrier billing systems do not track the bandwidth level of their sales or purchases
in accord with the categories in the data request, and do not record the accumulation of available
bandwidth over multiple circuits to different customers at the same location. ACS (at 5-6) states that it
does not record the bandwidth of UNEs (or how UNEs are used). ACA (at 7) states that it is not
necessary to collect revenue data from competitors to determine the market power of ILECs.
Much of the clarification sought is contained in the instructions that were released by the Bureau
after these comments were filed. For example, the instructions contain a detailed breakdown of how to
interpret and respond to each required data field for billing questions, including clarifying that the term
“billing codes” includes, but is not limited to, USOCs and clarifying how to determine the bandwidth sold
to a Location. The Commission also plans to conduct outreach events where respondents can ask
additional questions about terminology used in the collection. As for collecting revenue information from
all Providers, it is necessary for the Commission to size the broader special access market. That said, the
recent changes go towards addressing the commenters’ concerns.
Confidentiality: ACS (at 6) states that data must be kept confidential because the information
requested would provide sensitive information about every special access customer, detailing what they
purchase and at what price. Chariton (at 1) states that information concerning its business rules,
marketing plans, and notice of winning bids could jeopardize its survival. ITTA (at 7-8) states that
improperly managed and stored data would be subject to cyber security threats from a variety of sources,
including criminals, foreign nations, terrorists and other adversarial groups.
The Commission recognizes certain data and information sought are commercially sensitive and
will implement procedures to maintain confidentiality. The Bureau released a public notice on June 28,
2013, seeking comment on a draft Protective Order outlining the procedures for designating, handling,
submitting and accessing the confidential and highly confidential data and information sought in the
collection.68 We will finalize the Protective Order based on the public comments received. Item A.10
contains additional details on the proposed procedures.

See Wireline Competition Bureau Seeks Comment on Protective Order for Special Access Data Collection, Public
Notice, DA 13-1470 (WCB rel. June 28, 2013).

3060-xxxx
December 2013 (rev. August 2014)
Comprehensive Market Data Collection for Interstate Special Access Services
Duplicative requests: ACA (at 7), NCTA (at 12), Chariton (at 1), and Smith Bagley et al. (at 1011) state the Commission should not require Purchasers to produce tariff data because the best source of
this information is the incumbent local exchange carrier providers, and the request is burdensome and
duplicative. NCTA (2-3, 10, 12, and 16) states the Commission has not taken steps to the extent practical
and appropriate to identify data it already has and remove that data from the request. NCTA (at 16)
further states the Commission already has ample comment on terms and conditions so questions on those
issues are duplicative and should be eliminated or made voluntary.
Seemingly duplicative requests for complimentary information on the identity and characteristics
of Tariffs used to provide and purchase Dedicated Service provide an important cross-check to ensure
quality and reliable information. In addition, qualitative inquiries concerning terms and conditions are
intended to provide an opportunity for Purchasers to highlight and for the Commission to further
investigate allegations of unjust and unreasonable practices. In the instructions, we clarify that many of
these qualitative questions are now optional so that Purchasers not experiencing or wanting to provide
information highlighting problems can respond saying as much. Purchasers wanting to reference
material previously provided to the Commission can cut and paste prior comments if they are still timely
and accurate.
Efforts to Minimize Burden on Small Entities
De minimis exception, waivers. In the Special Access Data Collection Order, the Commission
balanced the burden on small companies against the “goal of obtaining the most accurate and useful data
possible.”69 Because competition “appears to occur at a very granular level,” the Commission found “it
necessary to obtain data from special access providers and purchasers of all sizes.”70 The Commission
did exclude, however, entities providing Best Efforts Business Broadband Internet Access Service with
fewer than 15,000 customers or fewer than 1,500 business broadband customers. This exclusion only
exempts entities from responding to those questions about Best Efforts Business Broadband Internet
Access Service and is not an exemption from the collection entirely. In the Data Collection
Implementation Order, the Bureau further clarified a narrower scope for Purchasers subject to the
collection as discussed further in response to Item A.5. In addition, Purchasers that purchased less than
$5 million in Dedicated Services in 2013 (in areas where the ILEC is subject to price cap regulation) are
now excluded from the scope of the collection.
According to ACS (at 2-3, 8-9), the burden of the collection is not justified where the
Commission has granted pricing flexibility and there are no complaints. Chariton (at 1), ITTA (at 5), and
NTCA at (3-4) state they lack the staff to respond to the data request because they are already burdened
by other regulatory reporting requirements. NTCA (at 11-12), Smith Bagley et al. (at 5), and Union
Telephone et al. (at 2) state the Commission should adopt a de minimis exception for small carriers.
NTCA (at 11-12) proposes to exclude Providers and Purchasers with fewer than fifty special access
connections in a relevant geographic area. Smith Bagley et al. (at 7) seeks an exemption for Purchasers
that buy less than $5 million annually in special access facilities in price cap areas. Smith Bagley et al.
(at 7-8, 11-12) and Union Telephone et al. (at 2-4) alternatively ask for reduced requirements for
Purchasers.

Special Access Data Collection Order, 27 FCC Rcd at 16327, para. 22.

Id. at 16328, para. 22.

3060-xxxx
December 2013 (rev. August 2014)
Comprehensive Market Data Collection for Interstate Special Access Services
The Commission has already considered and rejected a de minimis exception for smaller
Providers and Purchasers.71 That said, the burden on smaller Providers and Purchasers is proportionally
less than the burden on larger entities as they will have significantly fewer facilities and expenditures to
account for and report. In addition, we have further reduced the burden of the collection for smaller
entities with the clarifications in the instructions on the location data and mapping requirements and by
making certain qualitative questions optional, (see above discussions on Location Data, Mapping
requirements and Duplicative requests). In addition, the recent changes go towards addressing these
concerns.
Sampling: NTCA (at 7, 8-10) states the Commission failed to investigate data sampling
alternatives. The Commission considered and rejected sampling, except in one narrow instance, because
the Commission believes “that the process of identifying and collecting a representative sample would be
unlikely to substantially reduce provider burdens, and could significantly lengthen the data collection
process.”72 For an additional explanation of the Commission’s decision not to use sampling, except for
one facet of the collection, see the response to Item B.2.
Need for clarification: Smith Bagley et al. (at 12-13) states the Commission should clarify which
carriers must provide data and which carriers must provide only a completed form and a certification. We
have addressed these concerns in the Data Collection Implementation Order and accompanying
instructions that were released after receiving the initial round of PRA comments.
Burden hour and cost estimates
In-house burden hours: The Commission’s initial average estimated time per response was 134
hours. BT Americas et al. (at 13-14) found the Commission’s estimate “fairly accurate” and is consistent
with its own estimates. For example, BT Americas estimates 100-120 hours to respond; Cbeyond calls
134 hours to respond a reasonable approximation; EarthLink estimates 320 hours to respond, Integra
estimates 260 hours to respond, and TW Telecom estimates 115-130 hours to respond. Sprint (at 2-3)
also commented that 134 hours seems reasonable.
Some commenters disagreed with the Commission’s estimate. For example, according to ACA
(at 3), the average small operation will take at least 500 hours to respond. ACS (at 6-7) states it will take
more than ten times the Commission’s estimate for it to respond. Cincinnati Bell (at 4-5) will require
nearly 8,000 hours to respond. NCTA’s (at 4) members, Cox and Comcast, will need more than 8,400
hours and 30,000 hours, respectively, to respond not counting the burden associated with the mapping
requirements. NCTA (at 4) anticipates that “in some cases the burden could be more than 200 times
higher than the average estimated by the Commission.”
ITTA (at 4, 6) points to a prior filing in the rulemaking docket where CenturyLink said it will
take about 40,000 hours to respond to the collection. According to BT Americas et al. (at 14), the
CenturyLink estimate “hardly seems credible.” BT Americas et al. (at 14) mentions a preliminary
estimate previously provided by AT&T in the proceeding, saying the 15,000 hour estimate appears
designed to bolster AT&T’s advocacy against a market power analysis.

The Commission has already included Providers and Purchasers of “all sizes” in the collection. Special Access
Data Collection Order, 27 FCC Rcd at 16327-28, para. 22.
72

Special Access Data Collection Order, 27 FCC Rcd at 16328-29, paras. 24-25 (explaining decision not use a
sampling approach).

3060-xxxx
December 2013 (rev. August 2014)
Comprehensive Market Data Collection for Interstate Special Access Services
The commenters’ estimates do not take into account the burden-reducing clarifications made by
the Bureau in the Data Collection Implementation Order and the recent changes to the collection.73 That
said, we anticipate that much of the collection’s total industry burden will fall on a relatively few number
of Providers that provide the bulk of special access services and purchase special access out of region.
For a large number of respondents, i.e., those Form 477 filers that are merely certifying that they do not
fall within the scope of the collection, the burden is minimal. We have incorporated all the new data
points from the comments in our revised estimate in Item A.12.
The cost estimate for consultants and contractors: In the notice published in the Federal Register,
we provided an estimated “total annual cost” of N/A because we did not expect respondents would need
to purchase equipment or obtain the services of outside consultants or contractors to comply. ACA (at
13) says its members will need outside assistance and support to comply. ACS (at 4-6) states that
restoring data from 2010 and other burdens related to archived data would require outside consultants. To
satisfy the Commission’s mapping requirement, Chariton (at 1) states it would have to hire an outside
engineering firm to produce electronic maps. NCTA (at 5-6) also comments that small providers without
in-house mapping software will have to subcontract this portion of the collection. Smith Bagley et al. (at
5) states that its companies have very small accounting and finance staffs and would therefore have to
hire outside help to work with their staff to prepare the requisite reports. We have revised our cost
estimate in Item A.13 based on these comments.
9.
There are no payments or gifts to respondents associated with this information collection.
Responses are mandatory.
10.
This collection calls for Providers and Purchasers of special access and certain entities providing
“best efforts” services to file data and information on their facilities, served locations, prices, revenues,
and expenditures. Recognizing that much of the collected information is commercially and competitively
sensitive, the Commission plans to issue a Protective Order, outlining the procedures for handling and
treating the information. The Protective Order will provide limited access to the competitively sensitive
information for certain representatives of persons participating in the proceeding, while protecting that
competitively sensitive information from improper disclosure, and thereby will serve the public interest.
The Freedom of Information Act (FOIA), 5 U.S.C. § 552, generally requires agencies to make
information publicly available. FOIA does not, however, require the disclosure of “trade secrets and
commercial or financial information obtained from a person and privileged or confidential.”74 Under the
Protective Order, documents and information designated by submitting parties as confidential will be
deemed to have submitted a request that the material not be made routinely available for public inspection
under the protections from disclosure afforded by FOIA and the Commission’s implementing rules.75
Any person wishing to challenge the designation of a document, portion of a document or information as
confidential must file such a challenge at the Commission and serve it on the submitting party. The
documents and information challenged will continue to be accorded confidential treatment until the
Commission acts on the request and all subsequent appeal and stay proceedings have been exhausted.76
73

For example, Comcast’s estimate of more than 30,000 hours includes 15,000 hours associated with site visits for
verifying the location type and geocode for Locations that is no longer necessary given the recent clarifications by
the Commission’s Wireline Competition Bureau. See Item A.8 “Location data;” Data Collection Implementation
Order at paras. 32-33.
74

5 U.S.C. § 552(b)(4).

See 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.459(a), 0.459(a)(3).

See 47 C.F.R. § 0.459(g).

3060-xxxx
December 2013 (rev. August 2014)
Comprehensive Market Data Collection for Interstate Special Access Services
Any decision on whether the materials should be accorded confidential treatment, however, will not
constitute a resolution of the merits concerning whether such information would be released publicly by
the Commission upon a proper request under the Commission’s rules implementing FOIA.77
The Bureau sought comment on a draft Protective Order on June 28, 2013.78 Five comments
were filed by AT&T, CenturyLink, Cox, NCTA, and Verizon and Verizon Wireless. All commenters
except AT&T supported the proposed procedures with some suggested improvements. We will finalize
the Protective Order based on the comments received. The measures included in the Protective Order will
meet or exceed merger review standards to adequately protect commercially sensitive information from
any unauthorized disclosure.79 An overview of the procedures, as proposed, is provided below.
Overview of Proposed Procedures
As described in the draft Protective Order, submitted data and information are divided into three
categories: (1) data and information that is presumptively highly confidential; (2) information designated
by the filing parties as confidential; and (3) information that is not confidential and will be made available
to the general public. Appendix A to the Protective Order identifies those types of data and information
that we propose to treat as highly confidential.
Submission of data and information. We plan to have parties electronically submit confidential
and highly confidential data and information through a secure web portal. In addition to using a web
portal, we are considering using an SSH File Transfer Protocol (SFTP) for the electronic submission of
larger files to the Commission (up to eleven gigabytes in size) and allowing for the manual submission of
even larger files on storage devices. Parties will submit information considered public, including redacted
versions of confidential and highly confidential documents, through the Commission’s Electronic
Comment Filing System (ECFS). This is consistent with past practice in merger transactions.
Access to Data and Information. Only parties signing the Acknowledgement of Confidentiality
(Acknowledgement) attached to the Protective Order will have access to confidential information. We
plan to further limit access to highly confidential data and information to outside counsel and consultants
that are not involved in the decision-making activities of a competitor to the submitting party or a person
with whom the submitting party does business. Submitting parties will have the opportunity to object to
persons or entities seeking to review confidential information and highly confidential data and
information.
Secure Data Environment. We propose to restrict access to highly confidential data through a
secure data environment due to its heightened sensitivity, e.g., either through a secure data enclave in a
specific, physical location or by accessing a virtual private network using thin clients to provide virtual
desktops.80 Under either scenario, we would not allow parties to store or print data or analyses on a local
device.

See 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.459(h), 0.461.

See Wireline Competition Bureau Seeks Comment on Protective Order for Special Access Data Collection, Public
Notice, DA 13-1470 (WCB rel. June 28, 2013).
79

See Id.

The highly confidential data identified in Appendix A to the Protective Order, which is presumptively highly
confidential, includes data on locations served, network maps, revenues and billing.

3060-xxxx
December 2013 (rev. August 2014)
Comprehensive Market Data Collection for Interstate Special Access Services
We are exploring how software programs such as SAS® and Stata® could be made available (or
installed) for parties to analyze highly confidential data in the secure data enclave.81 We are also
examining measures to protect a submitting party’s highly confidential data by restricting the removal of
research results from the secure environment. Specifically, we are evaluating whether to require that data
research results conform to one or more standard rules for identifying disclosure risk before permitting
those results to leave the secure environment.82 We are also assessing whether aggregation rules are
sufficient to protect commercially sensitive data or whether other rules should apply.
These procedures will protect the confidentiality of submitted information while still giving
parties an opportunity to review and analyze the data, subject to restrictions, to effectively participate in
the underlying rulemaking proceeding.
11.
This information collection includes no questions of a sensitive nature, such as sexual behavior
and attitudes, religious beliefs, and other matters that are commonly considered private.
12.

The following represents the estimated hour burden of the collection of information:
(1)

Number of Respondents: The estimated number of potential respondents is 4,000.

While there may be some not-for-profit institutions and state, local, or tribal government
respondents, the vast majority of the respondents are businesses or other for-profit entities. For a more
detailed explanation as to how we determined the potential respondent pool, see the response to Item B.1.
(2)

Frequency of response: one-time response.

This is a one-time data collection to assess competition in the special access market. Respondents
will not be required to respond on a recurring basis.
(3)

Total number of responses annually: approximately 4,000 responses.

As detailed above, this data collection will require a one-time only response. Thus, 4,000
potential respondents x 1 response per year = 4,000 responses.
(4)

Estimated industry-wide hour burden: approximately 536,000 burden hours.

(5)

Included in the 536,000 hour burden estimate are about 2,000 hours for recordkeeping.

We estimate that each respondent, on average, will spend approximately 0.5 hours (30 minutes)
storing the data prepared for, or used in connection with, their data collection response.

See SAS website, http://www.sas.com/software/ (providing information on SAS, which is an integrated system of
software products that enables persons to conduct statistical analysis, econometrics, and data mining) (last visited
June 24, 2013); STATA website, http://www.stata.com/why-use-stata/ (“Stata statistical software is a complete,
integrated statistical software package that provides everything you need for data analysis, data management, and
graphics.”) (last visited June 24, 2013).
82

For example, any cell released must be made up of at least “x” number of unique observations and /or a cell can
be released only if any “x” number of unique observations contributes no more than “y” percent of the value of the
cell.

3060-xxxx
December 2013 (rev. August 2014)
Comprehensive Market Data Collection for Interstate Special Access Services
4,000 respondents x 0.5 hours/recordkeeping = 2,000 hours for recordkeeping.
The methodology used to calculate this burden estimate is provided below. In the Federal
Register notice seeking comments on the collection, we initially calculated an estimated potential
respondent pool of 6,387, and subsequently rounded this number up to 6,400.83 By excluding certain
Purchasers from the collection, we have significantly decreased the respondent pool size to about 4,000.
The methodology for calculating this estimate is discussed in response to Item B.1.
Initially we calculated the estimated average burden hours per respondent to be 134 hours with a
total burden hour estimate of 856,614 hours.84 We subsequently revised these numbers based on burden
hour and cost estimates information received from commenters, i.e., average burden per respondent of
146 hours and total burden hour estimate of 934,400 hours. With the recent changes to the collection , we
have revised these estimates even further. Our further revised average burden hour estimate per
respondent is 134 hours and the estimated total annual burden has significantly decreased to 536,000
hours. We explain our conservative methodology, and how each aspect of it contributes to the burden
hour estimate, below.
Methodology. To estimate the hour burden of the varied respondents to our data request, we first
estimated the number of expected respondents by dividing them into two categories for which we had
data. Second, we estimated the fixed and variable costs. Third, we made some adjustments for ACA
members. Our variable hour estimates rely on evidence submitted by thirteen Providers in comments, as
well as comments from ACA, which provide estimates of the average hourly burden for their responding
members. The new information contained in these comments led us to substantially change our approach
to the burden estimates. Of course, our results still remain an approximation, made relying on the
information available to us.
Number of Potential Respondents. To estimate the time burden of our data request, we began by
identifying the total number of Providers, which we expect will encompass those entities covered by the
scope of the collection that provide Best Efforts Business Broadband Internet Access Service, and the total
number of Purchasers who are not Providers. We made this split, as the former group must answer
substantially more, and more burdensome questions than the latter. As described in Item B.1, we estimate
there are between 1,700 and 1,800 Providers and mobile wireless providers who must respond to our data
request, and between 2,200 and 2,300 Purchasers who are not Providers. For simplicity, we picked the
midpoint of these ranges for calculations, i.e., 1,750 Providers and 2,250 Purchasers. Some of the first
group of 1,700-1,800 respondents will only need to identify themselves, and the basic nature of their
business, while others in the same group, will only additionally answer the “best efforts” broadband
question, often merely by certifying that their SBI data submission meets the purposes of our data request.
In addition, mobile service providers will only need to report their purchases. Despite this, our analysis
assumes all of these parties have burdens that reflect the costs of a full-fledged Provider, based on the
burdens reported by the thirteen commenters. This will bias our burden estimate upwards, perhaps
significantly so.
Estimated Fixed Cost. The Commission has assumed that the respondents’ costs (reflected in the
form of burden hours) are in part fixed, i.e., do not vary with the scale of the respondent’s operations, and,
in the case of the 1,750 Providers identified above, in part vary with the size of the respondent as

See 78 Fed. Reg. 9911.

Id.

3060-xxxx
December 2013 (rev. August 2014)
Comprehensive Market Data Collection for Interstate Special Access Services
measured by total telecommunications revenues.85 Fixed costs may include things like the time it takes to
read the instructions and plan responses, the time it takes to code programs that are then run to collect
data, the time to clear results internally before submitting responses to the Commission, some of the setup
costs of data submission, and certain costs associated with the requirement to retain the data, information,
and documents that are submitted in response to the collection for a two-year time series. These
processes apply to all respondents, and to the extent that they are incurred regardless of the size of the
respondent, they are fixed, i.e., the fixed cost is the same number of hours for each potential respondent.
We set our estimate of fixed cost for the 1,750 Providers to 100 hours, being the lowest total
burden hour reported by any entity, in this case BT Americas. Given that fixed costs do not vary with a
firm’s size, it is reasonable to assume that if BT Americas’ total estimated cost of responding to the
collection (i.e., fixed + variable cost) is 100 hours, then the fixed cost incurred equally by all respondents
must fall within the 100 hour estimate. We therefore take a conservative approach and consider the full
100 hours reported by BT Americas as the fixed cost for each respondent even though some portion of
that estimate probably includes some variable cost incurred by BT Americas. This approach is likely to
exaggerate the fixed cost associated with this collection for each respondent, which will, in turn, overstate
the total cost burden.
Purchasers who are not also Providers must answer considerably fewer and less burdensome
questions than Providers. We assume these respondents also face a fixed cost but no variable cost. We
believe it is likely that even the largest Purchasers who are not Providers will face lower fixed costs than
a Provider. In addition, because all but a handful of the questions directed at Purchasers are now
optional, i.e., not required, , the estimated fixed burden cost to each Purchaser respondent as compared to
that of each Provider is decreased to 80 hours. Therefore, with an estimated potential respondent pool of
4,000, we estimate the total fixed cost of responding to the collection for the entire estimated respondent
pool is about 355,000 hours.
Estimated Variable Cost. In estimating variable costs, we looked at the following burden hour
estimates provided by potential respondents in either their PRA comments or in other filings with the
Commission in this proceeding. These estimates do not take into account the recent changes which
significantly reduce further the overall burden of the collection for respondents.86






ACS: at least 1,340 hours;87
BT Americas: 100-120 hours;88
Cbeyond: 134 hours;89
CenturyLink: 40,000 hours;90
Cincinnati Bell: nearly 8,000 hours for a total cost of $500,000 (or an hourly rate of
$62.50);91

We would have preferred to use revenues more closely associated with Dedicated Services, but this proved
impossible. It is likely this choice leads to our burden estimate being somewhat exaggerated.
86

See Response to Item A.1.

ACS at 7.

BT Americas et al. at 13.

Id.

See Letter from Melissa Newman, CenturyLink, to Marlene H. Dortch, Secretary, FCC, WC Docket No. 05-25, at
1 (filed Jan. 10, 2013).
91

Cincinnati Bell at 5.

3060-xxxx
December 2013 (rev. August 2014)
Comprehensive Market Data Collection for Interstate Special Access Services










Comcast: more than 30,000 hours at a total cost of $1.5 million (or an hourly rate of $50)
without counting the burden associated with the mapping requirements and more than
500,000 hours at a total cost of more than $50 million counting the mapping requirements (or
an hourly rate of $100);92
Cox: 8,400 at a total cost of $1.2 million (or an hourly rate of $142.86);93
EarthLink: 320 hours at an estimated hourly cost of $58.82 for a total cost of $18,823;94
Frankfort Plant: 765 hours at an hourly cost of $50 for a total cost of $38,250;95
Integra: 260 hours;96
ImOn: 560 hours, at an hourly rate of $35 for a total cost of $19,600;97
Verizon: more than 15,000 hours;98 and
TW Telecom: 115-130 hours.99

We use all of these estimates in our analysis even if we consider some of them to be surprisingly
high with one exception. For Comcast, we find the 500,000 burden hour estimate provided (when
counting the burden associated with the mapping requirement) strikingly excessive, more than twelve
times the next largest estimate of 40,000 hours provided by CenturyLink.100 We find that Comcast’s
estimate of more than 470,000 hours just for the mapping requirements (500,000 hours minus the 30,000
hours for the remaining obligations in the collection) greatly overestimates the total burden for Comcast
and fails to account for the burden-reducing clarifications to the mapping requirements in the Data
Collection Implementation Order and the changes since then.101 Accordingly, we have discounted this
estimate in our burden hour calculation. We have instead used a 22,500 hour burden estimate for
Comcast. Even with the discounted estimate for Comcast of 22,500 hours, the burden for Comcast is

NCTA, L. Panepinto Decl. at 2. These estimates, however, include 15,000 hours associated with site visits for
verifying the location type and geocode for Locations that are no longer necessary given the recent clarifications by
the Commission’s Wireline Competition Bureau. See Item A.8 “Location data;” Data Collection Implementation
Order at paras. 32-33.
93

Id., R. Hattori Decl. at 1. This estimate did not include the “time and resources needed from compliance” with the
mapping requirement. Id., R. Hattori Decl. at 6.
94

BT Americas et al. at 14. The hourly cost is based on an estimate provided by EarthLink for the reporting of data
for the SBI Grant Program. Letter from Thomas Jones and Nareli Patel, Counsel for Cbeyond, EarthLink, and
Integra, to Marlene H. Dortch, Secretary, FCC, WC Docket No. 05-25, at 1 (filed Nov. 21, 2012).
95

ACA, M. Edl Decl. at 4.

BT Americas et al. at 13.

ACA, J. Higginbotham Decl. at 4.

See Letter from Maggie McCready, Verizon, to Marlene H. Dortch, Secretary, FCC, WC Docket No. 05-25, at 3
(filed Oct. 2, 2012).
99

BT Americas et al. at 13.

100

While CenturyLink has CLEC operations subject to the mapping requirements, these may not be as onerous as
those that apply to Comcast. However, its ILEC operations are subject to additional reporting requirements in the
collection. While it is possible the mapping effect dominates, it is implausible that this could explain the difference
between 40,000 and 500,000 hours.
101

See Data Collection Implementation Order at paras. 34-45.

3060-xxxx
December 2013 (rev. August 2014)
Comprehensive Market Data Collection for Interstate Special Access Services
likely an overestimate given all of the burden-reducing clarifications in the Data Collection
Implementation Order and the recent changes.102
Four of these entities, Comcast, Cox, Frankfort Plant, and ImOn, are cable companies; four are
ILECs (ACS, Cincinnati Bell, CenturyLink and Verizon); and five are something else (BT Americas,
Cbeyond, EarthLink, Integra, and TW Telecom). After accounting for fixed costs, we used the average
hourly burden for each group, cable company, ILEC and other, relative to their total telecommunications
revenues as reported in Form 499-A “Annual Telecommunications Reporting Worksheet,” and
extrapolated the total variable cost burden for each group scaling by Form 499-A telecommunications
revenues.103 In doing so, we treat mobile service providers as if they were a Provider categorized as
other. As noted, this likely tends to overstate our burden estimates, because the questions that mobile
providers must answer are considerably less extensive and onerous than those that Providers must
answer. We also assume all Providers are also Purchasers, and so answer the Purchaser questions. This
may mildly overstate our burden estimates. Based on these assumptions, we estimate the variable cost of
the collection on potential respondent pool to be approximately 156,000 hours (but see cost adjustment
discussion below).104 This estimate includes any recordkeeping costs associated with the collection for
retaining data and information prepared for, or in connection with, their response that is not otherwise
accounted for within the respondent’s customary business practices.
Cost Adjustment. ACA (at 3) expects between 100 and 150 of their members will have to
respond to the data request at an average hourly burden of 500 hours. We ensured that we counted 500
hours for the estimated reporting ACA members as follows. First, we choose the mid-point of their
respondent range, assuming that 125 ACA members would respond to the data request. Since we did not
have a list of ACA members, we approximated who they were by counting all companies identified as
cable companies in the Form 499-A filings that were the same size or smaller than MediaCom
Communications Corporation, ACA’s largest member. There were 93 such companies. We counted the
remaining 32 firms as ILECs. To the extent that the responding ACA members belong in the ILEC, rather
than the cable, category, and to the extent ACA members belong in the other category, rather than in the
cable or ILEC categories, our approach overstates burden hours (the average cost per unit of
telecommunications revenue declines from cable to ILEC to other). For each set of companies, that is, the
93 cable companies, and the 32 ILECs, we added in the necessary burden hours to ensure that respectively
93 and 32 companies had a burden of 500 hours. While we accepted the ACA numbers to calculate our
burden estimates, we consider the 500 hour average to be a high estimate. With the adjustment, we add
almost 25,000 hours to the total cost.
Total estimate of annualized cost to respondents for the in-house burden hours for this
information collection:
The Commission estimates an industry-wide burden of approximately 536,000 hours resulting
from this collection (Total = 355,000 fixed cost hours + 156,000 variable cost hours + 25,000 adjusted
102

Even if we did accept Comcast’s entire estimate of more than 500,000 burden hours and used it for our
calculation, we find the benefits of the collection, i.e., helping the Commission evaluate potential changes to its
pricing flexibility rules using a data-driven approach, exceed the burden imposed on industry.
103

For Comcast, we extrapolated using the 40,000 hour estimate as discussed above.

104

We do not have data on telecommunications revenues that directly aligns with the Form 477 filers, so we have
relied on the Form 499-A revenue data reported. This meant that in scaling up from the thirteen commenters to all
potential respondents, we included the revenue of more than two thousand carriers that are probably not Providers,
and hence not subject to the most onerous parts of the data request (and in some cases, not subject to it at all). As a
consequence, for any fixed cost estimate, our estimate of variable costs is likely overstated significantly.

3060-xxxx
December 2013 (rev. August 2014)
Comprehensive Market Data Collection for Interstate Special Access Services
hours). Dividing our estimate of total burden hours by the total number of respondents (4,000) results in
an estimated average hour burden per respondent per report in a single reporting period of 134 hours per
respondent (536,000 hours total / 4,000 respondents = 134 hours per respondent).
The average hourly burden conceals substantial variation across respondents. For example, the
average burden hour estimate for respondents that are Purchasers is only 80 hours, while the average
burden hour estimate for all others is 203 hours, and larger Providers will have a much higher burden
than this. For example, as discussed above CenturyLink estimates its burden to be around 40,000 hours. .
The Commission estimates the total annualized in-house cost to respondents for the hour burdens
for the collection of information is about $33.5 million, based on the relatively high hourly rate implied in
Cincinnati Bell’s comments of $62.50.105 For example, a more reasonable rate might be the estimate of
wireline telecommunications firms’ hourly costs for accountants and auditors of $36.33 from the Bureau
of Labor Statistics (BLS),106 marked up to $47.56 to account for total compensation.107 In that case, the
annualized in-house cost to respondents for the hour burdens for the collection of information is unlikely
to exceed $26 million.
Total number of potential respondents: 4,000.
Total number of responses: 4,000.
Total burden hours: 536,000 burden hours (134 hours per respondent).
13.
The estimated total cost burden to respondents resulting from this one-time collection of
information that is not already accounted for in Item A.12 is between $6-10 million.
Total capital start-up costs component annualized over its expected useful life: $1,750,000.
Total operation and maintenance and purchase of services component: $5-8.25 million.
Total Annual Costs: $10,000,000
Capital Costs
Cincinnati Bell, CenturyLink, and Verizon all submit estimates of their costs, and these included
no capital component. We therefore assume large and medium-sized ILECs will not incur such costs.
105

All other estimates of hourly rates that we obtained were lower than the Cincinnati Bell estimate with two
exceptions; the implied Comcast and Cox estimates of $100 (if counting the mapping requirement) and $142.86,
respectively, which seem excessive. The other estimates we considered were the Bureau of Labor Statistics’ (BLS)
average wireline salary rate, $30.07; ImOn’s hourly cost, $35; BLS rate for wireline accountants and auditors,
$36.33; the federal public service GS12, Step 10 rate, $37.54; the BLS wireline management analyst rate, $43.09;
the Frankfort Plant hourly cost, $50; the federal public service GS14, Step 10 rate, $52.76; and EarthLink’s hourly
cost, $58.82. See supra notes 95-98; Occupational Employment Statistics, BLS,
http://www.bls.gov/oes/current/naics4_517100 htm (providing BLS hourly rates) (last visited Sept. 23, 2013); Pay
and Leave, Office of Personnel Management, http://www.opm.gov/oca/12tables/html/gs_h.asp (providing Federal
public service rates) (last visited Sept. 23, 2013). With the exception of ImOn, all the commenters’ estimates seem
high for hourly rates and are likely estimates of total compensation. In any case, it would be inappropriate to
markup any of the commenters’ implied rates. For the other rates, the BLS provides a markup factor for total
compensation of 30.9%. See Employer Costs for Employee Compensation - March 2013, BLS,
http://www.bls.gov/news.release/ecec.nr0.htm (last visited Sept. 23, 2013).
106

Id.

107

Id.

3060-xxxx
December 2013 (rev. August 2014)
Comprehensive Market Data Collection for Interstate Special Access Services

NCTA submits detailed cost analyses from two of the ten large cable systems operators, Cox and
Comcast.108 Cox says it may need to spend approximately $350,000 to acquire and install additional
software to cull and produce the requested data from Cox’s existing databases. (NCTA, Hattori Decl. at
2). We find the size of the Cox estimate surprising but could not determine whether this was because they
were assuming the need for mapping software, or any other reason for this usually large estimate, and
consequently have accepted it at face value. However, this acceptance is likely to lead us to overstate the
capital costs of large cable companies. Comcast, the only other large cable systems operator to submit a
detailed cost analysis, does not identify software or any other capital costs as an expense. (Comcast does
say it will require a third-party vendor to determine geocodes, but the simplified geocode instructions no
longer support this assertion.)
NCTA (at 5) states that the Cox and Comcast declarations reflect the experience of the rest of its
member companies, including with regard to software upgrades or other capital costs. We take this to
mean that some, but not all, large cable companies will require software upgrades. Extrapolating from the
two declarations, we estimate that, on average, roughly half of large cable systems operators will purchase
software upgrades.
Large cable systems operators: 10/2 = 5

5 x $350,000 = $1,750,000

Purchase of Services
No large or medium sized ILECs or cable systems operators reported that they would purchase
outside services. As a result, we assumed no such purchases necessary for these types of providers.
Some small cable systems operators, small wireless carriers, and small ILECs report a need to hire outside
contractors or consultants to complete their responses, see Item A.8 above. The data are drawn from the
regulatory flexibility analysis (Appendix B) of the Special Access Data Collection Order (78 Fed. Reg.
2572, Jan. 11, 2013).
ACA (at 3-4), which represents small cable systems operators, reports that between 100 and 150
of its 850 members will have to answer this survey. The midpoint of this range is 125. In addition to
small cable systems operators, Smith Bagley et al. (at 5), representing small wireless providers, says it
has very small accounting and finance staffs – and therefore they would have to hire outside help, at a
high cost, to work with their staff to prepare the requisite reports. Small ILEC ACS states (at 4-6) that it
will need outside consultants where data were never programmed into systems and where out-of-date
versions of software must be reinstalled.
There are 1,066 small cable companies,109 1,368 small wireless companies, and 1,006 small
incumbent LECs,110 for a total of 3,440 small companies.111 If we apply the midpoint of the ACA’s ratio
of members that respond to the members (125/850) to all 3,440 small carriers, then that suggests there
will be 506 small providers who respond to our data request.
(125/850) = (506/3,440)
108

See 78 Fed. Reg. 2572, Jan. 11, 2013 at para. 113 (Cable Systems Operators); NCTA Comments, Hattori Decl.
(Cox) and Panepinto Decl. (Comcast).
109

78 Fed. Reg. 2572, Jan. 11, 2013 at para. 113 (Cable Systems Operators).

110

Id. at para. 76 (Wireless Telecommunications Carriers, except satellite).

111

Id. at para. 66 (Incumbent Local Exchange Carriers).

3060-xxxx
December 2013 (rev. August 2014)
Comprehensive Market Data Collection for Interstate Special Access Services

The response rate from the wireless entities could be lower than this (because smaller wireless
Internet service providers would very often operate in interstate rate-of-return territories). More
importantly, we find it surprising that any small wireless providers will need to incur outside service
costs. In particular, it is unlikely that any of the small wireless providers supply Dedicated Services and
hence will only have to provide information about their broadband coverage, which is not difficult, and
which they may already do; and backhaul purchases, which in many instances, will amount to only a
handful or two of facilities. Taking this into account and subtracting the wireless companies (assuming
they have the same ratio of respondents as ACA, this is 1,368 wireless companies * (125/850), which
equals 201) reduces our estimate of 506 small company respondents to 305.
Two ACA-represented small providers, ImOn and Frankfort Plant, provide estimates for their
outside costs (ACA, M. Edl Decl. at 4, J. Higginbotham Decl. at 4). ImOn estimates its outside costs at
$15,000, and Frankfort Plant estimates its outside costs to be $15,000 to $20,000. Taking the mean of the
ImOn estimate and the midpoint of the Frankfort Plant estimate, the resulting outside cost estimate is
$16,250. Although ACA’s estimate includes requirements that have since been clarified and made less
burdensome, it remains the only cost estimate in the record with regard to contracting out services
necessary for the collection. Hence, we apply the $16,250 estimated cost to all three classes of smallentity respondents that asserted this need.
$16,250 (average cost) x 506 (average total small entities) equals $8,222,500.
If we remove the 201 small wireless providers, so the total number of small providers is 305, then total
outside service costs fall to $4,956,250 (= $16,250 * 305).
14.
Data-related work preparing for this request has been ongoing, but we begin our calculation with
the submission of the data collection to OMB. The total estimated annualized cost to the Federal
government is almost $1 million.
In-House Work Costs
The major phases of in-house work are:
Categorizing data, setting up cataloging system.
Estimated hours: 2 staff, 2 weeks each = 4 weeks.
4 weeks x 40 hours = 160 hours.
Reconciling data, checking responses for completeness, scrubbing.
Estimated hours: 3 staff, 16 weeks each = 48 weeks.
48 weeks x 40 hours = 1920 hours
Massaging data for analysis, unifying data, converting values into something we can analyze.
Estimated hours: 2 staff x 3 weeks = 6 weeks.
6 weeks x 40 hours = 240 hours.
Performing analysis, running data through many variations.
Estimated hours: 5 staff x 8 weeks = 40 weeks.
40 weeks x 40 days = 1600 hours.
Total hours = 160 + 1920 + 240 + 1600 = 3920 hours
31

3060-xxxx
December 2013 (rev. August 2014)
Comprehensive Market Data Collection for Interstate Special Access Services
We expect all work to be performed by GS 14, average step 5, Data Specialists. GS 14, step 5
base hourly rate = $45.99. See U.S. Office of Personnel Management, Salary Table 2012-GS,
http://www.opm.gov/oca/12tables/html/gs_h.asp. Given the range of actual GS hourly rates, which vary
by locality, we consider it reasonable to round the expected hourly salary of federal in-house professional
staff to the nearest dollar: $46.00.
Total estimated in-house cost = 3920 hours x $46.00 = $180,320.00
Data Storage Costs
This is a one-time cost (i.e., capital investment) to create a secure infrastructure for storage of the
data collected in the data request. Specifically, costs cover the purchase and configuration of secure
storage and networking resources for the data collection to segregate the data from other FCC data
collections. The hardware costs are $440,000.00, and installation costs are $14,000.00.
Total estimated capital cost = $454,000.00.
Data Collection Costs
The Commission has also budgeted funds to develop software to lower the industry burden of
collecting the data. The major components of the Data Collection costs are as follows:
Filer Data Tools: Development of scripts and other tools to assist filers in tracking data format
validation and data submitted
Estimated cost: $30,000.00
Automated Randomization Dispersion: Development of software and interface for generating
additional questions on infrastructure expansion analysis
Estimated cost: $20,000.00
For further information on the way this software and interface will be employed, see the response to Item
B.2.
Data Validation and Processing Pipeline: Software for the ingestion of submitted data including
data format validation and data quality testing and data normalization.
Estimated cost: $30,000.00
Internal Datamart, Data Management, and Visualization: Software for internal interfaces for
controlled staff access to collected data. Various interfaces for management and visualization of
data and usage tracking.
Estimated cost: $60,000.00
Database Management and Administration
Estimated cost: $80,000.00
On-site Data Access: Secure management of data and FCC on-premises data access by authorized
third parties’ analysts/consultants/attorneys. Costs associated with allowing secure on-site use of
the data by authorized third parties. This includes secured computers and secured interfaces.
Estimated cost: $40,000.00
Total estimated data collection costs: 30K + 20K + 30K + 60K + 80K + 40K = $260,000.00
32

3060-xxxx
December 2013 (rev. August 2014)
Comprehensive Market Data Collection for Interstate Special Access Services

Annual Recurring Costs
The Commission also anticipates additional annual costs of $90,000.00 (30,000/year for 3 years).
These costs may include, for example, general maintenance on the IT infrastructure, changes in data
processing needs, and ongoing IT support.
Total estimated federal costs: $180,320 + $454,000 + $260,000 + $90,000 = $984,320.
15.

This is a new, one-time request for information.

16.
Because the large majority of the collected data are commercially sensitive, the Commission will
not publish the data collected.
17.

The expiration date for OMB’s approval of the information collection may be displayed.

18.
The Commission notes the following changes since the publication of the Federal Register notice
for the 60-day comment period:
(1)
Revised the number of respondents from 6,387 to 4,000 to account for the recent changes
to the collection (see Item B.1).
(2)
Revised the total annual hourly burden from 856,614 hours to 536,000 hours based on
further evaluation of the data collection methodology, additional information received from commenters
and the recent changes to the collection. (see Item A.12);
(3)
Revised the estimated total annual cost estimate to respondents as reported in the sixty
day Federal Register notice from no cost to no more than $10 million (see Item A.13); and
(4)
Revised the list of Statutory Authorities to now include 47 U.S.C. §§ 155, 203, 204, 205,
211, 215, 219, 303(r), 332, 403, and 503.
There are no other exceptions to the certification statement identified in Item 19, “Certification
for Paperwork Reduction Act Submissions,” of the OMB Form 83-I.

File Type	application/pdf
File Modified	0000-00-00
File Created	0000-00-00