Local Multipoint Distribution Service

FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION

47 CFR Part 101

[CC Docket No. 92-297; FCC 99-379]

Local Multipoint Distribution Service

AGENCY: Federal Communications Commission

ACTION: Notice of proposed rule making.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

SUMMARY: The Commission's rules for the Local Multipoint Distribution

Service (LMDS) prohibit an incumbent local exchange carrier (LEC) or

incumbent cable company, or any entity with an attributable interest in

these incumbents, from having an attributable interest in an A-block

LMDS license whose geographic service area significantly overlaps the

incumbent's service area. This LMDS eligibility rule will sunset on

June 30, 2000, unless the Commission extends it. This document seeks

comment on whether to allow the restriction to sunset, or to extend the

restriction.

DATES: Submit comments on or before January 21, 2000; submit reply

comments on or before February 11, 2000.

ADDRESSES: Send comments and reply comments to the Office of the

Secretary, Federal Communications Commission, 445 12th St SW,

Washington, DC 20554. See Supplementary Information for information

about electronic filing.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Stacy Jordan or John Spencer, 202-418-

1310.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: This is a summary of the Commission's Sixth

Notice of Proposed Rule Making (Sixth NPRM) in CC Docket No. 92-297

(including the associated Initial Regulatory Flexibility Analysis), FCC

99-379, adopted December 1, 1999, and released December 13, 1999. The

complete text of the Sixth NPRM and Initial Regulatory Flexibility

Analysis is available on the Commission's Internet site, at

www.fcc.gov. It is also available for inspection and copying during

normal business hours in the FCC Reference Information Center,

Courtyard Level, 445 12th Street, SW, Washington, DC, and may be

purchased from the Commission's copy contractor, International

Transcription Services, Inc., CY-B400, 445 12th Street SW, Washington,

DC. Comments may be sent as an electronic file via the Internet to

http://www.fcc.gov/e-file/ecfs.html, or by e-mail to [email protected].

Synopsis of the Sixth NPRM

1. The LMDS allocation consists of two primary blocks of spectrum:

an A block consisting of 850 MHz at 27.5 GHz, 150 MHz at 29 GHz, and

150 MHz at 31 GHz; and a B block consisting of 150 MHz at 31 GHz. The

LMDS allocation is unusual in both the size of the allocation and the

extent to which the spectrum is unencumbered.

2. When the Commission adopted final LMDS rules in 1997, it assumed

that the LMDS spectrum allocation provided a rare opportunity for

facilities-based providers of local exchange services, multi-channel

video programming distribution (MVPD) services, broadband data

services, or all of the above. In order to foster competition, the

Commission imposed in 47 CFR 101.1003 a short-term ownership

eligibility rule prohibiting incumbent local exchange carriers (LECs)

or cable companies from having an attributable interest in an LMDS A-

block license that overlaps with ten percent or more of the population

in their service areas. This decision was based on four considerations:

the most likely uses for LMDS; the then-current market structure for

local exchange services and MVPD services, and whether the incumbent

operators in these markets would have the incentive to attempt to

forestall competition in their respective markets; whether an

eligibility restriction would be the best means to promote competition;

and whether efficiencies would be lost if the LMDS spectrum were

operated by

[[Page 71374]]

providers other than the incumbent cable operators and local exchange

carriers.

3. The first LMDS products are just now becoming available in the

United States, and LMDS remains a nascent market whose evolution is

uncertain. Our research suggests that in the near term, LMDS may be

used primarily to provide high-speed data and Internet services to

small and medium-sized businesses rather than to provide services,

especially MVPD services, to single-family residences. Possible other

services include: video conferencing, tele-medicine, distance learning,

closed-circuit applications, and backhaul or backbone applications. An

industry segment aiming to provide service akin to typical landline

service (including lifeline telephone service with directory

assistance) has yet to emerge. CLEC holders of LMDS licenses plan to

bundle local exchange services with high-speed data and Internet access

services.

4. A number of factors may affect the development and deployment of

these markets and the types of services offered using the LMDS

spectrum. The characteristics of LMDS spectrum and equipment help

determine the uses to which it will be put. Due to propagation

limitations, LMDS will likely be used not as a stand-alone network, but

as a ``roof-top'' means to complement or extend other existing

networks. Compared to fiber, LMDS's lower cost and shorter deployment

time make it an effective means of reaching the last mile. At the end

of that last mile are likely to be small and medium-sized businesses in

urban and suburban areas, as the propagation characteristics of LMDS

favor taller buildings.

5. While multiple dwelling units may be served by LMDS in three to

five years, there is a significant question whether the cost of the

customer premises equipment (CPE) will forestall a business case for

single-family homes for many years. Estimates for the cost of the CPE

range from $5,000 to $7,000. The radio frequency hazard potential of a

microwave service like LMDS may always require professional

installation, precluding cost-saving consumer installation. The

subscribers would also have to generate enough revenue to establish a

hub from which their remote would receive a signal. The costs to

establish a hub range from $300,000 to $400,000, which could become

prohibitive given that the range for LMDS is limited to one-to-three

miles.

6. Service affordability is another issue for the residential

market. A residential market demand for broadband services at prices

profitable to LMDS licensees may not exist if consumers are unwilling

to pay substantially higher prices for the advantages of broadband.

Early cable broadband services have experienced low penetration rates,

which may indicate a reluctance of residential consumers to pay a high

subscriber fee for high-speed Internet access. However, these early

figures may underestimate the actual residential market for high-speed

data and Internet access.

7. Deployment of LMDS systems could be delayed or hampered by lack

of building access. LMDS licensees are encountering difficulties

negotiating roof right-of-way agreements and overcoming inside-wiring

issues. Another possible source of delay is the lack of equipment for

the 150 MHz LMDS B block and the upper 300 MHz of the LMDS A block. The

A-and B-block allocations are unique to the U.S. The lack of

international frequency harmonization and the potential interference

between the A and B blocks have been blamed for increased equipment

development time and costs. Once production commences, the shorter

production runs on specialized equipment may frustrate the attainment

of scale economies.

8. Finally, several competing technologies are capable of

delivering broadband services. Most residential and small business

consumers access the Internet via the ILEC and relatively slow modems.

The residential market is beginning to see high-speed services via

coaxial cable, ILEC xDSL, and satellite. The rules for LMDS, MMDS, 24

GHz, and 39 GHz allow point-to-point and point-to-multipoint services,

and these licensees appear to be targeting the same populations, small

and medium-sized businesses. These frequencies, however, vary somewhat

in their propagation characteristics, distance limitations, and

spectrum allocations.

9. The Sixth NPRM seeks comment broadly on the question whether the

LMDS restriction should be allowed to sunset on June 30, 2000, or

should be extended. The rule provides that the restriction will

terminate unless we ``extend its applicability based on a determination

that incumbent LECs or incumbent cable companies continue to have

substantial market power in the provision of local telephony or cable

television services.'' Consistent with our findings that incumbent LECs

and cable television providers continue to hold dominant positions in

the local telephony and MVPD services markets, this standard would

suggest that we extend the applicability of the eligibility

restriction. We have significant questions, however, about whether this

standard remains the appropriate one for evaluating whether we should

extend the restriction, or whether a different standard is more

appropriate.

10. We therefore seek comment generally on the standard that we

should apply in making this decision, as well as on alternative

standards. For example, our analysis in the LMDS Report and Order \1\

suggests that the true harm to competition may lie not in the incumbent

local exchange carriers' or cable companies' power in their respective

markets, but in the incumbents' incentive and ability to foreclose LMDS

as a source of competition in their own or related markets. Thus, we

could extend the sunset of the eligibility rule upon a finding that the

incumbent local exchange carriers and cable companies possess the

incentive and ability to purchase the LMDS block to prevent entry of a

competitor. Alternatively, we seek comment on whether we should use the

test adopted in the 39 GHz Report and Order.\2\ There, we ``inquired

whether open eligibility poses a significant likelihood of substantial

competitive harm in specific markets, and, if so, whether eligibility

restrictions are an effective way to address that harm.'' We seek

comment on whether we should require that this test be met before

extending the LMDS eligibility restriction. Finally, we seek comment on

the sufficiency of case-by-case review of license transfers and

assignments to safeguard against anti-competitive acquisition of LMDS

licenses if the eligibility rule is allowed to sunset.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\1\ 62 FR 23148, Apr. 29, 1997.

\2\ 63 FR 3075, Jan. 21, 1998.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------

11. We seek comment on the likely course of LMDS market

development, particularly LMDS licensees' and equipment manufacturers'

current expectations for LMDS and the markets most likely to be

targeted by the licensees. More specifically, we seek comment on the

characteristics, technical and otherwise, of the services most likely

to be provided over LMDS. We seek comment on whether LMDS will be used

to provide typical landline service in some geographic areas and to

what consumer groups. We seek comment on whether LMDS licensees expect

to use LMDS to deliver MVPD services to single-dwelling residential

customers and/or multi-dwelling residential customers in any geographic

areas. Further, we seek comment on the characteristics of the consumers

to which these services will be directed. Finally, we seek comment on

what broadband applications, if any, are

[[Page 71375]]

likely to be provided by LMDS licensees, and the characteristics of the

consumers that will be targeted.

12. We also plan to evaluate whether we should extend the

eligibility restriction to avert the possibility of incumbent LECs and

cable companies acquiring LMDS to forestall new facilities-based

competition for broadband services. The net benefits of extending the

eligibility restriction will depend on a number of factors, including

whether the LMDS A block can serve as a facilities-based medium for

broadband services, and whether this spectrum is unique in both its

size and extent to which it is unencumbered. We seek comment on whether

the net benefits of extending the eligibility restriction may be

greater than the net benefits of permitting the incumbents to acquire

the LMDS A block.

13. We seek comment on the extent and robustness of residential

consumer demand for broadband services. We invite comment on the extent

the cost and line-of-sight limitations of LMDS might hamper the ability

of LMDS to provide effective competition to either the ILECs' or the

cable operators' broadband means of access into the home or very small

businesses. We seek comment on whether technological advances and

increasing deployment will improve equipment range and lower equipment

costs. We also seek comment on the extent to which affordability

enhancing innovations like equipment leasing may emerge as an

alternative to outright equipment purchase, particularly for CPE.

14. We seek comment on whether the capability of LMDS to provide

high-speed data and Internet telecommunications would give incumbents a

strategic incentive to acquire LMDS spectrum to forestall the use of

LMDS as a means of access for another facilities-based provider of

broadband services, and whether we should retain the LMDS eligibility

restriction for at least some period in order to prevent such a result.

With respect to cable, if the cable industry primarily serves

residential areas and likely LMDS service will be to small-and medium-

sized businesses, we seek comment on whether we should restrict

incumbent cable companies' use of the LMDS spectrum to serve business

needs for high-speed data and Internet access.

15. We invite comment about the extent to which LMDS, MMDS, 24 GHz,

39 GHz, and other media that might offer consumers broadband access are

substitutable. We seek comment on the degree to which LMDS, MMDS, 24

GHz, 39 GHz, and other frequencies could be used to offer consumers

similar services at similar prices; whether the size of the LMDS

allocation and its lack of encumbrances provide advantages to the

license holder over alternative frequencies; and whether the

limitations and the cost of LMDS will hamper the ability of LMDS to

provide effective competition for services provided by either the

incumbent LECs or cable operators. We seek comment on the limitations

(capacity, rain fade, and line of sight) of these other wireless

services relative to LMDS. We seek comment on the extent to which the

time-to-market leads of the 24 MHz and 39 MHz licensees yield

competitive advantages in high-speed data and Internet access that

could handicap LMDS licensees. Given the similarities between LMDS and

24 GHz and 39 GHz spectrum, we seek comment on the implications of the

lack of eligibility restrictions at the latter two frequencies.

16. We seek comment on whether the broadband offerings by ILECs and

incumbent cable operators justifies extending the restriction to either

ILECs or incumbent cable companies, or both. We seek comment on the

likelihood that LMDS, if used for broadband, will provide effective

competition against incumbent LECs' and cable operators' broadband

offerings. Specifically, we invite comments on the incumbent LECs' and

cable operators' most likely footprints for broadband services. Cable

operators' current coverage areas do not lend themselves to providing

broadband access to businesses. We invite comment on the present reach

of cable networks and the ease with which these networks could be

extended to reach business subscribers. In addition, we seek comment on

whether the ILECs are likely to provide xDSL services to a large

segment of residential or business customers. We seek comment on

whether the equipment cost and deployment cost of LMDS relative to

ILECs' T-1 leased lines or xDSL will disadvantage LMDS in the market.

To the extent LMDS and a T-1 line are substitutes, the falling prices

for T-1 leased lines may diminish the profitability of LMDS service.

17. We seek comment on the significance of uncertainty in the

market for the eligibility restriction. There are uncertainties

regarding how LMDS equipment will continue to evolve; how fast LMDS

equipment costs will fall; how much difficulty licensees will encounter

negotiating roof right-of-way agreements, interconnection agreements,

and other necessary negotiations to provide services; and how the

domestic LMDS market will develop. These uncertainties may have led

firms to hold off investments until there is less uncertainty in the

market, and may warrant delaying the sunset of the eligibility

restriction. We seek comment on these concerns and on whether the

Commission should extend the eligibility restriction to allow the

market more time to reveal how LMDS and competing media will be

marketed and deployed.

18. Finally, we note that uncertainty in the market impacts bond

and stock market activity. The uncertainty surrounding LMDS may spill

over into the capital markets and impede the efforts of LMDS licensees

to raise debt and equity capital. We seek comment on the effect of

extending, or not extending, the eligibility restriction on LMDS

licensees' access to capital. While extending the eligibility

restriction might encourage investment, lifting the restriction could

have a similar effect: that is, large investors currently prohibited

from doing so might acquire significant stakes in LMDS licensees,

stimulating investment therein. We seek comment on both scenarios. We

also seek comment on the concerns of small entities on the various

issues discussed above.

Summary of Initial Regulatory Flexibility Analysis

19. As required by the Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA),\3\ the

Commission has prepared an Initial Regulatory Flexibility Analysis

(IRFA) of the possible economic impact on small entities by the

policies and rules suggested in this Sixth NPRM. Written public

comments are requested on the IRFA. Comments should be identified as

responses to the IRFA, and must be filed by the deadlines for comments

on the Sixth NPRM provided above. The Commission will send a copy of

the Sixth NPRM, including this IRFA, to the Chief Counsel for Advocacy

of the Small Business Administration (SBA).

---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\3\ U.S.C. 603. The RFA, 5 U.S.C. 601 et seq., has been amended

by the Contract with America Advancement Act, Pub. L. 104-121, 110

Stat. 847 (1996) (CWAAA). Title II of the CWAAA is the Small

Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996 (SBREFA).

---------------------------------------------------------------------------

20. Need for and Objectives of the Proposed Rule: In this Sixth

NPRM, the Commission seeks comment on whether to allow the eligibility

restriction for the Local Multipoint Distribution Service (LMDS) set

out in 47 CFR 101.1003(a) to sunset as scheduled, or to extend the

restriction. As discussed in detail above, various policy reasons might

dictate action for or against the sunset.

21. Legal Basis: See Authority section, below.

22. Description and Estimate of the Number of Small Entities to

Which the

[[Page 71376]]

Actions Taken May Apply: The RFA directs agencies to provide a

description of and, where feasible, an estimate of the number of small

entities that may be affected by the action taken. The RFA generally

defines the term ``small entity'' as having the same meaning as the

terms ``small business,'' ``small organization,'' and ``small

governmental jurisdiction.'' \4\ In addition, the term ``small

business'' has the same meaning as the term ``small business concern''

under the Small Business Act.\5\ A small business concern is one that:

(1) Is independently owned and operated; (2) Is not dominant in its

field of operation; and (3) Satisfies any additional criteria

established by the Small Business Administration (SBA).\6\ Below, we

further describe and estimate the number of small business concerns

that may be affected by the actions taken in this Sixth NPRM.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\4\ 5 U.S.C. 601(6).

\5\ U.S.C. 601(3) (incorporating by reference the definition of

``small business concern'' in 15 U.S.C. 632). Pursuant to the RFA,

the statutory definition of a small business applies ``unless an

agency, after consultation with the Office of Advocacy of the Small

Business Administration and after opportunity for public comment,

establishes one or more definitions of such term which are

appropriate to the activities of the agency and publishes such

definition(s) in the Federal Register.'' 5 U.S.C. 601(3).

\6\ Small Business Act, 15 U.S.C. 632.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------

23. The SBA has defined a small business for Standard Industrial

Classification (SIC) categories 4812 (Radiotelephone Communications)

and 4813 (Telephone Communications, Except Radiotelephone) to be small

entities when they have no more than 1,500 employees.\7\ We first

discuss the number of small telecommunications entities falling within

these SIC categories, then attempt to refine further those estimates to

correspond with the categories of telecommunications companies that are

commonly used under our rules, and that may be affected by this Sixth

NPRM.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\7\ 13 CFR 121.201.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------

24. Total Number of Telecommunications Entities Affected. The

Census Bureau reports that, at the end of 1992, there were 3,497 firms

engaged in providing telephone services, as defined therein, for at

least one year.\8\ This number contains a variety of different

categories of entities, including local exchange carriers,

interexchange carriers, competitive access providers, cellular

carriers, mobile service carriers, operator service providers, pay

telephone operators, PCS providers, covered SMR providers, and

resellers. It seems certain that some of those 3,497 telephone service

firms may not qualify as small entities or small incumbent LECs because

they are not ``independently owned and operated.'' For example, a PCS

provider that is affiliated with an interexchange carrier having more

than 1,500 employees would not meet the definition of a small business.

It seems reasonable to conclude, therefore, that fewer than 3,497

telephone service firms are small entity telephone service firms or

small incumbent LECs that may be affected by the actions taken in this

Second Report and Order.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\8\ 1992 Census of Transportation, Communications, and

Utilities: Establishment and Firm Size, Bureau of the Census, U.S.

Dept. of Commerce, at Firm Size 1-123 (1995) (1992 Census).

---------------------------------------------------------------------------

25. The most reliable source of current information regarding the

total numbers of common carrier and related providers nationwide,

including the numbers of commercial wireless entities, appears to be

data the Commission publishes annually in its Carrier Locator report,

derived from filings made in connection with the Telecommunications

Relay Service (TRS).\9\ According to data in the most recent report,

there are 3,604 interstate carriers. These include, inter alia, local

exchange carriers, wireline carriers and service providers,

interexchange carriers, competitive access providers, operator service

providers, pay telephone operators, providers of telephone toll

service, providers of telephone exchange service, and resellers.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\9\ Carrier Locator: Interstate Service Providers, Fig. 1 (Jan.

1999) (Carrier Locator). See also 47 CFR 64.601-.608.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------

26. We have included small incumbent local exchange carriers (LECs)

in this RFA analysis. As noted above, a ``small business'' under the

RFA is one that, inter alia, meets the pertinent small business size

standard (e.g., a telephone communications business having 1,500 or

fewer employees), and ``is not dominant in its field of operation.''

The SBA's Office of Advocacy contends that, for RFA purposes, small

incumbent LECs are not dominant in their field of operation because any

such dominance is not ``national'' in scope.\10\ We have therefore

included small incumbent LECs in this RFA analysis, although we

emphasize that this RFA action has no effect on FCC analyses and

determinations in other, non-RFA contexts.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\10\ Letter from Jere W. Glover, Chief Counsel for Advocacy,

SBA, to William E. Kennard, Chairman, FCC (May 27, 1999). The Small

Business Act contains a definition of ``small business concern,''

which the RFA incorporates into its own definition of ``small

business.'' See 15 U.S.C. 632(a) (Small Business Act); 5 U.S.C.

601(3) (RFA). SBA regulations interpret ``small business concern''

to include the concept of dominance on a national basis. 13 CFR

121.102(b). Since 1996, out of an abundance of caution, the

Commission has included small incumbent LECs in its regulatory

flexibility analyses. Implementation of the Local Competition

Provisions of the Telecommunications Act of 1996, CC Docket No. 96-

98, First Report and Order, 11 FCC Rcd 15499, 16144-45 (1996).

---------------------------------------------------------------------------

27. Wireline Carriers and Service Providers (SIC 4813). The Census

Bureau reports that there were 2,321 telephone communications companies

other than radiotelephone companies in operation for at least one year

at the end of 1992.\11\ All but 26 of the 2,321 non-radiotelephone

companies listed by the Census Bureau were reported to have fewer than

1,000 employees. Thus, even if all 26 of those companies had more than

1,500 employees, there would still be 2,295 non-radiotelephone

companies that might qualify as small entities or small incumbent LECs.

Although it seems certain that some of these carriers are not

independently owned and operated, we are unable at this time to

estimate with greater precision the number of wireline carriers and

service providers that would qualify as small business concerns under

SBA's definition. Consequently, we estimate that there are fewer than

2,295 small entity telephone communications companies other than

radiotelephone companies that may be affected by the actions taken in

this Sixth NPRM.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\11\ 1992 Census, supra, at Firm Size 1-123.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------

28. Local Exchange Carriers. Neither the Commission nor SBA has

developed a definition of small LECs. The closest applicable definition

for these carrier-types under SBA rules is for telephone communications

companies other than radiotelephone (wireless) companies.\12\ The most

reliable source of information regarding the number of these carriers

nationwide of which we are aware appears to be the data that we collect

annually in connection with the TRS. According to our most recent data,

there are 1,410 LECs. Although it seems certain that some of these

carriers are not independently owned and operated, or have more than

1,500 employees, we are unable at this time to estimate with greater

precision the number of these carriers that would qualify as small

business concerns under SBA's definition. Consequently, we estimate

that there are fewer than 1,410 small entity LECs or small incumbent

LECs that may be affected by the actions taken in this Sixth NPRM.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\12\ 13 CFR 121.210, SIC Code 4813.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------

29. A-Block LMDS Providers. The total number of A-block LMDS

licenses is limited to 493, one for each Basic

[[Page 71377]]

Trading Area.\13\ The Commission has held auctions for all 493

licenses, in which it defined ``very small business'' (average gross

revenues for the three preceding years of not more than $15 million),

``small business'' (more than $15 million but not more than $40

million), and ``entrepreneur'' (more than $40 but not more than $75

million) bidders.\14\ There have been 99 winning bidders that qualified

in these categories in these auctions, all of which may be affected by

the actions taken in this Sixth NPRM.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\13\ 47 CFR 101.1005, 101.1007.

\14\ 47 CFR 101.1107(a)-(c), 101.1112.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------

30. Cable Services or Systems. The SBA has developed a definition

of small entities for cable and other pay television services, which

includes all such companies generating $11 million or less in revenue

annually.\15\ This definition includes cable systems operators, closed

circuit television services, direct broadcast satellite services,

multipoint distribution systems, satellite master antenna systems and

subscription television services. According to the Census Bureau data

from 1992, there were 1,788 total cable and other pay television

services and 1,423 had less than $11 million in revenue.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\15\ 13 CFR 121.201, SIC 4841.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------

31. The Commission has developed its own definition of a small

cable system operator for the purposes of rate regulation. Under the

Commission's rules, a ``small cable company'' is one serving fewer than

400,000 subscribers nationwide.\16\ Based on our most recent

information, we estimate that there were 1,439 cable operators that

qualified as small cable system operators at the end of 1995. Since

then, some of those companies may have grown to serve over 400,000

subscribers, and others may have been involved in transactions that

caused them to be combined with other cable operators. Consequently, we

estimate that there are fewer than 1,439 small entity cable system

operators.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\16\ 47 CFR 76.901(e). The Commission developed this definition

based on its determination that a small cable system operator is one

with annual revenues of $100 million or less. Implementation of

Sections of the 1992 Cable Act: Rate Regulation, Sixth Report and

Order and Eleventh Order on Reconsideration, 10 FCC Rcd 7393 (1995),

60 FR 10,534 (Feb. 27, 1995).

---------------------------------------------------------------------------

32. The Communications Act also contains a definition of a small

cable system operator, which is ``a cable operator that, directly or

through an affiliate, serves in the aggregate fewer than 1 percent of

all subscribers in the United States and is not affiliated with any

entity or entities whose gross annual revenues in the aggregate exceed

$250,000,000.'' \17\ The Commission has determined that there are 66

million subscribers in the United States. Therefore, we found that an

operator serving fewer than 660,000 subscribers shall be deemed a small

operator, if its annual revenues, when combined with the total annual

revenues of all of its affiliates, do not exceed $250 million in the

aggregate.\18\ Based on available data, we find that the number of

cable operators serving 660,000 subscribers or less totals 1,450. We do

not request nor do we collect information concerning whether cable

system operators are affiliated with entities whose gross annual

revenues exceed $250 million, and thus are unable at this time to

estimate with greater precision the number of cable system operators

that would qualify as small cable operators under the definition in the

Communications Act. It should be further noted that recent industry

estimates project that there will be a total of 66 million subscribers.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\17\ 47 U.S.C. 543(m)(2).

\18\ 47 U.S.C. 76.1403(b).

---------------------------------------------------------------------------

33. Description of Projected Reporting, Recordkeeping and Other

Compliance Requirements: In this Sixth NPRM we seek comment on whether

to allow the existing LMDS eligibility restriction to sunset. These

actions impose no reporting, recordkeeping or other compliance

requirements.

34. Steps Taken to Minimize Significant Economic Impact on Small

Entities, and Significant Alternatives Considered: This Sixth NPRM is a

broad inquiry into whether there continues to be a need for an LMDS

ownership restriction. It seeks comment on the present and likely

future nature of the marketplace for various services that may be

offered using LMDS spectrum, the costs and benefits of a restriction,

and appropriate criteria for evaluating whether to extend the

restriction. It also seeks the views of small businesses on the various

issues raised.

35. Federal Rules That May Overlap, Duplicate, or Conflict with the

Proposed Rules: There are no federal rules that overlap, duplicate or

conflict with 47 CFR 101.1003(a).

36. Report to Congress: The Commission will send a copy of this

Sixth NPRM, including this IRFA, in a report to Congress pursuant to

the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996.\19\ In

addition, the Commission will send a copy of this Sixth NPRM, including

this IRFA, to the Chief Counsel for Advocacy of the Small Business

Administration. Summaries of this Sixth NPRM and IRFA will be published

in the Federal Register.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\19\ See 5 U.S.C. 801(a)(1)(A).

---------------------------------------------------------------------------

List of Subjects in 47 CFR Part 101

Communications, local multipoint distribution service.

Federal Communications Commission.

Magalie Roman Salas,

Secretary.

[FR Doc. 99-33005 Filed 12-20-99; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6712-01-P