All Commenters Support Proposed CTIA/CCA Tweaks to Resiliency Rules
All filed comments support a late October petition by CTIA and the Competitive Carriers Association (see 2211010056) seeking changes to rules in the FCC’s new mandatory disaster response initiative (MDRI). Replies to oppositions were due at the FCC Tuesday, after the deadline was delayed in December (see 2212190040). FCC commissioners approved the rules in July (see 2207060070)
Sign up for a free preview to unlock the rest of this article
Timely, relevant coverage of court proceedings and agency rulings involving tariffs, classification, valuation, origin and antidumping and countervailing duties. Each day, Trade Law Daily subscribers receive a daily headline email, in-depth PDF edition and access to all relevant documents via our trade law source document library and website.
When oppositions were due last month only the Blooston Group of rural carriers filed, but it supported the petition (see 2212200063). A lawyer active in the proceeding said Wednesday the general level of support likely means the carrier groups will get at least part of what they’re seeking from the FCC.
The CTIA/CCA petition seeks a list of potential facilities-based providers to which the MDRI may apply and asks for extra time to comply. The groups ask for “at least 12 months for non-small facilities-based mobile wireless providers and 18 months for small facilities-based mobile wireless providers … to achieve compliance with the new obligations.” The wireless groups also asked the FCC to “align the definitions of ‘non-small facilities-based’ and ‘small facilities-based’ wireless providers with the FCC’s existing definitions of ‘nationwide’ and ‘nonnationwide’ wireless providers applied in the 9-1-1 context.” The FCC should also establish a process for notifying providers MDRI is active and “affirm that Office of Management and Budget review is required for all information collection obligations and that the Commission will treat [roaming under disaster] arrangements provided … as presumptively confidential,” the groups said.
“We were happy to see that there was no opposition to, and in fact additional support for, the CCA/CTIA petition for clarification and reconsideration of the FCC’s Resilient Networks Order,” emailed CCA President Tim Donovan: “CCA members are committed to resilient networks and helping other carriers when possible during disasters, but the relief requested is needed to facilitate reasonable compliance” with the MDRI rules.
“It is impractical and overly burdensome for small rural wireless carriers to attempt to comply with the new MDRI requirements by the current July 31 … deadline,” the Rural Wireless Association said, posted Wednesday in docket 21-346. “The time and expense required for such carriers to meet these requirements is substantial,” it said: “Most RWA members and other small rural wireless carriers currently live on the fiscal edge, and rely on federal universal service support in order to continue to serve their rural customers.”
Entering into bilateral roaming under disaster and mutual aid arrangements with all “foreseeable wireless providers, and then perform[ing] testing of their roaming capabilities, will require the diversion of important resources” and much longer than the 200 hours estimated by the FCC, RWA said: “Small rural wireless carriers -- which may have several dozen employees versus upwards of 75,000 persons employed by the nationwide carriers -- face tremendous challenges in budgeting and planning for a major project of this scope.”
NTCA noted all filers in the proceeding are united in supporting the petition. The FCC’s order “greatly expands the obligations of small wireless providers” and carriers “will require legal services, software development, and public relations and outreach” to comply. Small carriers would have a tough time negotiating reasonable terms and conditions for roaming and mutual-aid agreements required by the July order, NTCA said: “Large providers will be negotiating agreements with multiple potential roaming partners and, as the Blooston Rural Carriers emphasize, ‘it is possible if not likely that negotiations with small, rural carriers will receive a lower priority than negotiations with larger providers.’”
Southern Linc noted the petition doesn’t seek to overturn the order but seeks “only certain clarifications and discrete modifications” to the MDRI rules. “The requests set forth in the Petition are reasonable, sensible, and non-controversial, as evidenced by the fact that no oppositions to the Petition were filed, and the only party to respond in the initial round was a group of small rural wireless service providers who filed comments in support of the Petition,” Southern Linc said.
The carrier noted the agreements required will be difficult to negotiate. “Once a roaming arrangement is in place, the testing of roaming capabilities is not as simple as ‘flipping a switch,’ but instead requires several hours or more of dedicated time for each test with each wireless provider that may request roaming during a disaster or emergency event,” the carrier said: “Beyond initial implementation and testing, additional personnel time will have to be devoted on an ongoing basis to maintaining the currency of network connections to these MDRI roaming partners by continually incorporating their network modifications and updates so that roaming can be facilitated if called upon.”